Olof, all, I support Marylins wording as well and want to urge the council to have this document published as soon as possible. Only one month is already short enough we do not have to shorten it by any delay on our side. To your pdp-flowchart. I could'nt open it due to some version problems. Could you please resend it in another format like .gif or .jpg. I wish you all a happy and successful new year. Best, tom Am 29.12.2005 schrieb Olof Nordling:

Dear Marilyn,

Many thanks for advancing this matter. Your points are well taken and I even do agree that we should encourage contributions that address the full set of questions. Nevertheless, we should recognize that an expert on, let's say, allocation methods, could well want to limit his/her contribution to that particular area - without that being seen as detracting from the value of the contribution as such. Anyway, as I read your amendments of the draft I find your wording striking the right balance.

As to the working program, it is first of all clear that we need to modify the timelines in the current GNSO 4mths operational plan (as prepared by Maria before last Council call). At the call, I also suggested that the next consolidation document - or "Initial Report", to speak PDP-ese - be kept as an evolving draft to be finalized in Wellington. That met with approval but we haven't addressed the timeline for the following steps. As a visual background for further thoughts on this, I attach a flowchart (my draft, not canonized.) of the GNSO PDP steps.

Very best regards

Olof

_____

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:52 AM To: 'olof nordling'; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: 'Suzanne Sene' Subject: RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

Dear Olof,

Attached, as promised, are more detailed comments on the proposed call for papers. When I made the proposal for this additional approach to seeking input, and the Council supported it, I believe that we intended to solicit organized, and substantive inputs that directly address the full set of questions in the ToR. I would prefer that we encourage that. The existing public forum, which is open as well through the same time frame, provides an opportunity for any contributions, thus no one is disadvantaged by the additional criteria in terms of having their input considered.

As part of our outreach, we also need to establish interaction with the other SOs, and with the GAC. We should add this to our agenda for the January Council call. In addition, I suggest that we also invite the SSAC, OECD, and WIPO to meet with the Council in Wellington, if not earlier, to discuss these questions and any comments or information that they may be able to contribute. Suzanne may be able to suggest, as the liaison, whether it may be appropriate to establish a time and framework for a dialogue with the GAC in Wellington, as well. It may be that there are specific questions that it would be useful to focus on for that discussion.

Also, I want to note that we have a resolution that notes that the GNSO Council will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work. After the holiday ends, we should probably undertake work on this, so that it can be posted to the Council the required 7 days ahead of time for our agenda for the January meeting. I think we need to be realistic and pragmatic about the time frames and establish a feasible time frame, and then recommend such a time frame to the Board. The new gTLD process is challenging and important to address thoroughly. While it may be unpopular to note that we may spend 6-9 months on this, we should assess, now, the feasibility of completing all of the data gathering and potentially external research or advice that we will need to advise the final policy recommendations.

Just one other suggestion: There is a tendency to use "GNSO" in lieu of "Council", or "GNSO Council" in the call for papers. I suggest that it is preferable to systematically use "GNSO Council" or "Council" when we are referencing the Council's work. The GNSO is the full Supporting Organization, and I find the shorthand use of GNSO a little confusing.

_____

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of olof nordling Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:00 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

Dear all,

As you may recall we have a Call for Papers regarding the new gTLD PDP to write for announcement in early January. I have attached a very first draft to this effect and I would sincerely appreciate comments on the draft from those of you who happen to be on-line during these largely holiday-dominated days. The objective would be to have it distributed and posted on 3 January.

The draft includes the ToR in extenso (the announcement on the ICANN front page will have to be shorter, cutting the ToR part). Would this be enough or should we specify another layer of questions - if so, which questions?

I'm looking forward to receiving your views on any aspects of the draft.

Very best regards from Brussels (just lightly covered in snow, to mark the season)

Olof

Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w

Dear Marilyn,

Many thanks for advancing this matter. Your points are well taken and I even do agree that we should encourage contributions that address the full set of questions. Nevertheless, we should recognize that an expert on, let's say, allocation methods, could well want to limit his/her contribution to that particular area - without that being seen as detracting from the value of the contribution as such. Anyway, as I read your amendments of the draft I find your wording striking the right balance.

