[council] PDP Improvements - status update

Mon Mar 13 07:34:16 UTC 2023

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your input and apologies for my late reply.

The SubPro ODA said, "*ICANN org’s GPI pilot framework mapping results show
that more than three-quarters (78%) of the topics reference GPI framework
terms and could therefore carry GPI considerations". *Clearly, the ICANN
Board's GPIF comes into play during the Board's deliberations of GNSO
Policy recommendations, which made me wonder why the PDP Charter Template
doesn't make some explicit mention of "public interest considerations,
where relevant". It just seems logical to have it since firstly, it could
only aid in the Board's deliberation of GNSO Policy recommendations and
secondly, it would put into practice what may otherwise be done merely on
an incidental basis.

Perhaps, a reference to something along the lines of "Global Public
Interest (GPI) considerations in context of the ICANN Bylaws and where
relevant" might be a good start? Do you think we/staff could work on some
redline text based on this basis?

Regards,
Justine
------

On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, 21:33 Paul McGrady, <paul at elstermcgrady.com> wrote:

> Thanks Justine.
>
>
>
> Indefinite terms in charters is a leading cause of PDPs taking forever.  I
> think “consideration of the public interest where relevant" falls into that
> category.  Is there any way the Council can tighten up the text of the
> assignment so that a WG knows what to do?  Is it merely that public
> interest needs to be discussed or is it something more?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Justine
> Chew via council
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 9, 2023 7:36 PM
> *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* council at gnso.icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [council] PDP Improvements - status update
>
>
>
> Thanks, Anne and Kurt, for reviving this thread.
>
> I'd love to see a reference to "consideration of the public interest where
> relevant" mentioned in the PDP Charter Template, and wonder if Councilors
> might offer some input along this line.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Justine
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 09:39, Anne ICANN via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> I agree with Kurt and had made changes to the WG Charter template that
> addressed this very same issue.   Marika has those changes and acknowledged
> them in the SPS meeting in LA, indicating they would be made since no one
> on Council had objected.
>
>
>
> Will staff please refer to the comments I made on the language in the
> proposed Charter template in order to modify this PDP language along the
> lines that Kurt has suggested?  That language included an obligation on the
> part of staff to raise issues both at the Charter stage and ongoing for
> the  GDS staff liaison to raise those issues that may become apparent
> during the WG deliberations.
>
>
>
> An "umbrella" principle here is that staff should be better versed on
> existing ICANN policies than any volunteer Working Group Chair or member.
> In addition, staff is compensated to perform this work whereas volunteers
> are not.  Agree with Kurt this shifts way too much responsibility to WG
> members.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:19 PM kurt kjpritz.com via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> 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> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please note that an updated version of the PDP Improvements Tracker has
> been posted on the dedicated wiki page (see
> https://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
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> 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/20230313/dca0afdc/attachment-0001.html>