Draft Operational Design Phase for gTLD Policy Implementation: For Initial Feedback.

Mon Oct 5 19:24:11 EEST 2020

hi all,

you will find attached the paper on the new proposal for Operational Design
Phase for gTLD Policy Implementation. This is the topic I proposed as one
to discuss in our meeting with the board.
we need to give our input/feedback on this proposal. This might have an
impact on PDP and GNSO role in the long term.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ---------
De : Drazek, Keith via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
Date: mar. 6 oct. 2020 à 06:34
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Operational Design Phase for gTLD Policy
Implementation: For Initial Feedback.
To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca <stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca>,
aheineman at godaddy.com <aheineman at godaddy.com>, bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <
bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>, wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de <
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, claudia.selli at intl.att.com <
claudia.selli at intl.att.com>

Hi all,

During the 23 September SO/AC Leaders call with Goran, Maarten and Leon,
the concept of an “Operational Design Phase” was introduced by Goran. We
had a preliminary discussion on the topic and Goran indicated that ICANN
would produce a paper for community consideration and feedback. That paper
is attached here for your review, and Goran’s email to the SO/AC Leaders is
below. I’ll highlight 3 points from Goran’s note and from the discussion on
the call:

   - The objective for the design phase is to better prepare the Board by
   providing operational and resourcing information before making decisions on
   GNSO-approved policy recommendations.
   - While the GNSO Council is the manager of the PDP and gTLD policy
   development is within the GNSO's remit, consensus policy making involves
   all stakeholders (including ACs who give advice to the Board).
   - This design phase concept doesn't affect policy development or the
   CPIF. It recognizes that if policy issues are impacted, they rightfully go
   back to the GNSO for its consideration, rather than permitting ICANN Org or
   Board to make unilateral changes. (I made this point during the call)

Please review the attached paper and work within your SGs and Cs to develop
feedback. Also, Karen Lentz will touch on this during our Tuesday Council
Working Session.

To Goran’s last point about conducting a “fuller consultation on the gTLD
policy lifecycle,” we’ll need to ensure that the GNSO Council and our SGs
and Cs are prepared to engage where appropriate and in light of our ongoing
PDP 3.0 work and the upcoming GNSO Review.

Thanks and regards,

Keith

*From:* soac-chairs <soac-chairs-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Goran
Marby
*Sent:* Friday, October 2, 2020 3:19 PM
*To:* soac-chairs at icann.org
*Cc:* Goran Marby <goran.marby at icann.org>; David Olive <
david.olive at icann.org>; Cassia Oliveira <cassia.oliveira at icann.org>
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [soac-chairs] Draft Operational Design Phase for gTLD
Policy Implementation: For Initial Feedback.

Cassia Oliveira on behalf of Goran Marby

Dear SOAC leaders,

Thank you again for taking the time to meet with Maarten and me last week.
I am writing to follow up on one of ICANN org’s action items from that
call, which was for me to finalize and circulate to you a proposal for a
new Operational Design Phase relating to the implementation of approved
gTLD policies. As we discussed, the objective for an additional design
phase is to allow the Board to obtain relevant information about any
operational and resourcing issues associated with certain policy
implementation efforts. Accordingly, the Operational Design Phase is
envisioned to take place prior to Board action on GNSO-approved policy
recommendations, initiated through a Board request to ICANN org. Our
expectation is that an Operational Design Phase will likely only be needed
for complex, costly or other large-scale implementation efforts.

I appreciate the thoughtful and substantive discussion we had on this topic
during our call. While gTLD policy development work is managed by the GNSO,
the other Supporting Organizations and the Advisory Committees play
important roles in ensuring that ICANN consensus policies are developed
through community consensus and are appropriately resourced. Thank you for
the comments and suggestions you made on the call, which we have tried to
address as much as possible in this initial draft paper.

Please circulate the paper to your community groups for their review and
further discussion. As I mentioned on our call, ICANN org will continue to
refine the paper and welcome your feedback as part of this iterative
process. After ICANN69, we plan to conduct a fuller community consultation
on the gTLD policy lifecycle, to include an updated version of this paper
and to gather community feedback on any updates we can make to improve the
efficacy and efficiency of the policy making process.

Best regards,

Göran  Marby
President & CEO ICANN
+1(310) 578 8690

Cássia Oliveira
Sr. Manager, Office of the President & CEO
cassia.oliveira at icann.org
+1(310) 578 8656
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201005/f41c6bab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Design-Phase-Concept-Draft-1oct20.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 141063 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201005/f41c6bab/attachment.pdf>