As to the working program, it is first of all clear that we need to modify the timelines in the current GNSO 4mths operational plan (as prepared by Maria before last Council call). At the call, I also suggested that the next consolidation document - or "Initial Report", to speak PDP-ese - be kept as an evolving draft to be finalized in Wellington. That met with approval but we haven't addressed the timeline for the following steps. As a visual background for further thoughts on this, I attach a flowchart (my draft, not canonized.) of the GNSO PDP steps.

Very best regards

Olof

_____

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:52 AM To: 'olof nordling'; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: 'Suzanne Sene' Subject: RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

Dear Olof,

Attached, as promised, are more detailed comments on the proposed call for papers. When I made the proposal for this additional approach to seeking input, and the Council supported it, I believe that we intended to solicit organized, and substantive inputs that directly address the full set of questions in the ToR. I would prefer that we encourage that. The existing public forum, which is open as well through the same time frame, provides an opportunity for any contributions, thus no one is disadvantaged by the additional criteria in terms of having their input considered.

As part of our outreach, we also need to establish interaction with the other SOs, and with the GAC. We should add this to our agenda for the January Council call. In addition, I suggest that we also invite the SSAC, OECD, and WIPO to meet with the Council in Wellington, if not earlier, to discuss these questions and any comments or information that they may be able to contribute. Suzanne may be able to suggest, as the liaison, whether it may be appropriate to establish a time and framework for a dialogue with the GAC in Wellington, as well. It may be that there are specific questions that it would be useful to focus on for that discussion.

Also, I want to note that we have a resolution that notes that the GNSO Council will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work. After the holiday ends, we should probably undertake work on this, so that it can be posted to the Council the required 7 days ahead of time for our agenda for the January meeting. I think we need to be realistic and pragmatic about the time

Tom (and all), ...and the web posting of the call has been requested and is in process, BTW Regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:41 AM To: 'Thomas Keller' Cc: 'Marilyn Cade'; council@gnso.icann.org; 'Suzanne Sene' Subject: RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP Tom (and all), Realizing that Visio isn't necessarily widespread, I've converted the flowcharts (t6here are three pages) to one PDF file, hoping that it will come out all right on your side :-) Regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:59 AM To: Olof Nordling Cc: 'Marilyn Cade'; council@gnso.icann.org; 'Suzanne Sene' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP Olof, all, I support Marylins wording as well and want to urge the council to have this document published as soon as possible. Only one month is already short enough we do not have to shorten it by any delay on our side. To your pdp-flowchart. I could'nt open it due to some version problems. Could you please resend it in another format like .gif or .jpg. I wish you all a happy and successful new year. Best, tom Am 29.12.2005 schrieb Olof Nordling: frames

and establish a feasible time frame, and then recommend such a time frame to the Board. The new gTLD process is challenging and important to address thoroughly. While it may be unpopular to note that we may spend 6-9 months on this, we should assess, now, the feasibility of completing all of the data gathering and potentially external research or advice that we will need to advise the final policy recommendations.

Just one other suggestion: There is a tendency to use "GNSO" in lieu of "Council", or "GNSO Council" in the call for papers. I suggest that it is preferable to systematically use "GNSO Council" or "Council" when we are referencing the Council's work. The GNSO is the full Supporting Organization, and I find the shorthand use of GNSO a little confusing.

_____

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of olof nordling Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:00 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

Dear all,

As you may recall we have a Call for Papers regarding the new gTLD PDP to write for announcement in early January. I have attached a very first draft to this effect and I would sincerely appreciate comments on the draft from those of you who happen to be on-line during these largely holiday-dominated days. The objective would be to have it distributed and posted on 3 January.

The draft includes the ToR in extenso (the announcement on the ICANN front page will have to be shorter, cutting the ToR part). Would this be enough or should we specify another layer of questions - if so, which questions?

