[council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

Ross Rader ross at tucows.com
Wed Jan 4 01:05:13 UTC 2006

Mawaki Chango wrote:

> OK, now that this is clarified and we seem to agree that we
> need all those processes, the next question I'm attempted
> to ask is how do we do that, to "redefine" how we should
> look at the PDP?

My recommendation is two-fold. First, the amendment to the bylaws should 
be to move the GNSO PDP to a separate document. This would allow us to 
modify it in the future without having to amend ICANN's bylaws. The 
amendment should be constructed so that a majority of the board of 
directors would have to vote in favor of the amendment (as opposed to 
the 2/3s required now). Second, we should only be looking to modify the 
timelines in the PDP right now. There might be additional changes 
required in the future to streamline or otherwise make the process more 
efficient, but my preference would be to avoid a wholesale 
reconstruction of the PDP - we have work that we need to undertake 
immediately that would benefit from having clarified timelines. Let's 
make sure that we stay focused on the practical goal of getting better 
at what we do.

> I have another question, Ross. What do you mean by "our
> getting our technology acts together process"? As
> enumerated in your ealier email, I suspect this is
> something the GNSO Council might be doing as well (maybe as
> part of the sausage-like PDP), so I guess I need to be able
> to identify what piece is this one, thanks.

I was referring to instances where the technical environment wasn't 
quite ready for the policy work going on in the GNSO and vice versa, 
where the policy environment wasn't ready for new technical developments 
being implemented. For me, this comes down to making sure that we are 
appropriately informed regarding the capabilities of differing 
technologies (and often, identifying areas where new technology might be 
required) prior to conducting a PDP. For instance, the GNSO has very 
little understanding of the policy implications and new policy 
requirements presented by the IRIS protocol - or whether or not the 
protocol is even appropriate for the applications that some would like 
to embed in ICANN policy. In a perfect world, we would have a clear 
understanding of these implications before we conducted a PDP. In this 
world, we need to make sure that this lack of understanding doesn't 
stand in the way of the PDP and that we rise to a proper level of 
understanding of the relevant issues in a timely manner.



More information about the council mailing list