PDP Improvements - status update
Dear All, Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (see https://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”). In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures). Best regards, Marika
Hi All: With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process. I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment: * It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, * It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have. My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.) If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs. I’d be something along the lines of: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed. That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP. I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome. Regards, Kurt On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (seehttps://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”). In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures). Best regards, Marika <Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that addressed this very same issue. Marika has those changes and acknowledged them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one on Council had objected. Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the lines that Kurt has suggested? That language included an obligation on the part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for the GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent during the WG deliberations. An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member. In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers are not. Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG members. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Hi All:
With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template:
2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process.
I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment:
- It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, - It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have.
My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.)
If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs.
I’d be something along the lines of:
2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed.
That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP.
I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome.
Regards,
Kurt
On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (see https://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”).
In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures).
Best regards,
Marika <Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks, Anne and Kurt, for reviving this thread. I'd love to see a reference to "consideration of the public interest where relevant" mentioned in the PDP Charter Template, and wonder if Councilors might offer some input along this line. Kind regards, Justine On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 09:39, Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that addressed this very same issue. Marika has those changes and acknowledged them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one on Council had objected.
Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the lines that Kurt has suggested? That language included an obligation on the part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for the GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent during the WG deliberations.
An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member. In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers are not. Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG members.
Thank you, Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Hi All:
With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template:
2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process.
I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment:
- It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, - It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have.
My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.)
If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs.
I’d be something along the lines of:
2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed.
That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP.
I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome.
Regards,
Kurt
On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (see https://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”).
In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures).
Best regards,
Marika <Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Justine. Indefinite terms in charters is a leading cause of PDPs taking forever. I think “consideration of the public interest where relevant" falls into that category. Is there any way the Council can tighten up the text of the assignment so that a WG knows what to do? Is it merely that public interest needs to be discussed or is it something more? Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew via council Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 7:36 PM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update Thanks, Anne and Kurt, for reviving this thread. I'd love to see a reference to "consideration of the public interest where relevant" mentioned in the PDP Charter Template, and wonder if Councilors might offer some input along this line. Kind regards, Justine On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 09:39, Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that addressed this very same issue. Marika has those changes and acknowledged them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one on Council had objected. Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the lines that Kurt has suggested? That language included an obligation on the part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for the GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent during the WG deliberations. An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member. In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers are not. Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG members. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com<http://kjpritz.com> via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Hi All: With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process. I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment: * It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, * It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have. My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.) If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs. I’d be something along the lines of: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed. That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP. I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome. Regards, Kurt On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (seehttps://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”). In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures). Best regards, Marika <Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Paul, Thanks for your input and apologies for my late reply. The SubPro ODA said, "*ICANN org’s GPI pilot framework mapping results show that more than three-quarters (78%) of the topics reference GPI framework terms and could therefore carry GPI considerations". *Clearly, the ICANN Board's GPIF comes into play during the Board's deliberations of GNSO Policy recommendations, which made me wonder why the PDP Charter Template doesn't make some explicit mention of "public interest considerations, where relevant". It just seems logical to have it since firstly, it could only aid in the Board's deliberation of GNSO Policy recommendations and secondly, it would put into practice what may otherwise be done merely on an incidental basis. Perhaps, a reference to something along the lines of "Global Public Interest (GPI) considerations in context of the ICANN Bylaws and where relevant" might be a good start? Do you think we/staff could work on some redline text based on this basis? Regards, Justine ------ On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, 21:33 Paul McGrady, <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Justine.
Indefinite terms in charters is a leading cause of PDPs taking forever. I think “consideration of the public interest where relevant" falls into that category. Is there any way the Council can tighten up the text of the assignment so that a WG knows what to do? Is it merely that public interest needs to be discussed or is it something more?
Best,
Paul
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Justine Chew via council *Sent:* Thursday, March 9, 2023 7:36 PM *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update
Thanks, Anne and Kurt, for reviving this thread.
I'd love to see a reference to "consideration of the public interest where relevant" mentioned in the PDP Charter Template, and wonder if Councilors might offer some input along this line.
Kind regards, Justine
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 09:39, Anne ICANN via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that addressed this very same issue. Marika has those changes and acknowledged them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one on Council had objected.
Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the lines that Kurt has suggested? That language included an obligation on the part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for the GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent during the WG deliberations.
An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member. In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers are not. Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG members.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Hi All:
With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template:
2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies
If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process.
I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment:
- It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, - It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have.