I'm looking forward to receiving your views on any aspects of the draft.

Very best regards from Brussels (just lightly covered in snow, to mark the season)

Olof

Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w

Marilyn Cade wrote:

Olof, I thought it was General Counsel advice re "within scope"? The flow chart says "staff manager". This is helpful to see, and I probably will have some questions regarding how best to revise the timelines for this particular PDP, given the complexity.

We also should be considering how we propose to modify the PDP timelines and processes so that they are flexible and allow for development of a time line suitable to each policy issue. Some will be shorter than others, for instance, and some may take multiple years, such as IDNs.

Hope everyone had a great holiday. I'm still not officially back, but have been trying to stay in the loop :) Regarding the time considerations related to the PDP, no effort should take multiple years. I've been thinking about this over the holidays, and 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. Each of these is distinct and important, but we need to keep them separate from the policy development process. We should also recognize that without proper information, understanding of the issue and logical basis in technology, the PDP is probably destined to fail. Therefore, we need to understand when it is time to initiate a PDP, and when it is time to use one or some of these other processes. We should also seek to refine these other processes, make them more explicit and start working them into the regular activity of the GNSO. As a general principle, I would like to see the PDP remain as predictable, short-term and effective as possible. Have a great 2006 everyone. -ross

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. :-) 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. :-) 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

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

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

...

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

...

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

...

that understanding issues and information gathering, to include "opinions" and views of the constituencies, but not

...

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

Marilyn Cade wrote: the V.P. of policy the point of view limited to that, are 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

...

*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

*Philip Sheppard 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

Ross, I'm very sympathetic of the idea of moving the PDP out to a seperate document which can be amended more easily as well as I'm sympathethic of the thought of keeping the PDP as narrow in purpose as possible. Having said the latter I have to note that if we start to really focus the PDP on policy making only we need to deal with the information gathering and understanding part in a different manner. A manner which does not loose the benefit of the offical character of a formal PDP (it is my experience that a issue only gets "real" attention if there is a decision made at the end) but with more freedom for the council to define timelines for the research part for each issue independently. This could be done by a more project based approach with an PDP at its end. Let me give you a short example: 1. The council recognises that IDNs are an important issue 2. The council officially announces a timeline and events to take place in this time for research and "understanding" the IDN issue. 3. 2. can be repeated if needed 4. The staff manager produces an issues report on IDNs 5. The PDP is invoked 6. The PDP must be finished in time with an result I guess the main sense of the last point is to have an defined end point for each discussion. To be able to reach a result the TOR of the PDP must be very minimal and defined very precisely. It would therefore be very likely that we and up with more than one PDP for each issue. Thats my 2 cents worth on this. Best, tom Am 03.01.2006 schrieb Ross Rader:

Mawaki Chango wrote:

...

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?

My recommendation is two-fold. First, the amendment to the bylaws should be to move the GNSO PDP to a separate document. This would allow us to modify it in the future without having to amend ICANN's bylaws. The amendment should be constructed so that a majority of the board of directors would have to vote in favor of the amendment (as opposed to the 2/3s required now). Second, we should only be looking to modify the timelines in the PDP right now. There might be additional changes required in the future to streamline or otherwise make the process more efficient, but my preference would be to avoid a wholesale reconstruction of the PDP - we have work that we need to undertake immediately that would benefit from having clarified timelines. Let's make sure that we stay focused on the practical goal of getting better at what we do.

...

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.

I was referring to instances where the technical environment wasn't quite ready for the policy work going on in the GNSO and vice versa, where the policy environment wasn't ready for new technical developments being implemented. For me, this comes down to making sure that we are appropriately informed regarding the capabilities of differing technologies (and often, identifying areas where new technology might be required) prior to conducting a PDP. For instance, the GNSO has very little understanding of the policy implications and new policy requirements presented by the IRIS protocol - or whether or not the protocol is even appropriate for the applications that some would like to embed in ICANN policy. In a perfect world, we would have a clear understanding of these implications before we conducted a PDP. In this world, we need to make sure that this lack of understanding doesn't stand in the way of the PDP and that we rise to a proper level of understanding of the relevant issues in a timely manner.

