hi Tony, i think this is at the crux of the issue of the role of the GNSO. i think the GNSO (and the other AC/SO leadership groups, plus the Board) are the right place to ask/answer the question "what KIND of thing is this proposed action?" i would guess that in many cases, the staff assessment would come to the review group (Council, Constituencies, something else) and the group would say "yes, you're right, this is the right course for this activity to take." but where there's disagreement, i think it's better to thrash those out before the action is taken. the worst case, it seems to me, would be a situation where the GNSO remains deadlocked after several iterations of revisions by the staff. certainly possible -- but at least the community would have been given a chance to participate/observe. maybe *that's* the point that it goes to the Board for a decision on what kind of thing it is. is your suggestion that we substitute the Constituencies, for the Council? i'm not sure i follow how that will do a better job of deciding whether the staff's assessment is correct -- won't that still have to go up to the Council before going back to the staff? would each Constituency feed their thoughts back to the staff and the staff consolidate and react to them? that might be another approach. but just as you argue that we shouldn't overload the Council, i would argue that we should be careful in overloading the Constituencies. the current discussion on the Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement is a perfect/timely test case for this discussion. reading the comments, it's clear that once again we've got processes under way which would have benefited from being run through a "policy vs implementation" filter first. there's a *really* lively disagreement emerging in the comments. here's a link to the comments page: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/ i think that the community would benefit a lot from a process that gave the Council a heads up, and gave them a chance to decide whether this was policy or implementation before the changes were formulated and rolled out. mikey On Feb 26, 2013, at 2:38 PM, tony holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wrote:
Mikey One view that I share with Marilyn is that we need to differentiate some of the issues, so that where it clearly isn’t GNSO policy the Constituencies take the lead. We also recognised this within our paper on the impact of new gTLds.
The problem I have with your approach is that it tends to put the GNSO at the heart of the process once again. I’d find that hard to support. Regards Tony
From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: 26 February 2013 16:39 To: <ispcp@icann.org> Subject: [ispcp] comments please: a drawing for our comment on policy vs. implementation
hi all,
i'm drafting our reply-comments to the Policy vs Implementation working paper. as i've read the other comments, i have started to come to the position that we may be trying to over-legistlate this. my basic idea is this -- rather that a huge effort to develop detailed criteria for each possible Policy vs Implementation decision, what if we put a review by the AC/SO's into the process?
so i've drawn a flow diagram of a possible way to handle the process and would be very interested in your thoughts. the two changes to the process implied by Marika's drawing are:
- insert the AC/SOs in the decision-making process
- indicate that the process of review is iterative -- that AC/SOs get to send the decision back to the staff for review/refinement
i think this does a few things
- it's an appropriate task for AC/SOs, in their policy-management role
- it reduces the need for excruciating detail in criteria and (correctly, in my view) increases reliance on the judgement and wisdom of the policy-management bodies
- provides a chance to iteratively arrive at an approach that has broad approval and acceptance in the community.
the picture is attached. any thoughts? slashing criticism ("Mikey you're crazy") is fine!
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)