[PC-NCSG] Fwd: REMINDER from GNSO Policy & Implementation WG : Request for input (NCUC)

Tue Feb 18 15:07:11 EET 2014

Hi everyone,

is there any plan to respond to P&I WG questions. the WG co-chairs are
sending request through Olivier who is also NCSG member.
I think that Amr and Stephanie are WG members, can you please help for this?

Best Regards,

Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Olivier Kouami <olivierkouami at gmail.com>
Date: 2014-02-18 16:02 GMT+09:00
Subject: REMINDER from GNSO Policy & Implementation WG : Request for input
(NCUC)
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>

Dear Rafik,

I wanted to take the opportunity to follow up with you concerning the
request for input that your group received a while back from the Policy &
Implementation Working Group (see below). The WG would be interested to
know whether your group plans to submit a response, if so, when you
estimate it will be sent.

The P & I WG would also like to let you know that responses to just a few
of the questions that are of special interest to your group would be
welcome as are general statements of any concerns regarding the issues
related to policy and implementation that are of particular interest to
your group.

Please kindly note that additional opportunities for feedback are expected
to occur later on in the process, for example with the publication of the
Initial Report for public comment.

Best regards

For the P&I WG,
Olevie KOUAMI
co-Vice Chair

=======================================
Message to the NCUC

From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: Friday 6 December 2013 11:35
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>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] Policy & Implementation - Request for
Input

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)
-- 
Ol?vi? (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI
Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net)
DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/)
SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
Po Box : 851 - T?l.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25
Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lom? ? Togo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140218/29317468/attachment.html>