Fwd: Re: [council] Draft Operational Design Phase for gTLD Policy Implementation: For Initial Feedback.
Stephanie E Perrin
stephanie at DIGITALDISCRETION.CA
Wed Oct 14 08:18:26 EEST 2020
Members may recall that we have proposed discussing the Operational
Design Phase concept paper for our discussion with the Board at ICANN
69. I am forwarding a followup note from Mary Wong, to encourage our
members to figure out how to modify that paper in order to better
reflect the points she raises. In other words, I am not sure the paper
currently makes these points which she raises clear.
This paper is another example of a consultation that is not a formal
consultation.....our feedback is sought, but not in a formal,
disciplined way in the way our pdp reports get formal comments. I
realize the products are different, but I am still a big fan of a more
formal comment process where we can see in one place what all our MS
partners have contributed to refining the product. I will raise that point.
Let me know if you wish to speak to any of the topics on the agenda for
our Board discussion. I attach the report for your convenience; I draw
your attention to page 7 and following. We need to comment very
substantively on this document, I expect Rafik will raise the issue at
the next policy committee meeting.
Stephanie Perrin
NCSG Chair (for only a few days now!!)
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Operational Design Phase for gTLD Policy
Implementation: For Initial Feedback.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 16:47:29 +0000
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>, Donna at registry.godaddy
<Donna at registry.godaddy>, council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
CC: claudia.selli at intl.att.com <claudia.selli at intl.att.com>,
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>, stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca
<stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca>
Dear all,
As you and your community groups begin to review the draft Operational
Design Phase concept paper, we thought it might be helpful to follow up
on the discussion from the GNSO Council’s Working Session yesterday. As
Keith notes (below) and as spelled out in the paper, the basic idea is
to have a clearer structure and methodology around the design and
planning work that needs to be done to implement approved policy
recommendations; in particular, those implementation efforts that
involve costly or complex planning, resourcing and modeling work.
The paper recognizes that ICANN org already tracks and (if requested or
required) provides operational input to a PDP during the policy
development phase and through the Consensus Policy Implementation
Framework. The paper also emphasizes the GNSO’s role and responsibility
for substantive policy development, as it specifically acknowledges that
the design phase cannot supplant or modify PDP recommendations and is
not a forum for reopening policy discussions. It also notes the
possibility of initiating the design phase in the closing stages of a
PDP rather than after the GNSO Council vote.
As such, and given the broad experience across the GNSO community with
multiple PDPs and IRTs, it could be particularly helpful to hear your
feedback about (among other things): (1) the timing and kick off of an
Operational Design Phase; (2) suggestions for aligning the necessary
implementation planning by ICANN org with the existing PDP framework
(under which PDP Working Groups can request data collection and where
PDP outcomes can include recommendations about technical specifications,
budget issues and surveys); and (3) the potential scope and utility of
the proposed community Design Feedback Group.
Thank you. We look forward to the GNSO community’s input and to
continuing to engage with you and the wider community on this proposal.
Best regards,
Mary
*From: *council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Drazek,
Keith via council" <council at gnso.icann.org>
*Reply-To: *"Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
*Date: *Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 13:39
*To: *"Donna at registry.godaddy" <Donna at registry.godaddy>,
"council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
*Cc: *"claudia.selli at intl.att.com" <claudia.selli at intl.att.com>,
"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>, "stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca"
<stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca>
*Subject: *Re: [council] Draft Operational Design Phase for gTLD Policy
Implementation: For Initial Feedback.
Hi Donna, all,
Good questions. There is no fixed deadline for feedback, but Theresa
joined today’s GNSO Council Pre-ICANN Planning Meeting and said they’re
looking for feedback during and after ICANN 69. My understanding is that
ICANN Org is responding to the ICANN Board to provide additional data
associated with costs/complexity of PDP recommendations, likely to
include EPDP Phase 2/SSAD and eventually the SubPro recommendations.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* Donna at registry.godaddy <Donna at registry.godaddy>
*Sent:* Monday, October 5, 2020 3:56 PM
*To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>; 'council at gnso.icann.org'
<council at gnso.icann.org>
*Cc:* aheineman at godaddy.com; claudia.selli at intl.att.com;
bruna.mrtns at gmail.com; haforrestesq at gmail.com;
stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca; wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft Operational Design Phase for gTLD Policy
Implementation: For Initial Feedback.
Thanks Keith
At what point does ICANN org intend to use this? I’m trying to work out
if it is intended to use it for the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations
recently approved by the GNSO Council or other PDPs that are expected to
be concluded later this year?
Personally, I’m concerned that we are already hamstrung by too much
process and this will add another layer of complexity that I’m not
convinced is warranted. It seems this is largely a role that ICANN org
should be filling anyway. Of course I will share this with the RySG and
see their input. Is there a deadline I need to be cognizant of?
Donna
*From:* Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com]
*Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2020 2:35 PM
*To:* 'council at gnso.icann.org' <council at gnso.icann.org
<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
*Cc:* Donna Austin <Donna at registry.godaddy
<mailto:Donna at registry.godaddy>>; Ashley Heineman <aheineman at godaddy.com
<mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>>; claudia.selli at intl.att.com
<mailto:claudia.selli at intl.att.com>; bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
<mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>; haforrestesq at gmail.com
<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>; stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca
<mailto:stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca>; wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
*Subject:* RE: Draft Operational Design Phase for gTLD Policy
Implementation: For Initial Feedback.
Notice:This email is from an external sender.
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
<mailto: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 <mailto:soac-chairs at icann.org>
*Cc:* Goran Marby <goran.marby at icann.org
<mailto:goran.marby at icann.org>>; David Olive <david.olive at icann.org
<mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>; Cassia Oliveira
<cassia.oliveira at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:cassia.oliveira at icann.org>
+1(310) 578 8656
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201014/221ef11b/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/20201014/221ef11b/attachment.pdf>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list