My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.)
If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs.
I’d be something along the lines of:
2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies
If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed.
That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP.
I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome.
Regards,
Kurt
On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (see https://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”).
In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures).
Best regards,
Marika
<Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Justine. Yes, I think clearly tying it to a known ICANN process (with all the explanatory documents that go along with it) will be useful. Otherwise, we could run into a problem of folks saying the public interest inquiry required is broader than those required in the Bylaws. Best, Paul From: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 2:34 AM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update Hi Paul, Thanks for your input and apologies for my late reply. The SubPro ODA said, "ICANN org’s GPI pilot framework mapping results show that more than three-quarters (78%) of the topics reference GPI framework terms and could therefore carry GPI considerations". Clearly, the ICANN Board's GPIF comes into play during the Board's deliberations of GNSO Policy recommendations, which made me wonder why the PDP Charter Template doesn't make some explicit mention of "public interest considerations, where relevant". It just seems logical to have it since firstly, it could only aid in the Board's deliberation of GNSO Policy recommendations and secondly, it would put into practice what may otherwise be done merely on an incidental basis. Perhaps, a reference to something along the lines of "Global Public Interest (GPI) considerations in context of the ICANN Bylaws and where relevant" might be a good start? Do you think we/staff could work on some redline text based on this basis? Regards, Justine ------ On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, 21:33 Paul McGrady, <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Justine. Indefinite terms in charters is a leading cause of PDPs taking forever. I think “consideration of the public interest where relevant" falls into that category. Is there any way the Council can tighten up the text of the assignment so that a WG knows what to do? Is it merely that public interest needs to be discussed or is it something more? Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew via council Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 7:36 PM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update Thanks, Anne and Kurt, for reviving this thread. I'd love to see a reference to "consideration of the public interest where relevant" mentioned in the PDP Charter Template, and wonder if Councilors might offer some input along this line. Kind regards, Justine On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 09:39, Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that addressed this very same issue. Marika has those changes and acknowledged them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one on Council had objected. Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the lines that Kurt has suggested? That language included an obligation on the part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for the GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent during the WG deliberations. An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member. In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers are not. Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG members. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com<http://kjpritz.com> via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Hi All: With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process. I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment: * It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, * It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have. My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.) If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs. I’d be something along the lines of: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed. That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP. I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome. Regards, Kurt On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (seehttps://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”). In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures). Best regards, Marika <Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
It may be important to refer to a standard for assessing the public interest if this is going to be incorporated into the Charter template. This is because WG members have no personal obligation to act in the public interest and are often acting on behalf of certain interest groups. If the WG is going to be required to deliberate on the public interest, then I think we have to assume we are making that relevant and that a "where relevant" provision may not be appropriate since the Board itself is always expected to act in the public interest. In this regard, I would suggest that if this is to be incorporated per Justine's recommendation, the Charter should make specific reference not only to the ByLaws, but also "in light of ICANN's then-current Global Public Interest Framework as the same may be modified from time to time." I don't know how else the Chairs of a WG will be able to focus the relevant discussion in a productive manner. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:50 AM Paul McGrady via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Justine. Yes, I think clearly tying it to a known ICANN process (with all the explanatory documents that go along with it) will be useful. Otherwise, we could run into a problem of folks saying the public interest inquiry required is broader than those required in the Bylaws.
Best,
Paul
*From:* Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, March 13, 2023 2:34 AM *To:* Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> *Cc:* GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your input and apologies for my late reply.
The SubPro ODA said, "*ICANN org’s GPI pilot framework mapping results show that more than three-quarters (78%) of the topics reference GPI framework terms and could therefore carry GPI considerations". *Clearly, the ICANN Board's GPIF comes into play during the Board's deliberations of GNSO Policy recommendations, which made me wonder why the PDP Charter Template doesn't make some explicit mention of "public interest considerations, where relevant". It just seems logical to have it since firstly, it could only aid in the Board's deliberation of GNSO Policy recommendations and secondly, it would put into practice what may otherwise be done merely on an incidental basis.
Perhaps, a reference to something along the lines of "Global Public Interest (GPI) considerations in context of the ICANN Bylaws and where relevant" might be a good start? Do you think we/staff could work on some redline text based on this basis?
Regards,
Justine ------
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, 21:33 Paul McGrady, <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Justine.
Indefinite terms in charters is a leading cause of PDPs taking forever. I think “consideration of the public interest where relevant" falls into that category. Is there any way the Council can tighten up the text of the assignment so that a WG knows what to do? Is it merely that public interest needs to be discussed or is it something more?
