[CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities

[Mueller, Milton L]

Thomas,

Forgive me but I have no idea what you are agreeing with here. Steve’s statement contains a number of internal contradictions so I can’t tell.

Are you agreeing with this:

“I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment.”

Or this:

“I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach.”

Since a PDP always involves a review of existing policy and does not necessarily change  existing policy, I don’t understand why this would not be duplication.

Or do you agree with this factually incorrect statement:

“In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation.”

Incorrect because the Whois reviews start from the premise that current policy is correct and should not be changed and all we need to do is review its effectiveness?



From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:10 AM
To: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities

I do agree, Steve.

Thomas
---
rickert.net<http://rickert.net>


Am 28.04.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com<mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>>:
Speaking for myself, without benefit of coordination with my colleagues on the ICANN Board or with staff, my quick reaction is a PDP is not a substitute for a review.  I do believe we have to find a way to be more efficient and coordinated when we have multiple interacting processes, and collection of whois and directory services activities is probably the premier example at the moment.  We don’t have a solution at the moment, but I don’t think equating a PDP with a review is the right approach.  In principle, reviews start from a neutral position and assess the situation.  In contrast, policy development processes start with the premise that a policy is needed and the bulk of the activity during a PDP is the creation and shaping of that policy.  Reviews can lead to PDPs, but they’re not interchangeable.

Steve


On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:

Hi,

In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how
those might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we
think it would be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is
going on about any topic that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP
can be counted as fulfilling the purposes of the RT?

It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular
RT requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way)
without entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple,
potentially conflicting efforts on the same topic.

Have I missed something?

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160429/7a61ddfa/attachment-0001.html>