ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: joy@xxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)
  • From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:41:25 +0100
  • Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=key-systems.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :in-reply-to:references:subject:subject:to:mime-version :user-agent:from:from:date:date:message-id; s=dkim; t= 1354268399; x=1355132399; bh=cy8Whf5phjkvCaXEfNbIIbgUdmDWpnC9Tj9 x/ZVREGg=; b=TinsBRx2XAtvPvhF7dQmnCefgjoJL+73CjmfLYZFAur6I8xFGYX lP1F3rHVL8mFgopzKgEkYdILsWEDnxNK7EtHqOWUt9N3HDACynTXmPS2lMvTaAfb qujBQQnDhif7p02gBNrFgm7Vx9W58Bs880sAtw2hPsYhybWJfK1WtNO4=
  • In-reply-to: <50B822DF.8060507@apc.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <CCDBC434.2D4FC%gacsec@gac.icann.org> <003d01cdce18$4855ec60$d901c520$@ipracon.com> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103B14A78@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <50B822DF.8060507@apc.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0


I am in full agreement that a better definition of these terms is necessary and I appreciate staffs efforts in this matter, even though I think this needs broader community involvement. Definitely a session to attend in Beijing, so I would urge staff not to schedule it concurrently with other important sessions. One further consideration is the question if policy "taints" (for lack of a better word; I mean it without the negative connotations here) implementation. I would argue that even if a decision is 90% implementation and 10% policy, it should be enveloped under the umbrella of policy and therefore subject to GNSO approval.


Hash: SHA1

Hi Jonathan and thanks for forwarding this.
Jeff, this is an interesting idea which I've asked for comments on
from our constituency group.
I think it is a good idea to take a step back from the issues and look
strategically at what is happening and why in the GNSO relationship
with the GAC. The examples you cite are symptoms, I agree, of a wider
problem and they will simply keep happening if not resolved. I'm not
convinced getting agreed definitions of "policy" vs "implementation"
will resolve some of these issues. But if it is a measure to assist
and has community support then the Council should consider it.
Thanks for raising this
Kind regards

On 30/11/2012 3:55 a.m., Neuman, Jeff wrote:

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.


*Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business

[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


FYI.  Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last
night my time.


*From:*GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *Sent:* 28
November 2012 21:38 *To:* jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi
Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@xxxxxxx
<mailto: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

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/


Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede 
Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist 
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.


Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>