[council] Amendments to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF)

[Drazek, Keith]

Thank you, Brian, for all the ICANN staff work to support and advance this effort.



We will review carefully and add this to our agenda for the November GNSO Council meeting.



Regards,

Keith



From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Brian Aitchison
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 8:44 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Amendments to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF)



Dear GNSO Council members,



Following conversations among ICANN org and the GNSO Council—in particular the IPC and the RrSG who provided written input—please find attached a redlined version of the CPIF that addresses the suggestions for amendments we received.



Also attached is the original letter sent from ICANN org to the GNSO Council detailing the mandate and focus of the CPIF amendment process.



We were not able to integrate all suggestions received into this round of CPIF amendments. You’ll see in the comment boxes the suggestions received, along with a rationale for why we did or did not update the document based on those suggestions. Generally speaking, we did not add amendments that merited more in-depth discussion between ICANN org and the Council. For example, the process for recruiting IRTs is based on a “call for volunteers”, so we could not add the IPC’s suggestion that IRT’s must “fairly represent all constituencies” until further discussion with the Council about how IRTs should be constituted. We also tried to minimize any redundant language that may overly simplify the process of soliciting GNSO Council input on an implementation via an IRT.



In accordance with Point H of the CPIF, which 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,” ICANN org will continue to work with the GNSO Council to refine the CPIF. Currently we are working on defining a standard process for proposing amendments to it, which we will share with the Council when ready.



ICANN org will continue to welcome input on how and where the CPIF should be amended. Any such input received will be tracked and evaluated for a future round of amendments, which we plan to begin in the next calendar year. To provide input, please email me at brian.aitchison at icann.org<mailto:brian.aitchison at icann.org> (please cc the Council list). Our Policy Team colleagues also welcome your input; should you have any, please feel free to discuss it with them during one of your meetings or via email.



We request that the GNSO Council review the attached redlined CPIF document. If no further input is received, we will post it to icann.org’s implementation page at https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation on 10 December 2018.



On behalf of ICANN org, we thank the Council and its members for providing input on this important process.



Sincerely,



Brian



--

Brian Aitchison, PhD

Lead Researcher

Global Domains Division, Operations and 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<mailto: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.











-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20181101/ac198605/attachment.html>