John, "ICANN org" is just staff - the CEO and down. Alan At 01/03/2019 12:45 PM, John Laprise wrote: Not just staff...I was thinking ICANN org leadership...needs authority Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 9:02 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: John, do you really mean "ICANN org", ie staff, to make that decision? Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On March 1, 2019 9:00:50 AM EST, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi and thanks Olivier, My apologies for not being clear. I was suggesting a possible bylaws change where in ICANN org can ask the community to initiate policy development when it sees an urgent/important need that the community has not noticed. Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 7:07 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear John, please be so kind to find my response below: On 01/03/2019 13:31, John Laprise wrote: Well said Evan and I share your concerns. If memory serves, so does the Board as MSM threats is a strategic planning issue. Musing upon waking I was wondering whether it would help if we could implement a mechanism whereby ICANN org could ask the empowered community to implement a pdp? This might've avoided the current epdp issue. The ICANN Board and the Empowered Community cannot implement or launch PDPs relating to gTLDs. The "PDP" as such is a defined term for "Policy Development Process" and in the context of the Generic Names, only the GNSO can launch a PDP. In the context of Country Codes Names, when it relates to global policy, the ccNSO can launch a PDP. The Board can ask the GNSO to launch a PDP on a gTLD related issue, but the GNSO can refuse. The Board can also ask the ICANN communities, SOs/ACs to launch a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG). However, there are doubts expressed in the GNSO that CCWGs should *not* be the basis for policy making for gTLDs as all policy making for gTLDs should go through a PDP. It's a power game and the bottom line is who has the control of policy processes on gTLDs. Kindest regards, Olivier
Ok, so yes, staff. Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 11:52 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
John, "ICANN org" is just staff - the CEO and down.
Alan
At 01/03/2019 12:45 PM, John Laprise wrote:
Not just staff...I was thinking ICANN org leadership...needs authority
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 9:02 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: John, do you really mean "ICANN org", ie staff, to make that decision?
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On March 1, 2019 9:00:50 AM EST, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Hi and thanks Olivier,
My apologies for not being clear. I was suggesting a possible bylaws change where in ICANN org can ask the community to initiate policy development when it sees an urgent/important need that the community has not noticed.
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 7:07 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear John,
please be so kind to find my response below:
On 01/03/2019 13:31, John Laprise wrote:
Well said Evan and I share your concerns. If memory serves, so does the Board as MSM threats is a strategic planning issue. Musing upon waking I was wondering whether it would help if we could implement a mechanism whereby ICANN org could ask the empowered community to implement a pdp? This might've avoided the current epdp issue.
The ICANN Board and the Empowered Community cannot implement or launch PDPs relating to gTLDs. The "PDP" as such is a defined term for "Policy Development Process" and in the context of the Generic Names, only the GNSO can launch a PDP. In the context of Country Codes Names, when it relates to global policy, the ccNSO can launch a PDP. The Board can ask the GNSO to launch a PDP on a gTLD related issue, but the GNSO can refuse.
The Board can also ask the ICANN communities, SOs/ACs to launch a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG). However, there are doubts expressed in the GNSO that CCWGs should *not* be the basis for policy making for gTLDs as all policy making for gTLDs should go through a PDP.
It's a power game and the bottom line is who has the control of policy processes on gTLDs. Kindest regards,
Olivier
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
John Laprise