<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Again speaking for myself without benefit of consultation and coordination internally, but with the benefit having watched all of this evolve, I think:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><ul class="MailOutline"><li class="">We do indeed need to follow the rules, which means we do need to start the next review as soon as possible.<br class=""><br class=""></li><li class="">We also need to assemble an integrated picture of the multiple processes so everyone can see who’s doing what and how the various processes are related to each other.<br class=""><br class=""></li><li class="">Although we need to start the review process right away, we do have some latitude with respect to its scope. Bruce Tonkin has suggested for future reviews, presumably all of them, not just the directory services review, that we move toward asking a more specific questions to provide focus and to limit the amount of time and energy required to conduct these reviews.</li></ul><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class="">I think this last point moves in the direction you’re looking for even though it’s not as “efficient” as simply declaring the review unnecessary in total.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Steve</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" class="">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:55:06AM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">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.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Ok (and I find I agree with your argument about the starting point of<br class="">RT vs. PDP).<br class=""><br class="">I believe quite strongly that we must follow the proposal closely, and<br class="">with the above conclusion it seems likely that an RT is going to be<br class="">needed for RDS as soon as the new bylaws come into effect. Given the<br class="">ongoing PDP, that seems unfortunate, but it might just be a<br class="">consequence that we have to accept given the state we're in (and the<br class="">dictates of the calendar). I do _not_ think it would be ok to vary<br class="">too much from what we think the report says. If we can't plausibly<br class="">come up with a way in which a PDP can substitute for an RT, it's far<br class="">from obvious to me that we can do anything here.<br class=""><br class="">Best regards,<br class=""><br class="">A<br class=""><br class="">-- <br class="">Andrew Sullivan<br class=""><a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" class="">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>