<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Mikey<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>One view that I do 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The problem I have with your approach is that it tends to put the GNSO, where we don’t often have that much support for our views, at the heart of the process once again. Until we have a balanced GNSO, I’d find that hard to support.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Tony<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mike O'Connor<br><b>Sent:</b> 26 February 2013 16:39<br><b>To:</b> <ispcp@icann.org><br><b>Subject:</b> [ispcp] comments please: a drawing for our comment on policy vs. implementation<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>hi all,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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? <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- insert the AC/SOs in the decision-making process<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- indicate that the process of review is iterative -- that AC/SOs get to send the decision back to the staff for review/refinement<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>i think this does a few things<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- it's an appropriate task for AC/SOs, in their policy-management role<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- 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<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- provides a chance to iteratively arrive at an approach that has broad approval and acceptance in the community.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>the picture is attached. any thoughts? slashing criticism ("Mikey you're crazy") is fine!<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>mikey<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>