Sent on behalf of Paul McGrady

 

Dear DNSAM PDP1 members,

 

During the recent ICANN85 session and our last call on 23 March, we briefly reviewed the proposed approach for progressing the PDP work and the draft timeline that staff shared with the group. I would like to recap the key points from that discussion and invite your feedback.

 

Staff also presented a draft work plan and timeline for the PDP.  The Milestones of the proposed plan include:

• Initial Report to be published in Feb 2027 and Final Report to go to Council in September 2027.
• A workflow that pairs discussion during meetings with substantive asynchronous work between meetings.
• Rolling development of draft recommendations for each charter question.
• Iterative impact analysis during the drafting process rather than waiting until the end of the PDP.
• A final review phase before preparation of the Initial Report.

 

Members within the WG and beyond noted during ICANN85 that the timeline may appear lengthy. However, when assessing the timeline it is important to keep in mind that certain procedural timelines are established by the ICANN Bylaws and cannot be shortened. In addition, the days referenced in the work plan represent calendar days, not meeting days. For example, a 10-day period effectively corresponds to roughly two Working Group meetings, which shows the importance of asynchronous review and drafting work between calls if the group aims to accelerate progress.

 

That said, it is for the Working Group to collectively decide on a timeline.  Please review the detailed work plan and let us know where the group believes the timeline could reasonably be shortened. We will collect feedback and discuss potential adjustments during the next Working Group call. 

 

Please provide your input by 30 March. Leadership will then look into the feedback provided and adjust the timeline where appropriate.

 

Please see here the workplan document including 3 tabs:

• One Tab with the draft workplan
• One Tab with standard PDP timelines as required by the bylaws
• One Tab for the WG to provide comments regarding the workplan
• Link:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gDXM13Io8RJlYZVj0rhbfoMi7und3v9i/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115002119020327708482&rtpof=true&sd=true 

 

It is important to note that project plans and timelines are designed as the maximum expected duration of the PDP. From a project management perspective, it is generally preferable to plan conservatively and deliver earlier where possible, rather than risk delays. Any need to extend the timeline would require approval from the GNSO Council.

 

However, we would like to highlight a few areas where the timeline could potentially be shortened, subject to Working Group agreement:

• Post–Initial Report Public Comment phase: The time allocated between the close of public comment and preparation of the Final Report could potentially be reduced. However, this will depend on the volume and complexity of comments received. Given the high level of interest in this topic, extensions to the public comment period or additional analysis time may still be required.
• Charter Question sequencing: While the work plan assumes that charter questions are addressed sequentially, initial WG discussions and draft language suggest that deliberations may overlap across questions. Identifying and leveraging these overlaps may create efficiencies and allow certain elements of the work to progress in parallel.

 

We therefore encourage the Working Group to carefully review the detailed work plan and consider where realistic efficiencies can be achieved. 

 

Thank you again for your engagement and contributions to the PDP. 

We look forward to continuing the discussion on the upcoming call.

 

Best regards,

Paul