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

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

this makes good sense to me as well

Ken Stubbs

Marilyn Cade 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
> >
> >
> >
> >    
>
>
>