RE: [council] GNSO: PDP management issues [note changed thread]
No - lets stick with PDP-Feb06. The less new terms we add the better. The terms of reference really define the PDP. - e.g policy regarding renewal etc. PDP-Dec05 and PDP-Feb06 are intimately linked and we should focus on the terms of reference themselves. Regards, Bruce
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Wednesday, 8 March 2006 1:31 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] GNSO: PDP management issues [note changed thread]
Policy for Contractual Conditions: Existing TLDs.
PCC: eTLD .....................................................
Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob
On 08 Mar 2006, at 19:28, Ross Rader wrote:
Liz - Can you decode? What is PCC and PCC-eTLD?
Liz Williams wrote:
Marilyn Thanks for your note. It is not my understanding that we are to devote any resources and time at all to the Feb 06 PCC: Existing TLDs PDP as part of the two day working session in Wellington. I have another email to the Council in preparation about the PCC-eTLD PDP which I was going to distribute tomorrow but I will send that out later tonight. From my side, it is entirely premature to be discussing the PCC- eTLD in Wellington. Advice from the GNSO Secretariat today indicates that the public comment period will be between 7 March - 27 March. On current estimations, 10 April is the deadline for constituency statements. I would encourage the Council to focus entirely on the new TLD PDP in the working sessions at the Wellington meetings. There is much good work to be done there and, in the background, I would hope that the constituencies would be preparing their statements which will then be folded into the PCC-eTLD Initial Report. Kind regards. Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob On 08 Mar 2006, at 18:15, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Just one additional thought, since we have an "agreed" format with numbering, etc, for ease of reference in discussion, would be important to keep that also in mind as the further documents are developed.
Thanks, Liz, for the information about when we can expect the further Initial Report--e.g., end of this week. Important to have it as soon as you can, given the work that we are all trying to review before flying to Wellington. :-)
Just one thought, though. The intent of the working session is to split the time over the two PDPs, as well as the meeting with the GAC working group on gNSO. That may have been inherent in your email but it sounded a bit like there was thought that the entire agenda is given over to this particular pdp, and I don't believe that can be the case.
But of course, we are still developing the exact schedule of work for Wellington. I would propose that we devote Saturday a.m. to this work, and Saturday p.m. to the contractual terms PDP [sometimes called PDP Feb-06]. That will allow us to be prepared for our discussion Sunday a.m. with the GAC working group, and then we can return to work on the contractual terms PDP on Sunday p.m,
Best regards and thanks for the update.
Marilyn Cade -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:09 AM To: Liz Williams Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] GNSO PDP new TLDS: Call for further information
In documents like this, it would be useful to augment citations with a hyperlink to the referenced message or resource. It is difficult (or impossible) for a layperson to read this document and benefit from the larger context that these limited footnotes provide for.
There are any number of online style guides that provide recommendations for citing online sources ) - I heartily recommend that staff choose one of these for future use - it will make these documents eminently more readable, and therefore useful, for our purposes.
i.e. http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/cite/Turabian.htm
[25] National Park Service, Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site, 11 February 2003, available from http://www.nps.gov/abli/; Internet; accessed 13 February 2003.
Liz Williams wrote:
Dear Colleagues
I have attached for your review a document which sets out a request for additional information on the technical selection criteria for new TLDs.
The document focuses on four key questions around technical criteria which we discussed at some length at the Washington meeting.
Could I ask you and your constituencies to come to Wellington with more detailed information about your positions (and the justification for those positions based on ICANN's mission and values)? We would then be able to move forward with discussions about the appropriateness of other selection criteria and
allocation methods.
I will be delivering to you all, I hope by the end of this week, an updated version of the new TLD /Initial Report/ in which I have included Washington inputs and other information.
I would expect to be working on that /Initial Report/ during the two day session planned for 25 & 26 March.
Kind regards and, of course, any questions come straight back to me. If necessary, we could add quick discussion of this document to the agenda for next week's Council call.
Liz .....................................................
Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob
=
-----
=
Thanks, Bruce, for your comment. To address the staff's proposal about the agenda for the working session for the Council on Saturday and Sunday, I think that needs to be worked out by the Councilors, taking into account the staff advice and support. I scheduled my travel with the clear understanding that we are working on both PDPs, and that is really essential, from a time management point of view. Finally, let's get a staff provided work plan in draft and proposed form for the consideration of the Council at our call next Tuesday, laying out the parallel timelines, etc. That will help to add clarity and support the Councils/and thus the constituencies, and thus the community's awareness of the policy development timelines. We agreed that we are not meeting the original PDP timelines on PDP-Dec-05, and I have repeatedly asked for a time line so that we can advise the Board of the modification of the time frames. That should be a quick priority to take care of; and we will want to do the same thing with the PDP-Feb06. I think the latter really needs to be the priority and I am okay with the "naming" algorium you have proposed, Bruce, but I'd like to see the staff publish a list of PDPs, with the name, and with the subject matter, and the TOR, when approved as a standard item on the Council web site so that interested parties can easily find the work of the Council/its task forces. But for future reference, I don't think we should have PDP-March06 as the next PDP. I'd prefer to return to PDP-SUBJECT/TOPIC name for future. These two work as "named" for the reasons you have given. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 4:18 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] GNSO: PDP management issues [note changed thread] No - lets stick with PDP-Feb06. The less new terms we add the better. The terms of reference really define the PDP. - e.g policy regarding renewal etc. PDP-Dec05 and PDP-Feb06 are intimately linked and we should focus on the terms of reference themselves. Regards, Bruce
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Wednesday, 8 March 2006 1:31 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] GNSO: PDP management issues [note changed thread]
Policy for Contractual Conditions: Existing TLDs.