Best,
Paul
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Justine Chew via council *Sent:* Thursday, March 9, 2023 7:36 PM *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update
Thanks, Anne and Kurt, for reviving this thread.
I'd love to see a reference to "consideration of the public interest where relevant" mentioned in the PDP Charter Template, and wonder if Councilors might offer some input along this line.
Kind regards, Justine
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 09:39, Anne ICANN via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that addressed this very same issue. Marika has those changes and acknowledged them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one on Council had objected.
Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the lines that Kurt has suggested? That language included an obligation on the part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for the GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent during the WG deliberations.
An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member. In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers are not. Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG members.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Hi All:
With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template:
2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies
If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process.
I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment:
- It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, - It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have.
My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.)
If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs.
I’d be something along the lines of:
2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies
If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed.
That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP.
I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome.
Regards,
Kurt
On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (see https://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”).
In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures).
Best regards,
Marika
<Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks, Anne and Kurt. Anne, the proposed Charter Template was updated with your proposed language and has been posted here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-groupname-charter-yyyymmdd-template-1.... The proposed language in the Initial Report template is modelled on the language in the charter template. To confirm, in line with the Charter Template and the GDS Guidelines, it will be the responsibility of the GDS liaison to identify where some recommendations may overlap or impact existing policies, and to raise those in the WG. However, how that impact is addressed is from our perspective a policy decision and as such guidance from a PDP WG and/or Council will be necessary to facilitate implementation. Although this is probably not something that needs to be spelled out in the template, a question that does arise in relation to the language that Kurt has proposed, what if it is clear that there is an impact, but no consensus on how this impact should be addressed, who is expected to make that decision? Does the Final Report go to Council and Council would then make a determination, or would need to spin up a separate effort to provide guidance to the GNSO Council? It does seem that the PDP WG would be best placed to advise the Council on this topic, but if there is a different path that you have in mind, it may be helpful to discuss that? Best regards, Marika From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org> Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 15:39 To: "kurt kjpritz.com" <kurt@kjpritz.com> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that addressed this very same issue. Marika has those changes and acknowledged them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one on Council had objected. Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the lines that Kurt has suggested? That language included an obligation on the part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for the GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent during the WG deliberations. An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member. In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers are not. Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG members. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com [kjpritz.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/kjpritz.com__;!!PtGJab4!7tRwAEmDsoHEZV8dfl...> via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Hi All: With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process. I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment: * It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, * It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have. My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.) If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs. I’d be something along the lines of: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed. That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP. I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome. Regards, Kurt On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (seehttps://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”). In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures__;!!...>). Best regards, Marika <Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Marika. Kurt's language is more accurate. The PDP Manual should not state that the WG MUST consider whether there is an impact on existing policies because if the WG is supposed to undertake that level of work, the specific policies it is to consider should be identified in the Charter document. Then it's ok I think for there to be a general provision in the Charter that says if the GDS liaison raises an affected policy, the WG should try to address it. Some of this discussion turns on what is meant by "an impact on existing policies". Your question assumes that an existing policy will need to be changed but that is not necessarily the case. And yes, I think that would have to be addressed at the Council level so the WG could say, for instance, we considered the impact on X policy and believe our recommendation does not require a change to that policy OR we considered the impact on X policy and are recommending as change as follows: _______________---- OR We considered the impact on X policy and believe this needs to be addressed at the Council level. The last example could also be brought before Council by the GNSO Liaison prior to the Final Report. I think it should be clear what we are trying to prevent - an obligation on unpaid volunteers to identify all potentially impacted policies. The draft language for the PDP Manual amendment imposes that obligation and needs to be modified. Kurt makes a very constructive suggestion. I also think the PDP Manual language should include the obligation for ICANN GNSO policy staff and GDS Liaison to identify any policies that need to be considered by the WG. Do the amendments to the PDP Manual already specify this? Thank you, Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 7:55 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Anne and Kurt.
Anne, the proposed Charter Template was updated with your proposed language and has been posted here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-groupname-charter-yyyymmdd-template-1.... The proposed language in the Initial Report template is modelled on the language in the charter template.
