![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/54e11048363d3f09e5d83e4dba7064bc.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Dear Marilyn,
Many thanks for advancing this matter. Your points are well taken and I even do agree that we should encourage contributions that address the full set of questions. Nevertheless, we should recognize that an expert on, let's say, allocation methods, could well want to limit his/her contribution to that particular area - without that being seen as detracting from the value of the contribution as such. Anyway, as I read your amendments of the draft I find your wording striking the right balance.
As to the working program, it is first of all clear that we need to modify the timelines in the current GNSO 4mths operational plan (as prepared by Maria before last Council call). At the call, I also suggested that the next consolidation document - or "Initial Report", to speak PDP-ese - be kept as an evolving draft to be finalized in Wellington. That met with approval but we haven't addressed the timeline for the following steps. As a visual background for further thoughts on this, I attach a flowchart (my draft, not canonized.) of the GNSO PDP steps.
Very best regards
Olof
_____
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:52 AM To: 'olof nordling'; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: 'Suzanne Sene' Subject: RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
Dear Olof,
Attached, as promised, are more detailed comments on the proposed call for papers. When I made the proposal for this additional approach to seeking input, and the Council supported it, I believe that we intended to solicit organized, and substantive inputs that directly address the full set of questions in the ToR. I would prefer that we encourage that. The existing public forum, which is open as well through the same time frame, provides an opportunity for any contributions, thus no one is disadvantaged by the additional criteria in terms of having their input considered.
As part of our outreach, we also need to establish interaction with the other SOs, and with the GAC. We should add this to our agenda for the January Council call. In addition, I suggest that we also invite the SSAC, OECD, and WIPO to meet with the Council in Wellington, if not earlier, to discuss these questions and any comments or information that they may be able to contribute. Suzanne may be able to suggest, as the liaison, whether it may be appropriate to establish a time and framework for a dialogue with the GAC in Wellington, as well. It may be that there are specific questions that it would be useful to focus on for that discussion.
Also, I want to note that we have a resolution that notes that the GNSO Council will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work. After the holiday ends, we should probably undertake work on this, so that it can be posted to the Council the required 7 days ahead of time for our agenda for the January meeting. I think we need to be realistic and pragmatic about the time
Marilyn, Well, a flowchart is by necessity in "shorthand" - this little box should rather spell out "the Staff Manager compiles the Staff Recommendation, the scope advice of which is provided by the General Counsel". As stated in the chart it can appear misleading (and I'll think about that when revising...), but the primary idea is just to get a visual image of the flow. Best regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:47 PM To: 'Olof Nordling'; 'Thomas Keller' Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; 'Suzanne Sene' Subject: RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP Olof, I thought it was General Counsel advice re "within scope"? The flow chart says "staff manager". This is helpful to see, and I probably will have some questions regarding how best to revise the timelines for this particular PDP, given the complexity. We also should be considering how we propose to modify the PDP timelines and processes so that they are flexible and allow for development of a time line suitable to each policy issue. Some will be shorter than others, for instance, and some may take multiple years, such as IDNs. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:41 AM To: 'Thomas Keller' Cc: 'Marilyn Cade'; council@gnso.icann.org; 'Suzanne Sene' Subject: RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP Tom (and all), Realizing that Visio isn't necessarily widespread, I've converted the flowcharts (t6here are three pages) to one PDF file, hoping that it will come out all right on your side :-) Regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:59 AM To: Olof Nordling Cc: 'Marilyn Cade'; council@gnso.icann.org; 'Suzanne Sene' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP Olof, all, I support Marylins wording as well and want to urge the council to have this document published as soon as possible. Only one month is already short enough we do not have to shorten it by any delay on our side. To your pdp-flowchart. I could'nt open it due to some version problems. Could you please resend it in another format like .gif or .jpg. I wish you all a happy and successful new year. Best, tom Am 29.12.2005 schrieb Olof Nordling: frames
and establish a feasible time frame, and then recommend such a time frame to the Board. The new gTLD process is challenging and important to address thoroughly. While it may be unpopular to note that we may spend 6-9 months on this, we should assess, now, the feasibility of completing all of the data gathering and potentially external research or advice that we will need to advise the final policy recommendations.
Just one other suggestion: There is a tendency to use "GNSO" in lieu of "Council", or "GNSO Council" in the call for papers. I suggest that it is preferable to systematically use "GNSO Council" or "Council" when we are referencing the Council's work. The GNSO is the full Supporting Organization, and I find the shorthand use of GNSO a little confusing.
_____
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of olof nordling Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:00 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
Dear all,
As you may recall we have a Call for Papers regarding the new gTLD PDP to write for announcement in early January. I have attached a very first draft to this effect and I would sincerely appreciate comments on the draft from those of you who happen to be on-line during these largely holiday-dominated days. The objective would be to have it distributed and posted on 3 January.
The draft includes the ToR in extenso (the announcement on the ICANN front page will have to be shorter, cutting the ToR part). Would this be enough or should we specify another layer of questions - if so, which questions?
I'm looking forward to receiving your views on any aspects of the draft.
Very best regards from Brussels (just lightly covered in snow, to mark the season)
Olof
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w