[NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [liaison6c] Policy vs. Implementation: Public Comment period open

[Robin Gross]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: February 1, 2013 3:57:08 PM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Policy vs. Implementation: Public Comment  
> period open
>
> Policy vs. Implementation
>
> Comment/Reply Periods (*)
> Important Information Links
> Comment Open:
> 31 January 2013
> Comment Close:
> 21 February 2013
> Close Time (UTC):
> 23:59
> Public Comment Announcement
> Reply Open:
> 22 February 2013
> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
> Reply Close:
> 14 March 2013
> View Comments Submitted
> Close Time (UTC):
> 23:59
> Report of Public Comments
> Brief Overview
> Originating Organization:
> ICANN Staff
> Categories/Tags:
> Policy Processes
> Purpose (Brief):
> In order to encourage feedback on the ICANN Staff Paper Policy vs.  
> Implementation – Draft Framework for Discussion [PDF, 195 KB], a  
> public comment forum has now been opened.
> Current Status:
> ICANN Staff has developed a paper outlining a draft framework for  
> community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria  
> that might facilitate dealing with questions relating to policy vs.  
> implementation in the future.
> Next Steps:
> The received comments are expected to feed into the session that is  
> being planned on this topic at the ICANN meeting in Beijing.
> Staff Contact:
> Marika Konings
> Email:
> Policy-staff at icann.org
> Detailed Information
> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose
> Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation  
> related issues of the new gTLD program, there is increased focus on  
> which topics call for policy and which call for implementation  
> work, including which processes should be used, at what time and  
> how diverging opinions should be acted upon. In order to facilitate  
> these discussions, ICANN Staff has developed a draft framework for  
> community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria  
> that might facilitate dealing with similar questions in the future.  
> The paper [PDF, 195 KB] identifies a number of questions that the  
> community may want to consider further in this context, as well as  
> a couple of suggested improvements that could be considered in the  
> short term. While developing a bright-line rule as to what is  
> policy or implementation may not be possible, the hope is that by  
> developing clear processes and identifying clear roles and  
> responsibilities for the different stakeholders, it will become  
> easier to deal with these issues going forward and allow for broad  
> participation and involvement. In order to facilitate discussions  
> on this topic, a session is being scheduled at the ICANN meeting in  
> Beijing. Input received as a result of this public comment forum is  
> intended to feed into those discussions, which are also intended to  
> identify next steps.
>
> Section II: Background
> There are multiple kinds of "policy" within the ICANN world. There  
> are formal policies developed through the policy development  
> processes as set forth in the Bylaws. There are operational  
> policies generally not subject to a PDP or considered  
> implementation, such as the Conflicts of Interest Policy, but for  
> which public comment is sought and considered. Finally, there are  
> general practices that are sometimes referred to as "little p"  
> policies or more accurately "procedures", such as the 30-day public  
> comment requirement for Bylaw changes. Within this category again  
> there are a variety of considerations. There could be established  
> practices, for example, on topics that although within scope of a  
> policy development process (PDP) have not resulted in a formal  
> recommendation to the Board that could serve as authoritative  
> "Policy." In some of those instances, for example vertical  
> integration or registrar accreditation procedures, ICANN identified  
> a path forward and if a policy recommendation on these topics were  
> to later arise through a PDP, ICANN would then consider how that  
> policy might impact or require change to established practice(s)  
> (resulting in "Policy").
>
> One area that is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN  
> community is identifying the proper process to follow when there  
> are changes to policy recommendations that have already been  
> adopted by the Board, or to the proposals related to the  
> implementation of approved policy recommendations. Questions have  
> been raised about when those issues need to be vetted using a new  
> PDP and when it would suffice to use public comment to vet a  
> proposed change for public comment and for the Board and/or staff  
> to act on that based on the comment received. Such questions arose,  
> for example, during the evolution of the applicant guidebook for  
> the New gTLD Program, and also during the negotiation of key  
> contracts such as the .com and .net registry agreements regarding  
> the impact of potential incorporation of a "thick" Whois registry  
> model.
>
> Another, associated issue is when resolution of a new issue should  
> be supported by a consensus of the ICANN community, and when an  
> issue arising from the implementation of a policy may be  
> effectuated by the ICANN Board or ICANN Staff upon taking a range  
> of advice even if there is no consensus within the ICANN community.
>
> In order to better deal with the issues outlined in this paper,  
> ICANN Staff has outlined a number of proposed principles to serve  
> as a basis for this discussion as well as developed a proposed  
> framework which can be found in the annex to the paper.
>
> Section III: Document and Resource Links
> Policy versus Implementation – Draft Framework for Discussion [PDF,  
> 195 KB]
> Section IV: Additional Information
> N/A
> (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not  
> guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis,  
> reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period  
> lapses.
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130202/4726cd06/attachment.html>