[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy & Implementation - Request for Input

[marie-laure Lemineur]

Hello,

Amr is as well as Klaus Stoll and myself. I guess we can provide inputs
"live" tomorrow during the call.

Best,

mll


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi PC members,
>
> I think that we need your input for this before asking the membership
> feedback.
> I think that Amr is member of this WG, who else? is it possible to get
> some briefing about and what are the current issues there?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2013/12/6
> Subject: Policy & Implementation - Request for Input
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <
> william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>,
> "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear SG/Constituency Chair:
>
>
>
> We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working
> Group.  This Working Group (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.
>
>
>
> As part of the effort, the WG wants to reach out at the beginning of our
> efforts to the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as we
> have already done to other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
> to gain input to assist us in our efforts.  In this regard, we would ask
> for your organization to consider the following questions which are set out
> in the WG?s Charter and provide us with your input on any of these issues
> by 31 January 2014.
>
>
>
>    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? (e.g., multi-stakeholder participation).
>    2.  What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate
>    indirectly to policy development and policy implementation?  (e.g.,
>    effective and timely process).
>    3. ?Questions for Discussion? contained in the Policy versus
>    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?
>
>
>    1. What are the consequences of action being considered ?policy? vs.
>       ?implementation??
>       2. Does it matter if something is ?policy? or ?implementation??  If
>       so, why?
>       3. 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?
>       4. 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?)
>       5. Can we answer these questions so the definitions of ?policy? and
>       ?implementation? matter less, if at all?
>
>
>    1. What options are available for policy (?Consensus Policy? or other)
>    and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which
>    should be used?
>
>
>    1. Are ?policy? and ?implementation? on a spectrum rather than binary?
>       2. What are the ?flavors? of policy and what consequences should
>       attach to each ?flavor?
>       3. What happens if you change those consequences?
>
>
>    1. Who determines the choice of whether something is ?policy? or
>    ?implementation??
>
>
>    1. How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead
>       to different ?flavors??
>       2. How is the ?policy? versus ?implementation? issue reviewed and
>       approved?
>       3. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock?
>
>
>    1. What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review
>    and approval work is done?
>
>
>    1. How are ?policy and implementation? issues first identified
>       (before, during and after implementation)?
>       2. What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?
>       3. 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?
>       4. Should policy staff be involved through the implementation
>       process to facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that
>       already occurred?
>
>
>
> Alternatively, if you would prefer to set up an exchange of views by
> teleconference, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well.
>
>
>
> Finally, we would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full
> community and we welcome any additional members from your organization that
> my wish to participate in this work. To review the current membership,
> please see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag.
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance for your consideration.  Please do not hesitate to
> reach out to either of us if you have any questions or if you require any
> additional information.
>
>
>
> Kind regards.
>
>
>
> Chuck Gomes (cgomes at verisign.com)
>
> J. Scott Evans (jscottevans at outlook.com)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131209/459be1d1/attachment.html>