Re: [council] RE: An idea to progress work on PDP

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, and yes, and when I tried to have this "educated discussion" during the 
ERC process, "allergies" broke out. Time for a more advanced approach, as you 
are suggesting, Bruce. 
-----Original Message-----
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:39:56 
To:<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] RE: An idea to progress work on PDP

Hello Marilyn,

At this stage I don't want to work on changing the bylaws of the PDP
itself at this stage.

However it would be a productive discussion to discuss the PDP in the
context of working with the ccNSO on Internationalised domain names.

Likewise, for the purposes of the Council improving the effectiveness of
the PDP and following up on recommendations of the previous review - I
recommend we start with the new gtld PDP - and make sure we plan the
work carefully and get the Board to approve timelines that are outside
of the PDP.   

If we are able to effectively design a process around IDNs and new
gtlds, and prove that it works - lets then incorporate the process that
works into the bylaws.  I am reluctant to just work on the bylaws - when
we don't have a working model that everyone has confidence in.

Regarding the upcoming review - I agree that we should not review the
whole PDP again.  Instead we should focus on the elements of the PDP
that were not covered in the last review.  The last review focussed on
the operation of the Council and its task forces.  It did not cover the
detail of how constituencies interact with the PDP - ie how
constituencies develop their initial positions, and how constituencies
interact with the remaining PDP process (ie how they discuss initial and
final reports etc).

I suspect we might have two different categories of policy work:
- when the initial constituency positions seem to suggest a clear
supermajority position - then the task force/Council can rapidly
converge on an initial report.
- when the initial constituency positions are widely diverging - we
might need to establish a process/forum with wider constituency member
participation to attempt to seek a compromise (this may need to be done
at a physical ICANN meeting).

The work on deleted names seems to fit into the first category - whereas
the WHOIS work probably fits in to the second category.   When reading
the PDP process in the bylaws - it seems to assume that a task force
will rapidly converge on a supermajority position - this is not possible
for many controversial issues.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin






Regards,
Marilyn Cade