Hello all, OK, now that this is clarified and we seem to agree that we need all those processes, the next question I'm attempted to ask is how do we do that, to "redefine" how we should look at the PDP? Would it be necessary to initiate a revision of the ICANN bylaws to include the kind of wording you suggested, or just state a phased PDP in our planning? For in fact, some may say, as I suspect Marilyn, that's what the PDP as a whole is all about - the ingredients of the sausage - and should remain that way! But now you want to make it a set of plain steaks, and indeed, some might find it more apetizing; hmm...let's see. I have another question, Ross. What do you mean by "our getting our technology acts together process"? As enumerated in your ealier email, I suspect this is something the GNSO Council might be doing as well (maybe as part of the sausage-like PDP), so I guess I need to be able to identify what piece is this one, thanks. Best of the new year! Mawaki "I'd like to submit that we need to redefine, in some cases, how we look at the PDP. The PDP is our policy development process, it is not our issue understanding process, our information gathering process, or our getting our technology acts together process." Ross --- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am fully in agreement with your clarification. I thought that was what you were saying.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:07 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
I'm merely saying that we should not be pursuing a policy development process unless we first have an informed, technically sustainable and supported basis for moving forward. We should be spending significant amounts of time fostering understanding, conducting analysis and ensuring a reasonable technical basis. We should not be jamming all of these activities into the PDP.
If there isn't sufficient understanding, technical basis or support to move forward with a PDP, we should not be undertaking a PDP. To do otherwise simply overloads an already complex and delicate process.
I'm not saying that these other processes have no place in our work, but simply that they are different, distinct and separate. They are also very important, valuable and essential to our success.
-ross
Marilyn Cade wrote:
I am confused by this discussion.
One cannot develop policy without information and it is critical to understand the "issue" before one develops policy. As the V.P. of policy issues for the Internet for a multi national corporation, the policy development process always included understanding the issue. J both from a technology perspective and from a legal perspective.
I would sincerely hope that the Council would not take the point of view that understanding issues and information gathering, to include "opinions" and views of the constituencies, but not limited to that, are essential parts of policy development.
Of course, there are those who think that policy is merely "opinion", 'or views', and that has always been one of the objections to policy development. I am not a fan of the present PDP process because it is too narrow and we keep having to "color" outside the lines in order to get the data we need, the information we need, etc.
I would note that IDNs is a good example, as is the new gTLD policy development process-of the need for more information, not less. Opinions have to be backed up by analysis and by information. Otherwise, they are merely opinions. When they are founded on analysis and thoughtful consideration, then we are "making sausage" the right way, as they say about policy development [sorry for the US colloquialism - in the development of policy it is often described as similar to making sausage - messy, but tasty when done right!]
Of course, we need to understand the issues - NOT merely the different "points of view" of all constituencies and the ALAC, but the issues from the SSAC perspective, from the perspective of governmental entities, of the CCNSO, of the ASO, etc.
The Council does itself well, and serves ICANN and the community best when it is thoughtful, informed, educated about issues and pros and cons, understands the impact of a policy on the Internet - within ICANN's core mission and core values - and balanced in its policy outcomes. J That is policy that the Board can be proud of accepting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of
*Philip Sheppard
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:17 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
Ross Rader wrote: (the emphasis is mine):
The PDP is our policy development process. It is *_NOT_* our issue understanding process, *_NOT_* our information gathering process, *_NOT_* our getting our technology acts together process.
Each of these is distinct and important, but we need to keep them separate from the policy development process. -----
I agree. This is an informed thought to start the year.
Philip