[Gac-gnso-cg] Final Briefing Note

[Suzanne Radell]

Hi again, everyone, and in view of the short time we have before London, I've taken the liberty of proposing some ideas that Amr and I have not had the chance to review separately (apologies, Amr, and please feel free to edit my proposal).

In reviewing Marika's most recent rendition of the PDP chart, I think we might want/need to add back in the issues/questions that had been included in Mikey's original text in order for our respective communities to understand what we're trying to highlight.  Isn't the point we're trying to highlight the absence of GAC comments on Issues Reports, despite the technical opportunity to do so (e.g. they're all posted for public comment)?  If we're all in agreement that we're trying to engage the GAC at the earliest possible point, then it is precisely at this stage (e.g. request for an Issues Report and the Issues Report itself) that we need to find better mechanisms for doing so?

I also have a question with regard to the "Opportunity for Input" section, which indicates that an AC may raise an issue for policy development.  While this may have happened in the past in terms of an ALAC request, I'm not aware of any similar GAC request.  It has always been my understanding that the majority of the requests for Issue Reports have come from the GNSO itself (or perhaps from the Board?); is there any way to capture that in the chart?  And could/should the chart indicate the timeline for these first two steps:  e.g. how long after a request for an Issues Report is made does the ICANN staff have to draft one?  How long does the GNSO then have to determine its agreement with the staff draft, or to submit edits?  After such edits are submitted, how long does ICANN staff have to circulated a revised version and when/how does the GNSO consider that version the final Issues Report that is posted for public comment?

My sense is the more detail we can provide with regard to the timelines for these initial two steps, the closer we can get to answering the questions that Mikey included.

Please feel free to comment/revise, etc.  Thanks, Suz

Suzanne Murray Radell
Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA
sradell at ntia.doc.gov
202-482-3167



From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 4:58 PM
To: Suzanne Radell; GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] Final Briefing Note

OK thanks Suzanne.  Your edits definitely improve the document so definitely a case of better late than never.
When do you think you can get the additional thoughts on the PDP track or are those not a condition for finalising the briefing?
Looking at your note below, I suspect that they are intended for the presentation to be delivered in London.  Am I correct?
Key point is to get the briefing out ASAP i.e. sufficiently ahead of London.  Jonathan.

From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell at ntia.doc.gov]
Sent: 02 June 2014 19:31
To: Jonathan Robinson; GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] Final Briefing Note
Importance: High

Thanks, Jonathan, and apologies to all for not getting these suggested edits in sooner; I hope they can be taken into account.  The edits relate to the survey, which I have understood as an important first step in determining whether the existing/current means by which GAC members are informed about upcoming PDPs at the initial stage has value/utility or needs to be reconsidered.  It has been my impression that we intended to emphasize the importance of getting feedback on this stage from the GAC during our exchange in London.  I have some additional thoughts to share on the presentation of the PDP portion of our work and will do so separately.  Thanks, Suz

From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 12:44 PM
To: GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org>
Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Final Briefing Note

All,

I have revised the briefing note to accommodate suggested changes / inputs.

Some of the comments suggestions pertained more to our work as a group so we need to pick that up on list or in our meetings.

Please see attached the final version in word (in case last-minute changes are needed) and in PDF (for distribution) formats.

Thanks,


Jonathan


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140603/4036f937/attachment-0001.html>