[council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Rubens,

I agree, and tried to make this point myself several times, including on Tuesday.

> On Apr 14, 2016, at 8:55 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:

[SNIP]

> "To the extent it is possible to predict in advance what stakeholder groups may be impacted by future policy development efforts, that would be very helpful. It is probably more likely though to be able to do that after specific policy issues are identified. Certainly, this seems like a very good recommendation to be implemented in Issue Reports. It would make more sense to commission an analysis that is specific to the policy development process, rather than a wide-ranging analysis that may serve no purpose."

Indeed. I suspect that if the recommendation had been made by the independent examiner in a way similar to the one you put it, the recommendation would have been color-coded orange (work already underway) as opposed to red (do not implement). I say this with consideration to the work done by the Data and Metrics for Policy Development working group, as well as a number of WHOIS-related studies that have already informed and continue to inform GNSO PDPs.

Thanks.

Amr