Hmmm, well, I am not convinced. It seems "simple" to "scale down" a policy issue, but really, some policy issues don't lend themselves to "modularization". I think of IDNs as an example, or the recent .com settlement agreement. Can we really miniaturize these issues into modules, that can only be considered in sequence? I doubt that. The .com settlement issue raises several policy issues; they will need to be considered as a package. We can't break them into separate distinct modules that have no relevance or interaction with each other. That would be "ignorant" on our part, as councilors. I know that is a strong word, but I use it intentionally. Developing policy requires us to step above individual constituency or company "votes" and think for the good of the Internet/as the gNSO affects it. That is our challenge, our charter, and our obligation. That is why we are elected. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:53 PM To: Bret Fausett; Ken Stubbs Cc: Marilyn Cade; 'Thomas Keller'; 'Ross Rader'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP I would like to be helpful here, but as you see, one needs to talk based on some experience with the ICANN/GNSO processes... So I may be making assumptions, if I say any other thing than asking questions. First, I understand that there is a consensus to move the PDP definition outside the ICANN bylaws. I have even learned that it has been agreed on to amend/improve/adapt/update it, and this is in the pipeline. Maybe what we need to do now (if it's not already done) is to put this issue on our agenda some time this year - or first half of the year, but I also see that our work plan is swamped!... Anyway, that would be the opportunity to discuss and integrate the most relevant suggestions made, or points of clarifications raised, by Ross, Marilyn, Brett, Ken and others. For the time being, I do think it may be a bit extreme to remove the possibility of time extension, unless you think (having experienced) this has been used abusively. We may also come up with some conditions to make it harder to resort to, for if the PDP need to be done, we will need to resume it anyway if the timeline expires and this may cause some loss of resources/energy. Other than that, I tend to agree with the suggestions that lean toward better defined, identifiable, homogenous, and more controllable tasks as part of the PDP. Thanks to all those who have made themselves available to help the rest of us better understand these issues. Mawaki --- Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:
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*