[council] FW: [Ext] RE: Modifying consensus policies

Wed Apr 6 18:36:52 UTC 2022

Dear Councilors,

Please see Theresa's early input for future exchanges, soon to be scheduled, and follow-up to the "modifying consensus policy" thought paper.

Regards,
Philippe

Orange Restricted
From: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 12:11 AM
To: FOUQUART Philippe INNOV/NET <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>
Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>; David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>; Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>; gnso-secs at icann.org; gnso-chairs at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Modifying consensus policies

Dear Philippe,

I hope you and the team have recovered well from the ICANN 73 meeting, and we appreciated all the discussions. Thank you also for proposing the opportunity to engage further on this topic through a series of meetings.  We are working with the GNSO Secretariat on scheduling a time. In addition to the topics mentioned in your previous email, here are a few questions that we would add in advance of our next discussion.

  1.  We have seen some instances in recent policy work where a new set of policy recommendations explicitly or implicitly requires updates to existing policies. We do recognize that in the context of the EPDP Ph 1 Recommendation 27 these updates could only be considered in detail during the implementation phase as a result of the time constraint that existed. Nevertheless, we think there may still be value in considering how the Council and the org might work better together in the future to identify and address when such updates are needed and how these are expected to be made. Does the Council agree that there is value in this, and if so, what could be done better / differently?
  2.  How can this "thought paper" supplement or act as input to support discussions around the current pipeline of improving different steps throughout the PDP process?

We look forward to our continued engagement with the Council and the small team on this topic.

Thank you,
Theresa

From: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org<mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:57
To: "philippe.fouquart at orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>" <philippe.fouquart at orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>>
Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org<mailto:karen.lentz at icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive at icann.org<mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, "gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" <gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>, "gnso-chairs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs at icann.org>" <gnso-chairs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Modifying consensus policies

Dear Philippe,

Thank you for your email, and for the good suggestions on next steps. We look forward to working with you and the team and scheduling times for further discussions.

Hoping all are well,

Kind regards,

Theresa

From: "philippe.fouquart at orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>" <philippe.fouquart at orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>>
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 11:19
To: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org<mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>
Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org<mailto:karen.lentz at icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive at icann.org<mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, "gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" <gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>, "gnso-chairs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs at icann.org>" <gnso-chairs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs at icann.org>>
Subject: [Ext] RE: Modifying consensus policies

Dear Theresa,

Thanks again for sharing this "thought paper" and allow the GNSO to engage in this.

As you are aware, following your email of October 23rd, the GNSO Council formed a small team consisting of Council members as well as interested SG/C representatives to review the discussion draft and propose to the GNSO Council how to proceed. The Council and the small team appreciate the engagement with ICANN org on some of the procedural questions and welcomes the invitation to engage on this important topic. However, instead of sending papers and letters back and forth, the Council is of the view that this topic may benefit from a dialogue between Council, interested SG/C representatives, ICANN org as well as interested Board members.

To this end, we would like to propose to schedule a meeting, or a series of them, during which we can go into further details on topics and questions such as:

  1.  Ensuring a common understanding of the problem we trying to fix;
  2.  Is the "fixing" expected to require changes to existing procedures or do existing procedures provide for sufficient flexibility to address the problem should it arise again?
  3.  Having a common assessment of the urgency of the problem so we can decide how to prioritize this effort and ensure that community resources are available to work on this topic jointly;

The GNSO Council wants to emphasize that it fully supports the notion that any modifications to existing gTLD Consensus Policies need to be clear and should be identified as part of any policy recommendations that are submitted to the GNSO Council and subsequently the ICANN Board. The Council realizes that because of the time constraints under which it and the ICANN Board operated in the context of the EPDP Phase 1, this clarity may not have been provided in all cases, which resulted in delays and questions around the intended impact on some existing Consensus Policies. We have nonetheless been able to resolve these issues through our existing processes and procedures, but obviously, we would have saved substantial time and frustration if we had not found ourselves in this position in the first place.

If you are supportive of this approach, we would suggest that you work with the GNSO Secretariat to identify a time / date that works for all those that should be part of this conversation.

Thank you.
Best regards,
Philippe

Orange Restricted
From: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org<mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2021 1:21 AM
To: FOUQUART Philippe INNOV/NET <philippe.fouquart at orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>>
Cc: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org<mailto:karen.lentz at icann.org>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>; David Olive <david.olive at icann.org<mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Subject: Modifying consensus policies

Dear Philippe,

I would like to share with you and the GNSO Council a discussion draft of the attached paper, Modifying Consensus Policies. The ICANN organization has developed this paper as a thought exercise to share with the community for information and input on existing processes.  As mentioned in some of our previous interactions, this piece has been developed within the org, considering what procedures are in place for modifying consensus policies, and where there may be gaps, ambiguities, or opportunities for additional collaboration.

The Board has expressed interest in understanding these processes and discussing possible mechanisms to address where there are identified and agreed needs for greater clarity or elaboration.  As the GNSO's processes are interwoven with those of the Board and org in the consensus policy lifecycle, the org is seeking input from GNSO stakeholders before taking this paper to the Board.

To date for the org, this review of applicable procedures to modify policies has been helpful in identifying gaps that might benefit from further clarification or discussion, relating to how to modify an existing policy in varying circumstances. Some possible gaps are further described in section 3 of this paper, to provide an opportunity for community discussions on identifying the source of gaps and confirming where they exist.  In the spirit of sharing ideas and observations, we hope you also find this useful, and the org looks forward to hearing from GNSO stakeholders on these topics.

I appreciate that this comes at a busy time, and look forward to engaging on this in due course.

And, wishing the best for a successful ICANN72 meeting.

Kind regards,

Theresa

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20220406/ed73378c/attachment-0001.html>