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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hmmm, well, I am not convinced.

It seems "simple" to "scale down" a policy issue, but really, some policy
issues don't lend themselves to "modularization". I think of IDNs as an
example, or the recent .com settlement agreement. 

Can we really miniaturize these issues into modules, that can only be
considered in sequence? I doubt that. 

The .com settlement issue raises several policy issues; they will  need to
be considered as a package. We can't break them into separate distinct
modules that have no relevance or interaction with each other. That would be
"ignorant" on our part, as councilors. I know that is a strong word, but I
use it intentionally. 

Developing policy requires us to step above individual constituency or
company "votes" and think for the good of the Internet/as the gNSO affects
it. That is our challenge, our charter, and our obligation.

That is why we are elected. 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:53 PM
To: Bret Fausett; Ken Stubbs
Cc: Marilyn Cade; 'Thomas Keller'; 'Ross Rader'; 'Council GNSO'
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

I would like to be helpful here, but as you see, one needs
to talk based on some experience with the ICANN/GNSO
processes... So I may be making assumptions, if I say any
other thing than asking questions. 

First, I understand that there is a consensus to move the
PDP definition outside the ICANN bylaws. I have even
learned that it has been agreed on to
amend/improve/adapt/update it, and this is in the pipeline.
Maybe what we need to do now (if it's not already done) is
to put this issue on our agenda some time this year - or
first half of the year, but I also see that our work plan
is swamped!... Anyway, that would be the opportunity to
discuss and integrate the most relevant suggestions made,
or points of clarifications raised, by Ross, Marilyn,
Brett, Ken and others. 

For the time being, I do think it may be a bit extreme to
remove the possibility of time extension, unless you think
(having experienced) this has been used abusively. We may
also come up with some conditions to make it harder to
resort to, for if the PDP need to be done, we will need to
resume it anyway if the timeline expires and this may cause
some loss of resources/energy. Other than that, I tend to
agree with the suggestions that lean toward better defined,
identifiable, homogenous, and more controllable tasks as
part of the PDP.

Thanks to all those who have made themselves available to
help the rest of us better understand these issues.

Mawaki

--- Bret Fausett <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I agree with Ken. Also, the PDP process set forth in the
> bylaws sets 
> some fairly rigid deadlines for completion and does not
> provide a 
> mechanism for an extension of time. This rigidity was
> unpopular when it 
> was developed, but Hans Kraiijanbrink and Joe Sims, who
> led the work 
> group that created the PDP were adamant that this was the
> only 
> acceptable process. From a process and bylaws point of
> view, I am 
> concerned that we have embarked on a PDP with no
> intention of following 
> the time periods set forth in the bylaws and have
> extended the time 
> periods without any apparent authority in the bylaws to
> do so. The only 
> way around the tight deadlines in the bylaws, as I see
> it, is to 
> narrowly scope the issues under consideration and
> complete several small 
> PDPs in a row to accomplish large tasks. In other words,
> if we feel the 
> need to extend the time set forth in the bylaws, the
> better approach is 
> to scale down the issue under consideration.
> 
>           -- Bret
> 
> Ken Stubbs wrote:
> 
> > *I** am becoming a firm believer in the concept of a
> "drop dead" date 
> > for PDP's.
> >
> > I believe that we need to insure against "perpetuity"
> by providing in 
> > the process a "reasonable" time period
> > for completion.. If the time period is not met then
> that specific PDP 
> > would expire and an entirely new PDP would have to be
> initiated.
> >
> > I do not think it is a good idea to allow for council
> votes for "time 
> > extensions" for a specific PDP as this
> > would circumvent the concept of a "timely " process..
> >
> > your thoughts ?
> >
> >
> > Ken Stubbs*
> >
> 
> 
>