[GTLD-WG] Community review of TMCH Strawman proposals

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Mon Dec 3 11:39:40 UTC 2012

+1, PDP process is out of scope.


Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 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
> > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
> Working Group direct URL:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list