[Gac-gnso-cg] Final Briefing Note

Thu Jun 5 11:52:40 UTC 2014

Suzanne, to clarify on the timing question, Staff has 45 days to prepare the
Preliminary Issue Report but may ask for an extension if additional time is
needed. Following that the Preliminary Issue Report is published for public
comment for at least 30 days. The summary and analysis of public comments as
well as Final Issue Report are expected to be delivered to the GNSO Council
within 30 days of the closing of the public comment forum, although staff
may request an extension. Following that, the GNSO Council is expected to
consider the Final Issue Report and vote on whether to initiate the PDP at
the subsequent Council meeting, although this consideration may postponed
for one meeting (but no more). Please note that the Council usually does not
suggest changes or edits to the Final Issue Report  the report is
considered 'as is', although if the Council decides to initiate a PDP, it
can provide specific direction to the DT developing the charter for the PDP
to take into account (if a DT is formed). If helpful, I can include the
different timeframes in the flow chart.

Best regards,

Marika

From:  Suzanne Radell <SRadell at ntia.doc.gov>
Date:  Tuesday 3 June 2014 19:50
To:  Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>,
"GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org" <GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Final Briefing Note

Hi again, everyone, and in view of the short time we have before London,
I¹ve 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 Marika¹s 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 Mikey¹s original text in order for our respective communities to
understand what we¹re trying to highlight.  Isn¹t the point we¹re trying to
highlight the absence of GAC comments on Issues Reports, despite the
technical opportunity to do so (e.g. they¹re all posted for public comment)?
If we¹re all in agreement that we¹re 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 ³Opportunity for Input² 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, I¹m 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
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] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 12:44 PM
To: 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/20140605/7abc54ba/attachment.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/20140605/7abc54ba/smime.p7s>