Thanks, Anne. Please find some responses to your questions in blue below.
Best regards,
Marika
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lewisroca.com>
Date: Tuesday, 25 October 2022 at 19:53
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "Demetriou, Samantha" <sdemetriou@verisign.com>, Ashley Heineman <aheineman@godaddy.com>, Johan Helsingius <julf@Julf.com>, "Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie)" <MCole@perkinscoie.com>, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>,
"wuknoben@gmail.com" <wuknoben@gmail.com>, Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin@gmail.com>, Raoul Plommer <plommer@gmail.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Cc: Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon@icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: GNSO Council & SC/G Chairs call: PDP Improvements & Next Steps Standing Committee on SCBO
Thank you, Marika.
Regarding Recommendation #1, my recollection is that the GDS Guidelines for GDS Liaisons to PDPs is quite thorough.
Could you please send these around again via link or pdf before tomorrow’s meeting? A concern here is that participation by the Liaison should be active and timely. In the past, we have had active participation but I believe there may have been reluctance
to provide too much concrete input because the Working Group had not reached a final conclusion during its deliberations as to where the policy development was headed. This is a bit of a “chicken and egg” problem. I’m sure Karen Lentz could be helpful in
providing comments as to how the GDS Liaison can deal with that dynamic. What we absolutely must avoid is late-breaking advice from GDS as to whether policies under discussion can be executed or not. The feasibility of any policy under discussion by the
WG needs to be addressed at the policy development stage. Otherwise, this improvement could become a “roadblock”.
Here is the link to the GDS Guidelines:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20220919/fa2e1ac6/GuidelinesforICANNGDSStaffLiaisonstoPDPs-0001.pdf
Regarding Recommendation #2 as to Council sharing anticipated time frames with the Board. Can we be more specific as to what is required
of Council in connection with adopting this improvement? The verb, “consider” is pretty vague. Do we mean that Council should “endeavor to share time frames with the Board as early as possible”?
This is how this improvement was formulated in the 2021 SPS meeting report from which this improvement stems. Maybe this additional context is helpful: “Status and next steps of GNSO policy
recommendations post-Council adoption - The Council should explore how it can assist in keeping the ball rolling once policy recommendations leave the Council – for example, the Council could be more proactive in asking the ICANN Board and ICANN org about
expected timing / timelines as well as how it can assist in making sure things move forward. In addition, the Council should consider sharing with the ICANN Board when certain items are expected to move from Council to Board to facilitate advance planning
by the ICANN Board.” (from the SPS Meeting Report)
Recommendation #3 looks solid and attainable to me.
Recommendation #4 – As I commented in the survey, it would be unfair for the Chair and WG members to be tasked with identifying all policies
that might be affected by their work on a specific PDP. If staff identifies the policies that need to be reviewed by the WG in advance, that is a task that is well-defined and attainable. A “general” instruction to the PDP Working Group to “identify other
policies that are affected” is unworkable. In addition to staff identification of possible implications, would it not be incumbent on the GDS Liaison to raise any new or late-breaking effects on existing policies as the work progresses in the WG and to bring
that question to the attention of the WG Chairs? Could we say that
(1) existing policies to be reviewed by the WG should be specifically identified and
(2) WG should also review any existing policies that are identified by the GDS Liaison as needing to be analyzed in the course of the WG’s Deliberations?
Recommendation #5 – For the WG to include in the Final Report “any direct or indirect” effect on existing policies. Again, this is overly
broad in scope. If a particular policy has been identified in the Charter as requiring review OR if the GDS Liaison has identified an existing policy that is affected, then it makes sense to require the Working Group to address that in the Final Report.
As we all know, policy development and implementation is an ongoing and iterative process. We should not be creating obligations on the Working Group that lend themselves to getting mired down in processes that ultimately should be handled at the IRT level.
Recommendation #6 re Role of Board Liaison to the PDP looks good to me.
Recommendation #7 – not sure how we can approve this without knowing the future of the Operational Design Phase. When you update the
Consensus Policy Implementation Framework as recommended, how do you account for the possible duplication of effort if the PDP Outcomes have already been reviewed by ICANN Org in the Operational Design Phase? For example, you now have an Operational Design
Assessment that will be coming from ICANN Org on the Sub Pro Recommendations. If you update the CPIF as recommended here, does that mean ICANN Org comes back again at the IRT phase and does additional assessments? How would the amendment to the CPIF interact
with the ODP and ODA process created by the Board which is still being assessed? It seems to me that this Recommendation is subject to and has to be put on hold until Recommendation 9 is accomplished – #9 is Review of ODP process.
Note that the proposed next step is only about asking about a possible timeline for future updates to the CPIF.
Recommendation #8 – Review of the Policy Status Report details certainly makes sense. How do we fit this work into the list of priorities?
Is this a Small Team assignment for Council? (Maybe I don’t understand the proposed execution of this improvement. If so, I apologize.)
The proposed next step is for staff to further detail what a Policy Status Report would entail, so that the Council can review if would like the staff support team to move forward
with the PSR. This is not expected to be a long document just a high level overview but it is of course up to the Council to decide if it would need to form a small team to review this.
Recommendation #9 – Review of ODP - Support this one and believe that the proposed survey should be expanded to a wide audience in the
community.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese |
Of Counsel |
|
D. 520.629.4428 |
|
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>
On Behalf Of Marika Konings via council
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 3:10 AM
To: Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou@verisign.com>; Ashley Heineman <aheineman@godaddy.com>; Johan Helsingius <julf@Julf.com>; Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole@perkinscoie.com>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; wuknoben@gmail.com; Benjamin Akinmoyeje
<benakin@gmail.com>; Raoul Plommer <plommer@gmail.com>; council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon@icann.org>; Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org>
Subject: [council] GNSO Council & SC/G Chairs call: PDP Improvements & Next Steps Standing Committee on SCBO
[EXTERNAL]
Sent on behalf of Sebastien Ducos
****************
Dear All,
Based on the
survey results
and the subsequent discussion during the ICANN75 session, the Council leadership team is recommending moving forward with the following PDP Improvements as outlined in the table below. Please note that the proposed next steps represent an incremental step
– once this step has been implemented, there will be another opportunity for the GNSO community to consider how to proceed.
For the upcoming meeting, Council leadership suggests focusing on those next steps that Council or SG/C Chairs do not support so we can focus on those during the meeting and start
moving forward with items that do not raise any concerns. As such, please flag in advance of the meeting which items you would like to discuss further.
As a reminder, the meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 25 October at 19.00 UTC. The first half of the meeting will be dedicated to the PDP Improvements discussion, the second half
will focus on the next steps concerning the Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations (SCBO).
On behalf of Council leadership,
Sebastien
Improvement |
Next Step |
Who is responsible for next step |
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.