[council] PDP Improvements - status update

Fri Mar 10 22:52:58 UTC 2023

Hi Marika.  Kurt's language is more accurate.  The PDP Manual should not
state that the WG MUST consider whether there is an impact on existing
policies because if the WG is supposed to undertake that level of work, the
specific policies it is to consider should be identified in the Charter
document.  Then it's ok I think for there to be a general provision in the
Charter that says if the GDS liaison raises an affected policy, the WG
should try to address it.

Some of this discussion turns on what is meant by "an impact on existing
policies".  Your question assumes that an existing policy will need to be
changed but that is not necessarily the case.  And yes, I think that would
have to be addressed at the Council level so the WG could say, for
instance, we considered the impact on X policy and believe our
recommendation does not require a change to that policy OR we considered
the impact on X policy and are recommending as change as follows:
_______________---- OR We considered the impact on X policy and believe
this needs to be addressed at the Council level. The last example could
also be brought before Council by the GNSO Liaison prior to the Final
Report.

I think it should be clear what we are trying to prevent - an obligation on
unpaid volunteers to identify all potentially impacted policies. The draft
language for the PDP Manual amendment imposes that obligation and needs to
be modified.  Kurt makes a very constructive suggestion.   I also think the
PDP Manual language should include the obligation for ICANN GNSO policy
staff and GDS Liaison to identify any policies that need to be considered
by the WG.  Do the amendments to the PDP Manual already specify this?

Thank you,
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso at gmail.com

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 7:55 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
wrote:

> Thanks, Anne and Kurt.
>
>
>
> Anne, the proposed Charter Template was updated with your proposed
> language and has been posted here:
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-groupname-charter-yyyymmdd-template-17jan23-en.dotx.
> The proposed language in the Initial Report template is modelled on the
> language in the charter template.
>
>
>
> To confirm, in line with the Charter Template and the GDS Guidelines, it
> will be the responsibility of the GDS liaison to identify where some
> recommendations may overlap or impact existing policies, and to raise those
> in the WG. However, how that impact is addressed is from our perspective
> a policy decision and as such guidance from a PDP WG and/or Council will be
> necessary to facilitate implementation. Although this is probably not
> something that needs to be spelled out in the template, a question that
> does arise in relation to the language that Kurt has proposed, what if it
> is clear that there is an impact, but no consensus on how this impact
> should be addressed, who is expected to make that decision? Does the Final
> Report go to Council and Council would then make a determination, or would
> need to spin up a separate effort to provide guidance to the GNSO Council?
> It does seem that the PDP WG would be best placed to advise the Council on
> this topic, but if there is a different path that you have in mind, it may
> be helpful to discuss that?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *From: *council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Anne ICANN
> via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Reply to: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 15:39
> *To: *"kurt kjpritz.com" <kurt at kjpritz.com>
> *Cc: *"council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update
>
>
>
> I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that
> addressed this very same issue.   Marika has those changes and acknowledged
> them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one
> on Council had objected.
>
>
>
> Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the
> proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the
> lines that Kurt has suggested?  That language included an obligation on the
> part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for
> the  GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent
> during the WG deliberations.
>
>
>
> An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on
> existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member.
> In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers
> are not.  Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG
> members.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com [kjpritz.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/kjpritz.com__;!!PtGJab4!7tRwAEmDsoHEZV8dflmqo-_56eTXBDBELT7NjSqWI-meInm5u5atBjihmNwh1KHafuNeJWGxztpzrp6uPxYnMm4n5h5dWg$>
> via council <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> Hi All:
>
>
>
> With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template:
>
>
>
> 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies
>
> If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any
> potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies.
> If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this
> section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is
> expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation
> process.
>
>
>
> I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this
> amendment:
>
>    - It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time
>    we are trying to streamline them,
>    - It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have.
>
>
>
> My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the
> recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered
> ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised
> the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In
> the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical
> understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is
> still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the
> EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on
> the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I
> want to keep this short.)
>
>
>
> If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration,
> that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP
> recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it
> should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t
> see the value-add, as that already occurs.
>
>
>
> I’d be something along the lines of:
>
>
>
> 2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies
>
> If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it
> considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on
> existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should
> identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the
> impact is expected to be addressed.
>
>
>
> That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens
> on the PDP.
>
>
>
> I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the
> new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a
> more specific, constructive outcome.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has
> been posted on the dedicated wiki page (see
> https://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the
> different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been
> completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council
> consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council
> to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that
> a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of
> time”).
>
>
>
> In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates
> to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect
> implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent
> updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that
> although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as
> needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report
> template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become
> the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update,
> please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are
> no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this
> updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see  https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures
> [gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures__;!!PtGJab4!7tRwAEmDsoHEZV8dflmqo-_56eTXBDBELT7NjSqWI-meInm5u5atBjihmNwh1KHafuNeJWGxztpzrp6uPxYnMm58BYBcPw$>
> ).
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
> <Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230310/f54d6ee3/attachment-0001.html>