Dear Councillors, Below is a request from the GNSO Policy & Implementation WG, which was sent to us on 20 September 2013Š It slipped through the Triage review, as it was not publicly announced. Although the end date is set as 31 January 2014, the WG still accepts input. The goal of the WG is to provide some guidance on GNSO Policy Development Process issues to the GNSO Council. However, they are posing some general questions to the other SO's on policy matters. The questions are perhaps not that interesting for the average cc, but could be of interest for those cc's who have applied for a new gTLD. Therefore, the Triage Committee is suggesting that these questions should be posted to the community for individual input. In case you do not agree with this recommendation, please let us know by Monday, 24 February. Thanks, Gabi === Topic: GNSO Policy & Implementation WG Request for input Originator: GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group. Summary of request: Request for input on general set of questions on Policy and implementation matters. Date received: 20 September 2013 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 31 January 2014 (extended) Recommended action, if any: Post to Community for individual input Expertise needed, if any: Various Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Low

...

From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Date: Friday 20 September 2013 14:45 To: "byron.holland@cira.ca" <byron.holland@cira.ca> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs@icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs@icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek@icann.org>

Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] Request for input from Policy & Implementation WG

To Supporting Organisation and Advisory Committee Chairs:

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 ³Policy Guidance,² including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process (for a process developing something other than ³Consensus Policy²) 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 WG¹s 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. ³Questions for Discussion² 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? a. What are the consequences of action being considered ³policy² vs. ³implementation²? b. Does it matter if something is ³policy² or ³implementation²? If so, why? c. 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? d. How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., I will call this ³policy² because I want certain consequences or ³handling instructions² to be attached to it?) e. Can we answer these questions so the definitions of ³policy² and ³implementation² matter less, if at all? 5. What options are available for policy (³Consensus Policy² or other) and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which should be used? a. Are ³policy² and ³implementation² on a spectrum rather than binary? b. What are the ³flavors² of policy and what consequences should attach to each ³flavor? c. What happens if you change those consequences? 6. Who determines the choice of whether something is ³policy² or ³implementation²? a. How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to different ³flavors²? b. How is the ³policy² versus ³implementation² issue reviewed and approved? c. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock? 7. What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review and approval work is done? a. How are ³policy and implementation² issues first identified (before, during and after implementation)? b. What is the role of the GNSO in implementation? c. 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? d. 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@verisign.com) J. Scott Evans (jscottevans@outlook.com)

--

Olévié (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org <http://www.isog.org> ) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net <http://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 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25 Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé ­ Togo