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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Olof, I thought it was General Counsel advice re "within scope"? The flow
chart says "staff manager".  This is helpful to see, and I probably will
have some questions regarding how best to revise the timelines for this
particular PDP, given the complexity. 

We also should be considering how we propose to modify the PDP timelines and
processes so that they are flexible and allow for development of a time line
suitable to each policy issue. Some will be shorter than others, for
instance, and some may take multiple years, such as IDNs.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Olof Nordling
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:41 AM
To: 'Thomas Keller'
Cc: 'Marilyn Cade'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Suzanne Sene'
Subject: RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

Tom (and all),
Realizing that Visio isn't necessarily widespread, I've converted the
flowcharts (t6here are three pages) to one PDF file, hoping that it will
come out all right on your side :-)
Regards
Olof

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:59 AM
To: Olof Nordling
Cc: 'Marilyn Cade'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Suzanne Sene'
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

Olof, all,

I support Marylins wording as well and want to urge the council to have this
document published as soon as possible. Only one month is already short 
enough we do not have to shorten it by any delay on our side.

To your pdp-flowchart. I could'nt open it due to some version problems.
Could you please resend it in another format like .gif or .jpg.

I wish you all a happy and successful new year.

Best,

tom

Am 29.12.2005 schrieb Olof Nordling:
> Dear Marilyn,
> 
> Many thanks for advancing this matter. Your points are well taken and I
even
> do agree that we should encourage contributions that address the full set
of
> questions. Nevertheless, we should recognize that an expert on, let's say,
> allocation methods, could well want to limit his/her contribution to that
> particular area - without that being seen as detracting from the value of
> the contribution as such. Anyway, as I read your amendments of the draft I
> find your wording striking the right balance.
> 
>  
> 
> As to the working program, it is first of all clear that we need to modify
> the timelines in the current GNSO 4mths operational plan (as prepared by
> Maria before last Council call). At the call, I also suggested that the
next
> consolidation document - or "Initial Report", to speak PDP-ese - be kept
as
> an evolving draft to be finalized in Wellington. That met with approval
but
> we haven't addressed the timeline for the following steps. As a visual
> background for further thoughts on this, I attach a flowchart (my draft,
not
> canonized.) of the GNSO PDP steps.
> 
> Very best regards
> 
> Olof  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
> Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:52 AM
> To: 'olof nordling'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'Suzanne Sene'
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Olof, 
> 
>  
> 
> Attached, as promised, are more detailed comments on the proposed call for
> papers. When I made the proposal for this additional approach to seeking
> input, and the Council supported it, I believe that we intended to solicit
> organized, and substantive inputs that directly address the full set of
> questions in the ToR.  I would prefer that we encourage that. The existing
> public forum, which is open as well through the same time frame, provides
an
> opportunity for any contributions, thus no one is disadvantaged by the
> additional criteria in terms of having their input considered. 
> 
>  
> 
> As part of our outreach, we also need to establish interaction with the
> other SOs, and with the GAC.  We should add this to our agenda for the
> January Council call. In addition, I suggest that we also invite the SSAC,
> OECD, and WIPO to meet with the Council in Wellington, if not earlier, to
> discuss these questions and any comments or information that they may be
> able to contribute. Suzanne may be able to suggest, as the liaison,
whether
> it may be appropriate to establish a time and framework for a dialogue
with
> the GAC in Wellington, as well.  It may be that there are specific
questions
> that it would be useful to focus on for that discussion.
> 
>  
> 
> Also, I want to note that we have a resolution that notes that the GNSO
> Council will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff
and
> ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work. After the holiday ends, we
> should probably undertake work on this, so that it can be posted to the
> Council the required 7 days ahead of time for our agenda for the January
> meeting. I think we need to be realistic and pragmatic about the time
frames
> and establish a feasible time frame, and then recommend such a time frame
to
> the Board. The new gTLD process is challenging and important to address
> thoroughly. While it may be unpopular to note that we may spend 6-9 months
> on this, we should assess, now, the feasibility of completing all of the
> data gathering and potentially external research or advice that we will
need
> to advise the final policy recommendations. 
> 
>  
> 
> Just one other suggestion: There is a tendency to use "GNSO" in lieu of
> "Council", or "GNSO Council" in the call for papers. I suggest that it is
> preferable to systematically use "GNSO Council" or "Council"  when we are
> referencing the Council's work. The GNSO is the full Supporting
> Organization, and I find the shorthand use of GNSO a little confusing. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
> Behalf Of olof nordling
> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:00 AM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> As you may recall we have a Call for Papers regarding the new gTLD PDP to
> write for announcement in early January. I have attached a very first
draft
> to this effect and I would sincerely appreciate comments on the draft from
> those of you who happen to be on-line during these largely
holiday-dominated
> days. The objective would be to have it distributed and posted on 3
January.
> 
>  
> 
> The draft includes the ToR in extenso (the announcement on the ICANN front
> page will have to be shorter, cutting the ToR part). Would this be enough
or
> should we specify another layer of questions - if so, which questions?
> 
>  
> 
> I'm looking forward to receiving your views on any aspects of the draft.
> 
>  
> 
> Very best regards from Brussels (just lightly covered in snow, to mark the
> season)
> 
> Olof 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 



Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w