Re: [council] Flow chart - gTLD Registration Services PDP

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marika,

Got a “page not found” message on the Beijing meeting transcripts link. In 
which meeting in Beijing was this topic discussed? It’d help me understand the 
context under which Jonathan sent the letter.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Oct 2, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>> YesŠ, 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  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>