Re: [council] Flow chart - gTLD Registration Services PDP
Hi Amr, The topic was, amongst others, discussed during the ICANN meeting in Beijing (see http://beijing46.icann.org/meetings/beijing2013/transcript-gtld-registratio n-data-06apr13-en.pdf) as well as follow up correspondence from Jonathan to the EWG (http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-baril-19jun13-en.pdf). Best regards, Marika On 02/10/14 20:56, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hi, > >Can we please be provided some more information on the circumstances >surrounding the request to postpone the publication of the final issue >report last year? I¹d appreciate some understanding of the details of the >Council¹s agreement to agree to this. That seems to be a missing piece of >the puzzle in the conversation we are now having, at least as far as I¹m >concerned. > >Some more in-line below: > >On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> >wrote: > >> Thanks, Avri, you are correct. Nothing prevents another public comment >>period on the Issue Report. However, it may be worth considering what >>the objective of such a public comment period would be. As also noted on >>the call, the main objective of a public comment period on the >>Preliminary Issue Report is 1) to make sure all the relevant information >>that is aimed >> to help inform the PDP WG deliberations has been covered and 2) to >>provide input on whether the GNSO Council should initiate a PDP. As two >>is not relevant in this case as it concerns a Board initiated PDP for >>which there is no Council vote on the initiation, the public comment >>forum would focus on 1 - is there any further relevant information that >>should be included >> to help inform the PDP WG deliberations. > >Yes?, that seems right to me. > >> If the objective of the public comment forum would be to obtain input >>on the substance of the information to be considered as part of the PDP >>deliberations, this is typically done at the outset of the PDP WG which >>is required to obtain input to help inform its deliberations at an early >>stage. > >My understanding is that the stage you¹re describing here is input to >discussion items that are already deemed within the scope of the PDP and >outlined in its charter, while my personal pressing concern is defining >what is, in fact, in and out of scope. > >> As the Issue Report was originally requested by the Board, this is >>probably one of the topics that could be considered by the informal >>group as part of the conversation on what should be the next step(s) in >>this process. >> >> One other thing that could be considered in this regard is that if >>there is indeed agreement to re-issue the Preliminary Issue Report for >>public comment, whether it would be helpful to include a proposed >>charter for the PDP WG as we have also done in recent Preliminary Issue >>Reports as part of our PDP improvements project. This could have the >>added benefit of obtaining input on the scope for the PDP WG as well as >>proposed approach for dealing with the subject matter which could help >>inform discussions on the charter in the next phase of the PDP. > >I can see how this might make sense, IF we¹re in a hurry to get this >done. I¹m not necessarily opposed to this practice in principal, but I am >a little hesitant to do a trial-run of it on a policy topic of this >magnitude and complexity. A question that also occurs to me now that >didn¹t at the time when this was being discussed is; what is the voting >threshold on the Council that would be required to decide that a charter >drafting team is not necessary? > >Thanks. > >Amr > >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 01/10/14 00:03, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for this. It is good to see pictorially what is being thought >>>of. >>> >>> I think that because the first review of the issues report was over a >>> year ago, because the inclusion of EWG brings up new consideration on >>> that issue report and because of intervening policy issues, we need to >>> have another review period before a final issues report can be >>>released. >>> >>> I know that the PDP process does not require this, but neither does the >>> PDP prohibit it and given the unusual circumstances of this process it >>> is necessary. >>> >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 30-Sep-14 03:51, Marika Konings wrote: >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Following our discussion last week, please find attached a flow chart >>>>in >>>> which we've tried to describe in further detail where from a staff >>>> perspective the gTLD Registration Services PDP stands and how it >>>> relates to >>>> the EWG Final Report as well as the informal group proposed by Steve >>>> Crocker >>>> to discuss next steps. As we also tried to make clear on the call and >>>> which >>>> the flow chart will hopefully show, is that the PDP has been following >>>> the >>>> required steps as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws as well as Annex A and >>>> that >>>> the EWG is in no way circumventing this process but merely providing >>>> additional insights and information that will hopefully help inform >>>> subsequent deliberations, something that from our perspective is fully >>>> in >>>> line with the objective of fact-based policy development. We hope this >>>> may >>>> be helpful as the Council considers next steps and engages with the >>>> Board in >>>> the proposed informal discussion. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Marika >>>> >>>> >>>> > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|