For GNSO Council Consideration: Proposed Amendments to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF)
Dear GNSO Council, The Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) represents ICANN org’s Global Domains Division’s “roadmap” for implementing community-developed and approved consensus policy recommendations. Point H of the Framework mandates that ICANN org “continually review the implementation framework and related materials to encapsulate additional best-practices or to adjust the steps as a result of lessons learned with previous consensus policy projects.” In accordance with this mandate, please find attached an amended version of the CPIF for your consideration. This proposed set of amendments focuses on establishing standardized processes for post-implementation consensus policy reviews and for amending the CPIF document on an ongoing basis. In addition to a number of minor language updates, the following sections have been added to or created: 1. Section V, “Support and Review”: Section expanded to reference the proposed post-implementation consensus policy review process added in the new Section VI 2. Section VI, “Post-Implementation Consensus Policy Review Process”: New section added to detail proposed steps for carrying out reviews of implemented consensus policies 3. Section VII, “Consensus Policy Implementation Framework Amendment Process”: New section added to detail proposed steps for amending the CPIF Similar to our effort last year to update the framework and “test” the amendment process, minor updates have been left as redlines throughout the document; more substantive changes are shown as redlines and have “rationale” comments associated with them. The amended version will ultimately be posted to icann.org’s implementation page at https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation. Community review of these proposed amendments is essential to ensure that they conform to existing org and community standards and practices. If you have input on these proposed amendments, please provide it to this group by Monday, 9 September (feel free to annotate the document directly and/or provide your input in an email). Thank you all for your time in reviewing this important process. Please let me know of any questions. Best, Brian Aitchison -- Brian Aitchison, PhD Lead Researcher Operations and Policy Research Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Los Angeles, CA
Dear Councilors, Per the Council's prior discussion on this and the action item from that discussion, please find the attached comments and suggested edits from the RrSG. In addition, please find below further comments and suggested edits from Jeff Neuman and I would draw your attention to #1 (and #7) and #8 (highlighted in yellow) and suggest these be discussed further as "open items": I really don’t agree with changing the term “consensus policies” to “consensus policy recommendations.” I sort of understand from a grammatical perspective what Brian wants to do, but the term “consensus policy recommendations” appear nowhere in our contracts. Only “consensus policies” do. So rather than risk creating a new category of things, I would not accept ICANN’s proposed revision in II.B. I also do not agree with substituting the words “letter and intent” for “consistent with the policy recommendations and the reasoning underlying the policy recommendations.” I don’t mind “intent”, but putting the term “letter” in their means that ICANN must implement everything exactly the way it was written, which although sounds advisable at first, it may be that it was written poorly and rather than implement something that was poorly worded, it can be implemented consistent with the recommendations but not exactly as worded. Adding “letter and intent” limits the ability to do that. In Section II.E a sentence should be added to the end to the effect of: “Although the review process shall be managed by ICANN org, the results of all reviews shall be approved by the GNSO Council with input from the community.” I do not want the term “manage” to mean that ICANN controls the outcome. Section IIIA, I do not agree with the deletion of the words “and recommending to the ICANN Board” since that exact language is in the Bylaws. The Bylaws state “which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.” The second sentence of IIIA is circular. All it needs to say is what is in the Bylaws: “The GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO.” The third sentence should go back to the way it was and not use the term “recommendations”. It should state: “Once policies are approved…..” Remember, the GNSO and Board is not only approving the recommendations, but also the rationale behind those recommendations. All of which is embodies in the policies. All uses of the term “policy recommendations” should revert back to “policies” as stated above. I do not understand why we are now creating a new position of the “GNSO Council IRT Liaison”. Although the Council “manages” the PDP, it is not necessarily the Councilors that have expertise in the policies. If we want to state that the Council can appoint a Liaison that is one thing, but it should have the ability to appoint a non-Councilor to this position. And it should be noted that the IRT Liaison to the Council should NEVER be a substitute for the participation of experts and stakeholder. It cannot be assumed that just because there is participation by a liaison that that is somehow indicative of being participation by the community. Section