[council] Flow chart - gTLD Registration Services PDP
avri at acm.org
Thu Oct 2 19:09:52 UTC 2014
Thanks for the reminder.
BTW, these should probably be mentioned on the GNSO Operating procedures
page and on the GNSO council resources wiki page. While I have no
excuse and should have remembered them since I was part of the team that
made the recommendations, others might not recall it either.
In re-reading this pdf I notice that it says:
> Proposed implementation : The GNSO PDP Manual foresees that ‘Upon
> initiation of the PDP, a group formed at the direction of Council
> should be convened to draft the charter for the PDP Team’. Applying
> the suggested approach would not contravene the GNSO PDP Manual. As
> a result, should there be support from the GNSO Council to try out
> this approach, it may be instructive to do it for the next PDP as a
> “trial run”, and if over time the Council believes that this approach
> is helpful, it could be formalized in the GNSO PDP Manual as one of
> the other alternatives that could be explored for the development of
> a PDP WG Charter
I see that at least the IGO/INGO Curative Rights Protection for
IGO/INGOs has pilot tested this approach. If this PDP process loops
back and reissues the Preliminary issues report, it does appear possible
to repeat this experiment even though this is a pre-existing PDP.
BTW, I am sure I am missing it, but when did the council agree on this
experiment occur. Looking through
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions> I don't see it. Neither
do it see it mentioned in the minutes of 23 Jan. But with my track
record today*, as I said, I am sure I am missing it and/or forgetting
I guess this whole discussion is fodder for John's collection of issues
for the informal group of GNSO & Board types that will discuss the way
forward for this PDP.
* (misidentifying which preliminary report included rights impact
analyses and forgetting the charter approach experiment)
On 02-Oct-14 09:49, Marika Konings wrote:
> Hi Avri,
> As part of the PDP Improvements (see
the Council agreed to 'Include draft Charter as standard element in
> Preliminary and Final Issue Report' and evaluate after 6-12 months
> the impact / experience of doing so following which it could be
> decided whether the PDP Manual should be modified accordingly to add
> this as an alternative to forming a DT (which is a 'should' but not a
> 'must' at the moment).
> Best regards,
> On 02/10/14 15:41, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> The correction of my recall convinced me to go back are re-read
>> the manual:
>> I noticed:
>>> Upon initiation of the PDP, a group formed at the direction of
>>> Council should be convened to draft the charter for the PDP
>> Does this present problems in relation to including a charter in
>> evan a final Issues report at this time?
>> Incidentally the impact analysis questions that concern me and that
>> I believe need comment before the issuance of a final issue report
>> relate to:
>>> The following elements should be considered in the Issue Report:
>>> a) The proposed issue raised for consideration
>> This issue includes the rights impacts that need to be an explicit
>> part of the PDP.
>> This is such a large and critical change moving forward, we need to
>> make sure that the PDP starts on a solid basis. Lets not make the
>> same mistakes that have been elsewhere of trying to start a large
>> and critical process without adequate public comment.
More information about the council