I have said enough on this. But apparently NOT, since it seems to keep being unclear. Proposed and draft proposals on work programmes on the existing PDPs, such as time lines, etc. from staff are needed so that Council /or its Task Forces can assess, review, edit and agree to such proposed work programs. And of course, then Council, or its TFs will advance policy work, supported by ICANN policy staff, input from operational staff, and advised by the legal ICANN team. -----Original Message----- From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 1:21 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: GNSO Council Subject: GNSO: PDP management issues [note changed thread] Marilyn Thanks for your note. It is not my understanding that we are to devote any resources and time at all to the Feb 06 PCC: Existing TLDs PDP as part of the two day working session in Wellington. I have another email to the Council in preparation about the PCC-eTLD PDP which I was going to distribute tomorrow but I will send that out later tonight. From my side, it is entirely premature to be discussing the PCC-eTLD in Wellington. Advice from the GNSO Secretariat today indicates that the public comment period will be between 7 March - 27 March. On current estimations, 10 April is the deadline for constituency statements. I would encourage the Council to focus entirely on the new TLD PDP in the working sessions at the Wellington meetings. There is much good work to be done there and, in the background, I would hope that the constituencies would be preparing their statements which will then be folded into the PCC-eTLD Initial Report. Kind regards. Liz .................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob On 08 Mar 2006, at 18:15, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Just one additional thought, since we have an "agreed" format with numbering, etc, for ease of reference in discussion, would be important to keep that also in mind as the further documents are developed.
Thanks, Liz, for the information about when we can expect the further Initial Report--e.g., end of this week. Important to have it as soon as you can, given the work that we are all trying to review before flying to Wellington. :-)
Just one thought, though. The intent of the working session is to split the time over the two PDPs, as well as the meeting with the GAC working group on gNSO. That may have been inherent in your email but it sounded a bit like there was thought that the entire agenda is given over to this particular pdp, and I don't believe that can be the case.
But of course, we are still developing the exact schedule of work for Wellington. I would propose that we devote Saturday a.m. to this work, and Saturday p.m. to the contractual terms PDP [sometimes called PDP Feb-06]. That will allow us to be prepared for our discussion Sunday a.m. with the GAC working group, and then we can return to work on the contractual terms PDP on Sunday p.m,
Best regards and thanks for the update.
Marilyn Cade -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:09 AM To: Liz Williams Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] GNSO PDP new TLDS: Call for further information
In documents like this, it would be useful to augment citations with a hyperlink to the referenced message or resource. It is difficult (or impossible) for a layperson to read this document and benefit from the larger context that these limited footnotes provide for.
There are any number of online style guides that provide recommendations for citing online sources ) - I heartily recommend that staff choose one of these for future use - it will make these documents eminently more readable, and therefore useful, for our purposes.
i.e. http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/cite/Turabian.htm
[25] National Park Service, Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site, 11 February 2003, available from http://www.nps.gov/abli/; Internet; accessed 13 February 2003.
Liz Williams wrote:
Dear Colleagues
I have attached for your review a document which sets out a request for additional information on the technical selection criteria for new TLDs.
The document focuses on four key questions around technical criteria which we discussed at some length at the Washington meeting.
Could I ask you and your constituencies to come to Wellington with more detailed information about your positions (and the justification for those positions based on ICANN's mission and values)? We would then be able to move forward with discussions about the appropriateness of other selection criteria and
allocation methods.
I will be delivering to you all, I hope by the end of this week, an updated version of the new TLD /Initial Report/ in which I have included Washington inputs and other information.
I would expect to be working on that /Initial Report/ during the two day session planned for 25 & 26 March.
Kind regards and, of course, any questions come straight back to me. If necessary, we could add quick discussion of this document to the agenda for next week's Council call.
Liz .....................................................
Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob
=
--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
=