POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)

Fri Nov 30 03:07:11 UTC 2012

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Jonathan and thanks for forwarding this.
Jeff, this is an interesting idea which I've asked for comments on
from our constituency group.
I think it is a good idea to take a step back from the issues and look
strategically at what is happening and why in the GNSO relationship
with the GAC. The examples you cite are symptoms, I agree, of a wider
problem and they will simply keep happening if not resolved. I'm not
convinced getting agreed definitions of "policy" vs "implementation"
will resolve some of these issues. But if it is a measure to assist
and has community support then the Council should consider it.
Thanks for raising this
Kind regards
Joy

On 30/11/2012 3:55 a.m., Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> All,
> 
> 
> 
> We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention.
> I am not referring to the merits of whether any of these
> organizations deserve protection or not, or whether there should be
> additional safeguards for IP owners in the new gTLD process or
> whether certain Whois Review team recommendations could be put into
> place .  Forget all of that.  Forget the merits and substance of
> these important issues.
> 
> 
> 
> The real issue is that new reliance on the terms “policy” vs. 
> “implementation.”  This is the issue that should receive top
> priority. To quote Alan Greenberg (or at least paraphrase), when
> one group wants something in place without using the policy
> process, they call it “implementation.”  Those that oppose it, call
> it “policy.”  While that statement was made several times by Alan
> partly in jest, that statement does have merit.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets look at the following 3 examples:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.       _ IOC/RC_– As the letter sent around by Jonathan shows,
> the GAC is thoroughly annoyed with the GNSO for starting a policy
> process on the protection of IOC and Red Cross marks.  They believe
> (although unstated), that they have exclusive jurisdiction over
> these types of public policy issues and do not want the GNSO to
> take “years” to work out whether these organizations (which they
> believe are protected by law) should receive protections in the new
> gTLD process.  Without commenting on the merits of this argument,
> look at what they have done. They have called the protections as
> nothing more than “implementation” and therefore, the GNSO should
> explain itself as to why we believe we have a right to start a
> policy process on it.  After all, implementation can just be
> enacted by the Board.  There is no need for the GNSO to get 
> involved, in their view…nor do they want it.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.       _Whois Review Team_:  The ICANN Board sought guidance from
> the entire Internet community on whether the recommendations
> involved “implementation” or “policy”.  Why? Because if it is
> implementation, there is no need to involve the GNSO community and
> it can just be enacted.  Those that supported the recommendations
> wholeheartedly called them “implementation.”  Those that opposed
> the recommendations called it “policy.”  I believe that many who
> called it policy actually truly believe there are policy issues
> involved, but some called it policy, to have it go through the long
> drawn out process we call a PDP (with the hopes that it dies a slow
> death).  Neither side of this debate is blameless.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.       _The now infamous New gTLD “straw-man”_:  For the record,
> I was a part of the group that discussed the straw man in Brussels
> and LA over the past few weeks.  I found those discussions very
> useful and appreciate the efforts being made by the new ICANN CEO,
> who I have a tremendous amount of respect for.  I believe he truly
> will make a huge positive impact on ICANN for many years to come.
> But, now the debate has turned into what is policy and what is
> implementation.  The IPC/BC and their representatives have called
> all of their proposals “implementation”.   The NCSG, Registries,
> Registrars and Applicants have called much of it policy.  ICANN
> staff has now weighed in on their thoughts and have classified
> certain items as implementation (thereby negating the need for GNSO
> policy development), and other items as policy, thereby requiring
> extensive involvement from the GNSO community – note I did NOT say
> necessarily PDP).
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now 
> having will become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the
> merits). If not, I see these issues getting much worse over the
> coming months/years.  I believe the future of the GNSO, and even
> the multi-stakeholder model in general hinge on the definition of
> these 2 words.
> 
> 
> 
> I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business
> Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan
> Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM *To:*
> council at gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] FW: Letter from the GAC
> regarding IOC/RC Protections
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com> *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi
> Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice at apc.org
> <mailto: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/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQuCLfAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq2UYIALFsC+nao4XbcAJOAQn8MKC1
9bkXt7+nH68krEvF7ApfgUrO5JIHX9lEFHS25NSS/tq0KW003dp96WNL0QmVoQPj
aqn7NWlplQkVY57eBeF7QxUYwum4jZencdtcpIrpAySPa8uk+jBY9sx/nlxVoNYE
8HbLfTlxPr0leeZ9BdZb8oqxzCmr4WpjTGw/UYMxHPEf8fEptkHFHgEQEty9rpyo
eSNQnnbjPHPvoliM8rUSfUca1VpFGNYVJJc9Di5I6xNY3Zar4OX0YmTEyD20j7uc
41nCb8yn8RWfgYHCcY4fURxOs5NDuv+JedrFq7Jbil8KBAkiFoAwoJxeJYPQm5A=
=i1KX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----