In relation to tighter linking of policy and implementation, it may be worth pointing out that in the context of the revised GNSO PDP, there is already earlier involvement and co-ordination at a staff level to try and provide input at earlier stages of the PDP with regard to 'implementability'. In addition, the revised PDP foresees the option for the GNSO Council to create an Implementation Review Team 'to assist Staff in developing the implementation details for the policy'. The idea is that the Implementation Review Team, which consists of members of the WG that developed the policy recommendations, assists ICANN Staff in the development of the implementation plan and is available to address any questions or clarifications staff may have. The PDP Manual also foresees that 'if the proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council¹s recommendations, the GNSO Council may notify the Board and request that the Board review the proposed implementation. Until the Board has considered the GNSO Council request, ICANN Staff should refrain from implementing the policy, although it may continue developing the details of the proposed implementation while the Board considers the GNSO Council request'. The concept of an Implementation Review Team has already been used for the PEDNR Recommendations and is also foreseen for the recently adopted IRTP Part C recommendations. With best regards, Marika On 30/11/12 02:46, "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:
All,
This has really kicked off a critical area of discussion and required development, as Jeff highlighted at the outset. At the absolute minimum, it is great to see the level of engagement in the topic.
A related concept that I do not believe we have yet picked up on in this thread, is not around the definition but the sequencing of policy and implementation.
It seems that we have often focussed strongly on policy and then subsequently followed up with focus on implementation as though they are necessarily sequential. It reminds me of the current trend in software and systems development where iterative development with small cycles is very much in fashion now, so called Agile Development practices. This approach is nowadays often favoured over the more classical sequential, cascading ("Waterfall" approach) which may produce results which are no longer fully relevant to requirements or dated from the outset.
This tighter linking of policy and implementation issues throughout the process is certainly something I have heard Fadi mention and I believe it is on the agenda of ICANN staff to be focussed on and aware of. Clearly, the "implementation" of the TMCH and other critical new gTLD issues has brought this home to Fadi and many if not all of us.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: 30 November 2012 09:41 To: joy@apc.org Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)
All,
I am in full agreement that a better definition of these terms is necessary and I appreciate staffs efforts in this matter, even though I think this needs broader community involvement. Definitely a session to attend in Beijing, so I would urge staff not to schedule it concurrently with other important sessions. One further consideration is the question if policy "taints" (for lack of a better word; I mean it without the negative connotations here) implementation. I would argue that even if a decision is 90% implementation and 10% policy, it should be enveloped under the umbrella of policy and therefore subject to GNSO approval.
Best,
Volker
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi Jonathan and thanks for forwarding this. Jeff, this is an interesting idea which I've asked for comments on from our constituency group. I think it is a good idea to take a step back from the issues and look strategically at what is happening and why in the GNSO relationship with the GAC. The examples you cite are symptoms, I agree, of a wider problem and they will simply keep happening if not resolved. I'm not convinced getting agreed definitions of "policy" vs "implementation" will resolve some of these issues. But if it is a measure to assist and has community support then the Council should consider it. Thanks for raising this Kind regards Joy
On 30/11/2012 3:55 a.m., Neuman, Jeff wrote:
All,
We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention. I am not referring to the merits of whether any of these organizations deserve protection or not, or whether there should be additional safeguards for IP owners in the new gTLD process or whether certain Whois Review team recommendations could be put into place . Forget all of that. Forget the merits and substance of these important issues.
The real issue is that new reliance on the terms ³policy² vs. ³implementation.² This is the issue that should receive top priority. To quote Alan Greenberg (or at least paraphrase), when one group wants something in place without using the policy process, they call it ³implementation.² Those that oppose it, call it ³policy.² While that statement was made several times by Alan partly in jest, that statement does have merit.
Lets look at the following 3 examples:
1. _ IOC/RC_ As the letter sent around by Jonathan shows, the GAC is thoroughly annoyed with the GNSO for starting a policy process on the protection of IOC and Red Cross marks. They believe (although unstated), that they have exclusive jurisdiction over these types of public policy issues and do not want the GNSO to take ³years² to work out whether these organizations (which they believe are protected by law) should receive protections in the new gTLD process. Without commenting on the merits of this argument, look at what they have done. They have called the protections as nothing more than ³implementation² and therefore, the GNSO should explain itself as to why we believe we have a right to start a policy process on it. After all, implementation can just be enacted by the Board. There is no need for the GNSO to get involved, in their viewnor do they want it.
2. _Whois Review Team_: The ICANN Board sought guidance from the entire Internet community on whether the recommendations involved ³implementation² or ³policy². Why? Because if it is implementation, there is no need to involve the GNSO community and it can just be enacted. Those that supported the recommendations wholeheartedly called them ³implementation.² Those that opposed the recommendations called it ³policy.² I believe that many who called it policy actually truly believe there are policy issues involved, but some called it policy, to have it go through the long drawn out process we call a PDP (with the hopes that it dies a slow death). Neither side of this debate is blameless.
3. _The now infamous New gTLD ³straw-man²_: For the record, I was a part of the group that discussed the straw man in Brussels and LA over the past few weeks. I found those discussions very useful and appreciate the efforts being made by the new ICANN CEO, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I believe he truly will make a huge positive impact on ICANN for many years to come. But, now the debate has turned into what is policy and what is implementation. The IPC/BC and their representatives have called all of their proposals ³implementation². The NCSG, Registries, Registrars and Applicants have called much of it policy. ICANN staff has now weighed in on their thoughts and have classified certain items as implementation (thereby negating the need for GNSO policy development), and other items as policy, thereby requiring extensive involvement from the GNSO community note I did NOT say necessarily PDP).
I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues _immediately_ and decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up multi-stakeholder definition of what is ³policy² and what is ³implementation.² Or at the very least a framework for making that assessment when issues arise. I would advocate for a cross community group made up of members from ICANN staff, the GNSO, the GAC and others to come together to figure this issue out, so that we get out of this rut we are now in. At the same time, we need to fix the image of the GNSO policy processes so that they are no longer feared, but embraced. They need to not be used as vehicles for delay, but rather utilized for the common good.
If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now having will become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the merits). If not, I see these issues getting much worse over the coming months/years. I believe the future of the GNSO, and even the multi-stakeholder model in general hinge on the definition of these 2 words.
I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group.
Thanks.
*Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs*
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections
All,
FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time.
Jonathan
*From:*GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] *Sent:* 28 November 2012 21:38 *To:* jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@apc.org <mailto:alice@apc.org>; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) *Subject:* Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections
Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair
Dear Jonathan,
Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections.
Best regards,
Jeannie Ellers
Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930
Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQuCLfAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq2UYIALFsC+nao4XbcAJOAQn8MKC1 9bkXt7+nH68krEvF7ApfgUrO5JIHX9lEFHS25NSS/tq0KW003dp96WNL0QmVoQPj aqn7NWlplQkVY57eBeF7QxUYwum4jZencdtcpIrpAySPa8uk+jBY9sx/nlxVoNYE 8HbLfTlxPr0leeZ9BdZb8oqxzCmr4WpjTGw/UYMxHPEf8fEptkHFHgEQEty9rpyo eSNQnnbjPHPvoliM8rUSfUca1VpFGNYVJJc9Di5I6xNY3Zar4OX0YmTEyD20j7uc 41nCb8yn8RWfgYHCcY4fURxOs5NDuv+JedrFq7Jbil8KBAkiFoAwoJxeJYPQm5A= =i1KX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.