To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the RAA
('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation of an
Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) as
quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP) and the
recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois ('hereby directs
preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and
maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy
and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO
policy development process'). As pointed out by Avri, for PDPs initiated
by the ICANN Board, there is no intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the
PDP automatically proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the
case of a Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by
which the GNSO
Council can consult with the Board to provide information on the scope,
timing, and priority of the request for an Issue Report'. In addition to
this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council meet at every ICANN
meeting where there is another opportunity to discuss and/or express
concerns with regard to Board requested PDPs. For example, in relation to
the RAA PDP, as a result of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO
Council it was agreed to 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were
near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be
included in the PDP.
With best regards,
Marika
On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
>
>Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding.
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
>Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39
>An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
>Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>
>
>Hi,
>
>As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they have
>not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. The
>g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. These are
>still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for the PDP, there
>never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP.
>Specifically:
>
>"
>March 212 20120314-1
>Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick'
>Whois
>
>Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at
>its meeting on 22 September 2011
>(seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);
>
>....
>"
>
>"
>November 2012 20121017-2
>Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the
>Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs.
>
>Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of
>whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of
>international organizations at the first and second levels in the New
>gTLD Program.
>
>....
>"
>
>Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
>
>"
>Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report
>
>Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the
>GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. In
>the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the Board should
>provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board
>to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request
>for an Issue Report.
>
>....
>
>Section 5. Initiation of the PDP
>
>The Council may initiate the PDP as follows:
>
>Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council,
>within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. No
>vote is required for such action.
>"
>
>avri
>
>
>On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
>
>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP and
>>IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne
>>
>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff@rnapartners.com]
>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm
>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri@acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
>>[gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>>PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>>
>>
>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit policy
>> that has been developed through the bottom up process into rule by way
>>of
>> resolution. Although the history of the Board's actions to date might
>>prove
>> otherwise, in