To confirm, in line with the Charter Template and the GDS Guidelines, it will be the responsibility of the GDS liaison to identify where some recommendations may overlap or impact existing policies, and to raise those in the WG. However, how that impact is addressed is from our perspective a policy decision and as such guidance from a PDP WG and/or Council will be necessary to facilitate implementation. Although this is probably not something that needs to be spelled out in the template, a question that does arise in relation to the language that Kurt has proposed, what if it is clear that there is an impact, but no consensus on how this impact should be addressed, who is expected to make that decision? Does the Final Report go to Council and Council would then make a determination, or would need to spin up a separate effort to provide guidance to the GNSO Council? It does seem that the PDP WG would be best placed to advise the Council on this topic, but if there is a different path that you have in mind, it may be helpful to discuss that?
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org> *Reply to: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 15:39 *To: *"kurt kjpritz.com" <kurt@kjpritz.com> *Cc: *"council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update
I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that addressed this very same issue. Marika has those changes and acknowledged them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one on Council had objected.
Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the lines that Kurt has suggested? That language included an obligation on the part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for the GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent during the WG deliberations.
An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member. In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers are not. Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG members.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com [kjpritz.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/kjpritz.com__;!!PtGJab4!7tRwAEmDsoHEZV8dfl...> via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Hi All:
With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template:
2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies
If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process.
I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment:
- It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, - It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have.
My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.)
If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs.
I’d be something along the lines of:
2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies
If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed.
That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP.
I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome.
Regards,
Kurt
On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (see https://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”).
In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures__;!!...> ).
Best regards,
Marika
<Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Anne (and Marika and others): Thanks for this latest comment. I think Marika’s response corresponds with our thinking. Taking from Marika’s email: "(I)t will be the responsibility of the GDS liaison to identify where some recommendations may overlap or impact existing policies, and to raise those in the WG." The template could say this so the WG doesn’t expect it as its own responsibility. Next there is: "how that impact is addressed is … a policy decision and ... guidance from a PDP WG and/or Council will be necessary…”. So this give the WG the option to cover as much of the issue as feasible and then defer to the Council. That option should be spelled out in the template. (As an aside, “and/or” should be replaced by “or.”) Finally Marika says: “...what if it is clear that there is an impact, but no consensus on how this impact should be addressed, who is expected to make that decision? … It does seem that the PDP WG would be best placed to advise the Council on this topic,” It does seem that the WG would be in position to offer advice to the Council, whether it be a solution, or a process for determining a solution (and the degree of support for that advice or not) but that it’d be for the Council to determine the best policy path for policy issues that are outside the WG’s remit. So we could say that in the template also, affording the WG the opportunity to contribute. I know we want to economise on template word count but I think it’s be worth adding these additional clarifications to clearly describe the extent of the WG’s duty. I hope I did not confuse, rather than clarify, things. Kurt On 10 Mar 2023, at 5:52 pm, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Marika. Kurt's language is more accurate. The PDP Manual should not state that the WG MUST consider whether there is an impact on existing policies because if the WG is supposed to undertake that level of work, the specific policies it is to consider should be identified in the Charter document. Then it's ok I think for there to be a general provision in the Charter that says if the GDS liaison raises an affected policy, the WG should try to address it. Some of this discussion turns on what is meant by "an impact on existing policies". Your question assumes that an existing policy will need to be changed but that is not necessarily the case. And yes, I think that would have to be addressed at the Council level so the WG could say, for instance, we considered the impact on X policy and believe our recommendation does not require a change to that policy OR we considered the impact on X policy and are recommending as change as follows: _______________---- OR We considered the impact on X policy and believe this needs to be addressed at the Council level. The last example could also be brought before Council by the GNSO Liaison prior to the Final Report. I think it should be clear what we are trying to prevent - an obligation on unpaid volunteers to identify all potentially impacted policies. The draft language for the PDP Manual amendment imposes that obligation and needs to be modified. Kurt makes a very constructive suggestion. I also think the PDP Manual language should include the obligation for ICANN GNSO policy staff and GDS Liaison to identify any policies that need to be considered by the WG. Do the amendments to the PDP Manual already specify this? Thank you, Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 7:55 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Anne and Kurt. Anne, the proposed Charter Template was updated with your proposed language and has been posted here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-groupname-charter-yyyymmdd-template-1.... The proposed language in the Initial Report template is modelled on the language in the charter template. To confirm, in line with the Charter Template and the GDS Guidelines, it will be the responsibility of the GDS liaison to identify