Ah. Thanks. Sorry…, didn’t notice the cutoff in the hyperlink. Thanks again. Amr On Oct 2, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Let me try again with the link, but it seems to have cut off part of it (so please make sure to copy all of it even if it is not hyperlinked): http://beijing46.icann.org/meetings/beijing2013/transcript-gtld-registratio n-data-06apr13-en.pdf.
Best regards,
Marika
On 02/10/14 21:32, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Thanks Marika,
Got a “page not found” message on the Beijing meeting transcripts link. In which meeting in Beijing was this topic discussed? It’d help me understand the context under which Jonathan sent the letter.
Thanks again.
Amr
On Oct 2, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr,
The topic was, amongst others, discussed during the ICANN meeting in Beijing (see
http://beijing46.icann.org/meetings/beijing2013/transcript-gtld-registrat io n-data-06apr13-en.pdf) as well as follow up correspondence from Jonathan to the EWG
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-baril-19jun13-en.pdf ).
Best regards,
Marika
On 02/10/14 20:56, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
Can we please be provided some more information on the circumstances surrounding the request to postpone the publication of the final issue report last year? I¹d appreciate some understanding of the details of the Council¹s agreement to agree to this. That seems to be a missing piece of the puzzle in the conversation we are now having, at least as far as I¹m concerned.
Some more in-line below:
On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Avri, you are correct. Nothing prevents another public comment period on the Issue Report. However, it may be worth considering what the objective of such a public comment period would be. As also noted on the call, the main objective of a public comment period on the Preliminary Issue Report is 1) to make sure all the relevant information that is aimed to help inform the PDP WG deliberations has been covered and 2) to provide input on whether the GNSO Council should initiate a PDP. As two is not relevant in this case as it concerns a Board initiated PDP for which there is no Council vote on the initiation, the public comment forum would focus on 1 - is there any further relevant information that should be included to help inform the PDP WG deliberations.
YesŠ, that seems right to me.
If the objective of the public comment forum would be to obtain input on the substance of the information to be considered as part of the PDP deliberations, this is typically done at the outset of the PDP WG which is required to obtain input to help inform its deliberations at an early stage.
My understanding is that the stage you¹re describing here is input to discussion items that are already deemed within the scope of the PDP and outlined in its charter, while my personal pressing concern is defining what is, in fact, in and out of scope.
As the Issue Report was originally requested by the Board, this is probably one of the topics that could be considered by the informal group as part of the conversation on what should be the next step(s) in this process.
One other thing that could be considered in this regard is that if there is indeed agreement to re-issue the Preliminary Issue Report for public comment, whether it would be helpful to include a proposed charter for the PDP WG as we have also done in recent Preliminary Issue Reports as part of our PDP improvements project. This could have the added benefit of obtaining input on the scope for the PDP WG as well as proposed approach for dealing with the subject matter which could help inform discussions on the charter in the next phase of the PDP.
I can see how this might make sense, IF we¹re in a hurry to get this done. I¹m not necessarily opposed to this practice in principal, but I am a little hesitant to do a trial-run of it on a policy topic of this magnitude and complexity. A question that also occurs to me now that didn¹t at the time when this was being discussed is; what is the voting threshold on the Council that would be required to decide that a charter drafting team is not necessary?
Thanks.
Amr
Best regards,
Marika
On 01/10/14 00:03, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for this. It is good to see pictorially what is being thought of.
I think that because the first review of the issues report was over a year ago, because the inclusion of EWG brings up new consideration on that issue report and because of intervening policy issues, we need to have another review period before a final issues report can be released.
I know that the PDP process does not require this, but neither does the PDP prohibit it and given the unusual circumstances of this process it is necessary.
avri
On 30-Sep-14 03:51, Marika Konings wrote: > Dear All, > > Following our discussion last week, please find attached a flow > chart > in > which we've tried to describe in further detail where from a staff > perspective the gTLD Registration Services PDP stands and how it > relates to > the EWG Final Report as well as the informal group proposed by Steve > Crocker > to discuss next steps. As we also tried to make clear on the call > and > which > the flow chart will hopefully show, is that the PDP has been > following > the > required steps as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws as well as Annex A > and > that > the EWG is in no way circumventing this process but merely providing > additional insights and information that will hopefully help inform > subsequent deliberations, something that from our perspective is > fully > in > line with the objective of fact-based policy development. We hope > this > may > be helpful as the Council considers next steps and engages with the > Board in > the proposed informal discussion. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > >