Re: [council] PEDNR Motion

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

The drafting team did discuss this. The conclusion was (and staff 
concurred if I remember correctly) that any further consultation 
could reasonably be done as part of the PDP. We also talked about a 
public forum in Sydney, the exact contents of which would depend on 
how far along the WG (presuming we use a WG) had gotten.
I guess the question came down to whether we felt that some policy 
development and non-policy recommendations were required regardless, 
and whether the outcomes of pre-PDP consultation would change the 
details of the recommendations to be put in a PDP charter. The answer 
to the first question was yes, we did feel that PDP action was 
required, and we did not think that the specific recommendations 
would change. How a WG addresses the issues may well change, but 
since it did not appear that the results of such consultation would 
alter the PDP charter, there did not seem to be any reason to delay.
Although not discussed, I would envision a call for input on some 
targeted questins as an early part of the process.
Alan

At 01/04/2009 06:09 PM, you wrote:

> I was re-reading the issues report and was reminded of this Staff
> recommendation:
>
> "In relation to the desired outcomes stated by ALAC in its request,
> ICANN staff notes that
> while most, if not all, outcomes might be achieved by the
> recommendations identified by the
> ALAC, it would be helpful for all parties concerned to engage in a more
> fulsome dialogue on
> the extent and detailed nature of the concerns to determine whether
> these are shared
> desired outcomes and if so, how these could best be addressed in policy
> work going
> forward, including a more robust discussion of the merits and drawbacks
> of various solutions
> to address agreed concerns. The GNSO Council might consider such an
> activity, which
> could take the form of one or more public workshops at an upcoming ICANN
> meeting, for
> example, as a precursor for the launch of a PDP as it would help to
> define and focus the
> policy development process on one or more specific proposed changes.
> While this could
> also be explored by a working group following the launch of a PDP, staff
> recommends
> further fact finding first to figure out what policy options might
> exist, and then conduct a PDP
> to assess the impact of those policy options and confirm community
> support for a preferred
> policy choice."
>
> I don't recall that we discussed whether we should follow this advice or
> not. Alan, is there
> a reason why your motion initiates a PDP instead of the fact finding
> that the Staff suggests
> be done first?
>
>
> Tim