[ALAC] Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 25th September 2013
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Mon Oct 7 16:17:02 UTC 2013
Thanks Holly
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 6, 2013, at 6:51 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone
>
> This is from a member of the Policy and Implementation WG - with a link to a report I was unaware of. But it is spot on. It looks at the whole consultation processes - and what is wrong, viz, people's lack of time, English as the language, meeting times that favour the US/Europe, etc, etc. It makes good (if depressing) reading, with some suggestions on what should happen
>
> Holly
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
>> Date: 4 October 2013 5:13:39 AM AEST
>> To: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-wg at icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-wg at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] UPDATED: Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 25th September 2013
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I would like to draw to your attention that on the wiki of the ATRT2, we can find a draft of the GNSO evaluation study conducted by an external expert. The purpose of this assignment has been to assess the effectiveness of ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and whether the current GNSO PDP process satisfies the needs of the multistakeholder model and Internet users.
>>
>> It looks like there might be plenty of information in it, that could be very relevant to the work we are doing in this WG.
>>
>> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41898277/Draft+Report+-+ATRT2+GNSO+PDP+Review+-+Final+Draft+for+27+September+2013+%282%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1380491752000>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> wrote:
>> With correct affiliation and added member.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Nathalie
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-gnso-secs at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine
>> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:33 AM
>> To: gnso-policyimpl-wg at icann.org
>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org
>> Subject: [gnso-secs] Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 25th September 2013
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that the next Policy and Implementation Working Group teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday 16th October 2013 at 1900 UTC for 1,5 hrs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and Implementation Working group call held on Wednesday 25th September 2013 at 20:00 UTC at:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20130925-en.mp3
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On page:
>>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
>>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
>>
>>
>>
>> Attendees:
>>
>> Holly Raiche – ALAC
>>
>> Greg Shatan – IPC
>>
>> Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC
>>
>> Wolf Knoben - ISPCP
>>
>> Chuck Gomes – RySG
>>
>> Philip Marano – IPC (for Brian Winterfeldt)
>>
>> Michael Graham – IPC
>>
>> Olevie Kouami – NPOC
>>
>> Amr Elsadr - NCUC
>>
>> Tim Ruiz – RrSG
>>
>> Tom Barrett – RrSG
>>
>> James Bladel – RrSG
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr – ALAC
>>
>> Aparna Sridhar – BC
>>
>> Maureen Cubberley – Individual
>>
>> Avri Doria – NCSG
>>
>> Alan Greenberg – ALAC
>>
>> Gideon Rop – Individual
>>
>> Klaus Stoll – NPOC
>>
>> J.Scott Evans – BC
>>
>> Eric Brunner-Williams –
>>
>> Marie-Laure Lemineur – NPOC
>>
>> David Cake - NCUC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Apology:
>>
>> Nic Steinbach – RrSG
>>
>> Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC
>>
>> Kristine Rosette – IPC
>>
>> Olga Cavalli - GAC
>>
>> Krista Papac
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN staff:
>>
>> Marika Konings
>>
>> Lars Hoffman
>>
>> Glen de St Gery
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine
>>
>>
>>
>> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine
>>
>> For GNSO Secretariat
>>
>>
>>
>> Adobe Chat Transcript for Monday 25th September 2013:
>>
>> Marika Konings:Welcome to the Policy & Implementation WG Meeting of 25 September 2013
>>
>> Gideon Rop:Thank you Marika
>>
>> Michael R Graham:Thanks, Marika. Sorry about the e-mail hassles!
>>
>> maureen cubberley:thanks Maria.
>>
>> maureen cubberley:typo! Thanks Marika
>>
>> Holly Raiche:Thanks Marika
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine:Hello Holly, the operator is dialling out to you now, didn't want the 35 min early wake up call like last week
>>
>> Holly Raiche:Thanks Natalie
>>
>> Marika Konings:@Michael - no worries, I hope we have got it right now ;-)
>>
>> J. Scott:I am with operator now
>>
>> ebw:howdy all.
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine:Please mute speakers, AC room mikes and phones
>>
>> maureen cubberley:Marika, I do not think my audio is working. can we test? if there is a problem, I will dial in. thanks. MC
>>
>> Marika Konings: Feel free to speak up
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:Dialing in now.
>>
>> Marika Konings:we can test in that way ;-)
>>
>> maureen cubberley:it does not appear to be working. i will dial in. thanks.
