STAFF Implement Proposed action STAFF – Assess (initial AND revisions based on feedback) Implementation change? Policy guidance needed? Admin/error update?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Erik Bais, May 15 th 2013 PP Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members Presenter : Erik Bais –
Advertisements

1 Update on New gTLD PDP Joint GAC/GNSO meeting Avri Doria Chair, GSNO Council San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Update on Whois TF March 25, Objectives of the Task Force 1)Define the purpose of the Whois service. [complete] 2)Define the purpose of the Registered.
OPERATIONS STEERING COMMITTEE Constituency Operations Team Kick-Off Meeting February 28, 2009 Interim Chair: Olga Cavalli.
GNSO/Council Restructure Enhance & Support SGs/Constituencies Improve Communications & Coordination Revise the Policy Development Process Adopt a WG Model.
GNSO Working Session on the Vertical Integration PDP 4 December 2010.
Draft Roadmap to Implement SAC 051 Steve Sheng, ICANN 1.
Life-cycle model ccWGs 22 May 2014 Bart Boswinkel ccNSO Senior Policy Advisor.
A Next Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS) EWG Briefing for the IETF by Chris Disspain Monday Nov 4, 2013.
GNSO Policy Development Process. “The PDP is broken”….. Photo credit: 2013 NYCitywoman.
Text #ICANN51 GNSO PDP Improvements Status Update.
#ICANN51 Saturday 11 October 2014 Next Session: Update - Policy & Implementation Working Group Presenter: J. Scott Evans (Co-Chair) More information:
EP REVIEW OF INTERIM “POLICY ON POLICIES ”
Policy & Implementation WG Initial Recommendations Report.
Interim Report Review Inter-Registrar Domain Name Transfers ICANN DNSO Names Council Task Force on Transfers Public Discussion on Transfers of gTLD Names.
RAA Update and WHOIS Validation Workshop Moderated by: Volker Greimann, Gray Chynoweth, Kurt Pritz 12 March 2012.
Registrars SG Briefing- Vertical Integration Special Trademark Issues Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN 8 March 2010.
GAC-GNSO Consultation Group On GAC Early Engagement in GNSO PDP London Progress Report 22/06/2014.
Maintain Ethical Conduct
PDP Improvements Update & Discussion. | 2 Background  Ten proposed improvements aimed to streamline and enhance the GNSO PDP Ten proposed improvements.
Final Report on Improvements to the RAA Steve Metalitz 5 December 2010.
Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice & Competition Presenter: Steve DelBianco Chair: Rosemary Sinclair.
PDP Team Introduction: Jeff Neuman PDP Team Introduction: Jeff Neuman Current GNSO PDP Overview Current GNSO PDP Overview Goals of PDP Work Team Goals.
#ICANN49 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D PDP Working Group.
In Dec-2010 ICANN Board requested advice from ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on definition, measures, and 3- year targets, for competition, consumer trust,
Update from ICANN staff on SSR Activities Greg Rattray Tuesday 21 st 2010.
Proposed 2014 RTF Work Plan and 3-year Look Back October 21,
GAC-GNSO Consultation Group On GAC Early Engagement in GNSO PDP London Progress Report 22/06/2014.
ICANN Costa Rica March 2012 FOIWG. Presentation outline Scope of Framework Of Interpretation Process Topics for interpretation Activities since ICANN.
Text. #ICANN49 Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group Thursday 27 March 2014 – 08:00.
IANA Activities Update, ARIN 31, Bridgetown, BB April 2013 Selina Harrington.
IRTP Part D PDP WG Items for Review. Items for Review Policy Development Process WG Charter GNSO WG Guidelines.
Policy Development Process Committee Report to the Community, April 2011 Lee Howard, Committee Chair.
Policy Update. Agenda Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Thick Whois PDP IRTP Part D PDP Policy & Implementation Other efforts?
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text.
Transfers Task Force Briefing ICANN Domain Names Council Meeting March 12, 2002 Registry Registrar BRegistrar A.
Proposals for Improvements to the RAA June 22, 2010.
#ICANN51 1 Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) PDP Working Group Status Report & Activity Update ICANN51 11 October 2014 Don Blumenthal,
Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Accountability Update 8 October 2015.
OPERATIONS STEERING COMMITTEE Communications Team Kick-Off Meeting
IDN UPDATE Tina Dam ICANN Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Public Forum, Wellington 30 March 2006.
#ICANN50 Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Activities Update ICANN London Meeting June 2014 Chris Dillon and Rudi.
RrSG Working Groups Status Update James M. Bladel, GoDaddy.com Reston, VA Mar 2010.
PDP on Next-Generation ‭gTLD‬ Registration Directory Services to Replace ‭WHOIS‬ - Update Marika Konings – ICANN-54 – 17 October, 2015.
March 2010 – IAASB to consider issues paper and task force proposals June 2010 – IAASB first read of exposure draft (prior to next IESBA meeting) September.
GNSO Public Council Meeting Wednesday, 17 July 2013.
Review of CCWG-Acct 3 rd Proposal and ALAC Issues Alan Greenberg 04 December 2015.
A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Emerging Registry Criteria ASO General Assembly Budapest, 19 May 2000.
Lead Agency Viability Assessment Consistent with OPPAGA Report 04-65, DCF contracted with FMHI to assist in the design and implementation of a centralized.
GNSO/Council Restructure Enhance & Support SGs/Constituencies Improve Communications & Coordination Revise the Policy Development Process Adopt a WG Model.
Draft Policy IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement.
Contractual Relationship Requirement for End Users Implementation update policy proposal
Update on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (CCI) WG Rosemary Sinclair.
Text #ICANN49 Policy & Implementation Working Group Update.
COM Agreement Thursday 1 Dec 2005, Vancouver. Underlying issues Settlement of ICANN/Verisign litigation or continue until ICANN wins in court Renewal.
Recommended Draft Policy RIR Principles 59.
Update to ALAC on the RAA Negotiations Margie Milam 26 June 2012.
Every Student Succeeds Act January Christopher Woolard Senior Executive Director, Center for Accountability and Continuous Improvement Colleen D.
GNSO Council Restructure Enhance & Support SGs/Constituencies Improve Communications & Coordination Revise the Policy Development Process Adopt a WG Model.
© 2006 Open Grid Forum VOMSPROC WG OGF36, Chicago, IL, US.
Implementation Review Team Meeting
Abuse Mitigation + NG RDS PDP
NCSG Policy Committee Meeting
IDN Variant TLDs Program Update
Outcome TFCS-11// February Washington DC
Board - GAC conference call
Updates about Work Track 5 Geographic Names at the Top-Level
Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Name of Presenter Event Name DD Month 2018.
IANA transition Milton Mueller
Marching orders Break into three/four teams (today/tomorrow)
Presentation transcript:

