[council] Flow chart - gTLD Registration Services PDP

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Thu Oct 2 13:08:53 UTC 2014

Hi Avri,

Per the PDP Manual, the impact analysis is the responsibility of the PDP
WG once it has agreed on its proposed recommendations for the Initial
Report ('The Initial Report should include the following elements (Š) A
statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed
recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition,
operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility').

Best regards,


On 02/10/14 14:58, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>I do not remember when the PDP process changes that required the rights
>impact analysis be included in issues reports went into effect.  Was
>that rule in effect at the time the first Issue report was done.
>In any case, I want to make sure that the Final issues report covers any
>rights impact that the EWG report may introduce that were not already
>discussed in either the EWG final report of the first Preliminary issues
>As for including the charter, given that I think it needs to be a
>revision of the preliminary and various consideration have not been
>framed to drive the the charter, I would think not in that preliminary
>issues report.  But I can see including a proposed charter in the final
>that was produced.
>It would work out to something like:
>Preliminary issues + EWG final -> revised Preliminary issues ->
>comment period -> Final issue including a proposed charter
>-> council approval of charter &c.
>For parallelism, a drafting team could work with policy staff to produce
>the draft charter during the comment period interval as they could watch
>the comments coming in.  They could even start sooner. once the path
>forward was established.
>On 01-Oct-14 03:22, Marika Konings wrote:
>> Thanks, Avri, you are correct. Nothing prevents another public comment
>> period on the Issue Report. However, it may be worth considering what
>> 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
>> to help inform the PDP WG deliberations has been covered and 2) to
>> 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
>> is no Council vote on the initiation, the public comment forum would
>> 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
>> to be considered as part of the PDP deliberations, this is typically
>> 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
>> 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
>> PDP WG as we have also done in recent Preliminary Issue Reports as part
>> 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
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> 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/20141002/3a5d0059/smime.p7s>

More information about the council mailing list