[council] Flow chart - gTLD Registration Services PDP

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Thu Oct 2 19:19:21 UTC 2014

Hi Amr,

The topic was, amongst others, discussed during the ICANN meeting in
Beijing (see 
n-data-06apr13-en.pdf) as well as follow up correspondence from Jonathan
to the EWG 

Best regards,


On 02/10/14 20:56, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

>Can we please be provided some more information on the circumstances
>surrounding the request to postpone the publication of the final issue
>report last year? I¹d appreciate some understanding of the details of the
>Council¹s agreement to agree to this. That seems to be a missing piece of
>the puzzle in the conversation we are now having, at least as far as I¹m
>Some more in-line below:
>On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>> 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.
>YesŠ, that seems right to me.
>> 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
>My understanding is that the stage you¹re describing here is input to
>discussion items that are already deemed within the scope of the PDP and
>outlined in its charter, while my personal pressing concern is defining
>what is, in fact, in and out of scope.
>> 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.
>I can see how this might make sense, IF we¹re in a hurry to get this
>done. I¹m not necessarily opposed to this practice in principal, but I am
>a little hesitant to do a trial-run of it on a policy topic of this
>magnitude and complexity. A question that also occurs to me now that
>didn¹t at the time when this was being discussed is; what is the voting
>threshold on the Council that would be required to decide that a charter
>drafting team is not necessary?
>> 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/c896a9c8/smime.p7s>

More information about the council mailing list