Per Nic's and Chuck's suggestions, please find attached a revised version of the proposed working principles document. If you have any additional comments / edits, please share these by Wednesday 26 February at the latest. Best regards, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Monday 24 February 2014 22:28 To: Nic Steinbach <nic@name.com> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org" <gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] For final review - revised working principles document Looks good to me Nic. Chuck From: Nic Steinbach [mailto:nic@name.com] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:50 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] For final review - revised working principles document Hi Chuck, I had a suggestion in that first email, but here is another suggestion that I think makes it a little more concrete. "The development and implementation of policy must have a basis in and adhere to standards of fairness, notice, transparency, integrity, objectivity, predictability and due process consistent with ICANN's core values [link to values]." Quite a mouthful, but it is a pretty straightforward approach to capturing all of the descriptors in both of the sentences. I also didn't want to have the word "principle" in a principle. As you said I would roll it into section B. What do you (and others) think? -Nic On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I like this Nic. I wondered if that is what you meant. What language would you suggest? Chuck From: Nic Steinbach [mailto:nic@name.com] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:17 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] For final review - revised working principles document "My preference is to roll them together into section C. " I apologize. Should be: "My preference is to roll them together into a bullet point in section B." On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Nic Steinbach <nic@name.com> wrote: Hi Chuck, I think that while these provisions contain similar language, in context they seem to be referring to different principles. C. 1.) b) - Seems to be referring to the development of policy. The "development should be based on principles of fairness, notice, transparency and due process as well as predictability." D. 1.) c.) - Seems to be referring to the application of policy. "Applying documented policies neutrally and objectively, with integrity and fairness." I don't think that these are duplicates, although we may want to make sure that D.1.) c.) makes reference to implementation explicitly instead of "applying documented policies." Alternatively we could roll both of these provisions into section B (Principles that apply to policy and implementation) and remove them from C. and D. Something like: "Policy development and implementation should be based on and adhere to principles of fairness, notice, transparency, integrity, objectivity, predictability and due process." My preference is to roll them together into section C. Best, Nic On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Sorry about forgetting to attach the file. Here it is.
Chuck
From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:21 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; 'gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org' Subject: RE: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] For final review - revised working principles document
You guys did great work last Thursday. The principles document looks very good and the organization of it seems very clear and logical to me. Other than one think that is repeated as shown with two comments in the attached file, it looks very close to being ready to send to the full WG. I am assuming that our agenda for our call this coming Thursday will be to make any final tweaks, after which we would send it to the full WG so that they can review it before the WG call on 5 March. Is that correct?
What is the thinking with regard to the Notes to Pass Back to the WG? Is the assumption that we do not need to develop any principles for these items? What expectations for the WG are there?
Chuck
From:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org] <mailto:[mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 5:27 PM To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] For final review - revised working principles document
Dear All,
Following our call today, please find attached the revised version of the working principles document, both in redline (capturing the changes of today's meeting) as well as a clean version (with a separate annex covering 'notes to the WG'). As those sub-team members that were on the call are of the view that this is now ready for submission to the full WG, you are encouraged to let the mailing list know if you disagree with this assessment and/or share any additional edits / comments you may have.
If no substantive comments are received by Wednesday 26 March, the proposed working principles will be submitted to the full WG for review and discussion at its next meeting on 5 March.
Thanks for all your hard work!
Best regards,
Marika
_______________________________________________ Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl mailing list Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl
-- Nic Steinbach Strategic Relationship Manager 209.681.7838 <tel:209.681.7838> -- Nic Steinbach Strategic Relationship Manager 209.681.7838 <tel:209.681.7838> -- Nic Steinbach Strategic Relationship Manager 209.681.7838
Thanks Marika. This looks good to me. The only other thing we could do that I can think of is to identify which core value is referenced in the added bullet in section B but I can live with it as it is. Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 4:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Nic Steinbach Cc: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: Updated version for review Per Nic's and Chuck's suggestions, please find attached a revised version of the proposed working principles document. If you have any additional comments / edits, please share these by Wednesday 26 February at the latest. Best regards, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Monday 24 February 2014 22:28 To: Nic Steinbach <nic@name.com> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org" <gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] For final review - revised working principles document Looks good to me Nic. Chuck From: Nic Steinbach [mailto:nic@name.com] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:50 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] For final review - revised working principles document Hi Chuck, I had a suggestion in that first email, but here is another suggestion that I think makes it a little more concrete. "The development and implementation of policy must have a basis in and adhere to standards of fairness, notice, transparency, integrity, objectivity, predictability and due process consistent with ICANN's core values [link to values]." Quite a mouthful, but it is a pretty straightforward approach to capturing all of the descriptors in both of the sentences. I also didn't want to have the word "principle" in a principle. As you said I would roll it into section B. What do you (and others) think? -Nic On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I like this Nic. I wondered if that is what you meant. What language would you suggest? Chuck From: Nic Steinbach [mailto:nic@name.com] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:17 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] For final review - revised working principles document "My preference is to roll them together into section C. " I apologize. Should be: "My preference is to roll them together into a bullet point in section B." On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Nic Steinbach <nic@name.com> wrote: Hi Chuck, I think that while these provisions contain similar language, in context they seem to be referring to different principles. C. 1.) b) - Seems to be referring to the development of policy. The "development should be based on principles of fairness, notice, transparency and due process as well as predictability." D. 1.) c.) - Seems to be referring to the application of policy. "Applying documented policies neutrally and objectively, with integrity and fairness." I don't think that these are duplicates, although we may want to make sure that D.1.) c.) makes reference to implementation explicitly instead of "applying documented policies." Alternatively we could roll both of these provisions into section B (Principles that apply to policy and implementation) and remove them from C. and D. Something like: "Policy development and implementation should be based on and adhere to principles of fairness, notice, transparency, integrity, objectivity, predictability and due process." My preference is to roll them together into section C. Best, Nic On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Sorry about forgetting to attach the file. Here it is. Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:21 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; 'gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org' Subject: RE: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] For final review - revised working principles document You guys did great work last Thursday. The principles document looks very good and the organization of it seems very clear and logical to me. Other than one think that is repeated as shown with two comments in the attached file, it looks very close to being ready to send to the full WG. I am assuming that our agenda for our call this coming Thursday will be to make any final tweaks, after which we would send it to the full WG so that they can review it before the WG call on 5 March. Is that correct? What is the thinking with regard to the Notes to Pass Back to the WG? Is the assumption that we do not need to develop any principles for these items? What expectations for the WG are there? Chuck From:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org] <mailto:[mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 5:27 PM To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] For final review - revised working principles document Dear All, Following our call today, please find attached the revised version of the working principles document, both in redline (capturing the changes of today's meeting) as well as a clean version (with a separate annex covering 'notes to the WG'). As those sub-team members that were on the call are of the view that this is now ready for submission to the full WG, you are encouraged to let the mailing list know if you disagree with this assessment and/or share any additional edits / comments you may have. If no substantive comments are received by Wednesday 26 March, the proposed working principles will be submitted to the full WG for review and discussion at its next meeting on 5 March. Thanks for all your hard work! Best regards, Marika _______________________________________________ Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl mailing list Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl -- Nic Steinbach Strategic Relationship Manager 209.681.7838 Description: Image removed by sender. -- Nic Steinbach Strategic Relationship Manager 209.681.7838 Description: Image removed by sender. -- Nic Steinbach Strategic Relationship Manager 209.681.7838 Description: Image removed by sender.
participants (2)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Marika Konings