As the members of the GNSO council have been informed in the past, due to various exigencies, the PDF Feb 06 Task force fell behind in meeting its scheduled deliveries. However, because of the GSNO council's request to the Board that the Board delay the pending contract renewal decisions until their first meeting after the Sao Paolo meeting and because of the importance of providing GNSO input by the time of the Sao Paolo meeting the TF decided to implement an accelerated schedule. The accelerated work plan was first discussed and approved by the task force members, without dissent, on 13 September and was confirmed and implemented on 29 September. The primary question that arose concerning the accelerated work plan during the discussion concerned the David Maher's (Registry constituency) question of whether the work of the Task Force vis a vis contract terms was at all appropriate and should not be terminated as opposed to being accelerated. The GSNO council, at its meeting of 28 September, confirmed to the Task Force that it should continue the work and should attempt to complete it as quickly as possible. This acceleration plan involved creating two Rapporteur Groups, each of which is responsible for completing the initial work on three (3) of the TOR items. Specifically: -- Rapporteur Group A lead by Marilyn Cade: TOR 1 (Registry Agreement Renewal); TOR 2 (Registry Agreements and Consensus Policy) & TOR 5 (Registry Data) -- Rapporteur Group B lead by Jonathan Nevett: Report on progress with TOR 3 (Price controls); TOR 4 (ICANN fees) & TOR 6 (Infrastructure and development) Each of the Rapporteur groups recruited participants from all of the constituencies as well as nomcom appointees. Participation in the Rapporteur Groups was not restricted to Task Force or council members in an attempt to share the work among a greater number of participants. An invitation for participation was also extended to both the GAC and ALAC based on their liaison relationship to the GNSO council. All of the Rapporteur group meetings are open. Once the Rapporteur groups complete their October work, the plan calls for Task Force to consider and deliberate the proposed recommendations and to determine the degree of support within the Task Force for each of the proposed recommendations. Once this is completed the Task force report will be sent to the GNSO council for consideration. Based on this parallel working method, the following schedule was drafted and published: 13 October -- RG A meeting 13 October -- RG B meeting 17 October -- RG A meeting 18 October -- TF meeting -- mid way review 19 October -- RG B meeting 24 October -- RG A meeting 27 October -- RGs send in finalised & collated text/recommendations 2 November -- TF meeting to discuss draft recommendations 7 November -- Release draft Task Force Report to TF members 14 November -- TF meeting to agree Task Force Report to send to GNSO Council 21 November -- Proposed GNSO Council call to discuss Task Force Report and agree next steps which would include a 20 day public comment period. After public comment period is completed, produce Final Report. Note that this schedule does take the work of the PDP beyond the Sao Paolo meeting, but does make the Task Force Initial report available to the community and the Board during the Sao Paolo meeting. It should also be noted, that this 'accelerated' process, while ignoring the months already spent on the PDP Feb 06 discussions, attempts to meet the schedule for a PDP that is laid out in the by-laws. --- On October 18, the TF held a meeting and did the midway status review of the Rapporteur groups as indicated in the schedule. Each of the rapporteur groups reported that they were using a similar methodology in that they were creating a working document that contained draft recommendations based on discussion of the expert materials, constituency reports and other input. These recommendations will be subjected to a straw ballot within the Rapporteur Groups before being passed on to the full Task Force for deliberation. Each of the Rapporteur groups reported that they were well under way with formulation for recommendations for 2 out 3 of the TOR items being discussed in the respective groups, with the third under discussion. Both groups reported that they were on schedule and would be able to meet the target delivery date of 27 October. There were several concerns that were brought up during the discussion on the status of the plan and the schedule: 1. The paper requested by the council on 28 September which would 'compare and contrast the PDP06 Terms of Reference with the so – called “picket fence” consensus policy areas and provide a without prejudice assessment of likelihood of in or out of scope indicating uncertainty as necessary.' has not yet been delivered. While not quite a gating factor for the work of Rapporteur Group A or B, this report is considered critical to the RG A's ability to make a fully informed recommendation on TOR 2 relating to Registry Agreements and Consensus Policy. A request was to be relayed to Dan Halloran, who was unable to attend the meeting due to other commitments, to schedule a meeting to discuss the report as soon as possible. While this meeting would not be an official Task Force meeting, all Task Force members, as well as Rapporteur Group members and Council members would be invited to take part in this discussion. 2. Ken Stubbs of the Registry constituency reported that the schedule was overly tight and that there was concern that there would not be adequate opportunity for a full and complete deliberation of the Rapporteur Group recommendations if the Task Force was to meet the 2 week deliberation schedule and complete delivery of the report to the GSNO council by 14 November. The general response to this concern was that all attempts would be made to schedule as much time for deliberation as possible before taking a measure of support on the recommendations and attempting to complete the Task force report. It was recommended that participants from all constituencies participate as fully as possible in the Rapporteur group process in preparation of the recommendations coming before the Task Force as a whole. 3. Milton Mueller of the Non commercial consituency reported that the intensity of the October schedule made it difficult for participants to fully participate in the process. He also asked whether it was possible that some of the issues might be too complicated to resolve on this timetable, for example the relation between fees and ICANN budget, and asked whether any thought could be given to separating some issues off into a separate policy process. The response was that the group should try to complete the discussions on all issues according to the proposed schedule. If during the deliberations it became necessary to separate an issue for further consideration and the possibility of another PDP process, then that action could be taken at that time. 4. Marilyn Cade of the Business Constituency mentioned a concern that not all of the expert opinion had been sufficiently discussed by the Task Force as a whole. She offered the example of the expert opinion on price caps. The response was that the Rapporteur Groups should discuss the specific expert opinion related to their assigned work items and that they should present any of the expert opinion that went into their recommendations to the Task Force as a whole when the deliberation period commenced. It is also recommended that all Task Force members read the expert opinion documentation in anticipation of the Task force discussions. ---- Concluding note: due to the proximity of the Task Force status meeting to the GNSO Council meeting - less then 24 hours and before the release of minutes, this status report has not been reviewed by any of the Task Force or Rapporteur Group members. Additionally, it does not attempt to serve the purpose of minutes of the PDP Feb 06 status meeting of 18 October, but rather tries to bring out the most relevant considerations. All errors and omissions are, therefore, my own. a. Acting as Interim Chair of PDP Feb06