STAFF Implement Proposed action STAFF – Assess (initial AND revisions based on feedback) Implementation change? Policy guidance needed? Admin/error update? Board-directed? Public comment needed? Full PDP needed? Policy Guidance WG sufficient? RELEVANT AC/SOs Review proposed approach Approve? Revisions needed? COMMUNITY Public comment COMMUNITY Public comment Approve? Policy guidance needed? Administrative change Board-directed change Changes reflecting comments WGs Policy development PDP WG Policy Guidance WG Limited, non- material change Long-lasting material change IMPLEMETATION REVIEW TEAM Policy guidance needed? For discussion ONLY, not even worthy of draft status Creates new obligations on contracted parties Materially alters prior AC/SO recommended policy Significantly affects many parties or constituencies. Not a result of a policy discussion In line with intent of policy recommendations Doesnt materially change community proposed approach Substantial effect on: - ICANN? - the DNS? - registries, registrars or internet users? - SSR of the DNS? Create new precedent?

STAFF Implement Proposed action STAFF – Assess (initial AND revisions based on feedback) Implementation change? Policy guidance needed? Admin/error update? Board-directed? Public comment needed? Full PDP needed? Policy Guidance WG sufficient? RELEVANT AC/SOs Review proposed approach Approve? Revisions needed? COMMUNITY Public comment COMMUNITY Public comment Approve? Policy guidance needed? Administrative change Board-directed change Changes reflecting comments WGs Policy development PDP WG Policy Guidance WG Limited, non- material change Long-lasting material change For discussion ONLY, not even worthy of draft status Creates new obligations on contracted parties Materially alters prior AC/SO recommended policy Significantly affects many parties or constituencies. Not a result of a policy discussion In line with intent of policy recommendations Doesnt materially change community proposed approach Substantial effect on: - ICANN? - the DNS? - registries, registrars or internet users? - SSR of the DNS? Create new precedent? Define the mechanism by which policy vs. implementation questions are identified: Prior to implementation During implementation IMPLEMETATION REVIEW TEAM Policy guidance needed?

STAFF Implement Proposed action STAFF – Assess (initial AND revisions based on feedback) Admin/error update? Board-directed? Full PDP needed? Policy Guidance WG sufficient? RELEVANT AC/SOs Review proposed approach Approve? Revisions needed? COMMUNITY Public comment COMMUNITY Public comment Approve? Policy guidance needed? Administrative change Board-directed change Changes reflecting comments WGs Policy development PDP WG Policy Guidance WG Limited, non- material change Long-lasting material change IMPLEMETATION REVIEW TEAM Policy guidance needed? For discussion ONLY, not even worthy of draft status Define the criteria used to determine the difference between policy and implementation issues Creates new obligations on contracted parties Materially alters prior AC/SO recommended policy Significantly affects many parties or constituencies. Substantial effect on: - ICANN? - the DNS? - registries, registrars or internet users? - SSR of the DNS? Creates new precedent? Not a result of a policy discussion In line with intent of policy recommendations Doesnt materially change community proposed approach Public comment needed? Implementation change? Policy guidance needed?

