[council] Draft motion on RPM Working Group data request for submission to GNSO Council
rubensk at nic.br
Thu Sep 21 04:20:41 UTC 2017
> On Sep 21, 2017, at 12:16 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
> Thanks for this further feedback.
> I am aware that the new gTLDs went through multiple permutations and am not personally familiar with all the twists and turns from the IRT to STI to Applicant Guidebook to implementation decisions. My co-chairs may have more intimate knowledge and I invite them, as well as support staff, to chime in regarding your assertion.
And as I mentioned to Paul in the chat during the meeting, that analysis is up to WG, not to Council... I mentioned the differences I see between approved policy and implemented RPMs, other people might see them differently, although it looks to me as most people looking into matter end up reaching consensus that they differ. For instance, I now remembered TM+50 as one other difference... as more people look into this, more discrepancies will be noticed.
> Whether the RPMs as implemented are policy or just implementation details can be debated, but they are clearly not Consensus Policy as our Charter requires to consider and recommend whether one or more of them should become so.
One of the main outcomes of the policy implementation framework was exactly to reckon that the line between policy and implementation is difficult to draw, but even changing for a neutral like "output", the currently implemented RPMs are not consistent of GNSO output.
And while one or more RPMs might become Consensus Policy, that's more due to the possibility of applying it to all gTLDs, which requires the Consensus Policy framework in order to be enforced with ICANN agreements with contracted parties. But the RPMs guiding subsequent gTLD procedures, the focus of phase 1, can and will become GNSO policy even though not being Consensus Policy (the two can be different in implementation phase since they don't apply to existing contracts).
> As for determining which if any deviate the most from approved policy, I suppose we could consider that as a factor if we have to perform survey triage due to budget constraints , if we can agree on how to measure that.
Since there are not that many surveys to choose from, even a gross measure criteria would be enough to make decisions. If there were 200 options, a selection criteria would need to be much more precise...
> On the other hand, our Charter does require us to evaluate them all, and we can only collect data on the RPMs as actually implemented.
That's a good point that goes both ways: data only exists on the RPMs as they were implemented, and data does not exist on the originally envisioned RPMs, since they were not implemented. So even the available data might not be able to answer some questions like which mechanism should be used.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council