Regards,

-ross

Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w

*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* Marilyn Cade wrote:

Tom, my thinking is somewhat aligned with yours, but with some slight variations, but I think that this is very worthwhile to develop as a "straw proposal". As I used to manage policy development, and it involved both internal and external policy, there were timelines "we" could control, and some we could not -- e.g. when a policy was going to morph into a public policy issue, such as "data retention", where governments became involved. However, still, there were stages that were within control that could be defined and time frames established and adhered to.

Thanks for your example. Helpful.

Marilyn

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:52 AM To: Ross Rader Cc: Mawaki Chango; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

Ross,

I'm very sympathetic of the idea of moving the PDP out to a seperate document which can be amended more easily as well as I'm sympathethic of the thought of keeping the PDP as narrow in purpose as possible.

Having said the latter I have to note that if we start to really focus the PDP on policy making only we need to deal with the information gathering and understanding part in a different manner. A manner which does not loose the benefit of the offical character of a formal PDP (it is my experience that a issue only gets "real" attention if there is a decision made at the end) but with more freedom for the council to define timelines for the research part for each issue independently.

This could be done by a more project based approach with an PDP at its end. Let me give you a short example:

1. The council recognises that IDNs are an important issue 2. The council officially announces a timeline and events to take place in this time for research and "understanding" the IDN issue. 3. 2. can be repeated if needed 4. The staff manager produces an issues report on IDNs 5. The PDP is invoked 6. The PDP must be finished in time with an result

I guess the main sense of the last point is to have an defined end point for each discussion. To be able to reach a result the TOR of the PDP must be very minimal and defined very precisely. It would therefore be very likely that we and up with more than one PDP for each issue.

Thats my 2 cents worth on this.

Best,

tom

Am 03.01.2006 schrieb Ross Rader:

...

Mawaki Chango wrote:

...

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?

My recommendation is two-fold. First, the amendment to the bylaws should be to move the GNSO PDP to a separate document. This would allow us to modify it in the future without having to amend ICANN's bylaws. The amendment should be constructed so that a majority of the board of directors would have to vote in favor of the amendment (as opposed to the 2/3s required now). Second, we should only be looking to modify the timelines in the PDP right now. There might be additional changes required in the future to streamline or otherwise make the process more efficient, but my preference would be to avoid a wholesale reconstruction of the PDP - we have work that we need to undertake immediately that would benefit from having clarified timelines. Let's make sure that we stay focused on the practical goal of getting better at what we do.

...

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.

I was referring to instances where the technical environment wasn't quite ready for the policy work going on in the GNSO and vice versa, where the policy environment wasn't ready for new technical developments being implemented. For me, this comes down to making sure that we are appropriately informed regarding the capabilities of differing technologies (and often, identifying areas where new technology might be required) prior to conducting a PDP. For instance, the GNSO has very little understanding of the policy implications and new policy requirements presented by the IRIS protocol - or whether or not the protocol is even appropriate for the applications that some would like to embed in ICANN policy. In a perfect world, we would have a clear understanding of these implications before we conducted a PDP. In this world, we need to make sure that this lack of understanding doesn't stand in the way of the PDP and that we rise to a proper level of understanding of the relevant issues in a timely manner.

Regards,

-ross

Gruss,

tom

(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w

Bret Fausett wrote:

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.

