Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn Cade wrote:
> Olof, I thought it was General Counsel advice re "within scope"? The flow
> chart says "staff manager".  This is helpful to see, and I probably will
> have some questions regarding how best to revise the timelines for this
> particular PDP, given the complexity. 
>
> We also should be considering how we propose to modify the PDP timelines and
> processes so that they are flexible and allow for development of a time line
> suitable to each policy issue. Some will be shorter than others, for
> instance, and some may take multiple years, such as IDNs.

Hope everyone had a great holiday. I'm still not officially back, but 
have been trying to stay in the loop :)

Regarding the time considerations related to the PDP, no effort should 
take multiple years. I've been thinking about this over the holidays, 
and I'd like to submit that we need to redefine, in some cases, how we 
look at the PDP. The PDP is our policy development process, it is not 
our issue understanding process, our information gathering process, or 
our getting our technology acts together process. Each of these is 
distinct and important, but we need to keep them separate from the 
policy development process. We should also recognize that without proper 
information, understanding of the issue and logical basis in technology, 
the PDP is probably destined to fail. Therefore, we need to understand 
when it is time to initiate a PDP, and when it is time to use one or 
some of these other processes. We should also seek to refine these other 
processes, make them more explicit and start working them into the 
regular activity of the GNSO.

As a general principle, I would like to see the PDP remain as 
predictable, short-term and effective as possible.

Have a great 2006 everyone.

-ross