Jeff and Avri,
The question I had was about where the REVISIONS to the Implementation Framework came from. In other words, who authored them and what changes do the new
provisions make to the existing Framework that resulted from the community-wide multi-stakeholder collaboration that Alan described? That is the procedural question.
Separately, I think that if we now develop a category called “operational implementation”, we may be creating yet another dichotomy that will cause “road bumps”
in the next round. Most of the issues that the Policy and Implementation Working Group considered as “case studies” could also have been characterized as either “policy implementation” or “operational implementation”. One big point of consensus in the Policy
and Implementation WG was that the definition should not be controlling. What was controlling was the notion that the matter “in controversy” (or if you will the “operational implementation question” ) needed to go back to the GNSO for ITS determination as
to whether the issue involved policy or not. (To use the new terminology mentioned on the call today, a GNSO determination as to whether the issue involves “policy implementation” or “operational implementation”.)
It may be more useful to talk about WHEN a problem arises rather than what type of problem it is. For example, I believe that under the existing Framework,
while IRT (Implementation Review Team) is still convened, IRT is supposed to figure out whether the issue needs to be raised with GNSO or not. If we are trying to create a mechanism that will operate once IRT is disbanded, that is another story - who makes
the call? (Someone asked a question in the doc about the possible need for a Standing IRT.)
On the merits: At issue here is “who decides whether an issue arising during the implementation phase is sufficiently controversial as to require GNSO advice?”
My point is that we should not revert to a system where ICANN staff is making the determination itself as to whether GNSO needs to consider the issue. That was the whole reason behind the Policy and Implementation Working Group work. Issues like “digital
archery”, “name collision”, and changes in the terms of Registry Agreement can easily fall into the bucket of needing to be considered by the GNSO for either “Input”, “Guidance”, “Expedited PDP”, or “PDP”. Labeling an issue as “operational implementation”
doesn’t change that. This is because, as we have learned with the history of the new gTLD program, if you are for the solution that ICANN.org develops to the issue that arises during implementation, then it is “operational implementation”. On the other hand,
if you are against the solution, it’s “policy implementation”.
Anne
|
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese |
|
Of Counsel |
|
520.629.4428 office |
|
520.879.4725 fax |
|
_____________________________ |
|
|
|
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP |
|
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 |
|
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 |
From: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 2:34 PM
To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org
Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 03:00 UTC
Dear all,
The following call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC.
20:00 PDT, 23:00 EDT, 04:00 London, 05:00 CEST
for other places see: http://tinyurl.com/y94xsmxx
ADOBE CONNECT Room : https://participate.icann.org/newgtldswg
If you require a dial-out, please email me with your preferred contact number at gnso-secs@icann.org
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Michelle
____________________________________________________________________________
Participant passcode: NEW GTLD
|
Dial in numbers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|