Precisely my feeling. The corollary to this is that each constituency would need to give some thought as to how they will each contribute to a smaller, more focused process. Right now, most constituencies have structured their processes such that long timelines are required simply to appoint a representative to a task force - getting concrete contributions from them is a larger task still. -ross

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*

Dear Mike I am concerned to see a discussion of "board meetings Committee recommendations regarding ICANN meetings. There has been no consultation with the constituencies of the GNSO or the Council, that I have been able to participate in. I am perhaps missing something, since I was away from Dec. 19 - 30, and perhaps you were able to conduct a thorough review and comment process in that time frame. I apologize. I was only online once a day and could have missed this opportunity. I recall the discussion from the transcription, and in my view, this is a discussion without consideration of full input and facts regarding the needs of all the players. But, I trusted that there would be a valid outreach effort. I recall that there was some discussion of "individual" comments, perhaps presented anonymously. When we "build" organizations, and processes, we have to be careful to take into account the full range of work needed. I am very aware of the risks and cautions of the ITU's approach to regional meetings and inputs. I am concerned that ICANN is getting guidance to follow that very flawed process, in this stage of ICANN's development. But, perhaps I'll see a detailed consultation plan from the meetings committee, and thus, my concerns will be addressed by the process of consultation. I count on that. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:52 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] ICANN Board Agenda - 10-Jan-2006 Teleconference Dear Council Members: Please be advised that the following agenda has been posted on the ICANN website regarding the upcoming 10-Jan-2006 Board teleconference, see http://www.icann.org/minutes/ * Consideration of .UA Redelegation Request * Consideration of .CX Redelegation Request * Extensions of Deadlines for gTLD Agreement Renewal Processes * Board Meetings Committee's Recommendation regarding ICANN Meetings * Board Conflict of Interest Committee's Recommendation Regarding Proposed COI Questionnaire * Update on Discussions on Proposed VeriSign Settlement * Discussion regarding Board Participation in New GTLD Policy Development Process * Other Business Should anyone have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Michael D. Palage

I am pleased to "hear" that, Michael. Over the holiday, I read all the transcripts, and I was concerned about the discussions about changes in meetings. I recall from Luxembourg that there were also suggestions of "individual" consultations with those who don't come to ICANN to help to determine how to redefine ICANN's meetings. While that is a worthwhile objective, we need to strive to meet the needs of those who invest in ICANN even as we try to expand opportunities for participation beyond the present set of participants. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:46 PM To: 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Agenda - 10-Jan-2006 Teleconference Marilyn: I think there may be some confusion. The specific topic of discussion is the selection of the location of the 4th Quarter 2006 regional meeting. Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:37 PM To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Agenda - 10-Jan-2006 Teleconference Dear Mike I am concerned to see a discussion of "board meetings Committee recommendations regarding ICANN meetings. There has been no consultation with the constituencies of the GNSO or the Council, that I have been able to participate in. I am perhaps missing something, since I was away from Dec. 19 - 30, and perhaps you were able to conduct a thorough review and comment process in that time frame. I apologize. I was only online once a day and could have missed this opportunity. I recall the discussion from the transcription, and in my view, this is a discussion without consideration of full input and facts regarding the needs of all the players. But, I trusted that there would be a valid outreach effort. I recall that there was some discussion of "individual" comments, perhaps presented anonymously. When we "build" organizations, and processes, we have to be careful to take into account the full range of work needed. I am very aware of the risks and cautions of the ITU's approach to regional meetings and inputs. I am concerned that ICANN is getting guidance to follow that very flawed process, in this stage of ICANN's development. But, perhaps I'll see a detailed consultation plan from the meetings committee, and thus, my concerns will be addressed by the process of consultation. I count on that. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:52 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] ICANN Board Agenda - 10-Jan-2006 Teleconference Dear Council Members: Please be advised that the following agenda has been posted on the ICANN website regarding the upcoming 10-Jan-2006 Board teleconference, see http://www.icann.org/minutes/ * Consideration of .UA Redelegation Request * Consideration of .CX Redelegation Request * Extensions of Deadlines for gTLD Agreement Renewal Processes * Board Meetings Committee's Recommendation regarding ICANN Meetings * Board Conflict of Interest Committee's Recommendation Regarding Proposed COI Questionnaire * Update on Discussions on Proposed VeriSign Settlement * Discussion regarding Board Participation in New GTLD Policy Development Process * Other Business Should anyone have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Michael D. Palage

Marilyn Cade wrote:

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.

