[council] PDP Improvements - status update

[kurt kjpritz.com]

Hi All:

With regard to the recommended change to the PDP Charter template:

2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies
If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must consider any potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG is expected to be explicit in this section about which consensus policies are impacted and how this impact is expected to be addressed, to facilitate the subsequent implementation process.

I am not for the wording and (I think) the intended spirit of this amendment:

  *   It could markedly increase the time and complexity of PDPs at a time we are trying to streamline them,
  *   It requires expertise that the PDP team is unlikely to have.

My personal experience is from the Registration Data EPDP. There, the recommendations recognised that the Transfer Policy was rendered ineffective (it had been rendered ineffective for some time), and raised the question as to whether the Thick Whois Policy had been overturned. In the former case, the EPDP team did not have the necessary technical understanding of transfer requirements (and the Transfer Policy PDP is still at it, years later), and in the latter, it is not surprising that the EPDP team did not have the political will or consensus to make a call on the Thick Whois Policy. (I know there are nuances to these arguments, but I want to keep this short.)

If the new section 2.5 means some sort of lighter weight consideration, that is not clear. If it means that an allowable response is, “the PDP recognises this impact and expect the Council to address it," then it should explicitly allow that. In this lighter weight case though, I don’t see the value-add, as that already occurs.

I’d be something along the lines of:

2.5 Impact on Existing Consensus Policies
If the WG concludes with any recommendations, the WG must state whether it considered whether there is a potential impact of these recommendations on existing consensus policies. If an impact is identified, the WG should identify the Policies affected and whether there is consensus on how the impact is expected to be addressed.

That way, the Council has a heads-up without imposing additional burdens on the PDP.

I understand that some of my comments might be missing the intent of the new requirement. It is intended to start a discussion that might lead to a more specific, constructive outcome.

Regards,

Kurt


On 23 Feb 2023, at 2:07 am, Marika Konings via council <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>> wrote:

Dear All,

Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has been posted on the dedicated wiki page (seehttps://community.icann.org/x/e4OLD) to reflect the current status of the different improvements. You’ll note that a couple of items have been completed and there is a proposed next step for improvement #3 for Council consideration (“Build meeting between ICANN Board and GNSO Council to present PDP Final Report into the project plan for ongoing PDPs so that a meeting between ICANN Board and Council can be scheduled well ahead of time”).

In relation to improvement #5, please find attached the proposed updates to the Initial Report template to address any direct or indirect implications on existing Consensus Policies, in line with the recent updates to the Charter Template (see redline on page 10). Please note that although the proposed next step identified the Final Report template as needing to be updated, we’ve realized that there is no Final Report template but it is the Initial Report template that is updated to become the Final Report. If you have any comments or concerns about this update, please share this with the Council mailing list by 24 March. If there are no comments / concerns received by that date, we’ll go ahead and post this updated version with the other GNSO Work Product templates (see  https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures).

Best regards,

Marika
<Revised PDP WG Initial Report Template - 23 February 2023.docx>_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230308/b044ea3c/attachment-0001.html>