[ME ICANN] Montreal ME Space statement first draft for your comment

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

If I’m understanding this correctly, then I’d agree with Hadia on this. The GNSO has been working on PDP 3.0 for quite some time (considerably longer than the Evolving ICANN’s MSM project has been going on), and like Rafik said, there should be some very tangible outcomes very soon. I believe the general intent of PDP 3.0 (I stand to be corrected on this) is to enhance the efficiency of the the GNSO’s PDP, and improve participation from other ICANN SOs/ACs in gTLD policy development.

It might lead to less openness in participation in PDPs There will likely be PDPs moving forward, which are not open to general public membership in WGs. Instead, at least some will likely be populated with fixed representation from different ICANN SOs/ACs, similar to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data EPDP Team, however, in certain circumstances, a tradeoff of less openness (not an absence of open participation) in order to improve efficiency might take place. This would only be one of many aspects of attempted improvements using PDP 3.0.

Still…, as Hadia says, I’d advise that the outcome of implementation of PDP 3.0 be reviewed prior to supporting a parallel process to achieve the same objectives the GNSO has been pursuing. Otherwise, ICANN might find itself dealing with two duplicative and competing processes taking place to improve efficiency of gTLD policy development.

I hope this helps.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 9, 2019, at 1:27 PM, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>
> Dear Tijani,
>
> Since I saw that you did not access the google document , I would like to share with you what I put on the google document  with regard to Issue 2 – Precision in Scoping Work, where I do not see it as part of the MSM because  with regard to the scoping of ICANN work this is within the scope of PDP 3.0, again it is a suggested path that might provide a solution but is yet to be seen and any other suggestions we make is also a suggested path that will need to be seen, so why do we embark on a new path when we haven't seen the result of the existing yet. As with regard to the scoping of the work of the community, the community participates in the MEAC SWG and in the implementation phase so what other role are we suggesting? So are we suggesting creating some more community groups? I do not think this would be efficient, making better use of the existing ones and the existing process in this regard is better.
>
> Dear All, please continue providing your inputs
>
> Best
>
> Hadia
>
> From: Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2019 7:17 PM
> To: Amr Elsadr
> Cc: Hadia El Miniawi; middle-east at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Montreal ME Space statement first draft for your comment
>
> Dear Amr,
>
> I do apologize for the confusion. I meant it’s implementation is not adopted, and is even not ready yet to be put for public comment.
>
> @ Nadira, PDP 3.0 was proposed as potential solution in the public consultation we are responding to; that’s why I mentioned it.
>
> Best
>
>> Le 8 oct. 2019 à 14:35, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> For what it’s worth, my understanding is that the PDP 3.0 has been adopted quite a while ago, and should be fully implemented within the first quarter of 2020. There are regular updates on implementation of PDP 3.0 during monthly GNSO Council meetings. I’ve attached the slide deck from its September 2019 meeting, which includes the expected timeline to wrap up implementation.
>>
>> The slide deck can also be found under “Item 9” here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Documents+19+September+2019
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2019, at 3:17 PM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Tijani for your constructive feedback and suggestions.
>>
>> I'm in agreement except of this point
>>
>> The PDP 3.0 presented as possible solution can’t be considered since it’s is not yet adopted. We believe that this issue should be part of the MSM work plan
>>
>> Simply because those who know about the PDP 3.0 are very few. The statement has to reflect of the knowledge and understanding of the majority.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019, 14:33 Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Hadia and all,
>>>
>>> First of all, I would like to thank Hadia for this excellent draft. I have some inputs that I want to provide (see the file).
>>>
>>> I used the red color for text that I propose to remove, blue for text I propose to add and Green  for my comment.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Tijani BENJEMAA
>>> Executive Director
>>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
>>> Telephone: +216 52 385 114
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> <PDP 3.0 Council Presentation - 19 Sep 2019 (v2).pdf>
>
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/middle-east/attachments/20191009/1ffb841a/attachment-0001.html>