Sure. The formal Policy Development Process (PDP) is a process enshrined in the ICANN Bylaws. This policy MUST be followed if you want to make a policy that will immediately alter a Contracted Party contract. Both registry and registrar agreements have a specific list of things which can be modified by Consensus Policy (note the upper case C and P). This areas are sometimes referred to as issues that are "within the picket fence". If the PDP steps are followed (whether for a picket fence Consensus Policy or for anything else), and if in the end the GNSO adopts the policy recommendations with a "supermajority" (I'll define that in a moment), then when the policy goes to the Board, the Board must adopt the policy unless a Board supermajority defeats it. Supermajority: Normally in the ICANN context, this means greater than 2/3. When the GNSO had a simpler structure, a GNSO supermajority was also greater than 2/3. Now with the two houses, a supermajority means 2/3 of both house, or 3/4 on one house and a majority of the other. So to go over that earlier thought, if the GNSO approves a PDP outcome with a supermajority, it would take 2/3 of the Board to overturn it, or stated another way, it only take 1/3 of the Board to ratify it. That means that unless to policy is so onerous that most of the Board feels it would be bad for ICANN, they are pretty much compelled to approve it. So, in summary, a PDP is needed if you want to alter contracted party contracts (in certain areas) and/or you want to make it very difficult for the Board to ignore the recommended policy. If neither of these is an issue, the GNSO can adopt a less specific method of adopting policy. Such a method could, in theory, be faster (assuming all parties could agree), or different fora could be used that the GNSO WG structure. Note that there are those in the GNSO who do not agree with me and feel that ANY policy decision must follow the PDP steps. But I can find no document that says that and a number of people have said that my interpretation is a good one. Is that any clearer? Alan At 02/09/2012 09:48 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:

Dear Alan,

Can you please clarify what you mean by 'requiring policy development,' but not a formal PDP?

Thank you.

Best regards,

Rinalia

Rinalia Abdul Rahim

sent via galaxy tab On 3 Sep 2012 09:27, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: You will recall that at its last meeting, the ALAC unanimously approved a statement to the Board reiterating its position that all 16 recommendations be implemented, and stressed that several were very important and clearly did not require any prior GNSO policy development. That ALAC statement can be found at <http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice.

Based on further discussions, and in light of a controversy that has arisen in the GNSO, it was suggested that the ALAC explicitly identify which recommendations do not require any prior policy development, and which might required GNSO policy development.

I had already done a brief review looking at which recommendations might require policy development. I have since revised this and present it to you here.

In summary, of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO policy development, 3 *might* require policy development, but that would depend on work carried out over the coming months and years, and 1 does require policy development by the GNSO along with the rest of the community, but in my opinion, does not require a formal PDP.

The detailed analysis is attached. The report with the recommendations in detail can be found at <http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf.

It is essential that this analysis reach the Board before the Board Workshop scheduled for September 12-13.

I am not sure if Olivier wants to hold a formal vote on this, or for the ALAC to just reach consensus, but regardless, the first step if for anyone who does not agree with this analysis to speak up.

Alan

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)