[council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

[Ken Stubbs]

this makes good sense to me as well

Ken Stubbs

Marilyn Cade wrote:

>I am fully in agreement with your clarification. I thought that was what you
>were saying. 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
>Behalf Of Ross Rader
>Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:07 PM
>To: Marilyn Cade
>Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
>
>I'm merely saying that we should not be pursuing a policy development 
>process unless we first have an informed, technically sustainable and 
>supported basis for moving forward. We should be spending significant 
>amounts of time fostering understanding, conducting analysis and 
>ensuring a reasonable technical basis. We should not be jamming all of 
>these activities into the PDP.
>
>If there isn't sufficient understanding, technical basis or support to 
>move forward with a PDP, we should not be undertaking a PDP. To do 
>otherwise simply overloads an already complex and delicate process.
>
>I'm not saying that these other processes have no place in our work, but 
>simply that they are different, distinct and separate. They are also 
>very important, valuable and essential to our success.
>
>-ross
>
>Marilyn Cade wrote:
>  
>
>>I am confused by this discussion.
>>
>> 
>>
>>One cannot develop policy without information and it is critical to 
>>understand the "issue" before one develops policy. As the V.P. of policy 
>>issues for the Internet for a multi national corporation, the policy 
>>development process always included understanding the issue. J both from 
>>a technology perspective and from a legal perspective.
>>
>> 
>>
>>I would sincerely hope that the Council would not take the point of view 
>>that understanding issues and information gathering, to include 
>>"opinions" and views of the constituencies, but not limited to that, are 
>>essential parts of policy development.
>>
>> 
>>
>>Of course, there are those who think that policy is  merely "opinion", 
>>'or views', and that has always been one of the objections to policy 
>>development. I am not a fan of the present PDP process because it is too 
>>narrow and we keep having to "color" outside the lines in order to get 
>>the data we need, the information we need, etc.
>>
>> 
>>
>>I would note that IDNs is a good example, as is the new gTLD policy 
>>development process-of the need for more information, not less. Opinions 
>>have to be backed up by analysis and by information. Otherwise, they are 
>>merely opinions. When they are founded on analysis and thoughtful 
>>consideration, then we are "making sausage" the right way, as they say 
>>about policy development [sorry for the US colloquialism - in the 
>>development of policy it is often described as similar to making sausage 
>>- messy, but tasty when done right!]
>>
>> 
>>
>>Of course, we need to understand the issues - NOT merely the different 
>>"points of view" of all constituencies and the ALAC, but the issues from 
>>the SSAC perspective, from the perspective of  governmental entities, of 
>>the CCNSO, of the ASO, etc.
>>
>> 
>>
>>The Council does itself well, and serves ICANN and the community best 
>>when it is thoughtful, informed, educated about issues and pros and 
>>cons, understands the impact of a policy on the Internet - within 
>>ICANN's core mission and core values - and balanced in its policy 
>>outcomes. J That is policy that the Board can be proud of accepting.
>>
>> 
>>
>> 
>>
>> 
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>*From:* owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
>>[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Philip Sheppard
>>*Sent:* Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:17 AM
>>*To:* council at gnso.icann.org
>>*Subject:* [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
>>
>> 
>>
>> 
>>
>>Ross Rader wrote: (the emphasis is mine):
>>
>>The PDP is our policy development process. It is
>>*_NOT_* our issue understanding process,
>>*_NOT_* our information gathering process, 
>>*_NOT_* our getting our technology acts together process.
>>
>>Each of these is distinct and important, but we need to keep them 
>>separate from the policy development process.
>>-----
>>
>>I agree. This is an informed thought to start the year.
>>
>>Philip
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20060103/70a8ce84/attachment.html>