[council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

Mawaki Chango ki_chango at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 4 19:53:23 UTC 2006

I would like to be helpful here, but as you see, one needs
to talk based on some experience with the ICANN/GNSO
processes... So I may be making assumptions, if I say any
other thing than asking questions. 

First, I understand that there is a consensus to move the
PDP definition outside the ICANN bylaws. I have even
learned that it has been agreed on to
amend/improve/adapt/update it, and this is in the pipeline.
Maybe what we need to do now (if it's not already done) is
to put this issue on our agenda some time this year - or
first half of the year, but I also see that our work plan
is swamped!... Anyway, that would be the opportunity to
discuss and integrate the most relevant suggestions made,
or points of clarifications raised, by Ross, Marilyn,
Brett, Ken and others. 

For the time being, I do think it may be a bit extreme to
remove the possibility of time extension, unless you think
(having experienced) this has been used abusively. We may
also come up with some conditions to make it harder to
resort to, for if the PDP need to be done, we will need to
resume it anyway if the timeline expires and this may cause
some loss of resources/energy. Other than that, I tend to
agree with the suggestions that lean toward better defined,
identifiable, homogenous, and more controllable tasks as
part of the PDP.

Thanks to all those who have made themselves available to
help the rest of us better understand these issues.


--- Bret Fausett <bfausett at internet.law.pro> wrote:

> I agree with Ken. Also, the PDP process set forth in the
> bylaws sets 
> some fairly rigid deadlines for completion and does not
> provide a 
> mechanism for an extension of time. This rigidity was
> unpopular when it 
> was developed, but Hans Kraiijanbrink and Joe Sims, who
> led the work 
> group that created the PDP were adamant that this was the
> only 
> acceptable process. From a process and bylaws point of
> view, I am 
> concerned that we have embarked on a PDP with no
> intention of following 
> the time periods set forth in the bylaws and have
> extended the time 
> periods without any apparent authority in the bylaws to
> do so. The only 
> way around the tight deadlines in the bylaws, as I see
> it, is to 
> narrowly scope the issues under consideration and
> complete several small 
> PDPs in a row to accomplish large tasks. In other words,
> if we feel the 
> need to extend the time set forth in the bylaws, the
> better approach is 
> to scale down the issue under consideration.
>           -- Bret
> Ken Stubbs wrote:
> > *I** am becoming a firm believer in the concept of a
> "drop dead" date 
> > for PDP's.
> >
> > I believe that we need to insure against "perpetuity"
> by providing in 
> > the process a "reasonable" time period
> > for completion.. If the time period is not met then
> that specific PDP 
> > would expire and an entirely new PDP would have to be
> initiated.
> >
> > I do not think it is a good idea to allow for council
> votes for "time 
> > extensions" for a specific PDP as this
> > would circumvent the concept of a "timely " process..
> >
> > your thoughts ?
> >
> >
> > Ken Stubbs*
> >

More information about the council mailing list