[council] Flow chart - gTLD Registration Services PDP

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Thu Oct 2 13:26:01 UTC 2014


Thank you for the correction.

Nonetheless I believe that the issues report needs, to the extent
possible, to include a list of the rights issue that need to be looked
at so that the charter can define them as in scope.



On 02-Oct-14 09:08, Marika Konings wrote:
> 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,
> Marika
> On 02/10/14 14:58, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> Hi
>> 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
>> report.
>> 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.
>> thanks
>> avri
>> 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
>>> 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  

More information about the council mailing list