III.E – again remove the term “recommendations” everywhere. See comments above on IRT Liaison to the Council. Again we should not mandate that this always be a Councilor. Section III.E should state: “GDD initiates the IRT recruitment process in coordination with Policy staff and the GNSO Council to ensure that its composition…..” This is not only an ICANN org activity. III.G should be entitled “Other ICANN Supporting Organizations…” The GNSO itself is an SO and this section applies only to the others. III.H> I do not understand the role of the General Counsel’s office. Their job is NOT to review the policy language. Perhaps they review the implementation language, but not the policy language. And the second part of that should read “and will not create issues under any existing consensus policies or the Registry Agreements and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement except as specifically contemplated by the approved consensus policies.” In other words, a consensus policy may be approved precisely because it is intending to change language in the agreements. III.I. Should state “Contractual Compliance staff is involved in the Implementation lifecycle to ensure that a new Consensus Policy or changes to an existing Consensus Policy which are intended to create binding obligations on the contracted parties are implemented in a manner that creates clear and enforceable obligations……” III. J. I do not understand the role of “Enterprise Risk Management”. Why are they specifically called out? What makes them different than all other groups within the ICANN org. Section IV.2 should state “In consultation with Policy staff and the GNSO Council, GDD…” The use of the term “Implementation Liaison” in Section V. is now confusing because we are creating a new “IRT Liaison” from the GNSO. Lets create better more distinguishable terms for these roles. This section is confusing because it is talking about the creation of “Issue Reports” but Issue Reports are usually used in PDPs not implementation of PDPs. Are we saying that all implementations of PDPs will have initial and final reports? This is confusing. In Section V again, third and fourth rows, what is meant by “teams’”? Does this mean GDD teams? IRT teams? Section V, under “Plan” chart, recruitment should be done not only in consultation with Policy staff, but also the GNSO Council”. Section V under “Establish Policy Effective Date”, it should state: “GDD, in consultation with the IRT, and in accordance with the applicable agreements, will determine a proposed reasonable date by which contracted parties can implement changes to become compliant with the requirements of a consensus policy.” Section V, under “Implement”, the fifth row should state: “This milestone marks the end of GDD’s implementation work and the IRT.” It should be clear that the IRT is disbanded as of the Effective Date. All future work needs to be started a new. Under Section VII, there should be a statement to the effect of: “In the event of a conflict between this CPIF and the ICANN Bylaws, GNSO Operating Procedures, the GNSO Manual (collectively the “Governing Documents”), the provisions of the applicable Governing Documents shall control. [NOTE – THESE MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT NAMES AND I MAY NOT HAVE INCLUDED ALL OF THEM. SOMEONE SHOULD REVIEW]. But this is crucial. We cannot have a GDD staff document take precedence over the Governing Documents. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Brian Aitchison <brian.aitchison@icann.org> Sent At:2019 Jul. 13 (Sat.) 06:14 Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject:[council] For GNSO Council Consideration: Proposed Amendments to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) Dear GNSO Council, The Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) represents ICANN org’s Global Domains Division’s “roadmap” for implementing community-developed and approved consensus policy recommendations. Point H of the Framework mandates that ICANN org “continually review the implementation framework and related materials to encapsulate additional best-practices or to adjust the steps as a result of lessons learned with previous consensus policy projects.” In accordance with this mandate, please find attached an amended version of the CPIF for your consideration. This proposed set of amendments focuses on establishing standardized processes for post-implementation consensus policy reviews and for amending the CPIF document on an ongoing basis. In addition to a number of minor language updates, the following sections have been added to or created: Section V, “Support and Review”: Section expanded to reference the proposed post-implementation consensus policy review process added in the new Section VI Section VI, “Post-Implementation Consensus Policy Review Process”: New section added to detail proposed steps for carrying out reviews of implemented consensus policies Section VII, “Consensus Policy Implementation Framework Amendment Process”: New section added to detail proposed steps for amending the CPIF Similar to our effort last year to update the framework and “test” the amendment process, minor updates have been left as redlines throughout the document; more substantive changes are shown as redlines and have “rationale” comments associated with them. The amended version will ultimately be posted to icann.org’s implementation page at https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation. Community review of these proposed amendments is essential to ensure that they conform to existing org and community standards and practices. If you have input on these proposed amendments, please provide it to this group by Monday, 9 September (feel free to annotate the document directly and/or provide your input in an email). Thank you all for your time in reviewing this important process. Please let me know of any questions. Best, Brian Aitchison -- Brian Aitchison, PhD Lead Researcher Operations and Policy Research Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Los Angeles, CA