where some recommendations may overlap or impact existing policies, and to raise those in the WG. However, how that impact is addressed is from our perspective a policy decision and as such guidance from a PDP WG and/or Council will be necessary to facilitate implementation. Although this is probably not something that needs to be spelled out in the template, a question that does arise in relation to the language that Kurt has proposed, what if it is clear that there is an impact, but no consensus on how this impact should be addressed, who is expected to make that decision? Does the Final Report go to Council and Council would then make a determination, or would need to spin up a separate effort to provide guidance to the GNSO Council? It does seem that the PDP WG would be best placed to advise the Council on this topic, but if there is a different path that you have in mind, it may be helpful to discuss that? Best regards, Marika From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 15:39 To: "kurt kjpritz.com<http://kjpritz.com/>" <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that addressed this very same issue. Marika has those changes and acknowledged them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one on Council had objected. Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the lines that Kurt has suggested? That language included an obligation on the part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for the GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent during the WG deliberations. An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member. In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers are not. Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG members. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com [kjpritz.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/kjpritz.com__;!!PtGJab4!7tRwAEmDsoHEZV8dfl...> via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Hi All: With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process. I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment: * It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, * It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have. My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.) If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs. I’d be something along the lines of: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed. That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP. I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome. Regards, Kurt On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (seehttps://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”). In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures__;!!...>). Best regards, Marika <Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
This is helpful. Just a note that the PDP Manual language and the template should be consistent and should confirm the following: WG should address impact on existing policies to the extent these have been identified in the Charter and/or identified by the GDS liason during the course of WG deliberations. Again, the draft language for the PDP Manual itself should be modified to be consistent with this approach and the staff obligation should be included in the PDP Manual so that this is clear. May we please see all the changes in the PDP Manual language and the Charter template language once again for consideration AFTER the ICANN76 meeting? (I know staff and Council are all very busy right now.) Many thanks! Anne Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 7:13 AM kurt kjpritz.com <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Anne (and Marika and others):
Thanks for this latest comment. I think Marika’s response corresponds with our thinking.
Taking from Marika’s email:
"(I)t will be the responsibility of the GDS liaison to identify where some recommendations may overlap or impact existing policies, and to raise those in the WG."
The template could say this so the WG doesn’t expect it as its own responsibility.
Next there is:
"how that impact is addressed is … a policy decision and ... guidance from a PDP WG *and/or* Council will be necessary…”.
So this give the WG the option to cover as much of the issue as feasible and then defer to the Council. That option should be spelled out in the template. (As an aside, “and/or” should be replaced by “or.”)
Finally Marika says:
“...what if it is clear that there is an impact, but no consensus on how this impact should be addressed, who is expected to make that decision? … It does seem that the PDP WG would be best placed to advise the Council on this topic,”
It *does *seem that the WG would be in position to offer advice to the Council, whether it be a solution, or a process for determining a solution (and the degree of support for that advice or not) but that it’d be for the Council to determine the best policy path for policy issues that are outside the WG’s remit. So we could say that in the template also, affording the WG the opportunity to contribute.
I know we want to economise on template word count but I think it’s be worth adding these additional clarifications to clearly describe the extent of the WG’s duty.
I hope I did not confuse, rather than clarify, things.
Kurt
On 10 Mar 2023, at 5:52 pm, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Marika. Kurt's language is more accurate. The PDP Manual should not state that the WG MUST consider whether there is an impact on existing policies because if the WG is supposed to undertake that level of work, the specific policies it is to consider should be identified in the Charter document. Then it's ok I think for there to be a general provision in the Charter that says if the GDS liaison raises an affected policy, the WG should try to address it.
Some of this discussion turns on what is meant by "an impact on existing policies". Your question assumes that an existing policy will need to be changed but that is not necessarily the case. And yes, I think that would have to be addressed at the Council level so the WG could say, for instance, we considered the impact on X policy and believe our recommendation does not require a change to that policy OR we considered the impact on X policy and are recommending as change as follows: _______________---- OR We considered the impact on X policy and believe this needs to be addressed at the Council level. The last example could also be brought before Council by the GNSO Liaison prior to the Final Report.
I think it should be clear what we are trying to prevent - an obligation on unpaid volunteers to identify all potentially impacted policies. The draft language for the PDP Manual amendment imposes that obligation and needs to be modified. Kurt makes a very constructive suggestion. I also think the PDP Manual language should include the obligation for ICANN GNSO policy staff and GDS Liaison to identify any policies that need to be considered by the WG. Do the amendments to the PDP Manual already specify this?
Thank you, Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 7:55 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Anne and Kurt.
