Many thanks Marika .. Extremely useful !!

I may have missed part of the conversation though, so apologies for that in advance .. As per the WG document and the briefing note, we have the following 6 phases/steps:

1.       Issue Scoping

2.       Issue Report

3.       Working Group

4.       Council Deliberations

5.       Board Vote

6.       Implementation

So does the 'initiation' step on the diagram map to the 'Issue Report' (2. above)?

 

Dear All ..

I think having reached that level of details of this phase of the process we should be able to brainstorm on and answer questions such as:

-          Are we fine with the current notification mechanism?

(I'm sure the frequency of notifications is a problem for the GAC; but is this the only problem? If not, then maybe we should start by discussing a best case scenario of one PDP, then see how to handle the frequency problem and discuss the maximum the GAC can cope with ..)

-          Does this notification mechanism need to change?

-          Should it be more formal?

-          Should it be more than a notification? Request for GAC input for example, which implies pending the whole process till GAC input is received ..

-          In this case, will the GAC be committed to respond to every notification/request with its intention as to whether or not it will be providing GAC input (not to hold the process indefinitely), along with an expected timeframe?

 

I think as soon as we ensure that this GAC/GNSO link is established at such an early stage, we can then start looking into how GAC input will be handled by the GNSO? What if not in agreement with the GNSO views? In such cases, should there be some sort of mandated GAC/GNSO consultation on the issue before proceeding? How would this ultimately affect the overall time frame? And how would this ultimately affect GAC advice to the Board at a later stage?

 

I'm sorry to be repeating questions we already have in the WG document but the intention is to trigger further discussion to be able to go London with an agreed proposal ..

 

Kind Regards

--Manal

 

 

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 9:00 PM
To: Manal Ismail; Suzanne Radell; gac-gnso-cg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Agenda for Tues. May 27th cc ..

 

Hi Manal,

 

Please find attached the graphic with the circles which as mentioned has been updated to reflect that the third step is 'initiation' as well as updated colours. 

 

To facilitate the CG's discussion on the details of each phases, I've developed the attached process flow on the Issue Scoping phase which may make it easier to see who currently does what / when as well as identifying where additional steps may need to be added (or proposals can be reflected). If you think this is helpful, I'm happy to create a similar one for the other phases, or if not deemed helpful, happy to not do so as well ;-)

 

Best regards,

 

Marika

 

From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>
Date: Thursday 29 May 2014 07:20
To: Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov>, "gac-gnso-cg@icann.org" <gac-gnso-cg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Agenda for Tues. May 27th cc ..

 

Many thanks Suzanne for your timely suggestion, as Jonathan and I have assumed the responsibility of getting back to the group with proposed slides for London ..

 

Your suggestion aligns with my thinking, which I also have to admit not having the chance to discuss with Jonathan yet .. I assume, when you mention 'the two first steps' that you mean the first 2 phases 'Issues scoping' and 'Issue Report' .. Hope I'm right ..

 

Here is one way to go about it:

1.       One slide to introduce the PDP work track

2.       A second slide with the GNSO PDP diagram, with circles to indicate the phases or stages, as you have proposed (would be helpful if you or Marika could kindly confirm the exact diagram)

3.       A third slide on the group's proposal regarding new/enhanced GAC engagement opportunities/mechanisms during phase 1 (Issue Scoping), which should basically conclude our discussion, in light of answers provided to the posed questions and suggestions proposed to address raised issues (this still needs to be further discussed and concluded)

4.       A fourth similar slide for phase 2 (Issue Report)

5.       A fifth & final one covering what we expect from our constituencies in London: for example, GAC/GNSO approval to proceed as suggested, concrete responses to specific questions, … etc

 

Suzanne, let me know what you think ..

Would also appreciate thoughts from other colleagues ..

 

Kind Regards

--Manal

 

From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:59 PM
To: Manal Ismail; gac-gnso-cg@icann.org
Subject: RE: Agenda for Tues. May 27th cc ..

 

Thanks, Manal and Jonathan.  I must offer apologies for missing today’s call, as I need to be in a briefing for Larry Strickling at 9:30.  I did want to offer a suggestion for the group to consider, with the full disclosure that Amr and I have not had a chance to compare notes on this as yet.  In thinking about how to present our work to date on the PDP process, it struck me that we might want to reduce the document we are using as a working document to a cover sheet that uses the GNSO graph (with circles to indicate the phases or stages), with a red line or some other means of identifying that we’re focusing at the outset on the two first steps; the parts of the text that address just those steps could follow. 

 

Thanks for considering this idea, and please feel free to discard it if others don’t agree.  Thanks to Marika and Olof for preparing the survey; think it’s very helpful.  Cheers, Suz

 

Suzanne Murray Radell

Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA

sradell@ntia.doc.gov

202-482-3167

 

 

 

From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 5:38 PM
To: gac-gnso-cg@icann.org
Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Agenda for Tues. May 27th cc ..

 

Dear All ..

 

Here is the agenda Jonathan and I compiled for tomorrow’s call:

 

1.       Review the briefing note to be circulated in advance of ICANN London (version: attached)

 

2.       Review Day-to-day work track (version: attached)

·         Discuss / Finalize options A, F & E

 

3.       Review PDP work track (version: attached)

·         Discuss / Finalize proposals for phases 1 & 2

 

4.       Consider material for ICANN London

·         Presentation

·         The survey (Draft here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?PREVIEW_MODE=DO_NOT_USE_THIS_LINK_FOR_COLLECTION&sm=ezpA8R9gJ46f0o8Zpss1JqDqTwjJx7XstxMT5d73LSY%3d)

 

5.       AOB

 

All referenced documents are attached for your convenience ..

Marika, appreciate your confirmation that I’ve attached the most recent versions ..

 

Kind Regards

--Manal