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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
> 
>  
>