Anne, the proposed Charter Template was updated with your proposed language and has been posted here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-groupname-charter-yyyymmdd-template-1.... The proposed language in the Initial Report template is modelled on the language in the charter template.
To confirm, in line with the Charter Template and the GDS Guidelines, it will be the responsibility of the GDS liaison to identify where some recommendations may overlap or impact existing policies, and to raise those in the WG. However, how that impact is addressed is from our perspective a policy decision and as such guidance from a PDP WG and/or Council will be necessary to facilitate implementation. Although this is probably not something that needs to be spelled out in the template, a question that does arise in relation to the language that Kurt has proposed, what if it is clear that there is an impact, but no consensus on how this impact should be addressed, who is expected to make that decision? Does the Final Report go to Council and Council would then make a determination, or would need to spin up a separate effort to provide guidance to the GNSO Council? It does seem that the PDP WG would be best placed to advise the Council on this topic, but if there is a different path that you have in mind, it may be helpful to discuss that?
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org> *Reply to: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 15:39 *To: *"kurt kjpritz.com" <kurt@kjpritz.com> *Cc: *"council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update
I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that addressed this very same issue. Marika has those changes and acknowledged them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one on Council had objected.
Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the lines that Kurt has suggested? That language included an obligation on the part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for the GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent during the WG deliberations.
An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member. In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers are not. Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG members.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com [kjpritz.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/kjpritz.com__;!!PtGJab4!7tRwAEmDsoHEZV8dfl...> via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Hi All:
With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template:
2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies
If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process.
I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment:
- It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, - It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have.
My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.)
If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs.
I’d be something along the lines of:
2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies
If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed.
That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP.
I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome.
Regards,
Kurt
On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (see https://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”).
In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures__;!!...> ).
Best regards,
Marika
<Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks, Anne. Just to confirm, we are not proposing any updates to the PDP Manual at this stage, just the Initial Report template. As noted, the updates to the charter template were already applied and have been posted here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures (scroll down to GNSO Work Product Templates). We’ll take another stab at the proposed updates to the Initial Report template based on the input provided by you and Kurt and will circulate that to the Council for review shortly. Best regards, Marika From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, 12 March 2023 at 14:43 To: "kurt kjpritz.com" <kurt@kjpritz.com> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update This is helpful. Just a note that the PDP Manual language and the template should be consistent and should confirm the following: WG should address impact on existing policies to the extent these have been identified in the Charter and/or identified by the GDS liason during the course of WG deliberations. Again, the draft language for the PDP Manual itself should be modified to be consistent with this approach and the staff obligation should be included in the PDP Manual so that this is clear. May we please see all the changes in the PDP Manual language and the Charter template language once again for consideration AFTER the ICANN76 meeting? (I know staff and Council are all very busy right now.) Many thanks! Anne Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 7:13 AM kurt kjpritz.com [kjpritz.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/kjpritz.com__;!!PtGJab4!-o4C3_yeWAaPiLV3Cu...> <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hi Anne (and Marika and others): Thanks for this latest comment. I think Marika’s response corresponds with our thinking. Taking from Marika’s email: "(I)t will be the responsibility of the GDS liaison to identify where some recommendations may overlap or impact existing policies, and to raise those in the WG." The template could say this so the WG doesn’t expect it as its own responsibility. Next there is: "how that impact is addressed is … a policy decision and ... guidance from a PDP WG and/or Council will be necessary…”. So this give the WG the option to cover as much of the issue as feasible and then defer to the Council. That option should be spelled out in the template. (As an aside, “and/or” should be replaced by “or.”) Finally Marika says: “...what if it is clear that there is an impact, but no consensus on how this impact should be addressed, who is expected to make that decision? … It does seem that the PDP WG would be best placed to advise the Council on this topic,” It does seem that the WG would be in position to offer advice to the Council, whether it be a solution, or a process for determining a solution (and the degree of support for that advice or not) but that it’d be for the Council to determine the best policy path for policy issues that are outside the WG’s remit. So we could say that in the template also, affording the WG the opportunity to contribute. I know we want to economise on template word count but I think it’s be worth adding these additional clarifications to clearly describe the extent of the WG’s duty. I hope I did not confuse, rather than clarify, things. Kurt On 10 Mar 2023, at 5:52 pm, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Marika. Kurt's language is more accurate. The PDP Manual should not state that the WG MUST consider whether there is an impact on