ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] PDP timelines

  • To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] PDP timelines
  • From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:05:52 -0500
  • In-reply-to: <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB540238DCA1@balius.mit>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcYRWnDFEIPFjqbBTI2eOXVF9RkaYQAIliwQAAROv+AAAlBxUAADZ+Pw

Your comments and those I made seem similar in outcome.

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:32 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] PDP timelines

Hello Marilyn,


> 
> As to whether a drop dead date is the right answer, one has 
> to be very mature in consideration of policy development. 
> Sometimes, the right answer is 'not now, but perhaps in the 
> future", and schedule a "next assessment".
> 
> Perhaps that is what you are recommending -- I wasn't sure.
> 

A PDP ties up significant staff and community resources.  I am proposing
that a particular PDP conclude after a certain drop dead date if
agreement can't be reached.  To start again would require the full
process for initiating a PDP - formal vote and prioritisation.

It would certainly be appropriate to consider putting a matter on hold,
and reviewing it again at some future date (perhaps after public
policy/laws become clearer on a matter for example, or when further
technical developments arise).

It is a similar process for companies doing development or R&D.  They
allocate resources for a particular project for a particular period (and
cost).

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>