ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ispcp]

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

RE: [ispcp] comments please: a drawing for our comment on policy vs. implementation

  • To: "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, <ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [ispcp] comments please: a drawing for our comment on policy vs. implementation
  • From: "tony holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:38:39 -0000
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024; t=1361911120; bh=9wHenNXx710bclDpY5b6p0i2JVeAUxwLtAavgX/OlX4=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; b=EGvjQR+vid4+fAiTe8OsFnXdhwF2TonTc7DHpVUJRQvaS6F9HiJSwXGW8RVJ6By6gpgThck9h7w5YhuNFc45gM4e46rxXSidOCFe+LjIxfbnT2u1+r+18z/YrCT+ryhCjxZQVuVhVKCPPzwJLbA+k7UJfp5JCnoX0cwpPBv7zxA=
  • In-reply-to: <B9461FF2-B5F2-4C00-BC82-C34EE70206FE@haven2.com>
  • List-id: ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <B9461FF2-B5F2-4C00-BC82-C34EE70206FE@haven2.com>
  • Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQJ5Rn6T+uSAyq2u8studY4KrdoHgZc2M9ZA
Mikey

One view that I do share with Marilyn is that we need to differentiate some
of the issues, so that where it clearly isn't GNSO policy the Constituencies
take the lead. We also recognised this within our paper on the impact of new
gTLds.

 

The problem I have with your approach is that it tends to put the GNSO,
where we don't often have that much support for our views, at the heart of
the process once again. Until we have a balanced GNSO, I'd find that hard to
support.

Regards

Tony

 

From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: 26 February 2013 16:39
To: <ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ispcp] comments please: a drawing for our comment on policy vs.
implementation

 

hi all,

 

i'm drafting our reply-comments to the Policy vs Implementation working
paper.  as i've read the other comments, i have started to come to the
position that we may be trying to over-legistlate this.  my basic idea is
this -- rather that a huge effort to develop detailed criteria for each
possible Policy vs Implementation decision, what if we put a review by the
AC/SO's into the process?  

 

so i've drawn a flow diagram of a possible way to handle the process and
would be very interested in your thoughts.  the two changes to the process
implied by Marika's drawing are:

 

- insert the AC/SOs in the decision-making process

 

- indicate that the process of review is iterative -- that AC/SOs get to
send the decision back to the staff for review/refinement

 

i think this does a few things

 

- it's an appropriate task for AC/SOs, in their policy-management role

 

- it reduces the need for excruciating detail in criteria and (correctly, in
my view) increases reliance on the judgement and wisdom of the
policy-management bodies

 

- provides a chance to iteratively arrive at an approach that has broad
approval and acceptance in the community.

 

the picture is attached.  any thoughts?  slashing criticism ("Mikey you're
crazy") is fine!

 

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