[Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments

[Gomes, Chuck]

Good suggestion Tom.  Let me personally try to do that.

Chuck

From: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tom Barrett
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 10:02 PM
To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments


It would be helpful for me to see how group members would apply the P&I principles to two real-life situations.  For background info, see domainincite.com.

1. How to resolve the .islam and .halal TLDs.
According to domainincite, "ICANN is going to have to decide whether to approve the new gTLDs .islam and .halal, after the Governmental Advisory Committee punted the issue."
[Chuck Gomes] Principle 1 says that implementation should be multi-stakeholder, so the first thing to do is to review the principles and recommendations that came out of the multi-stakeholder GNSO process.  One principle from the GNSO PDP was that decisions should be based on international law; in this case, there is no international law; if there was, this would be an easy decision.  Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs deals with what was originally called morality & public order but the guidelines are not very specific so it doesn't help very much.  Because this is a public policy issue, we need GAC input and the GAC could not reach consensus; involving the GAC is part of the M-S process. Further M-S processes would be unlikely to help on this so the Board has to make a decision.  If they rely on the input received via M-S processes (i.e., input not received), they probably need to allow the strings unless there is other M-S input that indicates otherwise.
Principle 2 is for policy development so is only applicable if the Board wants to initiate a PDP on this, which would probably be non-productive.
Principle 3 says that implementation processes do not need to be bottom-up unless they involve new policy so it seems to me that it is not necessary for the Board to put this out for total community input.
Principle 4 might be a little helpful here:  "". . Implementation should be regarded as an integral and continuing part of the political policy process rather than an administrative follow-on, and seen as a policy-action dialectic involving negotiation and bargaining between those seeking to put policy into effect and those upon whom action depends.""  Some negotiation and bargaining between impacted parties (applicants and those who oppose the strings is one option.
It's too late for principles 5 (policy recommendations should be clear and unambiguous)  & 9 (WGs should be encouraged to provide as much implementation detail as possible) unless the Board sends it back to the GNSO, which would likely be fruitless.
Principle 6 happened, i.e., the GNSO sought input from the GAC on Recommendation 6 but the input was not sufficient.
I don't think principle 7 applies because this issue doesn't involve a change to policy, nor does principle 8 apply because this doesn't involve an administrative change.
Principle 10 in my opinion was followed in the PDP (Policy development should be based on principles of fairness, notice and due process as well as predictability) except maybe with regard to predictability.
I think the three ALAC proposed principles that make up principle 11 were mostly following by the WG; to deal with the need to be timely and to bring some closure, the WG submitted recommendations that did not satisfy all sides of issues like this one.  In this case though, we may have forced the Board into making an executive decision, but only after a lot of time was spent.
I think that for the most part the core values that make up principle 12 were followed in the policy development and implementation processes related to this issue.
Regarding principle 13 (staff support provided in a neutral manner), I believe that happened regarding this issue both in policy development and implementation.


2.  The proposal from the Brand Registry Group regarding dotbrand rules.
According to domainincite, "The proposed changes were negotiated by ICANN and the Brand Registry Group, a coalition of dot-brand applicants that one day plans to become a formal part of ICANN's policy-making structure."
I would be interested in hearing how others would frame these two situations:


a.       How would you apply the P&I principles for these two items?


b.      When (if at all) should the GNSO participate in these two items?  Why or why not?

c.       Regarding the dotbrand rules: Was this "call for public comment" by ICANN the appropriate next step for the BRG proposal?  Why or why not?

[Chuck Gomes] I will not go through all 13 principles for this one.

I think that Principle 4 is applicable here:  "". . Implementation should be regarded as an integral and continuing part of the political policy process rather than an administrative follow-on, and seen as a policy-action dialectic involving negotiation and bargaining between those seeking to put policy into effect and those upon whom action depends.""  This is exactly what happened here and I don't think the proposed results went against any of the policy recommendations.  In fact, it appears that the proposed solution dealt with some issues that the WG did not consider in detail.



Thomas Barrett
EnCirca, Inc.  - President
400 West Cummings Park, #1725
Woburn, MA US 01801
+1.781.942.9975 ext: 11
+1.781.823.8911 (fax)
+1.781.492.1315 (cell)

From: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 7:46 AM
To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl at icann.org<mailto:gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Draft principles - comments

To kick things off, I've added a couple of comments / questions as well as proposed edits to the draft provided by Chuck (see attached).

Best regards,

Marika
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl/attachments/20131211/f539ad38/attachment-0001.html>