<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
- To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 08:36:18 +1000
- In-reply-to: <676449.73363.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
- References: <000901c7a1ca$7f1cad40$e601a8c0@PSEVO> <676449.73363.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AceiF00ZMN5xwn3URDGYnquNZxSW6QAjLP7A
- Thread-topic: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
Hello Mawaki,
>
> Do you have anything specific in mind? what and where are the
> provisions to ensure such flexibility? I think it is important
> to know concretely how this can be handled, should the need
> arise.
I was referring to the PDP process. A PDP can be used at any time to
update an existing policy.
I had envisaged a process (which certainly should be clarified in the
report) that involves a fast track review process after the first round
(preferably against a clear set of measurable parameters), and then the
Council could decide to initiate a PDP process (again hopefully of a
duration of say 90 days) to make any policy adjustments needed, or the
staff could simply improve the implementation of the existing policy.
I recall some discussion of this in Marina Del Ray where we talked about
the need to have some measures of success and set out a clear review
process.
We did actually build in such a review process for the transfers policy
- but this has been a bit resource constrained (probably mostly from the
volunteer side) and has not yet concluded.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|