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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello all,

OK, now that this is clarified and we seem to agree that we
need all those processes, the next question I'm attempted
to ask is how do we do that, to "redefine" how we should
look at the PDP? Would it be necessary to initiate a
revision of the ICANN bylaws to include the kind of wording
you suggested, or just state a phased PDP in our planning?
For in fact, some may say, as I suspect Marilyn, that's
what the PDP as a whole is all about - the ingredients of
the sausage - and should remain that way! But now you want
to make it a set of plain steaks, and indeed, some might
find it more apetizing; hmm...let's see.

I have another question, Ross. What do you mean by "our
getting our technology acts together process"? As
enumerated in your ealier email, I suspect this is
something the GNSO Council might be doing as well (maybe as
part of the sausage-like PDP), so I guess I need to be able
to identify what piece is this one, thanks.

Best of the new year!

Mawaki


"I'd like to submit that we need to redefine, in some
cases, how we look at the PDP. The PDP is our policy
development process, it is not our issue understanding
process, our information gathering process, or our getting
our technology acts together process." Ross

--- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
> > 
> >  
> > 
> 
>