Page History
| Note | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
That WGs should have an explicit role in responding to implementation issues related to policy they have developed, and that the current Policy and Implementation Working Group specifically address the role of WGs in responding to policy implementation issues. |
| Working Party (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness): | CG - Accept, noting that this recommendation has already been fulfilled by the Policy & Implementation WG. |
|---|---|
| Staff (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness): |
Rationale: MK: accept as-is (note that the recommendations from the Policy & Implementation WG were adopted by the GNSO Council in Buenos Aires) |
| Basis for Assessment: | |
| Work in Progress: | See PIWG Final Report (submitted to GNSO Council for adoption, June 2015) |
| Expected Completion Date for Work in Progress: | |
| Milestones: | |
| Responsibility: | Implementation Review Teams/Staff |
Public Comments Received
Comment # | Submitted By | Affiliation | Comment |
Recommendation 8 (Continuous Development): That WGs should have an explicit role in responding to implementation issues related to policy they have developed, and that the current Policy and Implementation Working Group specifically address the role of WGs in responding to policy implementation issues. | |||
12 | Paul Diaz | gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group | (Support) The Policy & Implementation WG already addressed this in its Final Report to the GNSO Council in June 2015, affirming this recommendation. |
49 | Osvaldo Novoa | ISPCP | (Support) There is clearly a need for a WG to be able to respond to specific implementation issues that may arise as a direct result of agreed policy. The ISPCP supports the notion that after completion of their work a WG should remain ready to engage further if required. Any advice offered on implementation should also be subject to public comment, particularly in the case where not all GNSO players are represented within a WG. The WG should have a role in implementation issues, certainly more than the Council is supposed to. |
245 | Greg Shatan | IPC | (Support) This recommendation should not be rigidly construed to prevent community input on implementation where, for example, implementation takes place several years following an original policy development process and the identical working group members may have transitioned roles or may no longer be engaged within the community. We note that the Policy and Implementation Working Group has already finished its work, so this part of the recommendation is obsolete. |
292 | Amr Elsadr |
| This was addressed by the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group. The GNSO Council has already adopted a recommendation by this WG to make IRTs a standard practice, except in limited situations where it may not be deemed necessary. This has resulted in an update to section 14 of the PDP Manual. It would be helpful if this report would recommend that the ICANN board instruct GDD staff to work with the GNSO as a standard practice, and leave the decision of whether or not an IRT is desirable to the discretion of the GNSO Council. |
319 | Olivier Crepin-Leblond | ALAC | (Support) History has shown that this recommendation absolutely makes sense. |