>>
>> Greg Shatan:Greg Shatan joining...
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine:Amr Elsadr has joined the call
>>
>> Marika Konings:It was for the sub-team - I can put it up if you like?
>>
>> Amr Elsadr:Apologies about being late. Dialling in now.
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine:Wolf Knoben has joined the AC room
>>
>> Wolf Knoben:Hi, I got it
>>
>> Greg Shatan:Hope we are not barking up the wrong tree....
>>
>> Amr Elsadr:Now on the call. :)
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:lol
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:back in audio bridge as well
>>
>> Marika Konings:@Michael - the doodle poll was sent out earlier today. Maybe you can double check you received that message with all the email issues we've had ;-)
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:No doodle has shown up here.
>>
>> Marika Konings:it was at the bottom of the email summarizing the discussions of yesterday
>>
>> Amr Elsadr:Alan..., the doodle's on the sub-team list. Sent earlier today. You didn't get it?
>>
>> Marika Konings:did anyone of the sub-team receive it?
>>
>> Amr Elsadr:I did.
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:I was looking for the word "doodle" anywher, but will check.
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:It's there and my search didn't catch it. One more think to look into!
>>
>> Marika Konings:doodle was in the title though ;-)
>>
>> Phil Marano:For the roll call, please note that I am also covering for Brian Winterfeldt. Thank you.
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:Oh great. a double problem.
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine:Thank you Phil, noted
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine:Tim Ruiz will be joining late
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Nathalie I thought mute on this provider was still *6?
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine:no Cheryl, it's *4 and *4 to unmute
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:*shigh* thanks
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:no point in switching phoines so I can mute and then not doing it
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:The good thing about standards is that you can have so many of them.
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:LOL
>>
>> Holly Raiche:I have seen the fulsome report - but not a doodle
>>
>> Michael R Graham:I have not seen the doodle request yet.
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:who decides if an issue is intended to be a consensus policy?
>>
>> Holly Raiche:I think that is something that is part of what we will look at
>>
>> Michael R Graham:@Alan: I've rarely seen such cynicism combined with such optimism!
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:If you mean "Consensus Policy" (with upper case C and P, that is a defined term which is a policy that once approved and implmented, immediately alters registrar and/or registry contracts. What a CP can be about is delineating in detail in the respective contracts.
>>
>> Mary Wong:@Tom, did you mean Consensus Policy (binding on Registries and Registrars) or other consensus policies?
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:@Michael, actualy was meant not so much as cynicism or optimism but as pragmatism!
>>
>> Holly Raiche:Again, isn't this part of what is before this group
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:@Mary what other CP are there? (if not binding on contracted parties?)
>>
>> Mary Wong:@Alan, thanks. Yes, Consensus Policies constitute a defined term; in ICANN parlance that's usually what's considered as within the "picket fence".
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:@Holly,what is not part of what before this group?
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:Lower case cp would be a policy that was arrived at by consensus. In the context of what Marika was discussing, if we use some other process to arrive at a poolicy decision, that could be a consensus policy.
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:@holly..never mind, I misread your comment.
>>
>> Holly Raiche:That's the hard question. If something is a consensus policy - as defined, then there is a clear process required. But is there something tht is consensus that doesn't require a PDP. Not sure
>>
>> Mary Wong:@Alan, thanks again.
>>
>> Mary Wong:To add: it's important to remember also that GNSO Working Groups make their recommendations according to a varying set of consensus levels (each defined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), ranging from Full Consensus to No Consensus.
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine:Olevie Kouami has joined the audio bridge
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:@Alan..can you give examples of policies that used some other process but is still considered a consensus policy?
>>
>> ebw:proposed policy, for which there is consensus within the gnso-c, and possibly other parties, not necessarily pertaining to a currently contracted party,e.g., prospective contracted parties, may be (lower case) "consensus policy"
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:can you provide some examples?
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:What we are currently calling the implementation phase!
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:someone needs mute
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:what I mean is this: what policies would we have that is not binding on contracted parties?
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:are there optional policies?
>>
>> Mary Wong:@Tom, at its broadest a "consensus policy" (no caps) can be a policy that is approved and adopted by the ICANN Board as a result of community consensus around the policy recommendation in question.
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:can it be optional?
>>
>> Mary Wong:It is possible (though unlikely, from experience) that a policy will be adopted where there was NO consensus from the community on it.
