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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I both agree and disagree.

It is certainly true that the subject needs to be well understood  
before one can embark on making policy about it.  But i think it is  
also an indispensable part of policy making that one does a fact  
finding during the process itself.  Hopefully, one does not have to  
learn too much during this process, but it does seem to be necessary  
part of due diligence.
a.

On 3 jan 2006, at 12.39, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> I am fully in agreement with your clarification. I thought that was  
> what you
> were saying.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- 
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Ross Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:07 PM
> To: Marilyn Cade
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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 PDP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ross 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