Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) | Call for Comments Open | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12.09.2014 | Feedback Request: Policy & Implementation Working Group (PIWG) | SUBMITTED | n/a | 28.08.2014 | 11.09.2014 23:59 UTC | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 12.09.2014 | Glen de Saint Géry Glen@icann.org | n/a |
AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
2 Comments
Alan Greenberg
The charts that accompany this request for feedback are somewhat cryptic, so I will try to give an overview of the work the group has done to date, and the direction we are going in.
You may recall that the fuss that triggered this was whether certain new intellectual properties rights that were incorporated into the new gTLD program at a very late date were in fact "implementation", and thus fair game to be added by staff, or "policy" and thus potentially required GNSO involvement. In my mind, the specific issues were indeed "implementation" based on the used of the word up until that time (they were variations of other IP rights and processes which were explicitly deemed to be "implementation" by the GNSO itself. But the history of how we got here is to some extent irrelevant.
Among the conclusions so far, is that regardless of the nomenclature, if stakeholders are going to be affected by a decision (at any stage of the process), they must have an opportunity to influence that outcome. This Is another way stating Principle #1 from the ALAC input into the WG (https://community.icann.org/x/-hSMAg):
The implication is that it is inevitable that after a policy is developed and approved by the Board, it is inevitable that on occasion, issues will arise during "implementation" that will need additional community input (regardless of whether it is labelled "policy" or not).
ALAC Principle #2 said:
This too has been accepted by the WG, and work is underway to design policy development processes which can be used to address such issues. They must be sufficiently "light-weight" as to not take the time that a full-blown PDP does, but at the same time, need to provide opportunities for community input and involvement. The Policy Guidance Process and Policy Input Process described in this PC are among one of the alternatives being worked on.
I do not think that the ALAC needs to provide any explicit input at this stage. Our original input was very applicable, and in fact, the WG is in the process of sending the feedback to the ALAC on that input.
Both Cheryl and I have been very active (and very vocal!) in the WG. Although I had some doubts at the start, I am very optimistic that the results that come out of the WG will help ensure that the bottom up process can respond to the complexities of today's policy requirements.
Loris Taylor
Thank you Alan.