Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

FWIW, the Policy & Implementation Working Group is actively working on
developing recommendations on 'A
process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of ³Policy
Guidance², including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such
a process (for developing policy other than ³Consensus Policy²) instead of
a GNSO Policy
Development Process' (as per one of its charter questions). Further
details about its activities can be found here:
https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag.

Best regards,

Marika

On 08/05/14 16:39, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
>
>On 08-May-14 10:22, Tony Holmes wrote:
>> I'd also like to support the point that Volker made that we need a
>>faster
>> way to resolve these issues in the future as we're bound by the
>> policy-making tools we have at our disposal.
>> Is that something we could refer to the SCI to look at?
>
>I agree, we need some additonal processes. Not short cuts through the
>PDP as has been suggested in the past but some specific tools for making
>bottom-up decisions quickly upon request.
>
>It is a good topic for the SCI, for the GNSO review, and for the P&I
>Working group.
>
>avri
>
>

Attachment: default.xml
Description: XML document

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature