Bruce and Council, I wonder if its worth raising the nature of the PDP staff report and the input. With respect to the registry services issue, Barbara Rosen has requested constituency input before writing a report. This may be a good idea - there is little guidance as how these reports are best done. We only have the "way according to Touton" to date. A staff report has five key objectives: a. The proposed issue raised for consideration; b. The identity of the party submitting the issue; c. How that party is affected by the issue; d. Support for the issue to initiate the PDP; e. A recommendation from the Staff Manager as to whether the Council should initiate the PDP for this issue. It is in response to objective c), that we are being asked how each constituency is affected wrt registry services. But in general is this what we want out of this stage of the PDP? If you ask me the PDP wording is bizarre. Suppose the Board raised the issue. The Board is then the "party". And c) tells us the report should say how the Board is affected. Lets discuss this. My instinct is to keep the process streamlined and short. Consultation before the staff report goes against that time objective. Comments? Philip