Flow chart - gTLD Registration Services PDP
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
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
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. 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. 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. 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
Hi I do not remember when the PDP process changes that required the rights impact analysis be included in issues reports went into effect. Was that rule in effect at the time the first Issue report was done. In any case, I want to make sure that the Final issues report covers any rights impact that the EWG report may introduce that were not already discussed in either the EWG final report of the first Preliminary issues report. As for including the charter, given that I think it needs to be a revision of the preliminary and various consideration have not been framed to drive the the charter, I would think not in that preliminary issues report. But I can see including a proposed charter in the final that was produced. It would work out to something like: Preliminary issues + EWG final -> revised Preliminary issues -> comment period -> Final issue including a proposed charter -> council approval of charter &c. For parallelism, a drafting team could work with policy staff to produce the draft charter during the comment period interval as they could watch the comments coming in. They could even start sooner. once the path forward was established. thanks avri On 01-Oct-14 03:22, Marika Konings 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. 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.
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.
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
Hi Avri, Per the PDP Manual, the impact analysis is the responsibility of the PDP WG once it has agreed on its proposed recommendations for the Initial Report ('The Initial Report should include the following elements () A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility'). Best regards, Marika On 02/10/14 14:58, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi
I do not remember when the PDP process changes that required the rights impact analysis be included in issues reports went into effect. Was that rule in effect at the time the first Issue report was done.
In any case, I want to make sure that the Final issues report covers any rights impact that the EWG report may introduce that were not already discussed in either the EWG final report of the first Preliminary issues report.
As for including the charter, given that I think it needs to be a revision of the preliminary and various consideration have not been framed to drive the the charter, I would think not in that preliminary issues report. But I can see including a proposed charter in the final that was produced.
It would work out to something like:
Preliminary issues + EWG final -> revised Preliminary issues -> comment period -> Final issue including a proposed charter -> council approval of charter &c.
For parallelism, a drafting team could work with policy staff to produce the draft charter during the comment period interval as they could watch the comments coming in. They could even start sooner. once the path forward was established.
thanks
avri
On 01-Oct-14 03:22, Marika Konings 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. 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.
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.
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
Hi, Thank you for the correction. Nonetheless I believe that the issues report needs, to the extent possible, to include a list of the rights issue that need to be looked at so that the charter can define them as in scope. Thanks avri On 02-Oct-14 09:08, Marika Konings wrote:
Hi Avri,
Per the PDP Manual, the impact analysis is the responsibility of the PDP WG once it has agreed on its proposed recommendations for the Initial Report ('The Initial Report should include the following elements (Š) A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility').
Best regards,
Marika
On 02/10/14 14:58, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi
I do not remember when the PDP process changes that required the rights impact analysis be included in issues reports went into effect. Was that rule in effect at the time the first Issue report was done.
In any case, I want to make sure that the Final issues report covers any rights impact that the EWG report may introduce that were not already discussed in either the EWG final report of the first Preliminary issues report.
As for including the charter, given that I think it needs to be a revision of the preliminary and various consideration have not been framed to drive the the charter, I would think not in that preliminary issues report. But I can see including a proposed charter in the final that was produced.
It would work out to something like:
Preliminary issues + EWG final -> revised Preliminary issues -> comment period -> Final issue including a proposed charter -> council approval of charter &c.
For parallelism, a drafting team could work with policy staff to produce the draft charter during the comment period interval as they could watch the comments coming in. They could even start sooner. once the path forward was established.
thanks
avri
On 01-Oct-14 03:22, Marika Konings 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. 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.
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.
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
In relation to the Expert Working Group Report, please also note pages 119 - 120 which note amongst others: 'To enable broad community input on this topic [risk and impact assessment], the EWG has decided to leave the RDS Risk Survey open through July 2014 and launch translated versions. Responses will be used to inform the ICANN Board's review of this report and as input to a future formal analysis of costs, risks and benefits for all stakeholders that would be impacted by replacement of WHOIS with the RDS'. The results of the survey can be found here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/45744698/RDS-Risk-Survey-R esults-28July2014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1406662309000&api=v2 (with additional information available here https://community.icann.org/x/OgK6Ag). Best regards, Marika On 02/10/14 15:26, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for the correction.
Nonetheless I believe that the issues report needs, to the extent possible, to include a list of the rights issue that need to be looked at so that the charter can define them as in scope.
Thanks
avri
On 02-Oct-14 09:08, Marika Konings wrote:
Hi Avri,
Per the PDP Manual, the impact analysis is the responsibility of the PDP WG once it has agreed on its proposed recommendations for the Initial Report ('The Initial Report should include the following elements (Š) A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility').
Best regards,
Marika
On 02/10/14 14:58, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi
I do not remember when the PDP process changes that required the rights impact analysis be included in issues reports went into effect. Was that rule in effect at the time the first Issue report was done.
In any case, I want to make sure that the Final issues report covers any rights impact that the EWG report may introduce that were not already discussed in either the EWG final report of the first Preliminary issues report.
As for including the charter, given that I think it needs to be a revision of the preliminary and various consideration have not been framed to drive the the charter, I would think not in that preliminary issues report. But I can see including a proposed charter in the final that was produced.
It would work out to something like:
Preliminary issues + EWG final -> revised Preliminary issues -> comment period -> Final issue including a proposed charter -> council approval of charter &c.
