[GTLD-WG] Community review of TMCH Strawman proposals

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Mon Dec 3 07:20:13 UTC 2012


On 3 Dec 2012, at 09:36, Carlton Samuels wrote:

>   
> 2. The current PDP system is too slow and unwieldy for many issues, and a
> PDP "light" is needed but its design must be balanced and have GAC and ALAC
> buy-in integral.
>  
> True, but the low hanging fruit for DPD process reform can come simply by the way the issues are framed.  Look at what is happening with the current "Thick WHOIS PDP', for instance.  It is evolving in a way that makes good sense.
> 
> You really would not need a 'PDP light' if we make stark the separation between the implementation issues, strategy and policy.  I've been developing and writing policy in several areas for many years.  A policy is a broad statement of intent with some very specific parts; the problem we want to fix, the objective and the context. Look closely at some outputs from PDPs and recognize a mix of policy, strategy and even implementation frameworks. 
>  

BTW, I am not sure this is an issue for this group which focuses on the new gTLD roll out and not PDP processes which I beleive are out of scope. This is more of a R3 issue in my opinion.

<personal viewpoint on a topic I think out of scope for this group>

I agree with regard to not supporting a PDP light, I argued against it.  And still do.
To make it light, we have to cut something out, or cut something like comment periods short.

I think that with strict definition of the terms of reference
and a chair/staff that drives it efficiently, they can be done in good time.
ANd on this topic there is time before there any delegations are made

I worry about any process that tries to cut out any of the full stakeholder consideration or the due process.  
Evan speaks of reaping what we, those of us in the GNSO, sowed.  I am not going to argue about that, though as the person who was the chair of the new gTLD policy process when it was decided, I resist the accusation.  

In any case we have a new PDP (the regime not a single PDP) which is just beginning to be exercised and in this we have placed guarantees for full participation by the whole community and have now migrated completely to the WG model which was only evolving process before this.  I hate to see that thrown out by our new Authority before we have had the chance to use and perhaps fix that process.  I expect we will find ways to make that process more efficient without eviscerating it. 

I have no problem reworking processes and even creating new ones if that is done in a fully bottom-up manner.  And while I will support movements to restructure, I'll fight until my last day of ICANN participation anyone who tries to end run them for efficiency or any other purpose.  Our bottom-up derived processes are the only things that make what ICANN does legitimate.

<end personal comment>


More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list