[CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities

[Steve Crocker]

Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review.  I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment.  We don’t have a solution at the moment, but I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach.  In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation.  In contrast, policy development processes start with the premise that a policy is needed and the bulk of the activity during a PDP is the creation and shaping of that policy.  Reviews can lead to PDPs, but they’re not interchangeable.

Steve

> On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how
> those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we
> think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is
> going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP
> can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?
> 
> It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular
> RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way)
> without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple,
> potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.
> 
> Have I missed something?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community