[council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections

Sun Dec 2 16:43:06 CET 2012

Yes, I think this fundamental work should be done within the ICANN context.

We should not reinvent the state of the art but use it to understand/frame
ICANN's specificities. Management sciences can provide all the generic
knowledge one will ever need about what constitutes policy and what
constitutes implementation, but we need a practical working definition
which works for ICANN. It is too convenient for the GAC to tweak its
position around a policy/implementation dichotomy without providing
supporting arguments.

I agree with Joy that the image of the GNSO policy making process needs to
be improved. How to do that?

I also like and praise Avri's courageous attempt to find a simple boundary
definition between policy and implementation. In most if not all private
organizations, for profit or not for profit, and even parastatal and
international organizations, it is the Board or a quasi-Board that makes
policy (with stakeholders' input and staff advice) and the
CEO/ED/GM/President/staff implement programs and operations within the
policies. In that sense, if applied to ICANN, GNSO, as a policy making
body, should report to the Board.... Maybe it is the case - please excuse
my ignorance - and if not where does the GNSO report?

Thinking of the purpose of Constituencies and SGs, I find it short-sighted
that their only or main purpose would be to contribute to policy to feed
the GNSO making by consulting their members. I can think of many other ways
to contribute to ICANN's mission: outreach, dissemination, education,
advocacy come to mind.

I hope this helps

Alain

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:17 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Yes, long overdue.
>
> Bill
>
> On Nov 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Other than the fact that he needs to include ALAC and ccNSO in the Cross
> community mix, I think this is a great idea.
> >
> > I did a bit of research on this yesterday since I was trying to answer
> the question. In the context of writing my application for the ATRT, which
> remains undone, I noticed that included in the last ATRT report was a
> requirement that the distinction between policy and administrative action
> be defined.  Administrative action may be somewhat different than
> implementation, but i tend to think of implementation as a form of
> administrative action.  In replying to this ATRT requirement, what they did
> was describe the process for SO policy making, and the policy for Admin
> action making and give a few examples.  In other words the definition, in
> so far as I understand it, is that if an SO does it, it is policy and if
> the Board or Staff does it, it is Administrative action. And that it is a
> Board or Staff decision as to whether community input is required.  While I
> am sure I can be shown that I am simplifying somewhat, this is what I
> understood from the response they gave.  I personally find this lacking.
> >
> > So yes, I think doing this is a great idea.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 30 Nov 2012, at 06:59, joy wrote:
> >
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Hi all - sharing this message with you.
> >> This letter has sparked a debate among GNSO Councillors about whether
> >> or not there should be some work on defining "policy" vs
> >> "implementation" and/or some GNSO principles. the discussion began
> >> with Jeff Neumann's suggestion:
> >> "I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues immediately
> >> and decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up multi-stakeholder
> >> definition of what is ?policy? and what is ?implementation.?  Or at
> >> the very least a framework for making that assessment when issues
> >> arise.  I would advocate for a cross community group made up of
> >> members from ICANN staff, the GNSO, the GAC and others to come
> >> together to figure this issue out, so that we get out of this rut we
> >> are now in.  At the same time, we need to fix the image of the GNSO
> >> policy processes so that they are no longer feared, but embraced.
> >> They need to not be used as vehicles for delay, but rather utilized
> >> for the common good."
> >>
> >> It would help us as Councillors to have your views on this idea.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Joy
> >>
> >>
> >> - -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject:     [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC
> Protections
> >> Date:        Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:59:54 -0000
> >> From:        Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> >> To:  <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> FYI.  Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my
> >> time.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *From:*GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec at gac.icann.org]
> >> *Sent:* 28 November 2012 21:38
> >> *To:* jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
> >> *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll;
> >> alice at apc.org; Choon Sai LIM (IDA)
> >> *Subject:* Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Jonathan,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red
> >> Cross/Red Crescent protections.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jeannie Ellers
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jeannie Ellers
> >> Manager, GAC Coordination
> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> >> 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930
> >>
> >> Washington, DC 20005
> >> Ph. +1 202 570 7135
> >> M. +1 310 302 7552
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> >> Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >>
> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQuCEaAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqyFUH+QEupaWuP0Y6Vb7NV/vd1+UI
> >> X/qkrHqc42p8lYSa057tz0RimfwJrP848bid5VuOzbSrnJLNvPrCv405ENX3ldG7
> >> Sfob89CG9kosEmFfNO7vxzUxGFFaZWQrWwLKYcmjIovvkPGONOBsXH6Sx4URvCf3
> >> VaRD/YNzTVCeWnX4eWA916I/ppa7p3vXtkbhjPHVFlE4XxY/LKXTrffdDoFZh+mA
> >> 4GO+8mfaWO+F80J5Nz5d/lkccf5r3ycZnbJeoV3pSyu2dDzTPWtv8zpShEvtfZRu
> >> 1kEsW0qfiWt4dK0ZIGDrQp8SoAAMD954IoIuCu5K6wi7/zMVZF+MV8UNWiwzZi8=
> >> =b5WL
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> <GAC_GNSOCouncil_20121128.pdf>
>

-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger

AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement
interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le
reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou
si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de
votre coopération.

CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use
of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone
other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for
forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose,
distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or
in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and
destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121202/a7b8a033/attachment.html>