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:It could be a policy directing what ICANN should do in some case.
>>
>> Holly Raiche:Maybe one test is whether the resultant 'policy' is required
>>
>> ebw:well, an example may be idn variants. there is a consensus policy, but implementation is optional (a registry may use just ASCII).
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:Perhaps best case is the new gTLD policy which has resulted in the entire new gTLD program. It was a GNSO policy that did not impact existing contracts.
>>
>> ebw:+1
>>
>> ebw:idn policy does not impact ASCII-only registries and their registrars.
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:who is "ebw" pplease
>>
>> ebw:eric brunner-williams. you know me.
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:hi eric
>>
>> ebw:howdy tom
>>
>> Mary Wong:The PDP process is robust; once something is characterized as "policy" the various stages and procedures are pretty clear, from Issue Report to Consensus levels. The problem may arise at either end: agreeing that something is or is not "policy", or determining when a policy, once adopted, continues to raise further policy questions or is "pure" implementation.
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:agreed
>>
>> Mary Wong:(To clarify: I'm referring to the GNSO PDP).
>>
>> Michael R Graham:Points of concern are "when appropriate" and "as deemed appropriate" -- my concern is who determines whether appropriate. IRT should be participants in the PDP in order to ensure that presumptions and intent of PDP are clear and carried out.
>>
>> Michael R Graham:Which echoes Mary's comments about primary issues perhaps coming at beginning and end of PDP.
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:+1
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Congratulations team USA the Americas Cup was well won indeed (an aside yes I know)
>>
>> Mary Wong:The IRT for the TMCH etc. was formed at the direction of the Board in 2009.
>>
>> Michael R Graham:But a much appreciated aside.
>>
>> Bladel:Hard to hear J Scott
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:speak up J Scott
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:better thanks J Scott
>>
>> Mary Wong:That was an advisory group made up of volunteers.
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:volunteers selected by icann
>>
>> Mary Wong:(assuming Anne is referring to the technical implementation group for the TMCH. As Marika says, that wasn't a GNSO Council initiative).
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:icann reached out to specific individuals. there was no call for volunteers
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:LOL
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:you got that right Chuck
>>
>> J. Scott:that is what I meant Alan. thanks for the clarification
>>
>> ebw:alan's statement is consistent with my memory of policy work in 2009.
>>
>> Greg Shatan:@Cheryl: Amazing. Fantastic. Incredible. A comeback for the ages. Running out to buy my own 72 foot cat now.
>>
>> Michael R Graham:Going off topic: This "reaching out" to particular participants appears to be in the course of being repeated in the 5 Expert Panels annouonced in Durban.
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:they're just "volunteers"
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@Greg quite a race (hubby is a retired sailor he stayed home late from work to watch) :-)
>>
>> Amr Elsadr:That was me clapping. :)
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:I believe it was ICANN staff initiated
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:(ceo)
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Indeed I doubt it would be a model for us to look to
>>
>> Holly Raiche:It is an issue in so far as it is a process we could look at - Why notlook at - as an example of what not to do
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and as has been pointed out answering our Charter questions is the point for us to focus on IF it was a desirable model then it might have been worth a review
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:J. Scott. What process is required to update the process Marika described?
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:i entered it vai chat
>>
>> maureen cubberley:thanks for the excellent presentation Marika.
>>
>> Marika Konings:You are welcome - if there are any further questions that may arise as you review the materials, please let me know.
>>
>> Amr Elsadr:All the documents are on the background documents page of the WG wiki.
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:all good thsnks J Scott
>>
>> EnCirca - Tom Barrett:thanks Marika
>>
>> Alan Greenberg:The TMCH implementation group, although was successful for that purpose was formed because ICANN staff had been ignoring contracted party implementation concerns with the TMCH, and that group went on to discuss other thngs.
>>
>> Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:thks Marika, very good as usual :)
>>
>> Michael R Graham:Sorry - my phone is off. One thing: between now and October 16, the subgroup may ask the group for input to our work.
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine:of course1
>>
>> Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:thank you all.
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye all until Oct 16 1900 UTC
>>
>> Anne Aikman-Scalese:I think the TMCH is part of understanding the overall territory per the chart. It actually happend
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye a;ll
>>
>> Mary Wong:Thanks andb bye!
>>
>> Amr Elsadr:Bye.
>>
>> Greg Shatan:Bye
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
More information about the ALAC
mailing list