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

[Rafik Dammak]

thanks Tomslin for the questions.
it is still vague and not clear as new step. what you are raising is one
possible side effect and impacting the whole process.
I reiterate what I shared in council and during meeting with the board,
that such phase should be embedded to current PDP WG deliberations but I
want also to emphasize that GNSO council is the manager here. it is useful
to have ICANN org input earlier and feeding the discussion on
recommendations but putting this design phase later on will likely make
possible to send back recommendations.

ICANN org already follows deliberations of PDP WG and they are aware about
the recommendations being discussed. Also the recommendations don't change
extensively between initial report and final report in  a way that ICANN
org needs to wait till the end to start preliminary work. Of course the
approval of recommendations by GNSO council is another matter.  I
acknowledge there are dependencies and elements not covered or considered
by PDP WG but we should aim to streamline the process, not adding phases
bringing new possibilities to influence the outcome of multistakeholder
effort.

i hope we get more clarity and straight answers today.

Best,

Rafik


Le jeu. 15 oct. 2020 à 13:03, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> I imagine it'll be quite complex to fit the Operational design phase to
> overlap with the closing stages of a PDP and the discussing stage of the
> GNSO council, to make it happen before a PDP report is voted on.
> Does it mean if the design phase is not complete, the PDP will have to ask
> for time extension even if it is able to finalize its report as it does
> today? Or if the PDP produces its final report but the design phase is not
> complete, the council vote will be asked to be delayed?
>
> Cheers,
> Tomslin
>
>
> On Thu., 15 Oct. 2020, 00:20 Stephanie E Perrin, <
> stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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> <mary.wong at icann.org>
>> To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com>,
>> Donna at registry.godaddy <Donna at registry.godaddy> <Donna at registry.godaddy>,
>> council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> CC: claudia.selli at intl.att.com <claudia.selli at intl.att.com>
>> <claudia.selli at intl.att.com>, aheineman at godaddy.com
>> <aheineman at godaddy.com> <aheineman at godaddy.com>, bruna.mrtns at gmail.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>
>> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca
>> <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>
>> <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Drazek, Keith via
>> council" <council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> *Reply-To: *"Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 13:39
>> *To: *"Donna at registry.godaddy" <Donna at registry.godaddy>
>> <Donna at registry.godaddy> <Donna at registry.godaddy>,
>> "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> <council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> *Cc: *"claudia.selli at intl.att.com" <claudia.selli at intl.att.com>
>> <claudia.selli at intl.att.com> <claudia.selli at intl.att.com>,
>> "aheineman at godaddy.com" <aheineman at godaddy.com> <aheineman at godaddy.com>
>> <aheineman at godaddy.com>, "bruna.mrtns at gmail.com" <bruna.mrtns at gmail.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>
>> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>,
>> "stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca" <stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca>
>> <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>
>> <Donna at registry.godaddy>
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 5, 2020 3:56 PM
>> *To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com>; '
>> council at gnso.icann.org' <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 <kdrazek at verisign.com>]
>>
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2020 2:35 PM
>> *To:* 'council at gnso.icann.org' <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> *Cc:* Donna Austin <Donna at registry.godaddy>; Ashley Heineman <
>> 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:* 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> *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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20201015/99c50a52/attachment.htm>