Neither the .com settlement agreement, nor IDN's - as you've expressed them - are policy issues per se. Both of these are issues of huge importance to the community, and each carries with them a multitude of possible policy requirements, but let's not confuse the two. For instance, the question of whether or not it is desirable to grant a gTLD registry a perpetual right of renewal *is* a policy issue. Whether or not it is appropriate to proceed with IDN.IDN delegations and the timeframe in which to do so, or not - is a policy issue. The subject area of IDN's unto itself is not a policy issue. A policy is nothing more than a guidance system - formalized and agreed to rules and practices that we implement to manage various behaviors. This is what I was getting at in the earlier post that Phillip responded to. Our PDP is nothing more than a process to develop policy. In order to instantiate it, we should have a pretty good idea what policy we want developed. In order to gain this understanding, we first need to know which behaviour(s) we want to manage. With transfers, this was very simple. The community had a widely-held view that domain name portability (the behavior) was valuable. This made defining the policy development goals relatively easy - create some rules that ensure domain portability. My point is this - unless we set some concrete goals up front, our PDPs will always be nebulous, unending and mostly ineffective - at least this is what I've learned from the past few years of policy development work. The policy development work has been large, ill-defined and mostly unending. After six years on whois, I'm still not clear what the community goals are on that issue. At least w/ IDN the policy objectives are relatively well-defined - its just that the goal is pretty substantial. So, in this case, I would agree - we will need a lot of time to work through the issues necessary to develop the policies. But, we are talking about a number of policies related to IDNs, so perhaps there is a way to effectively modularize them. I doubt this is the case with the .com settlement agreement, but nor do I believe that the policy objectives are so large that we can't effectively deal with them in a shorter time frame without leaving the timelines open-ended.

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.

Actually - I and others are explicitly elected to represent the interests of our constituencies. http://icannregistrars.org/Portals/0/gnso-rc-bylaws.doc Some of the responsibilities of Registrar Constituency Council Members, under the direction of the constituency executive committee, are: "2.11.1.1. Act as Registrar Constituency representatives and not as those of their respective entities or organizations. As far as it is practical, GNSO Council representatives shall consult on all relevant matters and decisions with the Registrar Constituency; 2.11.2.1. Represent the interests and position(s) of the Constituency in various task forces, working groups and industry forum as specified by and per guidance from the Executive Committee; 2.11.2.2. Consult with the Members on an ongoing basis to ensure that the consensus views of the Constituency Members are appropriately tabled for consideration by the task force, working group or forum;" I would hope that our constituency position is entirely consistent with the needs of the many and perhaps sometimes, even with that of the entire population of internet users. However, when I speak, I do so on only behalf of a very small special interest group. -ross

