ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] PDP timelines

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] PDP timelines
  • From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 14:20:44 -0800 (PST)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=M0uiO1D7+w1WCKSsiTMmJkFW/hcG6rnCox00YS0bgysNgBQu+lV7f3cM9ifsUPrVsCr3cjDvGTXBETdYBB3Qi9/y6Q5/7C97LCuOPpGz6Ds/3TuLhSuFc9m7a+iwkgCjCF0k4uCYTD4A0IwSmciCTcPlQmXK9JEhtuzyz+pq1Cc= ;
  • In-reply-to: <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB540238DD35@balius.mit>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hello all,

Bruce, Avri,...

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello Avri,
> 
> > >
> > 
> > I think in most cases, in my experience at least,
> projects that do  
> > not complete on time are reviewed and extended only if
> warranted.  
> 
> Agreed.
>  
> > Automatic sunset that disregards complexity or issues
> does 
> > not seem the best alternative to me.  It seems that any
> 
> > notion of concluding a PDP must require a definitive
> action, 
> > e.g. a vote, as opposed to some automatic mechanism.
> > 
> 
> I would have thought that should be the other way around.
>  Any extension
> of a deadline/project requires a definitive vote.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce
> 
 
I don't see a contradiction here. The outcome of a "normal"
PDP is to have a policy developed. I understand what Avri
means by "concluding a PDP" as being the same as the notion
of "drop dead" mentioned earlier. In both cases, whether
"concluding" or extending, there is a need for a
"definitive action", or an ad hoc or a case-specific
decision making process, since the immediate outcome would
be other than the (normal) one expected.

Mawaki



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>