[council] Policy vs. Implementation: Public Comment period open

Glen de Saint Géry Glen at icann.org
Fri Feb 1 23:55:45 UTC 2013

Policy vs. Implementation

Comment/Reply Periods (*)

Important Information Links

Comment Open:

31 January 2013

Comment Close:

21 February 2013

Close Time (UTC):


Public Comment Announcement

Reply Open:

22 February 2013

 <mailto:comments-policy-implementation-31jan13 at icann.org> To Submit Your
Comments (Forum)

Reply Close:

14 March 2013

View Comments Submitted

Close Time (UTC):


Report of Public Comments

Brief Overview

Originating Organization:



Policy Processes

Purpose (Brief):

In order to encourage feedback on the ICANN Staff Paper
an13-en.pdf> 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


Policy-staff at icann.org
<mailto:Policy-staff at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Polic

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.
an13-en.pdf> 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

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

an13-en.pdf> Policy versus Implementation – Draft Framework for Discussion
[PDF, 195 KB]

Section IV: Additional Information



(*) 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

 <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org

 <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130201/60c83961/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5503 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130201/60c83961/smime.p7s>

More information about the council mailing list