[council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

[Olof Nordling]

Dear Marilyn,

Many thanks for advancing this matter. Your points are well taken and I even
do agree that we should encourage contributions that address the full set of
questions. Nevertheless, we should recognize that an expert on, let's say,
allocation methods, could well want to limit his/her contribution to that
particular area - without that being seen as detracting from the value of
the contribution as such. Anyway, as I read your amendments of the draft I
find your wording striking the right balance.

 

As to the working program, it is first of all clear that we need to modify
the timelines in the current GNSO 4mths operational plan (as prepared by
Maria before last Council call). At the call, I also suggested that the next
consolidation document - or "Initial Report", to speak PDP-ese - be kept as
an evolving draft to be finalized in Wellington. That met with approval but
we haven't addressed the timeline for the following steps. As a visual
background for further thoughts on this, I attach a flowchart (my draft, not
canonized.) of the GNSO PDP steps.

Very best regards

Olof  

 

  _____  

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:52 AM
To: 'olof nordling'; council at gnso.icann.org
Cc: 'Suzanne Sene'
Subject: RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

 

Dear Olof, 

 

Attached, as promised, are more detailed comments on the proposed call for
papers. When I made the proposal for this additional approach to seeking
input, and the Council supported it, I believe that we intended to solicit
organized, and substantive inputs that directly address the full set of
questions in the ToR.  I would prefer that we encourage that. The existing
public forum, which is open as well through the same time frame, provides an
opportunity for any contributions, thus no one is disadvantaged by the
additional criteria in terms of having their input considered. 

 

As part of our outreach, we also need to establish interaction with the
other SOs, and with the GAC.  We should add this to our agenda for the
January Council call. In addition, I suggest that we also invite the SSAC,
OECD, and WIPO to meet with the Council in Wellington, if not earlier, to
discuss these questions and any comments or information that they may be
able to contribute. Suzanne may be able to suggest, as the liaison, whether
it may be appropriate to establish a time and framework for a dialogue with
the GAC in Wellington, as well.  It may be that there are specific questions
that it would be useful to focus on for that discussion.

 

Also, I want to note that we have a resolution that notes that the GNSO
Council will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and
ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work. After the holiday ends, we
should probably undertake work on this, so that it can be posted to the
Council the required 7 days ahead of time for our agenda for the January
meeting. I think we need to be realistic and pragmatic about the time frames
and establish a feasible time frame, and then recommend such a time frame to
the Board. The new gTLD process is challenging and important to address
thoroughly. While it may be unpopular to note that we may spend 6-9 months
on this, we should assess, now, the feasibility of completing all of the
data gathering and potentially external research or advice that we will need
to advise the final policy recommendations. 

 

Just one other suggestion: There is a tendency to use "GNSO" in lieu of
"Council", or "GNSO Council" in the call for papers. I suggest that it is
preferable to systematically use "GNSO Council" or "Council"  when we are
referencing the Council's work. The GNSO is the full Supporting
Organization, and I find the shorthand use of GNSO a little confusing. 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of olof nordling
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:00 AM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

 

Dear all,

As you may recall we have a Call for Papers regarding the new gTLD PDP to
write for announcement in early January. I have attached a very first draft
to this effect and I would sincerely appreciate comments on the draft from
those of you who happen to be on-line during these largely holiday-dominated
days. The objective would be to have it distributed and posted on 3 January.

 

The draft includes the ToR in extenso (the announcement on the ICANN front
page will have to be shorter, cutting the ToR part). Would this be enough or
should we specify another layer of questions - if so, which questions?

 

I'm looking forward to receiving your views on any aspects of the draft.

 

Very best regards from Brussels (just lightly covered in snow, to mark the
season)

Olof 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20051229/7b6ef458/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PDP Flowchart.vsd
Type: application/vnd.visio
Size: 100352 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20051229/7b6ef458/PDPFlowchart.vsd>