:-) Yes, we did have quite a struggle with Hans and Joe and the lawyer who was somehow either hired, or volunteered to do the drafting... Rita ... those who were more knowledgeable about the realities were not ... well, "well received" seems a neutral and "nice" description of how our input was treated. Considering that the participants had quite a bit of expertise, it is too bad that we ended up where we did. ... However, be that as it may, we did agree that there would be a revision, based on reality and experience. And reality and experience are now ensued. So, time for revision. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:13 PM To: Ken Stubbs Cc: Marilyn Cade; 'Thomas Keller'; 'Ross Rader'; 'Mawaki Chango'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP I agree with Ken. Also, the PDP process set forth in the bylaws sets some fairly rigid deadlines for completion and does not provide a mechanism for an extension of time. This rigidity was unpopular when it was developed, but Hans Kraiijanbrink and Joe Sims, who led the work group that created the PDP were adamant that this was the only acceptable process. From a process and bylaws point of view, I am concerned that we have embarked on a PDP with no intention of following the time periods set forth in the bylaws and have extended the time periods without any apparent authority in the bylaws to do so. The only way around the tight deadlines in the bylaws, as I see it, is to narrowly scope the issues under consideration and complete several small PDPs in a row to accomplish large tasks. In other words, if we feel the need to extend the time set forth in the bylaws, the better approach is to scale down the issue under consideration. -- Bret Ken Stubbs wrote:
*I** am becoming a firm believer in the concept of a "drop dead" date for PDP's.
I believe that we need to insure against "perpetuity" by providing in the process a "reasonable" time period for completion.. If the time period is not met then that specific PDP would expire and an entirely new PDP would have to be initiated.
I do not think it is a good idea to allow for council votes for "time extensions" for a specific PDP as this would circumvent the concept of a "timely " process..
your thoughts ?
Ken Stubbs*