[council] Flow chart - gTLD Registration Services PDP

[Marika Konings]

Thanks, Avri, you are correct. Nothing prevents another public comment
period on the Issue Report. However, it may be worth considering what the
objective of such a public comment period would be. As also noted on the
call, the main objective of a public comment period on the Preliminary
Issue Report is 1) to make sure all the relevant information that is aimed
to help inform the PDP WG deliberations has been covered and 2) to provide
input on whether the GNSO Council should initiate a PDP. As two is not
relevant in this case as it concerns a Board initiated PDP for which there
is no Council vote on the initiation, the public comment forum would focus
on 1 - is there any further relevant information that should be included
to help inform the PDP WG deliberations. If the objective of the public
comment forum would be to obtain input on the substance of the information
to be considered as part of the PDP deliberations, this is typically done
at the outset of the PDP WG which is required to obtain input to help
inform its deliberations at an early stage.

As the Issue Report was originally requested by the Board, this is
probably one of the topics that could be considered by the informal group
as part of the conversation on what should be the next step(s) in this
process.

One other thing that could be considered in this regard is that if there
is indeed agreement to re-issue the Preliminary Issue Report for public
comment, whether it would be helpful to include a proposed charter for the
PDP WG as we have also done in recent Preliminary Issue Reports as part of
our PDP improvements project. This could have the added benefit of
obtaining input on the scope for the PDP WG as well as proposed approach
for dealing with the subject matter which could help inform discussions on
the charter in the next phase of the PDP.

Best regards,

Marika       

On 01/10/14 00:03, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>Hi,
>
>Thanks for this.  It is good to see pictorially what is being thought of.
>
>I think that because the first review of the issues report was over a
>year ago, because the inclusion of EWG brings up new consideration on
>that issue report and because of intervening policy issues, we need to
>have another review period before a final issues report can be released.
>
>I know that the PDP process does not require this, but neither does the
>PDP prohibit it and given the unusual circumstances of this process it
>is necessary.
>
>
>avri
>
>
>
>On 30-Sep-14 03:51, Marika Konings wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Following our discussion last week, please find attached a flow chart in
>> which we've tried to describe in further detail where from a staff
>> perspective the gTLD Registration Services PDP stands and how it
>>relates to
>> the EWG Final Report as well as the informal group proposed by Steve
>>Crocker
>> to discuss next steps. As we also tried to make clear on the call and
>>which
>> the flow chart will hopefully show, is that the PDP has been following
>>the
>> required steps as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws as well as Annex A and
>>that
>> the EWG is in no way circumventing this process but merely providing
>> additional insights and information that will hopefully help inform
>> subsequent deliberations, something that from our perspective is fully
>>in
>> line with the objective of fact-based policy development. We hope this
>>may
>> be helpful as the Council considers next steps and engages with the
>>Board in
>> the proposed informal discussion.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Marika  
>> 
>> 
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20141001/7d3967fb/smime.p7s>