[PC-NCSG] REMINDER from GNSO Policy & Implementation WG : Request for input (NCUC)
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak
Wed Feb 19 13:58:20 EET 2014
Hi Amr,
thanks for the brief, I wanted to share first for PC so it can be an action
item to follow-up. then we can share with membership for wide consultation.
I think that a draft statement/response can be more engaging and help to
involve our members .
but if other PC members that it should be shared now, I am open to that.
I added it to the tentative agenda for NCSG call next week.
Best Regards,
Rafik
2014-02-18 22:38 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Yeah?, I had been trying to come up with what could pass as an NCSG
> statement, but have been having trouble doing so. To be honest, when I
> joined this working group, I did so out of concern that radical changes
> would be made to the bottom-up pdp. I?m not personally aware of any changes
> that I am in favour of regarding the GNSO Operating Procedures, the GNSO WG
> Operating Guidelines or Annex A of the by-laws (except for maybe some
> changes/clarifications on WG consensus levels that is a topic that will be
> tackled soon by the SCI). These are the principle rules/regs being looked
> at.
>
> If anyone else has input on these, I?d be grateful. So far, I?ve been
> active on the first two sub-teams of this WG?, and by saying active?, I
> mean trying to be helpful in steering the future of the course of this WG
> within the confines of its charter.
>
> Perhaps we should take this to the full NCSG list?? ?, and btw?, so far
> only two comments have come in; one from ALAC and one from the Registries.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> PS: Avri and David are also on this WG, and as indicated below, Olivier is
> part of the WG leadership team.
>
> On Feb 18, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140219/4649e378/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list