Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
I'm merely saying that we should not be pursuing a policy development process unless we first have an informed, technically sustainable and supported basis for moving forward. We should be spending significant amounts of time fostering understanding, conducting analysis and ensuring a reasonable technical basis. We should not be jamming all of these activities into the PDP. If there isn't sufficient understanding, technical basis or support to move forward with a PDP, we should not be undertaking a PDP. To do otherwise simply overloads an already complex and delicate process. I'm not saying that these other processes have no place in our work, but simply that they are different, distinct and separate. They are also very important, valuable and essential to our success. -ross Marilyn Cade wrote: I am confused by this discussion.One cannot develop policy without information and it is critical to understand the “issue” before one develops policy. As the V.P. of policy issues for the Internet for a multi national corporation, the policy development process always included understanding the issue. J both from a technology perspective and from a legal perspective.I would sincerely hope that the Council would not take the point of view that understanding issues and information gathering, to include “opinions” and views of the constituencies, but not limited to that, are essential parts of policy development.Of course, there are those who think that policy is merely “opinion”, ‘or views’, and that has always been one of the objections to policy development. I am not a fan of the present PDP process because it is too narrow and we keep having to “color” outside the lines in order to get the data we need, the information we need, etc.I would note that IDNs is a good example, as is the new gTLD policy development process—of the need for more information, not less. Opinions have to be backed up by analysis and by information. Otherwise, they are merely opinions. When they are founded on analysis and thoughtful consideration, then we are “making sausage” the right way, as they say about policy development [sorry for the US colloquialism – in the development of policy it is often described as similar to making sausage – messy, but tasty when done right!]Of course, we need to understand the issues – NOT merely the different “points of view” of all constituencies and the ALAC, but the issues from the SSAC perspective, from the perspective of governmental entities, of the CCNSO, of the ASO, etc.The Council does itself well, and serves ICANN and the community best when it is thoughtful, informed, educated about issues and pros and cons, understands the impact of a policy on the Internet – within ICANN’s core mission and core values – and balanced in its policy outcomes. J That is policy that the Board can be proud of accepting.------------------------------------------------------------------------*From:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Philip Sheppard*Sent:* Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:17 AM *To:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx *Subject:* [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDPRoss Rader wrote: (the emphasis is mine): The PDP is our policy development process. It is *_NOT_* our issue understanding process,*_NOT_* our information gathering process, *_NOT_* 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.----- I agree. This is an informed thought to start the year. Philip
|