Dear GNSO Councilors and members, Confirming receipt. We very much appreciate the diligent review and thoughtful feedback. We’ll review it on our end and respond with updated amendment proposals, clarifications, and discussion items. In the meantime, please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions or suggestions. All best, Brian -- Brian Aitchison, PhD Lead Researcher Operations and Policy Research Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Los Angeles, CA p. 424 353 9041 e. brian.aitchison@icann.org<mailto:brian.aitchison@icann.org> Sk. brian.aitchison.icann From: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> Reply-To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> Date: Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 4:21 PM To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, Brian Aitchison <brian.aitchison@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] For GNSO Council Consideration: Proposed Amendments to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) Dear Councilors, Per the Council's prior discussion on this and the action item from that discussion, please find the attached comments and suggested edits from the RrSG. In addition, please find below further comments and suggested edits from Jeff Neuman and I would draw your attention to #1 (and #7) and #8 (highlighted in yellow) and suggest these be discussed further as "open items": 1. I really don’t agree with changing the term “consensus policies” to “consensus policy recommendations.” I sort of understand from a grammatical perspective what Brian wants to do, but the term “consensus policy recommendations” appear nowhere in our contracts. Only “consensus policies” do. So rather than risk creating a new category of things, I would not accept ICANN’s proposed revision in II.B. 2. I also do not agree with substituting the words “letter and intent” for “consistent with the policy recommendations and the reasoning underlying the policy recommendations.” I don’t mind “intent”, but putting the term “letter” in their means that ICANN must implement everything exactly the way it was written, which although sounds advisable at first, it may be that it was written poorly and rather than implement something that was poorly worded, it can be implemented consistent with the recommendations but not exactly as worded. Adding “letter and intent” limits the ability to do that. 3. In Section II.E a sentence should be added to the end to the effect of: “Although the review process shall be managed by ICANN org, the results of all reviews shall be approved by the GNSO Council with input from the community.” I do not want the term “manage” to mean that ICANN controls the outcome. 4. Section IIIA, I do not agree with the deletion of the words “and recommending to the ICANN Board” since that exact language is in the Bylaws. The Bylaws state “which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.” 5. The second sentence of IIIA is circular. All it needs to say is what is in the Bylaws: “The GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO.” 6. The third sentence should go back to the way it was and not use the term “recommendations”. It should state: “Once policies are approved…..” Remember, the GNSO and Board is not only approving the recommendations, but also the rationale behind those recommendations. All of which is embodies in the policies. 7. All uses of the term “policy recommendations” should revert back to “policies” as stated above. 8. I do not understand why we are now creating a new position of the “GNSO Council IRT Liaison”. Although the Council “manages” the PDP, it is not necessarily the Councilors that have expertise in the policies. If we want to state that the Council can appoint a Liaison that is one thing, but it should have the ability to appoint a non-Councilor to this position. And it should be noted that the IRT Liaison to the Council should NEVER be a substitute for the participation of experts and stakeholder. It cannot be assumed that just because there is participation by a liaison that that is somehow indicative of being participation by the community. 9. Section III.E – again remove the term “recommendations” everywhere. See comments above on IRT Liaison to the Council. Again we should not mandate that this always be a Councilor. 10. Section III.E should state: “GDD initiates the IRT recruitment process in coordination with Policy staff and the GNSO Council to ensure that its composition…..” This is not only an ICANN org activity. 11. III.G should be entitled “Other ICANN Supporting Organizations…” The GNSO itself is an SO and this section applies only to the others. 12. III.H> I do not understand the role of the General Counsel’s office. Their job is NOT to review the policy language. Perhaps they review the implementation language, but not the policy language. And the second part of that should read “and will not create issues under any existing consensus policies or the Registry Agreements and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement except as specifically contemplated by the approved consensus policies.” In other words, a consensus policy may be approved precisely because it is intending to change language in the agreements. 