I'm confused. must be the new year and not enough winter yet in Washington. As to Council votes - I think we are all very mature and professional and would address these issues appropriately. Isn't that what we are "elected" to do by our constituencies? I suggested developing a time line specific to a PDP/issue. That would allow the Council to be responsive to the complexities of a particular issue. I continue to use IDNs as an example. We can't expect to finalize policy that ignores technical issues. That would also be the case for other Policy issues. Thus, we need to be complex enough in our thinking to address the complex environment we develop policy for. I might refer you, Ken to the ITU. In the Study Groups, we have some rapporteur groups that last 6 months, or less, and some that last longer, depending on the issue. Even in the ITU, we try to get the process "right" for the topic. And we are guided by the complexity and needs of the issue/topic. I would think that in the gNSO that we can at least meet that benchmark. :-) Sounds like an achievable goal to me. Knowing both organizations as I do. Marilyn _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Stubbs Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:09 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: 'Thomas Keller'; 'Ross Rader'; 'Mawaki Chango'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP 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 Marilyn Cade wrote: Tom, my thinking is somewhat aligned with yours, but with some slight variations, but I think that this is very worthwhile to develop as a "straw proposal". As I used to manage policy development, and it involved both internal and external policy, there were timelines "we" could control, and some we could not -- e.g. when a policy was going to morph into a public policy issue, such as "data retention", where governments became involved. However, still, there were stages that were within control that could be defined and time frames established and adhered to. Thanks for your example. Helpful. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:52 AM To: Ross Rader Cc: Mawaki Chango; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP Ross, I'm very sympathetic of the idea of moving the PDP out to a seperate document which can be amended more easily as well as I'm sympathethic of the thought of keeping the PDP as narrow in purpose as possible. Having said the latter I have to note that if we start to really focus the PDP on policy making only we need to deal with the information gathering and understanding part in a different manner. A manner which does not loose the benefit of the offical character of a formal PDP (it is my experience that a issue only gets "real" attention if there is a decision made at the end) but with more freedom for the council to define timelines for the research part for each issue independently. This could be done by a more project based approach with an PDP at its end. Let me give you a short example: 1. The council recognises that IDNs are an important issue 2. The council officially announces a timeline and events to take place in this time for research and "understanding" the IDN issue. 3. 2. can be repeated if needed 4. The staff manager produces an issues report on IDNs 5. The PDP is invoked 6. The PDP must be finished in time with an result I guess the main sense of the last point is to have an defined end point for each discussion. To be able to reach a result the TOR of the PDP must be very minimal and defined very precisely. It would therefore be very likely that we and up with more than one PDP for each issue. Thats my 2 cents worth on this. Best, tom Am 03.01.2006 schrieb Ross Rader: Mawaki Chango wrote: 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? My recommendation is two-fold. First, the amendment to the bylaws should be to move the GNSO PDP to a separate document. This would allow us to modify it in the future without having to amend ICANN's bylaws. The amendment should be constructed so that a majority of the board of directors would have to vote in favor of the amendment (as opposed to the 2/3s required now). Second, we should only be looking to modify the timelines in the PDP right now. There might be additional changes required in the future to streamline or otherwise make the process more efficient, but my preference would be to avoid a wholesale reconstruction of the PDP - we have work that we need to undertake immediately that would benefit from having clarified timelines. Let's make sure that we stay focused on the practical goal of getting better at what we do. 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. I was referring to instances where the technical environment wasn't quite ready for the policy work going on in the GNSO and vice versa, where the policy environment wasn't ready for new technical developments being implemented. For me, this comes down to making sure that we are appropriately informed regarding the capabilities of differing technologies (and often, identifying areas where new technology might be required) prior to conducting a PDP. For instance, the GNSO has very little understanding of the policy implications and new policy requirements presented by the IRIS protocol - or whether or not the protocol is even appropriate for the applications that some would like to embed in ICANN policy. In a perfect world, we would have a clear understanding of these implications before we conducted a PDP. In this world, we need to make sure that this lack of understanding doesn't stand in the way of the PDP and that we rise to a proper level of understanding of the relevant issues in a timely manner. Regards, -ross Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w

Dear Marilyn,

Many thanks for advancing this matter. Your points are well taken and I even do agree that we should encourage contributions that address the full set of questions. Nevertheless, we should recognize that an expert on, let's say, allocation methods, could well want to limit his/her contribution to that particular area - without that being seen as detracting from the value of the contribution as such. Anyway, as I read your amendments of the draft I find your wording striking the right balance.

As to the working program, it is first of all clear that we need to modify the timelines in the current GNSO 4mths operational plan (as prepared by Maria before last Council call). At the call, I also suggested that the next consolidation document - or "Initial Report", to speak PDP-ese - be kept as an evolving draft to be finalized in Wellington. That met with approval but we haven't addressed the timeline for the following steps. As a visual background for further thoughts on this, I attach a flowchart (my draft, not canonized.) of the GNSO PDP steps.

Very best regards

Olof

_____

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:52 AM To: 'olof nordling'; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: 'Suzanne Sene' Subject: RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

Dear Olof,

Attached, as promised, are more detailed comments on the proposed call for papers. When I made the proposal for this additional approach to seeking input, and the Council supported it, I believe that we intended to solicit organized, and substantive inputs that directly address the full set of questions in the ToR. I would prefer that we encourage that. The existing public forum, which is open as well through the same time frame, provides an opportunity for any contributions, thus no one is disadvantaged by the additional criteria in terms of having their input considered.

