[Gac-gnso-cg] Agenda for Tues. May 27th cc ..

Wed Jun 4 10:38:20 UTC 2014

Hi Manal,

Yes, that is correct, we've updated 'Issue Report' to ' Initiation' as it
reflects better what happens in that phase (the Council decides whether to
initiate a PDP and may form a DT to develop a charter). The Issue Report
itself is delivered under the Issue Scoping phase per the detailed graphics.

Regarding your questions, which I presume relate to phase 1, currently the
input on the Preliminary Issue Report received through the public comment
forum is reviewed by staff who will, as deemed appropriate, update the Issue
Report as well as include the summary of comments received. As noted before,
during this specific phase, the input provided ideally focuses on the issue
scoping (is any information relevant to the issue missing) and views on
whether the GNSO Council should initiate a PDP on the topic. We have seen
that some commenters are tempted to already dive into the actual discussion
on potential solutions and that information is then passed on to the WG, if
the GNSO Council does decide to initiate a PDP.

Best regards,

Marika 

From:  Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
Date:  Wednesday 4 June 2014 07:53
To:  Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, Suzanne Radell
<SRadell at ntia.doc.gov>, "gac-gnso-cg at icann.org" <gac-gnso-cg at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] Agenda for Tues. May 27th cc ..

Many thanks Marika .. Extremely useful !!
I may have missed part of the conversation though, so apologies for that in
advance .. As per the WG document and the briefing note, we have the
following 6 phases/steps:
1.      Issue Scoping

2.      Issue Report

3.      Working Group

4.      Council Deliberations

5.      Board Vote

6.      Implementation

So does the 'initiation' step on the diagram map to the 'Issue Report' (2.
above)?

Dear All ..
I think having reached that level of details of this phase of the process we
should be able to brainstorm on and answer questions such as:
-         Are we fine with the current notification mechanism?

(I'm sure the frequency of notifications is a problem for the GAC; but is
this the only problem? If not, then maybe we should start by discussing a
best case scenario of one PDP, then see how to handle the frequency problem
and discuss the maximum the GAC can cope with ..)

-         Does this notification mechanism need to change?

-         Should it be more formal?

-         Should it be more than a notification? Request for GAC input for
example, which implies pending the whole process till GAC input is received
..

-         In this case, will the GAC be committed to respond to every
notification/request with its intention as to whether or not it will be
providing GAC input (not to hold the process indefinitely), along with an
expected timeframe?

I think as soon as we ensure that this GAC/GNSO link is established at such
an early stage, we can then start looking into how GAC input will be handled
by the GNSO? What if not in agreement with the GNSO views? In such cases,
should there be some sort of mandated GAC/GNSO consultation on the issue
before proceeding? How would this ultimately affect the overall time frame?
And how would this ultimately affect GAC advice to the Board at a later
stage? 

I'm sorry to be repeating questions we already have in the WG document but
the intention is to trigger further discussion to be able to go London with
an agreed proposal ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 9:00 PM
To: Manal Ismail; Suzanne Radell; gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Agenda for Tues. May 27th cc ..

Hi Manal,

Please find attached the graphic with the circles which as mentioned has
been updated to reflect that the third step is 'initiation' as well as
updated colours. 

To facilitate the CG's discussion on the details of each phases, I've
developed the attached process flow on the Issue Scoping phase which may
make it easier to see who currently does what / when as well as identifying
where additional steps may need to be added (or proposals can be reflected).
If you think this is helpful, I'm happy to create a similar one for the
other phases, or if not deemed helpful, happy to not do so as well ;-)

Best regards,

Marika

From: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
Date: Thursday 29 May 2014 07:20
To: Suzanne Radell <SRadell at ntia.doc.gov>, "gac-gnso-cg at icann.org"
<gac-gnso-cg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Agenda for Tues. May 27th cc ..

Many thanks Suzanne for your timely suggestion, as Jonathan and I have
assumed the responsibility of getting back to the group with proposed slides
for London ..

Your suggestion aligns with my thinking, which I also have to admit not
having the chance to discuss with Jonathan yet .. I assume, when you mention
'the two first steps' that you mean the first 2 phases 'Issues scoping' and
'Issue Report' .. Hope I'm right ..

Here is one way to go about it:
1.      One slide to introduce the PDP work track

2.      A second slide with the GNSO PDP diagram, with circles to indicate
the phases or stages, as you have proposed (would be helpful if you or
Marika could kindly confirm the exact diagram)

3.      A third slide on the group's proposal regarding new/enhanced GAC
engagement opportunities/mechanisms during phase 1 (Issue Scoping), which
should basically conclude our discussion, in light of answers provided to
the posed questions and suggestions proposed to address raised issues (this
still needs to be further discussed and concluded)

4.      A fourth similar slide for phase 2 (Issue Report)

5.      A fifth & final one covering what we expect from our constituencies
in London: for example, GAC/GNSO approval to proceed as suggested, concrete
responses to specific questions, Š etc

Suzanne, let me know what you think ..
Would also appreciate thoughts from other colleagues ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell at ntia.doc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:59 PM
To: Manal Ismail; gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: RE: Agenda for Tues. May 27th cc ..

Thanks, Manal and Jonathan.  I must offer apologies for missing today¹s
call, as I need to be in a briefing for Larry Strickling at 9:30.  I did
want to offer a suggestion for the group to consider, with the full
disclosure that Amr and I have not had a chance to compare notes on this as
yet.  In thinking about how to present our work to date on the PDP process,
it struck me that we might want to reduce the document we are using as a
working document to a cover sheet that uses the GNSO graph (with circles to
indicate the phases or stages), with a red line or some other means of
identifying that we¹re focusing at the outset on the two first steps; the
parts of the text that address just those steps could follow.

Thanks for considering this idea, and please feel free to discard it if
others don¹t agree.  Thanks to Marika and Olof for preparing the survey;
think it¹s very helpful.  Cheers, Suz

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

From:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 5:38 PM
To: gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Agenda for Tues. May 27th cc ..

Dear All ..

Here is the agenda Jonathan and I compiled for tomorrow¹s call:

1.      Review the briefing note to be circulated in advance of ICANN London
(version: attached)

2.      Review Day-to-day work track (version: attached)

·        Discuss / Finalize options A, F & E

3.      Review PDP work track (version: attached)

·        Discuss / Finalize proposals for phases 1 & 2

4.      Consider material for ICANN London

·        Presentation

·        The survey (Draft here:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?PREVIEW_MODE=DO_NOT_USE_THIS_LINK_FOR_COL
LECTION&sm=ezpA8R9gJ46f0o8Zpss1JqDqTwjJx7XstxMT5d73LSY%3d)

5.      AOB

All referenced documents are attached for your convenience ..
Marika, appreciate your confirmation that I¹ve attached the most recent
versions ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140604/99d7547a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140604/99d7547a/smime-0001.p7s>