[council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

[Marilyn Cade]

:-) 

Yes, we did have quite a struggle with Hans and Joe and the lawyer who was
somehow either hired, or volunteered to do the drafting... Rita  ... those
who were more knowledgeable about the realities were not ... well, "well
received" seems a neutral and "nice" description of how our input was
treated. Considering that the participants had quite a bit of expertise, it
is too bad that we ended up where we did. ... 

However, be that as it may, we did agree that there would be a revision,
based on reality and experience. And reality and experience are now ensued. 

So, time for revision. 

Marilyn 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Bret Fausett
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:13 PM
To: Ken Stubbs
Cc: Marilyn Cade; 'Thomas Keller'; 'Ross Rader'; 'Mawaki Chango'; 'Council
GNSO'
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

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*
>