PCC: eTLD .....................................................
Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob
On 08 Mar 2006, at 19:28, Ross Rader wrote:
Liz - Can you decode? What is PCC and PCC-eTLD?
Liz Williams wrote:
Marilyn Thanks for your note. It is not my understanding that we are to devote any resources and time at all to the Feb 06 PCC: Existing TLDs PDP as part of the two day working session in Wellington. I have another email to the Council in preparation about the PCC-eTLD PDP which I was going to distribute tomorrow but I will send that out later tonight. From my side, it is entirely premature to be discussing the PCC- eTLD in Wellington. Advice from the GNSO Secretariat today indicates that the public comment period will be between 7 March - 27 March. On current estimations, 10 April is the deadline for constituency statements. I would encourage the Council to focus entirely on the new TLD PDP in the working sessions at the Wellington meetings. There is much good work to be done there and, in the background, I would hope that the constituencies would be preparing their statements which will then be folded into the PCC-eTLD Initial Report. Kind regards. Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob On 08 Mar 2006, at 18:15, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Just one additional thought, since we have an "agreed" format with numbering, etc, for ease of reference in discussion, would be important to keep that also in mind as the further documents are developed.
Thanks, Liz, for the information about when we can expect the further Initial Report--e.g., end of this week. Important to have it as soon as you can, given the work that we are all trying to review before flying to Wellington. :-)
Just one thought, though. The intent of the working session is to split the time over the two PDPs, as well as the meeting with the GAC working group on gNSO. That may have been inherent in your email but it sounded a bit like there was thought that the entire agenda is given over to this particular pdp, and I don't believe that can be the case.
But of course, we are still developing the exact schedule of work for Wellington. I would propose that we devote Saturday a.m. to this work, and Saturday p.m. to the contractual terms PDP [sometimes called PDP Feb-06]. That will allow us to be prepared for our discussion Sunday a.m. with the GAC working group, and then we can return to work on the contractual terms PDP on Sunday p.m,
Best regards and thanks for the update.
Marilyn Cade -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:09 AM To: Liz Williams Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] GNSO PDP new TLDS: Call for further information
In documents like this, it would be useful to augment citations with a hyperlink to the referenced message or resource. It is difficult (or impossible) for a layperson to read this document and benefit from the larger context that these limited footnotes provide for.
There are any number of online style guides that provide recommendations for citing online sources ) - I heartily recommend that staff choose one of these for future use - it will make these documents eminently more readable, and therefore useful, for our purposes.
i.e. http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/cite/Turabian.htm
[25] National Park Service, Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site, 11 February 2003, available from http://www.nps.gov/abli/; Internet; accessed 13 February 2003.
Liz Williams wrote:
Dear Colleagues
I have attached for your review a document which sets out a request for additional information on the technical selection criteria for new TLDs.
The document focuses on four key questions around technical criteria which we discussed at some length at the Washington meeting.
Could I ask you and your constituencies to come to Wellington with more detailed information about your positions (and the justification for those positions based on ICANN's mission and values)? We would then be able to move forward with discussions about the appropriateness of other selection criteria and
allocation methods.
I will be delivering to you all, I hope by the end of this week, an updated version of the new TLD /Initial Report/ in which I have included Washington inputs and other information.
I would expect to be working on that /Initial Report/ during the two day session planned for 25 & 26 March.
Kind regards and, of course, any questions come straight back to me. If necessary, we could add quick discussion of this document to the agenda for next week's Council call.
Liz .....................................................
Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob
=
-----
=
Speaking as a public relations professional and professional communicator might I suggest that while numbering our policy development processes (PDPs) by reference to their date of creation eg PDPFeb06 is useful it is not sufficient in communicating their subject matter to the uninitiated or plain forgetful. As a matter of course perhaps staff could consider every PDP has 3 titles: - a sequential reference such as PDPFeb06 - a long title that satisfies the legal guys - a short title (that is very short but not an acronym!) that captures the essence of the PDP and is used in daily reference and agendas etc ? so for example we may decide to talk about PDPFeb06-policy conditions. I leave it to staff - well Liz actually - to propose the long and short title, agree it with Bruce, and then advise Council. We don't need a list discussion on this I hope ! Philip
participants (3)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Marilyn Cade -
Philip Sheppard