[council] [Ext] Re: Consensus Policy Implementation Framework Updates - input by 31 July 2018

[Pam Little]

Dear Brian,

Thank you for taking into consideration the comments and suggestions from the RrSG.  

@RrSG: Recommend keeping this as “all” because contracted parties may wish to provide data to supplement any data ICANN has available to inform post-implementation reviews. 
In response to your comment above, our concern regarding "who will collect the data" was not so much about sources of data but more about who should be responsible for gathering/compiling the necessary data and metrics from various sources (ICANN Compliance, GDD, registrars, registries, other third party data providers, etc.) and make them available for review purposes. We still believe this should be more specific other than "All" but would defer it to staff. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input.

Kind regards,

Pam


------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Brian Aitchison <brian.aitchison at icann.org>
Sent at:2018 Aug 24 (Fri) 07:32
To:PAMELA LITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>; council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>; council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
Cc:Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>; Amy Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org>
Subject:Re: [Ext] Re: [council] Consensus Policy Implementation Framework Updates - input by 31 July 2018


Dear Pam, RrSG, and GNSO Council,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the suggested updates to the CPIF. We’ve had a chance to discuss them, and have attached a version that responds to your input. We accepted all the minor tweaks made, but thought some of the language in the “Support and Review” stage merits slight modification. You’ll see there are three comment boxes in that section for your consideration (on the last two pages).

Generally, the comments and suggested language are intended to provide for some more flexibility in which reporting sources can be leveraged for a policy review, and the timeframe in which a Policy Status Report is produced. 

Please review the attached and let us know what you think. 

All best,

Brian

-- 
Brian Aitchison 
Lead Researcher
Operations & Policy Research
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Los Angeles, CA
p. 310 578 8688
m. 424 353 9041
e.  brian.aitchison at icann.org
Sk. brian.aitchison.icann

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be confidential and/or legally privileged.  If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message.  Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.




From: Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
Reply-To: Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 4:04 PM
To: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>, council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>, Brian Aitchison <brian.aitchison at icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Consensus Policy Implementation Framework Updates - input by 31 July 2018

Hi Marika, Brian, Karen
Please find attached suggested edits from the RrSG for consideration. 
As you will see, most of them are minor tweaks, except our proposed changes around data and metrics for measuring policy effectiveness. We understand this was one of the issues identified in the CCT Review so our suggested changes are intended to clarify:

 Who will collect the data - Here the responsible party is "All" (so there could be a potential risk of "no ownership"). We think ICANN services should be responsible for collecting the data (not the contracted parties, unless it is mandated in the contracts or the policy).

 When to collect the data - We suggest this should start as soon as the policy becomes effective.

 When the data should be made available  - We suggest the data and metrics should be included in Compliance Annual Report and made available for scheduled formal review and post-implementation policy status report.
Please let me know if you have any questions. I would be happy to explain our thinking/reasons for the proposed changes.
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Sent at:2018 Jul 31 (Tue) 21:53
To:council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc:Brian Aitchison <brian.aitchison at icann.org>; Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org>
Subject:Re: [council] Consensus Policy Implementation Framework Updates - input by 31 July 2018
Reminder -  please let staff know by COB today (31 July) if you have any concerns about the updated CPIF document. 

Best regards,

Marika

From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 at 16:36
To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: Brian Aitchison <brian.aitchison at icann.org>, Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org>
Subject: [council] Consensus Policy Implementation Framework Updates - input by 31 July 2018

Dear All,

As discussed during today’s meeting, please find attached the proposed changes to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF). As noted, As noted Point H of the CPIF directs “ICANN staff [to] continually review the implementation framework and related materials to encapsulate additional best-practices or to adjust the steps as a result of lessons learned with previous Consensus Policy projects,”. A cross-functional group of representatives from ICANN’s GDD and GNSO Policy Development Support teams have reviewed the Framework, and are proposing a number of amendments to it for the consideration of the GNSO Council (see attached). As noted, these changes are intended to further clarify and detail some of the steps of the CPIF – these are not changes to any existing processes, procedures or the original Policy & Implementation WG recommendations. 
Donna referred to a slide deck that was used for the update that was provided for the April Council meeting but those slides (attached here) actually refer to another part of this effort that we are still looking for input on which is the Post-Implementation Consensus Policy Review Framework. 
With regards to the CPIF, please let staff know if you have any concerns about this updated version being posted by 31 July. We will try to identify another opportunity to further discussion the Post-Implementation Consensus Policy Review Framework (for those interested, a survey was opened a while back, but to date only one Council members has responded:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/postimplreview [surveymonkey.com]). I’ve also copied Brian and Karen from GDD who should be able to answer any further questions you may have. 
Best regards,
Marika






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180831/a26ae9df/attachment-0001.html>