[council] Flow chart - gTLD Registration Services PDP

[Amr Elsadr]

Ah. Thanks. Sorry…, didn’t notice the cutoff in the hyperlink.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Oct 2, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:

> Let me try again with the link, but it seems to have cut off part of it
> (so please make sure to copy all of it even if it is not hyperlinked):
> http://beijing46.icann.org/meetings/beijing2013/transcript-gtld-registratio
> n-data-06apr13-en.pdf.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> 
> On 02/10/14 21:32, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Marika,
>> 
>> Got a “page not found” message on the Beijing meeting transcripts link.
>> In which meeting in Beijing was this topic discussed? It’d help me
>> understand the context under which Jonathan sent the letter.
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Oct 2, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Amr,
>>> 
>>> The topic was, amongst others, discussed during the ICANN meeting in
>>> Beijing (see 
>>> 
>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/meetings/beijing2013/transcript-gtld-registrat
>>> io
>>> n-data-06apr13-en.pdf) as well as follow up correspondence from Jonathan
>>> to the EWG 
>>> 
>>> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-baril-19jun13-en.pdf
>>> ).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Marika
>>> 
>>> On 02/10/14 20:56, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> concerned.
>>>> 
>>>> Some more in-line below:
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>>> stage.
>>>> 
>>>> 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?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>