Fwd: [council] Amendments to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF)

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

I’m forwarding this email from the GNSO Council mailing list to draw the attention of our Councilors to a small, but important point on the proposed amendments to ICANN’s Global Domain Division (GDD) on their Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF).

Working Principle B in the attached documents states that:

> ICANN org strives to follow the letter and the intent of GNSO Consensus Policy recommendations when implementing Consensus Policy recommendations. ICANN org is accountable to the GNSO Council (or its agent, such as an Implementation Review Team) for ensuring that the implementation of policies is consistent with the policy recommendations and the reasoning underlying the policy recommendations as outlined in the Final Report. Where there is uncertainty surrounding the intent underlying a policy recommendation, GDD staff will consult with the IRT to clarify that intent.

Further down in the document, in the Implementation Process and Milestones table, there is this bit in the second row adjacent to the first “Analyze and Design” row:

> Draft consensus policy language should be distributed to the IRT and call(s) should be held to clarify or improve the language consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations.
>
> If the IRT concludes that staff’s planned implementation of Consensus Policy recommendations is inconsistent with the stated intent of the Consensus Policy recommendations, the IRT may consult with the GNSO Council, as outlined in the IRT Principles and Guidelines

From personal experience, I’ve noticed that at times, Implementation Review Teams (IRTs) are susceptible to working out Consensus Policy language themselves, where the proposed language is not consistent with the intent of the GNSO's recommendations. This could happen for several reasons, and to clarify that this is not always done with ill intent, one of them is that sometimes GNSO recommendations are actually not technically feasible to implement.

In these cases, it should be (to the extent possible) guaranteed that the IRT and GDD Implementation Project Team send these policy recommendations back to the GNSO Council for review, and potential amendment. The IRT should not, under any circumstances, be in a position to allow the intent of the policy recommendation to be altered in any way without it going through the GNSO Council first. In most cases, IRTs are populated solely by Contracted Parties. Non-Contracted Parties rarely ever participate in these, so we might not catch these issues as they are occurring.

To that end, I believe that the principle above should be changed to reflect that both ICANN org and IRTs are accountable to the GNSO Council, and that the Council liaison to the IRTs is not only a resource to facilitate communication with the Council, but to also ensure that the Consensus Policy is implemented as intended. In cases where this becomes challenging for one reason or another, the Council liaison should report this back to the Council.

I hope this is helpful to our Councilors, as this topic is discussed on the Council mailing list and calls. I’d be happy to address this further on-list, or during our monthly NCSG policy calls.

Thanks.

Amr

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Brian Aitchison" <brian.aitchison at icann.org>
> Subject: [council] Amendments to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF)
>
> Date: October 30, 2018 at 6:43:37 PM GMT+2
> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: "Karen Lentz" <karen.lentz at icann.org>
> Reply-To: "Brian Aitchison" <brian.aitchison at icann.org>
>
> Dear GNSO Council members,
>
> Following conversations among ICANN org and the GNSO Council—in particular the IPC and the RrSG who provided written input—please find attached a redlined version of the CPIF that addresses the suggestions for amendments we received.
>
> Also attached is the original letter sent from ICANN org to the GNSO Council detailing the mandate and focus of the CPIF amendment process.
>
> We were not able to integrate all suggestions received into this round of CPIF amendments. You’ll see in the comment boxes the suggestions received, along with a rationale for why we did or did not update the document based on those suggestions. Generally speaking, we did not add amendments that merited more in-depth discussion between ICANN org and the Council. For example, the process for recruiting IRTs is based on a “call for volunteers”, so we could not add the IPC’s suggestion that IRT’s must “fairly represent all constituencies” until further discussion with the Council about how IRTs should be constituted. We also tried to minimize any redundant language that may overly simplify the process of soliciting GNSO Council input on an implementation via an IRT.
>
> In accordance with Point H of the CPIF, which directs “ICANN staff [to] continually review the implementation framework and related materials to encapsulate additional best-practices or to adjust the steps as a result of lessons learned with previous Consensus Policy projects,” ICANN org will continue to work with the GNSO Council to refine the CPIF. Currently we are working on defining a standard process for proposing amendments to it, which we will share with the Council when ready.
>
> ICANN org will continue to welcome input on how and where the CPIF should be amended. Any such input received will be tracked and evaluated for a future round of amendments, which we plan to begin in the next calendar year. To provide input, please email me at brian.aitchison at icann.org (please cc the Council list). Our Policy Team colleagues also welcome your input; should you have any, please feel free to discuss it with them during one of your meetings or via email.
>
> We request that the GNSO Council review the attached redlined CPIF document. If no further input is received, we will post it to [icann.org](http://icann.org/)’s implementation page athttps://www.icann.org/policy/implementation on 10 December 2018.
>
> On behalf of ICANN org, we thank the Council and its members for providing input on this important process.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Brian
>
> --
>
> Brian Aitchison, PhD
>
> Lead Researcher
>
> Global Domains Division, Operations and Policy Research
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Los Angeles, CA
>
> p. 310 578 8688
>
> m. 424 353 9041
>
> e. brian.aitchison at icann.org
>
> Sk. brian.aitchison.icann
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be confidential and/or legally privileged.  If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message.  Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.

>

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20181101/8e20637c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO CPIF Redlines_v2.0.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 532568 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20181101/8e20637c/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSOLetterReCPIF_March 2018.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 136545 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20181101/8e20637c/attachment-0001.docx>