See my comments below. Alan At 02/10/2012 06:17 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

The usual (that which was already discussed), the IOC-RC only make the recommendations, in this case staff did the summing up and drafting I suppose.

Remphasise the following:-

* Endorsing the PDP; * Splitting the PDP;

My understanding from Evan's question was whether we have any influence in the Council deciding whether to initiate a PDP or not, and if so, which of the parenthetical options in the draft motion to opt for. Although a letter is fine if the ALAC wishes, I do not believe that there is any substantive benefit from doing so. The ALAC is already on record as supporting a PDP. Moreover, although I have been surprised in the past, I cannot see the GNSO not initiating a PDP as a result of this Issue Report. It is rare (perhaps never) that the GNSO has not initiated a PDP when the staff recommendation is to do so. Moreover, the threshold is quite low and it would take close to a supermajority of the Council to reject a PDP. Regarding "Splitting the PDP" could you please be more specific on what part(s) you want split out and why? Regardless, I find it hard to imagine that the Council would initiate two parallel PDPs on related subjects.

If there is consensus to add other things, then so be it. Bottom line, the Board will most likely adopt GNSO Council recommendations as has been the case in the past, and I have not read through all the Board resolutions(yet, this is my caveat) to know whether they have disregarded GNSO Council recommendations on related matters. From what I have read, they appear to have adopted virtually all of GNSO Council recommendations.

For the Board to reject a PDP outcome that has been approved by a supermajority of the GNSO Council (typical in that once the recommendations make their way through the diffcult WG process, they are not likely to be vetoed by Council, even if one SG is totally against the outcomes), it takes a supermajority of the Board to reject it. Certainly possible if the Board as a whole feels that the outcome would be bad for ICANN, but I do not believe that it has ever happened.

Kind Regards, Sala

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Before we decide on the mechanism, perhaps we should decide on WHAT it is we want to say.

Alan

At 02/10/2012 04:57 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

...

...

Hi Alan, Do we (you) have any ability to influence a council decision like this? Do you have any sense of the prevailing winds? - Evan

Thanks Alan. @ Evan I would suggest that the ALAC consider writing a letter to the GNSO Council. The GAC has on more than one instance been known to have written to the GNSO Council on this matter and their voices have even been heard.

Kind Regards, Sala