existing policies because if the WG is supposed to undertake that level of work, the specific policies it is to consider should be identified in the Charter document. Then it's ok I think for there to be a general provision in the Charter that says if the GDS liaison raises an affected policy, the WG should try to address it. Some of this discussion turns on what is meant by "an impact on existing policies". Your question assumes that an existing policy will need to be changed but that is not necessarily the case. And yes, I think that would have to be addressed at the Council level so the WG could say, for instance, we considered the impact on X policy and believe our recommendation does not require a change to that policy OR we considered the impact on X policy and are recommending as change as follows: _______________---- OR We considered the impact on X policy and believe this needs to be addressed at the Council level. The last example could also be brought before Council by the GNSO Liaison prior to the Final Report. I think it should be clear what we are trying to prevent - an obligation on unpaid volunteers to identify all potentially impacted policies. The draft language for the PDP Manual amendment imposes that obligation and needs to be modified. Kurt makes a very constructive suggestion. I also think the PDP Manual language should include the obligation for ICANN GNSO policy staff and GDS Liaison to identify any policies that need to be considered by the WG. Do the amendments to the PDP Manual already specify this? Thank you, Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 7:55 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Anne and Kurt. Anne, the proposed Charter Template was updated with your proposed language and has been posted here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-groupname-charter-yyyymmdd-template-1... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-groupname-...>. The proposed language in the Initial Report template is modelled on the language in the charter template. To confirm, in line with the Charter Template and the GDS Guidelines, it will be the responsibility of the GDS liaison to identify where some recommendations may overlap or impact existing policies, and to raise those in the WG. However, how that impact is addressed is from our perspective a policy decision and as such guidance from a PDP WG and/or Council will be necessary to facilitate implementation. Although this is probably not something that needs to be spelled out in the template, a question that does arise in relation to the language that Kurt has proposed, what if it is clear that there is an impact, but no consensus on how this impact should be addressed, who is expected to make that decision? Does the Final Report go to Council and Council would then make a determination, or would need to spin up a separate effort to provide guidance to the GNSO Council? It does seem that the PDP WG would be best placed to advise the Council on this topic, but if there is a different path that you have in mind, it may be helpful to discuss that? Best regards, Marika From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 15:39 To: "kurt kjpritz.com [kjpritz.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/kjpritz.com/__;!!PtGJab4!-o4C3_yeWAaPiLV3C...>" <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that addressed this very same issue. Marika has those changes and acknowledged them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one on Council had objected. Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the lines that Kurt has suggested? That language included an obligation on the part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for the GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent during the WG deliberations. An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member. In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers are not. Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG members. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com [kjpritz.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/kjpritz.com__;!!PtGJab4!7tRwAEmDsoHEZV8dfl...> via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Hi All: With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process. I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment: * It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, * It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have. My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.) If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs. I’d be something along the lines of: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed. That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP. I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome. Regards, Kurt On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (seehttps://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”). In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures__;!!...>). Best regards, Marika <Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi All, Just coming back to this conversation. We’ve updated the Initial Report template in line with suggested edits proposed by Kurt and supported by Anne (see attached). To confirm, we’ve only made updates to the Initial Report template – there are no changes to the PDP Manual at this point in time. As you may recall, Justine made an additional suggestion to add “consideration of the public interest where relevant" to the PDP Charter Template, but as that is outside of the scope of this specific improvement, we would like to suggest adding this as a new item to the PDP Improvements tracker for further consideration by the Council in the near future. If there are any further comments and/or suggestions on the proposed addition to the attached template on page 10 (section 2.5), please share these with the Council mailing list by 21 April. Best regards, Marika From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, 12 March 2023 at 20:43 To: "kurt kjpritz.com" <kurt@kjpritz.com> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update This is helpful. Just a note that the PDP Manual language and the template should be consistent and should confirm the following: WG should address impact on existing policies to the extent these have been identified in the Charter and/or identified by the GDS liason during the course of WG deliberations. Again, the draft language for the PDP Manual itself should be modified to be consistent with this approach and the staff obligation should be included in the PDP Manual so that this is clear. May we please see all the changes in the PDP Manual language and the Charter template language once again for consideration AFTER the ICANN76 meeting? (I know staff and Council are all very busy right now.) Many thanks! Anne Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 7:13 AM kurt kjpritz.com [kjpritz.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/kjpritz.com__;!!PtGJab4!-o4C3_yeWAaPiLV3Cu...