Dear all, In praration of todays discussion on the PDP please find included the open issue for discussion. Thi stopic wil be included in the agenda and proposed resolution ------------------------------------------------------------ Sequence of working groups. Summary: The ccNSO Council is advised to initiate one (1) PDP, and start with the retirement WG first and after that has concluded its substantive work start with the Review Mechanism WG. One element of the community discussions was the order in which the two topics under one (1) single PDP will be addressed. The proposal as presented in the Issue Report is: 1. Start with the development of a policy for a review mechanism pertaining to decisions on delegation, transfer and revocation. 2. Then start with the development of the retirement policy and once that is concluded 3. Revisit the proposed policy for review mechanism to ensure decisions pertaining to the retirement of ccTLD are covered as well. The reasoning is that review mechanism is considered to be of a higher priority in particular the time when the Review Mechanism should be available to the community. The discussion on the applicability of Review Mechanism has focused on decisions on delegation, revocation and transfer of ccTLDs. However, the Review Mechanism should also be available for decisions pertaining to the retirement of ccTLDs. If the two policy development processes would run separately the communities sense of urgency implies that the policy on the Review Mechanism should be developed revisited after its conclusion. If the two topics would be combined under one PDP a similar issue would arise however before the PDP would be concluded. The proposed order will have an impact on the initial scoping efforts and manageability of the process, however it avoids the major complication to revisit and review a recommended policy almost immediately after it is adopted (and potentially before its implementation has been completed). At the meeting in Copenhagen half of the ccTLD managers present requested to reconsider the sequence of the WGs to simplify the process and possibly avoid complications at a later stage in the process. The proposed sequence is start and conclude the work on retirement and then start the review mechanism. Based on the same parameters reversing the order would safe at least 3 months and simplify the process. Effectively this means that by reversing the order, so first retirement and then review mechanism, the potential review mechanism would be available sooner to the community. The ccNSO Council is advised to initiate one (1) PDP, and start with the retirement WG first and after that has concluded its substantive work start with the Review Mechanism WG. For comparison see Annex A and Annex B Schedule and Timeline.