Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)

["Ching Chiao [Registry.Asia]" <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wholeheartedly agree with Jeff. I think in the interim, a GNSO
community-wide committee should be established to serve as a gatekeeper --
issuing notice or "advice" whether an implementation or its equivalent
terms (deployment, execution...) cross the line it shouldn't cross.

A cross-community group may be useful in the long run but may not resolve
the issues that Jeff pointed out immediately.

Ching


On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> All,****
>
> ** **
>
> We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention.  I am
> not referring to the merits of whether any of these organizations deserve
> protection or not, or whether there should be additional safeguards for IP
> owners in the new gTLD process or whether certain Whois Review team
> recommendations could be put into place .  Forget all of that.  Forget the
> merits and substance of these important issues.****
>
> ** **
>
> The real issue is that new reliance on the terms “policy” vs.
> “implementation.”  This is the issue that should receive top priority.  To
> quote Alan Greenberg (or at least paraphrase), when one group wants
> something in place without using the policy process, they call it
> “implementation.”  Those that oppose it, call it “policy.”  While that
> statement was made several times by Alan partly in jest, that statement
> does have merit.****
>
> ** **
>
> Lets look at the following 3 examples:****
>
> ** **
>
> **1.       *** IOC/RC* – As the letter sent around by Jonathan shows, the
> GAC is thoroughly annoyed with the GNSO for starting a policy process on
> the protection of IOC and Red Cross marks.  They believe (although
> unstated), that they have exclusive jurisdiction over these types of public
> policy issues and do not want the GNSO to take “years” to work out whether
> these organizations (which they believe are protected by law) should
> receive protections in the new gTLD process.  Without commenting on the
> merits of this argument, look at what they have done.  They have called the
> protections as nothing more than “implementation” and therefore, the GNSO
> should explain itself as to why we believe we have a right to start a
> policy process on it.  After all, implementation can just be enacted by the
> Board.  There is no need for the GNSO to get involved, in their view…nor do
> they want it.****
>
> ** **
>
> **2.       ***Whois Review Team*:  The ICANN Board sought guidance from
> the entire Internet community on whether the recommendations involved
> “implementation” or “policy”.  Why? Because if it is implementation, there
> is no need to involve the GNSO community and it can just be enacted.  Those
> that supported the recommendations wholeheartedly called them
> “implementation.”  Those that opposed the recommendations called it
> “policy.”  I believe that many who called it policy actually truly believe
> there are policy issues involved, but some called it policy, to have it go
> through the long drawn out process we call a PDP (with the hopes that it
> dies a slow death).  Neither side of this debate is blameless.****
>
> ** **
>
> **3.       ***The now infamous New gTLD “straw-man”*:  For the record, I
> was a part of the group that discussed the straw man in Brussels and LA
> over the past few weeks.  I found those discussions very useful and
> appreciate the efforts being made by the new ICANN CEO, who I have a
> tremendous amount of respect for.  I believe he truly will make a huge
> positive impact on ICANN for many years to come.  But, now the debate has
> turned into what is policy and what is implementation.  The IPC/BC and
> their representatives have called all of their proposals
> “implementation”.   The NCSG, Registries, Registrars and Applicants have
> called much of it policy.  ICANN staff has now weighed in on their thoughts
> and have classified certain items as implementation (thereby negating the
> need for GNSO policy development), and other items as policy, thereby
> requiring extensive involvement from the GNSO community – note I did NOT
> say necessarily PDP).****
>
> ** **
>
> I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues *immediately*and 
> decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up multi-stakeholder
> definition of what is “policy” and what is “implementation.”  Or at the
> very least a framework for making that assessment when issues arise.  I
> would advocate for a cross community group made up of members from ICANN
> staff, the GNSO, the GAC and others to come together to figure this issue
> out, so that we get out of this rut we are now in.  At the same time, we
> need to fix the image of the GNSO policy processes so that they are no
> longer feared, but embraced.  They need to not be used as vehicles for
> delay, but rather utilized for the common good.****
>
> ** **
>
> If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now having
> will become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the merits).  If not, I
> see these issues getting much worse over the coming months/years.  I
> believe the future of the GNSO, and even the multi-stakeholder model in
> general hinge on the definition of these 2 words.****
>
> ** **
>
> I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman**
> **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs*
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM
> *To:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> All,****
>
> ** **
>
> FYI.  Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my
> time.****
>
> ** **
>
> Jonathan****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<gacsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
>
> *Sent:* 28 November 2012 21:38
> *To:* jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll;
> alice@xxxxxxx; Choon Sai LIM (IDA)
> *Subject:* Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections****
>
> ** **
>
> Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair ****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear Jonathan, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red
> Crescent protections. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Jeannie Ellers ****
>
> ** **
>
> Jeannie Ellers
> Manager, GAC Coordination
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930****
>
> Washington, DC 20005
> Ph. +1 202 570 7135
> M. +1 310 302 7552****
>