Dear All,

Following our call yesterday, please find below some notes I took in relation to the discussion on the draft principles (for a detailed report of the meeting, please review the transcript and/or recording). Attached you will find the latest version of the draft principles (note I've accepted all the redlines to facilitate your review). You are encouraged to add any further comments / proposed edits to the document itself ahead of the next meeting (Thursday 19 December at 21.00 UTC).

Thanks,

Marika

From Alan: Implementation has taken on so many different meanings and different phases – that is the reason why we are here. There are certain phases that do not need to be based in the multi-stakeholder model. Only when there is substantive impact to stakeholders, then it needs to be based in the multi-stakeholder model. If it is purely execution this can be handled by staff without a need for a multi-stakeholder process. If the PDP team had thought about the issue, they would have put the details in – impact was defined / foreseen as part of policy discussions, it may not necessarily require community input / discussion? Involvement should not equate to veto. Need some working definitions of some of the terms we are using.
Greg: Agrees with Alan – multi-stakeholder concept cannot be applied the same way in a policy process or an implementation process. Nuance needs to be added to express that. Timeframe for policy and implementation is different. Definitions and principles are tied. Is there policy neutral implementation (execution), i.e. decisions don’t have any impact on the policy recommendations while on the other hand you have implementation decisions that affect the policy? Consider integrating principle 3 with 1, and some of the administrative ones.
Nic: How can you determine who/how someone is impacted?
Michael: Multi-stakeholder model looks after interests of all parties. In considering the whole process, we need to take that into account when defining this principle.
Chuck: Implementation even though it may be straightforward and may not need further community consultation does not go against the multi-stakeholder model. It may just be requiring the originating body to confirm that implementation is as intended by the policy recommendations. Also note that all these principles are interrelated. Possible rewording: The need for multi-stakeholder principles does not end when you go from policy to implementation. Should there be a sub principle that says criteria should be developed and enforced when a multi-stakeholder process is required? Objective is to avoid situation whereby Board/Staff decide that something is implementation and does not require community involvement / feedback. Should this sub-team develop some guidelines or should this be done by the WG? Is it possible to define principles / sub-principles.
CLO: other terms such as ‘substantive impact’ may need defining in this context. Consider adding overarching principle that makes sure that articulate the enshrined principles of the multi-stakeholder model and input sought as part of policy discussions. Other statements may come in that will add to this effort.