For parallelism, a drafting team could work with policy staff to produce the draft charter during the comment period interval as they could watch the comments coming in. They could even start sooner. once the path forward was established.
thanks
avri
On 01-Oct-14 03:22, Marika Konings 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. 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.
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.
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
Hi, The correction of my recall convinced me to go back are re-read the manual: I noticed:
Upon initiation of the PDP, a group formed at the direction of Council should be convened to draft the charter for the PDP Team.
Does this present problems in relation to including a charter in evan a final Issues report at this time? Incidentally the impact analysis questions that concern me and that I believe need comment before the issuance of a final issue report relate to:
The following elements should be considered in the Issue Report: a) The proposed issue raised for consideration
This issue includes the rights impacts that need to be an explicit part of the PDP. This is such a large and critical change moving forward, we need to make sure that the PDP starts on a solid basis. Lets not make the same mistakes that have been elsewhere of trying to start a large and critical process without adequate public comment. Thanks avri
Hi Avri, As part of the PDP Improvements (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-table-16jan14-en.pdf), the Council agreed to 'Include draft Charter as standard element in Preliminary and Final Issue Report' and evaluate after 6-12 months the impact / experience of doing so following which it could be decided whether the PDP Manual should be modified accordingly to add this as an alternative to forming a DT (which is a 'should' but not a 'must' at the moment). Best regards, Marika On 02/10/14 15:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
The correction of my recall convinced me to go back are re-read the manual:
I noticed:
Upon initiation of the PDP, a group formed at the direction of Council should be convened to draft the charter for the PDP Team.
Does this present problems in relation to including a charter in evan a final Issues report at this time?
Incidentally the impact analysis questions that concern me and that I believe need comment before the issuance of a final issue report relate to:
The following elements should be considered in the Issue Report: a) The proposed issue raised for consideration
This issue includes the rights impacts that need to be an explicit part of the PDP.
This is such a large and critical change moving forward, we need to make sure that the PDP starts on a solid basis. Lets not make the same mistakes that have been elsewhere of trying to start a large and critical process without adequate public comment.
Thanks
avri
Hi, Thanks for the reminder. BTW, these should probably be mentioned on the GNSO Operating procedures page and on the GNSO council resources wiki page. While I have no excuse and should have remembered them since I was part of the team that made the recommendations, others might not recall it either. In re-reading this pdf I notice that it says:
Proposed implementation : The GNSO PDP Manual foresees that ‘Upon initiation of the PDP, a group formed at the direction of Council should be convened to draft the charter for the PDP Team’. Applying the suggested approach would not contravene the GNSO PDP Manual. As a result, should there be support from the GNSO Council to try out this approach, it may be instructive to do it for the next PDP as a “trial run”, and if over time the Council believes that this approach is helpful, it could be formalized in the GNSO PDP Manual as one of the other alternatives that could be explored for the development of a PDP WG Charter
I see that at least the IGO/INGO Curative Rights Protection for IGO/INGOs has pilot tested this approach. If this PDP process loops back and reissues the Preliminary issues report, it does appear possible to repeat this experiment even though this is a pre-existing PDP. BTW, I am sure I am missing it, but when did the council agree on this experiment occur. Looking through <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions> I don't see it. Neither do it see it mentioned in the minutes of 23 Jan. But with my track record today*, as I said, I am sure I am missing it and/or forgetting something. I guess this whole discussion is fodder for John's collection of issues for the informal group of GNSO & Board types that will discuss the way forward for this PDP. Thanks again, avri * (misidentifying which preliminary report included rights impact analyses and forgetting the charter approach experiment) On 02-Oct-14 09:49, Marika Konings wrote:
Hi Avri,
As part of the PDP Improvements (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-table-16jan14-en.pdf),
the Council agreed to 'Include draft Charter as standard element in
Preliminary and Final Issue Report' and evaluate after 6-12 months the impact / experience of doing so following which it could be decided whether the PDP Manual should be modified accordingly to add this as an alternative to forming a DT (which is a 'should' but not a 'must' at the moment).
Best regards,
Marika
On 02/10/14 15:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
The correction of my recall convinced me to go back are re-read the manual:
I noticed:
Upon initiation of the PDP, a group formed at the direction of Council should be convened to draft the charter for the PDP Team.
Does this present problems in relation to including a charter in evan a final Issues report at this time?
Incidentally the impact analysis questions that concern me and that I believe need comment before the issuance of a final issue report relate to:
The following elements should be considered in the Issue Report: a) The proposed issue raised for consideration
This issue includes the rights impacts that need to be an explicit part of the PDP.
This is such a large and critical change moving forward, we need to make sure that the PDP starts on a solid basis. Lets not make the same mistakes that have been elsewhere of trying to start a large and critical process without adequate public comment.
Thanks
avri
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? I’d appreciate some understanding of the details of the Council’s 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 I’m 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.
Yes…, 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 you’re 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 we’re in a hurry to get this done. I’m 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 didn’t 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
Hi Amr, The topic was, amongst others, discussed during the ICANN meeting in Beijing (see http://beijing46.icann.org/meetings/beijing2013/transcript-gtld-registratio 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.
Yes, 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
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-registratio 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
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
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 > > >
participants (3)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Avri Doria -
Marika Konings