Re: [council] Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jonathan,

This topic is on the agenda of the next NCSG policy call scheduled this next 
week. We plan on having a statement ready for the WG before the deadline at the 
end of this month.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Jan 17, 2014, at 5:22 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> All,
>  
> Please be aware of the Request for input from the GNSO Policy & 
> Implementation Working Group (see below).  This is a working group of 
> substantial interest and importance as evidenced by:
>  
> 1.     The level of interest that related topics have attracted during the 
> roll-out of the new gTLD programme
> 2.     The level of interest indicated by the sheer number of participants in 
> the working group.
> 
> Notwithstanding that, the Working Group has not received much in the way of 
> input in response to its call for input (first sent out in October 2013).
>  
> Therefore, this note is to draw your attention to this and to ask you to 
> please encourage your respective groups / constituencies to provide such 
> input to the WG as soon as possible.
>  
> For information and completeness, the questions from the working group are 
> copied below AND attached in long form (as sent to SO & ACs) to this note.
>  
> Thank-you.
>  
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> ---
>  
> This Working Group (P&I WG) has been tasked with providing the GNSO Council 
> with a set of recommendations on the following issues:
>  
> -          A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy 
> implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO 
> procedures;
> 
> -          A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of 
> “Policy Guidance,” including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use 
> such a process (for a process developing something other than “Consensus 
> Policy”) instead of the GNSO Policy Development Process;
> 
> -          A framework for implementation related discussions associated with 
> GNSO Policy recommendations;
> 
> -          Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be 
> addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered 
> implementation; and
> 
> -          Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as 
> defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate.
> 
>  
> From the onset of this process, the WG would like to gain input. 
>  
> In this regard, the WG would ask organizations to consider and provide input 
> on the following questions which are set out in the WG’s Charter.
>  
> What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2) directly 
> provide with regard to policy development work and policy implementation 
> efforts?
> What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate indirectly to 
> policy development and policy implementation?
> “Questions for Discussion” contained in the Policy and Implementation Draft 
> Framework prepared by ICANN staff.  (See, 
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en.htm).
> What lessons can be learned from past experience?
> What are the consequences of action being considered “policy” or 
> “implementation”?
> Does it matter if something is “policy” or “implementation”?  If so, why?
> Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council make 
> recommendations or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and 
> implementation as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?
> How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., I will 
> call this “policy” because I want certain consequences or “handling 
> instructions” to be attached to it?)
> Can we answer these questions so the definitions of “policy” and 
> “implementation” matter less, if at all?
> What options are available for policy (“Consensus Policy” or other) and 
> implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which should 
> be used?
> Are “policy” and “implementation” on a spectrum rather than binary?
> What are the variations of policy and what consequences should attach to each 
> variation?
> What happens if you change those consequences?
> Who determines the choice of whether something is “policy” or 
> “implementation”?
> How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to 
> different variations?
> How is the “policy” and “implementation” issue reviewed and approved?
> What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock?
> What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review and 
> approval work is done?
> How are “policy and implementation” issues first identified (before, during 
> and after implementation)?
> What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?
> In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once policy moves to 
> implementation, how should the community be involved in a way that is 
> meaningful and effective?
> Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process to 
> facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that already occurred?
> <PI AC  SO Letter - Final 20 September 2013.doc>