<<<
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
>>>
|