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

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Jonathan's approach.

I further agree with Jeff that whatever the staff is now producing should not 
be developed behind closed doors without community input.

On Nov 30, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

> 
> Thanks again to Jeff for setting out such a critical issue for discussion
> and to others for significant input so far.
> 
> My thought is that we do need to respond, and in a reasonably timely manner
> (before calendar year end), to the GAC.  
> The feelings / views are clearly strongly held.
> 
> Therefore, I suggest we move forward with two threads:
> 
> 1. The key points of a response to the GAC, which will then form the basis
> for our/my actual reply (I am happy to kick-off / lead this).
> 2. Continue with this thread (Policy vs. Implementation) in order to develop
> and refine our thinking and approach on this critical issue.
> 
> Feel free to support or comment on this approach.
> 
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 30 November 2012 11:03
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: AW: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC
> regarding IOC/RC Protections)
> 
> 
> I also agree that the boarder between policy and implementation is fluent. I
> wonder whether a clear delimitation would be achievable and solve the
> problems. In additon it is a question of the roles of GAC and GNSO: "advice"
> vs "support".
> In Toronto I've been approached by GAC members asking to be better
> integrated into the policy development (process). I think we should take
> this into consideration. A liaison may be one solution to offer. There may
> be more ideas to discuss.
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
> Auftrag von Volker Greimann
> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. November 2012 10:41
> An: joy@xxxxxxx
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC
> regarding IOC/RC Protections)
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Volker
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> 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
>> Joy
>> 
>> On 30/11/2012 3:55 a.m., Neuman, Jeff 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] *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
>>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
>> 
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQuCLfAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq2UYIALFsC+nao4XbcAJOAQn8MKC1
>> 9bkXt7+nH68krEvF7ApfgUrO5JIHX9lEFHS25NSS/tq0KW003dp96WNL0QmVoQPj
>> aqn7NWlplQkVY57eBeF7QxUYwum4jZencdtcpIrpAySPa8uk+jBY9sx/nlxVoNYE
>> 8HbLfTlxPr0leeZ9BdZb8oqxzCmr4WpjTGw/UYMxHPEf8fEptkHFHgEQEty9rpyo
>> eSNQnnbjPHPvoliM8rUSfUca1VpFGNYVJJc9Di5I6xNY3Zar4OX0YmTEyD20j7uc
>> 41nCb8yn8RWfgYHCcY4fURxOs5NDuv+JedrFq7Jbil8KBAkiFoAwoJxeJYPQm5A=
>> =i1KX
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> --
> 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:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> 
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
> 
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu
> 
> 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:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> 
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
> 
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>