STAFF Implement Proposed action STAFF – Assess (initial AND revisions based on feedback) Implementation change? Policy guidance needed? RELEVANT AC/SOs Review proposed approach Approve? Revisions needed? COMMUNITY Public comment COMMUNITY Public comment Approve? Policy guidance needed? Administrative change Board-directed change Changes reflecting comments WGs Policy development PDP WG Policy Guidance WG Limited, non- material change Long-lasting material change IMPLEMETATION REVIEW TEAM Policy guidance needed? For discussion ONLY, not even worthy of draft status Creates new obligations on contracted parties Materially alters prior AC/SO recommended policy Significantly affects many parties or constituencies. Not a result of a policy discussion In line with intent of policy recommendations Doesnt materially change community proposed approach Substantial effect on: - ICANN? - the DNS? - registries, registrars or internet users? - SSR of the DNS? Creates new precedent? Determine the options available for policy and implementation efforts and the criteria for determining which should be used. Determine who makes those determinations and how. Admin/error update? Board-directed? Public comment needed? Full PDP needed? Policy Guidance WG sufficient?

STAFF Implement Proposed action STAFF – Assess (initial AND revisions based on feedback) Implementation change? Policy guidance needed? Admin/error update? Board-directed? Public comment needed? Full PDP needed? Policy Guidance WG sufficient? Administrative change Board-directed change Changes reflecting comments WGs Policy development PDP WG Policy Guidance WG Limited, non- material change Long-lasting material change IMPLEMETATION REVIEW TEAM Policy guidance needed? For discussion ONLY, not even worthy of draft status Creates new obligations on contracted parties Materially alters prior AC/SO recommended policy Significantly affects many parties or constituencies. Not a result of a policy discussion In line with intent of policy recommendations Doesnt materially change community proposed approach Substantial effect on: - ICANN? - the DNS? - registries, registrars or internet users? - SSR of the DNS? Creates new precedent? COMMUNITY Public comment COMMUNITY Public comment Approve? Policy guidance needed? Define who reviews and approves those decisions and how RELEVANT AC/SOs Review proposed approach Approve? Revisions needed?

STAFF Implement Proposed action STAFF – Assess (initial AND revisions based on feedback) Implementation change? Policy guidance needed? Admin/error update? Board-directed? Public comment needed? Full PDP needed? Policy Guidance WG sufficient? RELEVANT AC/SOs Review proposed approach Approve? Revisions needed? COMMUNITY Public comment COMMUNITY Public comment Approve? Policy guidance needed? Administrative change Board-directed change Changes reflecting comments WGs Policy development PDP WG Policy Guidance WG Limited, non- material change Long-lasting material change IMPLEMETATION REVIEW TEAM Policy guidance needed? For discussion ONLY, not even worthy of draft status Creates new obligations on contracted parties Materially alters prior AC/SO recommended policy Significantly affects many parties or constituencies. Not a result of a policy discussion In line with intent of policy recommendations Doesnt materially change community proposed approach Substantial effect on: - ICANN? - the DNS? - registries, registrars or internet users? - SSR of the DNS? Creates new precedent? Describe the process by which this identification, analysis, review and approval work gets done.

Proposed action STAFF – Assess (initial AND revisions based on feedback) Implementation change? Policy guidance needed? Admin/error update? Board-directed? Public comment needed? Full PDP needed? Policy Guidance WG sufficient? RELEVANT AC/SOs Review proposed approach Approve? Revisions needed? COMMUNITY Public comment COMMUNITY Public comment Approve? Policy guidance needed? For discussion ONLY, not even worthy of draft status Creates new obligations on contracted parties Materially alters prior AC/SO recommended policy Significantly affects many parties or constituencies. Not a result of a policy discussion In line with intent of policy recommendations Doesnt materially change community proposed approach Substantial effect on: - ICANN? - the DNS? - registries, registrars or internet users? - SSR of the DNS? Creates new precedent? Define any changes needed to existing policy-making and implementation processes that are needed to support this approach. WGs Policy development PDP WG Policy Guidance WG STAFF Implement Administrative change Board-directed change Changes reflecting comments Limited, non- material change Long-lasting material change IMPLEMETATION REVIEW TEAM Policy guidance needed?