Latest version of draft principles for review
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 don¹t 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 impact¹ 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.
Thanks a lot Marika. You did a nice job of concisely summarizing the main points. Like Marika, I encourage those of you who want for detail to listen to the MP3 or review the transcript; I thought we had a very useful discussion that will help us move forward. Note that our discussion focused primarily on proposed principle 1 but in doing that we recognized the relationship of several other principles. Also, we talked about the value of developing some criteria for deciding when more community involvement is needed during the implementation process; Alan suggested that, while this may not one of our deliverables, the exercise might be helpful in developing principles. Here are the next steps: 1. Cheryl will right up her thoughts and suggestion regarding an overarching principle. 2. Everyone is encouraged to review the latest version of the principles document that Marika distributed today with a particular focus on principle 1 and any principles you think are related. Please add your comments and save and distribute the document with the latest date and your initials. 3. Here's a proposed agenda for our call next week: a. Discuss Cheryl's idea and proposal for an overarching principle b. Brainstorm on how the overarching principle could impact the content and organization of our list of principles c. Explore ways to proceed in developing some criteria for when more community involvement may be needed in the implementation process d. Time permitting, continue the discussion on some key terms introduced in our 12 Dec call such as 'policy neutral'. 4. Please feel free to suggest changes to this agenda. Chuck From: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 5:07 AM To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Latest version of draft principles for review 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.
Dear All: I think the discussions and the draft are really starting to take shape. However, I think a great way to move the discussion forward is to take two example 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 of these principles to help us frame the principles or if a certain principle makes sense or is even workable. I have attached a revised version of the principles document containing a comment I have on Principle 4. J. Scott j. scott evans - associate general counsel - adobe - 408.536.5336 - jscottevans@outlook.com From: marika.konings@icann.org To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 02:06:32 -0800 Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Latest version of draft principles for review 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl mailing list Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl
Thanks J. Scott for joining the discussion. I will add consideration of your suggestion to the sub-team agenda for next week. Chuck From: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 11:24 AM To: Marika Konings; gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Latest version of draft principles for review Dear All: I think the discussions and the draft are really starting to take shape. However, I think a great way to move the discussion forward is to take two example 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 of these principles to help us frame the principles or if a certain principle makes sense or is even workable. I have attached a revised version of the principles document containing a comment I have on Principle 4. J. Scott j. scott evans - associate general counsel - adobe - 408.536.5336 - jscottevans@outlook.com<mailto:jscottevans@outlook.com> ________________________________ From: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 02:06:32 -0800 Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Latest version of draft principles for review 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl mailing list Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl
+1 @J. Scott. Totally agree with Cheers ! -Olevie- 2013/12/13 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
Thanks J. Scott for joining the discussion. I will add consideration of your suggestion to the sub-team agenda for next week.
Chuck
*From:* gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *J. Scott Evans *Sent:* Friday, December 13, 2013 11:24 AM *To:* Marika Konings; gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Latest version of draft principles for review
Dear All:
I think the discussions and the draft are really starting to take shape. However, I think a great way to move the discussion forward is to take two example 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 of these principles to help us frame the principles or if a certain principle makes sense or is even workable.
I have attached a revised version of the principles document containing a comment I have on Principle 4.
J. Scott
*j. scott evans - associate general counsel - adobe - 408.536.5336 <408.536.5336> - jscottevans@outlook.com <jscottevans@outlook.com>* ------------------------------
From: marika.konings@icann.org To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 02:06:32 -0800 Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Latest version of draft principles for review
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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl mailing list Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl
_______________________________________________ Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl mailing list Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl
-- Olévié (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org) PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/) SG de ESTETIC (http://www.estetic.tg) Po Box : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25 Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé – Togo
participants (4)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
J. Scott Evans -
Marika Konings -
Olivier Kouami