> <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hi Anne (and Marika and others): Thanks for this latest comment. I think Marika’s response corresponds with our thinking. Taking from Marika’s email: "(I)t will be the responsibility of the GDS liaison to identify where some recommendations may overlap or impact existing policies, and to raise those in the WG." The template could say this so the WG doesn’t expect it as its own responsibility. Next there is: "how that impact is addressed is … a policy decision and ... guidance from a PDP WG and/or Council will be necessary…”. So this give the WG the option to cover as much of the issue as feasible and then defer to the Council. That option should be spelled out in the template. (As an aside, “and/or” should be replaced by “or.”) Finally Marika says: “...what if it is clear that there is an impact, but no consensus on how this impact should be addressed, who is expected to make that decision? … It does seem that the PDP WG would be best placed to advise the Council on this topic,” It does seem that the WG would be in position to offer advice to the Council, whether it be a solution, or a process for determining a solution (and the degree of support for that advice or not) but that it’d be for the Council to determine the best policy path for policy issues that are outside the WG’s remit. So we could say that in the template also, affording the WG the opportunity to contribute. I know we want to economise on template word count but I think it’s be worth adding these additional clarifications to clearly describe the extent of the WG’s duty. I hope I did not confuse, rather than clarify, things. Kurt On 10 Mar 2023, at 5:52 pm, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Marika. Kurt's language is more accurate. The PDP Manual should not state that the WG MUST consider whether there is an impact on existing policies because if the WG is supposed to undertake that level of work, the specific policies it is to consider should be identified in the Charter document. Then it's ok I think for there to be a general provision in the Charter that says if the GDS liaison raises an affected policy, the WG should try to address it. Some of this discussion turns on what is meant by "an impact on existing policies". Your question assumes that an existing policy will need to be changed but that is not necessarily the case. And yes, I think that would have to be addressed at the Council level so the WG could say, for instance, we considered the impact on X policy and believe our recommendation does not require a change to that policy OR we considered the impact on X policy and are recommending as change as follows: _______________---- OR We considered the impact on X policy and believe this needs to be addressed at the Council level. The last example could also be brought before Council by the GNSO Liaison prior to the Final Report. I think it should be clear what we are trying to prevent - an obligation on unpaid volunteers to identify all potentially impacted policies. The draft language for the PDP Manual amendment imposes that obligation and needs to be modified. Kurt makes a very constructive suggestion. I also think the PDP Manual language should include the obligation for ICANN GNSO policy staff and GDS Liaison to identify any policies that need to be considered by the WG. Do the amendments to the PDP Manual already specify this? Thank you, Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 7:55 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Anne and Kurt. Anne, the proposed Charter Template was updated with your proposed language and has been posted here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-groupname-charter-yyyymmdd-template-1... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-groupname-...>. The proposed language in the Initial Report template is modelled on the language in the charter template. To confirm, in line with the Charter Template and the GDS Guidelines, it will be the responsibility of the GDS liaison to identify where some recommendations may overlap or impact existing policies, and to raise those in the WG. However, how that impact is addressed is from our perspective a policy decision and as such guidance from a PDP WG and/or Council will be necessary to facilitate implementation. Although this is probably not something that needs to be spelled out in the template, a question that does arise in relation to the language that Kurt has proposed, what if it is clear that there is an impact, but no consensus on how this impact should be addressed, who is expected to make that decision? Does the Final Report go to Council and Council would then make a determination, or would need to spin up a separate effort to provide guidance to the GNSO Council? It does seem that the PDP WG would be best placed to advise the Council on this topic, but if there is a different path that you have in mind, it may be helpful to discuss that? Best regards, Marika From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 15:39 To: "kurt kjpritz.com [kjpritz.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/kjpritz.com/__;!!PtGJab4!-o4C3_yeWAaPiLV3C...>" <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that addressed this very same issue. Marika has those changes and acknowledged them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one on Council had objected. Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the lines that Kurt has suggested? That language included an obligation on the part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for the GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent during the WG deliberations. An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member. In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers are not. Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG members. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com [kjpritz.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/kjpritz.com__;!!PtGJab4!7tRwAEmDsoHEZV8dfl...> via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Hi All: With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process. I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment: * It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them, * It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have. My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.) If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs. I’d be something along the lines of: 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed. That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP. I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome. Regards, Kurt On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (seehttps://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”). In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures__;!!...>). Best regards, Marika <Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (5)
-
Anne ICANN -
Justine Chew -
kurt kjpritz.com -
Marika Konings -
Paul McGrady