Dear SG/Constituency Chair:

We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working Group.  This Working Group (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.

As part of the effort, the WG wants to reach out at the beginning of our efforts to the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as we have already done to other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to gain input to assist 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 your input on any of these issues by 31 January 2014.

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? (e.g., multi-stakeholder participation).

2.      What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate indirectly to policy development and policy implementation?  (e.g., effective and timely process).

3.      “Questions for Discussion” contained in the Policy versus Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff.  (See, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en.htm).

4.      What lessons can be learned from past experience?

a.      What are the consequences of action being considered “policy” vs.
“implementation”?

b.      Does it matter if something is “policy” or “implementation”?  If so, why?

c.      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?

d.      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?)

e.      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?

a.      Are “policy” and “implementation” on a spectrum rather than binary?

b.      What are the “flavors” of policy and what consequences should attach to each “flavor?

c.      What happens if you change those consequences?

6.      Who determines the choice of whether something is “policy” or “implementation”?

a.      How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to different “flavors”?

b.      How is the “policy” versus “implementation” issue reviewed and approved?

c.      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?

a.      How are “policy and implementation” issues first identified (before, during and after implementation)?

b.      What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?

c.      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?

d.      Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process to facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that already occurred?

Alternatively, if you would prefer to set up an exchange of views by teleconference, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well.

Finally, we would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full community and we welcome any additional members from your organization that my wish to participate in this work. To review the current membership, please see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag.

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)