On 31/08/2024 07:28, Justine Chew via CPWG wrote:

While I agree that the ICANN community could do a better job of taking a consistent overarching approach to policies which govern what ICANN can govern, the fact remains that we are constrained by a combination of factors - ICANN remit per Bylaws, scope in gTLD policy-making per the charter of each PDP process, active monitoring of and timely participation in each PDP, differences in opinion/positions held by various groups impacting the ability to arrive at (some level of) consensus during the PDP, etc etc etc.

This really is a key point. At-Large input and activity in all of the ICANN policy making processes is "constrained", or let's say "guided" by the policy making processes existing in the GNSO and ICANN.
I know many seasoned participants are taking part in this discussion, but for the sake of the many newcomers who might be a little "lost" as to why there is so much "complication", the GNSO PDP process is further explained, with a very helpful set of diagrams, on: https://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/consensus-policy/pdp

When EPDPs (expedited Policy Development Process) were introduced, they were called "expedited" because it was thought that by removing the creation of a preliminary issue report, the Policy Development Process would be shorter. This was not necessarily true as the checks and balances all need to be satisfied in the process. A diagram of the PDP vs. EPDP is shown here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-epdp-process-flow-dependencies-14apr18-en.pdf

I realise this is from 2018 so hope this is correct - Justine, please point to a new one of there's one that's more up to date.

Kindest regards,

Olivier