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

["Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,
We should answer this request.  How should we do it?
Best regards,
Osvaldo


[cid:293105216@17012014-0667]Osvaldo Novoa
Subgerente General
Antel
Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22
Montevideo, 11800
Uruguay

Tel.  +598 2928 6400
Fax. +598 2928 6401



________________________________
De: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Jonathan Robinson
Enviado el: Viernes, 17 de Enero de 2014 14:22
Para: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: Gomes, Chuck; jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [council] Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group
Importancia: Alta

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.


 1.  What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2) directly provide with regard to policy development work and policy implementation efforts?
 2.  What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate indirectly to policy development and policy implementation?
 3.  "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).
 4.  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?
 5.  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?
 6.  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?
 7.  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?

________________________________
El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información


This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

Attachment: PI AC SO Letter - Final 20 September 2013.doc
Description: PI AC SO Letter - Final 20 September 2013.doc