January 2014 - Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl

Updated working principles for your review
by Marika Konings Jan. 14, 2014

Jan. 14, 2014

Dear All, Please find attached for your review the latest version of the working principles document as updated during our meeting yesterday. I also removed the comments that I believe were addressed as part of yesterday's conversation. Please share any additional comments and/or edits you have with the mailing list ahead of our next meeting which has been scheduled for Thursday 16 January at 21.00 UTC for 90 minutes. Best regards, Marika

3 5

FW: [Ntfy-gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] With new duration: Meeting Invitation: Policy and Implementation Principle SubTeam meeting Thursday 16 January 2013 at 2100 UTC
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 10, 2014

Jan. 10, 2014

Not sure why this was rejected, but here it is again. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: ntfy-gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ntfy-gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of ntfy-gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-owner(a)icann.org Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 10:42 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Subject: RE: [Ntfy-gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] With new duration: Meeting Invitation: Policy and Implementation Principle SubTeam meeting Thursday 16 January 2013 at 2100 UTC Your message was rejected

1 0

MP3 Policy and Implementation Principles Sub Team - Thursday 09 January 2014
by Julia Charvolen Jan. 10, 2014

Jan. 10, 2014

Dear All, The next Policy and Implementation Principles Sub-Team is scheduled for Thursday 16 January 2014 at 2100 UTC for 90 minutes. Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and Implementation Working Principles Sub-Team call held on Thursday 09 January 2014 at 21:00 UTC: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20140109-en.mp3 Attendees: Cheryl Langdon-Orr – ALAC Alan Greenberg – At-Large Greg Shatan – IPC Chuck Gomes- RySG Nic Steinbach- RrSG J.Scott Evans - BC Jonathan Frost – RySG Tom Barett – RrSG Michael Graham – IPC Avri Doria – NCSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Wiki page:https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Chat Transcript for Thursday 09 January 2014: Marika Konings:Welcome to the Policy & Implementation Principles (0B) Sub-Team meeting J. Scott Evans:I will need to leave on the hour Julia Charvolen:Nic Steinbach joined the meeting Nic Steinbach:That's great. I think we can skip my comments 3 and 4 if we use their definition... Julia Charvolen:Michael Graham joined the call Julia Charvolen:Greg Shatan joined the meeting Michael Graham -- Gnosis IP:Here is the text I just read: “Multistakeholder Model” - An organizational framework or structure for governance or policymaking which aims to bring together all stakeholders affected by such governance or policymaking — including but not limited to business, civil society, governments, academic institutions and the technical community — to cooperate and participate in the dialogue, decision making and implementation of solutions to identified problems or goals.The “ICANN Multistakeholder Model” is composed of different Internet stakeholders from around the world organized in various Support Organizations, Constituencies and Advisory Committees, and utilizes a consensus-based policy development process, also known as a “bottom-up” model. Michael Graham -- Gnosis IP:Thank you, Marika, for posting the definition! Nic Steinbach:not adminent, but could we use regulation if people are concerned about the connotation of governance? EnCirca - Tom Barrett:I like J. Scott's suggestion Nic Steinbach:agree with j scott Nic Steinbach:i don't even know if affected is necessary Marika test:Remember, the first definition is general, not specific to ICANN Nic Steinbach:anyone can particiapte under ICANN Nic Steinbach:ah Nic Steinbach:but even for a general multistakeholder model Nic Steinbach:why are we defining what a stakeholder is? should be ultra generic. Michael R. Graham:Speaking of "Governance", it is useful to note that the www.icann.org site has a "Governance" section for resources relating to the formation and structure of ICANN itself. Nic Steinbach:mike appears to be broken Nic Steinbach:mic* Marika Konings:J. Scott, did I catch your edits correctly? (see right hand side) J. Scott Evans:Marika, in the second definition, Multistatkeholer Model shoudl be captialized Marika Konings:Done Nic Steinbach:no audio. J. Scott Evans:Otherwise, yes. I think you captured my edits correctly. Nic Steinbach:i will die in Nic Steinbach:dial* Julia Charvolen:Thomas Barrett joined the phone bridge Nic Steinbach:i disagree with including the brackets anywhere. stakeholders 5 years from now may be radically different. ICANN is evolving...I think without the brakcets it is more robust Julia Charvolen:Nic Steinbach joined the phone bridge EnCirca - Tom Barrett:i dont think the words add anything of value EnCirca - Tom Barrett:in the colr red Michael R. Graham:"include but are not limited to individuals, groups and organizations in business, civil society, government, academic institutions and the tecnical community." ?? Michael R. Graham:@Tom I could agree with you -- stakeholders in the ICANN context are those within the definition of "ICANN Multistakeholder Model" EnCirca - Tom Barrett:my issue is not in the list but in that we have two lists! lets just use one list and say it is non-exhaustive Julia Charvolen:Avri Doria joined the meeting Greg Shatan:On the Internet of Things, could Things be stakeholders? :-) Michael R. Graham:I agree -- footnote. Michael R. Graham:Marika: Could we include "individuals, groups, and organizations" ahead of the delineation of "business . . . " etc.? Michael R. Graham:in a particular organization and that has the ability . . . " Nic Steinbach:or remove that list Nic Steinbach:/ consolidate it our other list Avri Doria:we still in the chapeau? EnCirca - Tom Barrett:the existing text starting with "bring together the primary stakeholders such as businesses, civil society, governments, research institutions and non-government organizations " should be edit to be simply "together the primary stakeholders " Nic Steinbach:agree tom EnCirca - Tom Barrett:then allow the footnote to explain what a stakeholder is Nic Steinbach:except i would remove prmiary Nic Steinbach:primary* - not sure what purpose that serves EnCirca - Tom Barrett:actually, the word "outcome" would be better than organization J. Scott Evans:karma. alan. karma Greg Shatan:We should send this sentenc to the definitions committee. Greg Shatan:sentence.... Michael R. Graham:@Greg -- Thanks! That, or the semantic correctness committee. EnCirca - Tom Barrett:the missing word is "outcome" Cheryl Langdon-Orr:switching to mobile / travel now off her back in audio only soon EnCirca - Tom Barrett:of all interested stakeholders EnCirca - Tom Barrett:add "interested" Michael R. Graham 2:Not to muddy waters, but here is Wikipedia on "Stakeholder": A corporate stakeholder is that which can affect or be affected by the actions of the business as a whole. The stakeholder concept was first used in a 1963 internal memorandum at the Stanford Research Institute. It defined stakeholders as "those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist."[1] The theory was later developed and championed by R. Edward Freeman in the 1980s. Since then it has gained wide acceptance in business practice and in theorizing relating to strategic management, corporate governance, business purpose and corporate social responsibility (CSR).The term has been broadened to include anyone who has an interest in a matter. Nic Steinbach:why do we have a such as clause in that paragraph and a foot note? EnCirca - Tom Barrett:i agree with Nic that the such as phrase is unnecessary Michael R. Graham 2:+1 Julia Charvolen:Cheryl is back on the call J. Scott Evans:I am going to have to leave the call here very soon. Thanks to everyone for their active and robust participation. Michael R. Graham:I would agree removing "the primary" Michael R. Graham:Yea! Good call, Marika. J. Scott Evans:Marika. Move the sentence about stakeholder between the two definitions. Marika Konings:We actually scheduled this call for 90 minutes Michael R. Graham:@Cheryl -- yours was a very cogent answer. Marika test:As this effort is specific to the GNSO, should we just list the GNSO SGs? Avri Doria:how about including the phrase including but not limted to and them mention the gnso SGs/C and Liaisons groups Michael R. Graham:@Avri -- those are actually listed I think in the "ICANN Multistakeholder Model" definition. Avri Doria:but can be mentioned in more general terms. constracted artioes, businesses, non commercials, service providers, ... Avri Doria:put it in brackets Michael R. Graham:"organized in or represented by themselves and the various . . ." Greg Shatan:Anything less s than a 2-hour every week call (as in the IGO/INGO group) is a breeze.... EnCirca - Tom Barrett:bye