As part of our outreach, we also need to establish interaction with the other SOs, and with the GAC. We should add this to our agenda for the January Council call. In addition, I suggest that we also invite the SSAC, OECD, and WIPO to meet with the Council in Wellington, if not earlier, to discuss these questions and any comments or information that they may be able to contribute. Suzanne may be able to suggest, as the liaison, whether it may be appropriate to establish a time and framework for a dialogue with the GAC in Wellington, as well. It may be that there are specific questions that it would be useful to focus on for that discussion.

Also, I want to note that we have a resolution that notes that the GNSO Council will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work. After the holiday ends, we should probably undertake work on this, so that it can be posted to the Council the required 7 days ahead of time for our agenda for the January meeting. I think we need to be realistic and pragmatic about the time

Marilyn, Well, a flowchart is by necessity in "shorthand" - this little box should rather spell out "the Staff Manager compiles the Staff Recommendation, the scope advice of which is provided by the General Counsel". As stated in the chart it can appear misleading (and I'll think about that when revising...), but the primary idea is just to get a visual image of the flow. Best regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:47 PM To: 'Olof Nordling'; 'Thomas Keller' Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; 'Suzanne Sene' Subject: RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP Olof, I thought it was General Counsel advice re "within scope"? The flow chart says "staff manager". This is helpful to see, and I probably will have some questions regarding how best to revise the timelines for this particular PDP, given the complexity. We also should be considering how we propose to modify the PDP timelines and processes so that they are flexible and allow for development of a time line suitable to each policy issue. Some will be shorter than others, for instance, and some may take multiple years, such as IDNs. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:41 AM To: 'Thomas Keller' Cc: 'Marilyn Cade'; council@gnso.icann.org; 'Suzanne Sene' Subject: RE: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP Tom (and all), Realizing that Visio isn't necessarily widespread, I've converted the flowcharts (t6here are three pages) to one PDF file, hoping that it will come out all right on your side :-) Regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:59 AM To: Olof Nordling Cc: 'Marilyn Cade'; council@gnso.icann.org; 'Suzanne Sene' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP Olof, all, I support Marylins wording as well and want to urge the council to have this document published as soon as possible. Only one month is already short enough we do not have to shorten it by any delay on our side. To your pdp-flowchart. I could'nt open it due to some version problems. Could you please resend it in another format like .gif or .jpg. I wish you all a happy and successful new year. Best, tom Am 29.12.2005 schrieb Olof Nordling: frames

and establish a feasible time frame, and then recommend such a time frame to the Board. The new gTLD process is challenging and important to address thoroughly. While it may be unpopular to note that we may spend 6-9 months on this, we should assess, now, the feasibility of completing all of the data gathering and potentially external research or advice that we will need to advise the final policy recommendations.

Just one other suggestion: There is a tendency to use "GNSO" in lieu of "Council", or "GNSO Council" in the call for papers. I suggest that it is preferable to systematically use "GNSO Council" or "Council" when we are referencing the Council's work. The GNSO is the full Supporting Organization, and I find the shorthand use of GNSO a little confusing.

_____

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of olof nordling Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:00 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

Dear all,

As you may recall we have a Call for Papers regarding the new gTLD PDP to write for announcement in early January. I have attached a very first draft to this effect and I would sincerely appreciate comments on the draft from those of you who happen to be on-line during these largely holiday-dominated days. The objective would be to have it distributed and posted on 3 January.

The draft includes the ToR in extenso (the announcement on the ICANN front page will have to be shorter, cutting the ToR part). Would this be enough or should we specify another layer of questions - if so, which questions?

I'm looking forward to receiving your views on any aspects of the draft.

Very best regards from Brussels (just lightly covered in snow, to mark the season)

Olof

Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w