13. III.I. Should state “Contractual Compliance staff is involved in the Implementation lifecycle to ensure that a new Consensus Policy or changes to an existing Consensus Policy which are intended to create binding obligations on the contracted parties are implemented in a manner that creates clear and enforceable obligations……” 14. III. J. I do not understand the role of “Enterprise Risk Management”. Why are they specifically called out? What makes them different than all other groups within the ICANN org. 15. Section IV.2 should state “In consultation with Policy staff and the GNSO Council, GDD…” 16. The use of the term “Implementation Liaison” in Section V. is now confusing because we are creating a new “IRT Liaison” from the GNSO. Lets create better more distinguishable terms for these roles. This section is confusing because it is talking about the creation of “Issue Reports” but Issue Reports are usually used in PDPs not implementation of PDPs. Are we saying that all implementations of PDPs will have initial and final reports? This is confusing. 17. In Section V again, third and fourth rows, what is meant by “teams’”? Does this mean GDD teams? IRT teams? 18. Section V, under “Plan” chart, recruitment should be done not only in consultation with Policy staff, but also the GNSO Council”. 19. Section V under “Establish Policy Effective Date”, it should state: “GDD, in consultation with the IRT, and in accordance with the applicable agreements, will determine a proposed reasonable date by which contracted parties can implement changes to become compliant with the requirements of a consensus policy.” 20. Section V, under “Implement”, the fifth row should state: “This milestone marks the end of GDD’s implementation work and the IRT.” It should be clear that the IRT is disbanded as of the Effective Date. All future work needs to be started a new. 21. Under Section VII, there should be a statement to the effect of: “In the event of a conflict between this CPIF and the ICANN Bylaws, GNSO Operating Procedures, the GNSO Manual (collectively the “Governing Documents”), the provisions of the applicable Governing Documents shall control. [NOTE – THESE MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT NAMES AND I MAY NOT HAVE INCLUDED ALL OF THEM. SOMEONE SHOULD REVIEW]. But this is crucial. We cannot have a GDD staff document take precedence over the Governing Documents. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Brian Aitchison <brian.aitchison@icann.org> Sent At:2019 Jul. 13 (Sat.) 06:14 Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject:[council] For GNSO Council Consideration: Proposed Amendments to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) Dear GNSO Council, The Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) represents ICANN org’s Global Domains Division’s “roadmap” for implementing community-developed and approved consensus policy recommendations. Point H of the Framework mandates that ICANN org “continually review the implementation framework and related materials to encapsulate additional best-practices or to adjust the steps as a result of lessons learned with previous consensus policy projects.” In accordance with this mandate, please find attached an amended version of the CPIF for your consideration. This proposed set of amendments focuses on establishing standardized processes for post-implementation consensus policy reviews and for amending the CPIF document on an ongoing basis. In addition to a number of minor language updates, the following sections have been added to or created: 1. Section V, “Support and Review”: Section expanded to reference the proposed post-implementation consensus policy review process added in the new Section VI 2. Section VI, “Post-Implementation Consensus Policy Review Process”: New section added to detail proposed steps for carrying out reviews of implemented consensus policies 3. Section VII, “Consensus Policy Implementation Framework Amendment Process”: New section added to detail proposed steps for amending the CPIF Similar to our effort last year to update the framework and “test” the amendment process, minor updates have been left as redlines throughout the document; more substantive changes are shown as redlines and have “rationale” comments associated with them. The amended version will ultimately be posted to icann.org’s implementation page at https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_policy_implementation&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=oOkZhM-vcooKF6_v3AmN7zbUWXCLjOjNm5S2_iA3wOQ&m=W0uY8w_I2vrq8SxiAlnH4xExzKj5Wzl-fLoIu9AooQM&s=62sYpgPch1HBxbnddy1w96qZvc1EdbLJV11fDL_enug&e=>. Community review of these proposed amendments is essential to ensure that they conform to existing org and community standards and practices. If you have input on these proposed amendments, please provide it to this group by Monday, 9 September (feel free to annotate the document directly and/or provide your input in an email). Thank you all for your time in reviewing this important process. Please let me know of any questions. Best, Brian Aitchison -- Brian Aitchison, PhD Lead Researcher Operations and Policy Research Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Los Angeles, CA
participants (2)
-
Brian Aitchison -
Pam Little