On 16/02/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

> Secondly: If there are missing elements from the issues report - which was
> forwarded around recently, and is attached again here - we should identify
> those and make improvements to the report. Any thoughts on that subject would
> be very helpful.

I sent a response the day it came out, which should be in the mail
archives.

The day it came out the first time in August, or more recently? If the latter then I will go find it.

> In other words the ALAC would need to take action formally and transmit a
> request to the GNSO Council as provided above.

Good point. The committee needs to decide whether it wants to do so.

The committee, in consultation with the community, would be well-advised - in advance - to decide what outcome it is actually looking for, and to devise the rationale for the position it takes on the issue.

> HOWEVER: Just because ALAC asks the GNSO to start a PDP doesn't mean that
> they will.

Yes, I know. But we have to ask for them to say yes or no.

Actually, the point I was making is that there are multiple routes to initiating a PDP, and careful thought needs to be spent on which route is most likely to assure the result you want. You would also, after deciding what specific outcomes you are looking for, and the best way to go about trying to initiate a PDP based upon the desired outcomes, want to reach out to key constituencies in the GNSO to see what view they are likely to take on your ideas and views.

To be effective in raising a PDP and achieving the result you want from the PDP process is far more complex than ALAC communicating with the GNSO and asking them to do something.

R's,
John

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

www.alac.icann.org
www.icannalac.org