1 0

Definition of Multistakeholder Model
by Gnosis IP Law & Consulting Jan. 9, 2014

Jan. 9, 2014

Following is the draft Definition of MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL developed by the Definitions sub-team for consideration by the Work Group: “Multistakeholder Model” - An organizational framework or structure for governance or policymaking which aims to bring together all stakeholders affected by such governance or policymaking — including but not limited to business, civil society, governments, academic institutions and the technical community — to cooperate and participate in the dialogue, decision making and implementation of solutions to identified problems or goals. The “ICANN Multistakeholder Model” is composed of different Internet stakeholders from around the world organized in various Support Organizations, Constituencies and Advisory Committees, and utilizes a consensus-based policy development process, also known as a “bottom-up” model. I will be a few minutes late to the call. Michael R. Graham

1 0

Reminder: Re: Revised draft agenda for 19 Dec meeting
by Marika Konings Jan. 9, 2014

Jan. 9, 2014

Reminder, please take note of agenda below and the related action items and add any additional comments / edits you may have to the attached document ahead of tomorrow's meeting. Thanks, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Friday 13 December 2013 20:11 To: "gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl(a)icann.org" <gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Revised draft agenda for 19 Dec meeting P&I WG Principles Sub-team proposed agenda for 19 Dec 13 (version 2) 1. Discuss Cheryl¹s idea and proposal for an overarching principle 2. Brainstorm on how the overarching principle could impact the content and organization of our list of principles 3. Discuss J. Scott¹s idea of taking two examples of policy implementation from the past (one where the current system worked without controversy and another that is perceived as having not worked in the current system) so we can put them under the microscope to help us frame the principles a. General discussion b. Should we do this? c. If so: i. At what point in our work should we do this? ii. How should we accomplish it? iii. What two policies should we choose? 4. Explore ways to proceed in developing some criteria for when more community involvement may be needed in the implementation process 5. Time permitting, continue the discussion on some key terms introduced in our 12 Dec call such as policy neutral¹. Comments, edits, etc. are welcome. Chuck ³This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.²

4 6

Revised working principles document for review
by Marika Konings Jan. 9, 2014

Jan. 9, 2014

Dear All, Following our call today, please find attached the revised version of the proposed working principles for your review. The next meeting of the sub-team is scheduled for 9 January at 21.00 UTC for 90 minutes. You are encouraged to share any comments / edits you may have ahead of the meeting. The document has also been posted on the wiki (see https://community.icann.org/x/AimfAg) Happy holidays!! Marika

4 6