May I just add to this excellent and concise statement of the situation the following points: 1) I caused a document to be prepared some weeks ago, posted then in English, that provides an overview of the GNSO and the PDP process, which was then translated into Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese, and French. I really encourage everyone in the community to revew this - it isn't very long but should give you a solid background in the process which is very important considering that At-Large is now spearheading a PDP-launching effort. These documents have been announced on the front page of www.icann.orgyesterday, and can also be reached at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?lisbon_documents 2) The Bylaws of ICANN, which contain the enire process as well as the above document, can be found at: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm. The PDP Process can be found at: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA 3) The GNSO definition of what should be in an issues report can be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19feb04.shtml On 29/03/07, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

If I remember correctly, in the Mar 6 meeting, I asked for confirmation of whether the document that we had received was in fact an "Issues Report". The answer we received a few days later was that it did not meet the criteria of a Bylaw-specified issues report. Perhaps we should look into why we previously understood that the was a formal issues report, but that will not help the present process.

According to the Bylaws, the way that the ALAC can trigger a Policy Development Process (PDP) is to formally request an Issues Report from ICANN staff. This issues report must be delivered within 15 days. The report can them be presented to the GNSO and the GNSO must vote on whether to start a PDP within 15 days of receipt of the Issues Report. Assuming that ICANN staff agree that this is indeed an ICANN "policy" issue, a 33% vote by the GNSO triggers a PDP. If staff does not agree that it is a policy issue, it requires a 66% vote of the GNSO to trigger a PDP. The Issues Report can also be submitted to the Board which, if it chooses, can vote to direct the GNSO to initiate a PDP (for this entire process, see http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA).

As of the meeting in Lisbon, the ALAC has passed a motion to submit a request for an Issues Report to staff no later than 30 April 2007. The request was delayed to allow us to solicit support from the GNSO constituencies and to allow us to formulate the request to maximize the issue being classed as a "policy issue".

We already have the support of several GNSO constituencies and we will work with them to formulate the request for an Issues Report.

If we are successful, we should have a PDP initiated at the no later than the San Juan meeting.

Alan

At 28/03/2007 02:15 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

...

The March 6 vote puts us further into the process. We should call what we already received from staff an Issues Report and forward this statement to the GNSO Council at this meeting to start the PDP.

--Wendy

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org

-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart