[Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Latest version of draft principles for review

Sat Dec 14 20:13:07 UTC 2013

+1 @J. Scott.
Totally agree with
Cheers !
-Olevie-


2013/12/13 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>

>  Thanks J. Scott for joining the discussion.  I will add consideration of
> your suggestion to the sub-team agenda for next week.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *J. Scott Evans
> *Sent:* Friday, December 13, 2013 11:24 AM
> *To:* Marika Konings; gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Latest version of draft
> principles for review
>
>
>
> Dear All:
>
>
>
> I think the discussions and the draft are really starting to take shape.
>  However, I think a great way to move the discussion forward is to take two
> example of policy implementation from the past (one where the current
>  system worked without controversy and another that is perceived as having
> not worked in the current system) so we can put them under the microscope
> of these principles to help us frame the principles or if a certain
> principle makes sense or is even workable.
>
>
>
> I have attached a revised version of the principles document containing a
> comment I have on Principle 4.
>
>
>
> J. Scott
>
>
> *j. scott evans - associate general counsel - adobe - 408.536.5336
> <408.536.5336> - jscottevans at outlook.com <jscottevans at outlook.com>*
>  ------------------------------
>
> From: marika.konings at icann.org
> To: gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl at icann.org
> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 02:06:32 -0800
> Subject: [Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl] Latest version of draft principles
> for review
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Following our call yesterday, please find below some notes I took in
> relation to the discussion on the draft principles (for a detailed report
> of the meeting, please review the transcript and/or recording). Attached
> you will find the latest version of the draft principles (note I've
> accepted all the redlines to facilitate your review). You are encouraged to
> add any further comments / proposed edits to the document itself ahead of
> the next meeting (Thursday 19 December at 21.00 UTC).
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
>    - *From Alan*: Implementation has taken on so many different meanings
>    and different phases – that is the reason why we are here. There are
>    certain phases that do not need to be based in the multi-stakeholder model.
>    Only when there is substantive impact to stakeholders, then it needs to be
>    based in the multi-stakeholder model. If it is purely execution this can be
>    handled by staff without a need for a multi-stakeholder process. If the PDP
>    team had thought about the issue, they would have put the details in –
>    impact was defined / foreseen as part of policy discussions, it may not
>    necessarily require community input / discussion? Involvement should not
>    equate to veto. Need some working definitions of some of the terms we are
>    using.
>    - *Greg*: Agrees with Alan – multi-stakeholder concept cannot be
>    applied the same way in a policy process or an implementation process.
>    Nuance needs to be added to express that. Timeframe for policy and
>    implementation is different. Definitions and principles are tied. Is there
>    policy neutral implementation (execution), i.e. decisions don’t have any
>    impact on the policy recommendations while on the other hand you have
>    implementation decisions that affect the policy? Consider integrating
>    principle 3 with 1, and some of the administrative ones.
>    -  *Nic*: How can you determine who/how someone is impacted?
>    -  *Michael*: Multi-stakeholder model looks after interests of all
>    parties. In considering the whole process, we need to take that into
>    account when defining this principle.
>    - *Chuck*: Implementation even though it may be straightforward and
>    may not need further community consultation does not go against the
>    multi-stakeholder model. It may just be requiring the originating body to
>    confirm that implementation is as intended by the policy recommendations.
>    Also note that all these principles are interrelated. Possible rewording:
>    The need for multi-stakeholder principles does not end when you go from
>    policy to implementation. Should there be a sub principle that says
>    criteria should be developed and enforced when a multi-stakeholder process
>    is required? Objective is to avoid situation whereby Board/Staff decide
>    that something is implementation and does not require community involvement
>    / feedback. Should this sub-team develop some guidelines or should this be
>    done by the WG? Is it possible to define principles / sub-principles.
>    - *CLO*: other terms such as ‘substantive impact’ may need defining in
>    this context. Consider adding overarching principle that makes sure that
>    articulate the enshrined principles of the multi-stakeholder model and
>    input sought as part of policy discussions. Other statements may come in
>    that will add to this effort.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl
> mailing list Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl mailing list
> Gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl
>


-- 
Olévié (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI
Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net)
DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/)
SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
Po Box : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25
Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé – Togo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-subteam0b-policyimpl/attachments/20131214/7a372eaf/attachment.html>