This is a repeated request from the chairs of the Policy&Implementation WG for responding to questions re the work of this WG (see attached). As the WG has already started working with some subteams it is essential to get input soon (until end of January). Is anybody willing to draft a first skeleton of responses? I’ll join this effort in drafting some ideas. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 10:00 PM To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] FW: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group I would like to request assistance from all WG members who represent a GNSO SG or Constituency to do what you can to encourage your respective groups to responds to the request for input that J. Scott and I requested several months ago. The attached letter was originally sent to Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Council Chair and to other SO/AC leaders on September 20, 2013 but the P&I WG has not yet received any response except from the ALAC. We originally asked for responses by 31 October 2013 but later extended it to 31 January 2014. Anything you can do to facilitate responses by the end of this month would be greatly appreciated. I plan to do what I can in the case of the RySG. Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 3:23 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: gnso-policyimpl-chairs (gnso-policyimpl-chairs@icann.org) Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Attached is the letter we sent to the other SO/ACs. These went out on 20 September. I double checked and the letter did go to Jonathan as the GNSO Council Chair, but from the comments received from WG members, it looks like it was not forwarded to the SG/C Chairs. If you agree, we can send it to them today. Would 17 January be a reasonable deadline for input? Thanks for confirming. Best regards, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wednesday 4 December 2013 23:20 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs (gnso-policyimpl-chairs@icann.org)" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Thanks Marika. I missed that. I can’t seem to find the letter we sent to the other SOs and ACs. Would you please send it to this list? Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: gnso-policyimpl-chairs (gnso-policyimpl-chairs@icann.org) Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group It says 'In this regard, we would ask for your organization to consider the following questions which are set out in the WG’s Charter and provide us with any input the GAC may have on any or all of these issues by 30 November'. But to fair, in the letter to the ALAC we said 31 October ;-) Marika On 4 dec. 2013, at 23:13, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Here’s the letter to the GAC that was sent on 18 Oct. It doesn’t look like we gave a requested reply date. Chuck From:owner-gnso-policyimpl-chairs@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 1:09 PM To: heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca Cc: Olof Nordling; gnso-policyimpl-chairs (gnso-policyimpl-chairs@icann.org) (gnso-policyimpl-chairs@icann.org) Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Dear Heather: We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working Group. This Working Group (P&I WG) has been tasked with providing the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on the following issues: - A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO procedures; - A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of “Policy Guidance,” including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process (for a process developing something other than “Consensus Policy”) instead of the GNSO Policy Development Process; - A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO Policy recommendations; - Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and - Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate. From the onset of this process, the WG would like to gain input from the GAC to support us in our efforts. In this regard, we would ask for your organization to consider the following questions which are set out in the WG’s Charter and provide us with any input the GAC may have on any or all of these issues by 30 November. 1.. What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2) directly provide with regard to policy development work and policy implementation efforts? 2.. What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate indirectly to policy development and policy implementation? 3.. “Questions for Discussion” contained in the Policy and Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff. (See, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en...). 4.. What lessons can be learned from past experience? 1.. What are the consequences of action being considered “policy” or “implementation”? 2.. Does it matter if something is “policy” or “implementation”? If so, why? 3.. Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council make recommendations or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and implementation as a representative of the GNSO as a whole? 4.. How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., I will call this “policy” because I want certain consequences or “handling instructions” to be attached to it?) 5.. Can we answer these questions so the definitions of “policy” and “implementation” matter less, if at all? 5.. What options are available for policy (“Consensus Policy” or other) and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which should be used? 1.. Are “policy” and “implementation” on a spectrum rather than binary? 2.. What are the variations of policy and what consequences should attach to each variation? 3.. What happens if you change those consequences? 6.. Who determines the choice of whether something is “policy” or “implementation”? 1.. How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to different variations? 2.. How is the “policy” and “implementation” issue reviewed and approved? 3.. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock? 7.. What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review and approval work is done? 1.. How are “policy and implementation” issues first identified (before, during and after implementation)? 2.. What is the role of the GNSO in implementation? 3.. In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once policy moves to implementation, how should the community be involved in a way that is meaningful and effective? 4.. Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process to facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that already occurred? Alternatively or in support of your efforts to respond to the above, if you would like to set up a teleconference in advance of the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires or an in-person meeting in Buenos Aires, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well. We are very happy to report that two GAC participants have joined the WG in their personal capacities: Olga Cavalli and Carlos Raul Guttierez. To the extent that these WG members might be willing to do so, we are open to the possibility of exploring whether it might be possible for either or both of them to serve in an informal and unofficial liaison capacity to facilitate communications between the GAC and WG. If you would like to discuss this further, please let us know. We would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full community and we welcome any additional members from the GAC that my wish to participate in this work in their personal capacities. To review the current membership, please see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag. Finally, we want to acknowledge receipt of a suggestion from Suzanne Radell that this WG might be an opportunity to experiment with a new approach for GAC/GNSO collaboration. As chairs of the P&I WG, we are very open to this idea and we have referred it to the GNSO Council chair for further consideration. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to reach out to either of us if you have any questions or if you require any additional information. Kind regards. Chuck Gomes (cgomes@verisign.com) J. Scott Evans (jscottevans@outlook.com)