<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
Mawaki Chango wrote:
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?
My recommendation is two-fold. First, the amendment to the bylaws should
be to move the GNSO PDP to a separate document. This would allow us to
modify it in the future without having to amend ICANN's bylaws. The
amendment should be constructed so that a majority of the board of
directors would have to vote in favor of the amendment (as opposed to
the 2/3s required now). Second, we should only be looking to modify the
timelines in the PDP right now. There might be additional changes
required in the future to streamline or otherwise make the process more
efficient, but my preference would be to avoid a wholesale
reconstruction of the PDP - we have work that we need to undertake
immediately that would benefit from having clarified timelines. Let's
make sure that we stay focused on the practical goal of getting better
at what we do.
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.
I was referring to instances where the technical environment wasn't
quite ready for the policy work going on in the GNSO and vice versa,
where the policy environment wasn't ready for new technical developments
being implemented. For me, this comes down to making sure that we are
appropriately informed regarding the capabilities of differing
technologies (and often, identifying areas where new technology might be
required) prior to conducting a PDP. For instance, the GNSO has very
little understanding of the policy implications and new policy
requirements presented by the IRIS protocol - or whether or not the
protocol is even appropriate for the applications that some would like
to embed in ICANN policy. In a perfect world, we would have a clear
understanding of these implications before we conducted a PDP. In this
world, we need to make sure that this lack of understanding doesn't
stand in the way of the PDP and that we rise to a proper level of
understanding of the relevant issues in a timely manner.
Regards,
-ross
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|