[council] PEDNR Motion

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I was re-reading the issues report and was reminded of this Staff
recommendation:

"In relation to the desired outcomes stated by ALAC in its request,
ICANN staff notes that
while most, if not all, outcomes might be achieved by the
recommendations identified by the
ALAC, it would be helpful for all parties concerned to engage in a more
fulsome dialogue on
the extent and detailed nature of the concerns to determine whether
these are shared
desired outcomes and if so, how these could best be addressed in policy
work going
forward, including a more robust discussion of the merits and drawbacks
of various solutions
to address agreed concerns. The GNSO Council might consider such an
activity, which
could take the form of one or more public workshops at an upcoming ICANN
meeting, for
example, as a precursor for the launch of a PDP as it would help to
define and focus the
policy development process on one or more specific proposed changes.
While this could
also be explored by a working group following the launch of a PDP, staff
recommends
further fact finding first to figure out what policy options might
exist, and then conduct a PDP
to assess the impact of those policy options and confirm community
support for a preferred
policy choice."

I don't recall that we discussed whether we should follow this advice or
not. Alan, is there
a reason why your motion initiates a PDP instead of the fact finding
that the Staff suggests
be done first? 


Tim