RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Chapter 9 - Possible next steps

[Joe St Sauver <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

#9            Possible Next Steps
#
#Note: The Working Group would like to provide the following ideas for 
#discussion and feedback during the public comment period. 

I assume this would be during a public comment period for the final report,
correct? Will there then be further analysis of *those* comments? Or does 
this refer to the public comment period just past? If the later, should this
sentence be amended to reflect the fact that a further public comment period
will not take place?

#Please note that at this stage the Working Group has not reached consensus 
#on any of the ideas below. The objective of the Working Group will be to 
#review the input received during the public comment period and determine 
#which, if any, recommendations receive the support of the Working Group 
#for inclusion in the final report.

Again, does that paragraph need to be modified to reflect where we are on
the timeline?

#*  Redefine the issue and scope
#
#In order to address some of the problems encountered by the Working 
#Group to define the issue and answering the charter question, the 
#possibility could be explored to redefine the issue and scope by 
#developing a new charter.

Wouldn't that need to come from the GNSO itself, not internally from
the working group? I think it would be important to call out who would
have responsibility for any potential rechartering.

Also, *did* public comments support this potential future direction?

If not, I'd suggest NOT including that option in the final report.

#Another possible outcome of this process could be that further 
#research and fact-finding is desirable before a new charter can be 
#developed.

I am reminded of a propensity among business students, when faced with
case studies and the need to make a recommendation/decision -- "Let's
defer a recommendation pending further data gathering." No. I'm sorry.
>From my perspective, adequate data is currently available, and further
research and fact-finding is unnecessary for the group to be able to 
complete its current work, and given that re-chartering would not be
done by the group, speculation on what might be needed for re-chartering
would also be out of scope. Again, I would omit that bit.

#Explore other means to address the issue instead of a Policy 
#Development Process
#
#In its current form, the Policy Development Process might not be best 
#suited to address the issue of fast flux. It could be explored whether 
#there are other possibilities to deal with the issue, either within 
#an ICANN context or outside.

I also question this introspective paragraph, given that we've spent a 
year on a PDP; little late to question the vehicle we've been riding in
for so long! I could see a suggestion that a PDP might not be the
right vehicle for *future* ICANN work on fast flux, but this paragraph
should be absolutely clear that it is talking about *future* work. 

Any support for this recommendation from the public comments should also 
be called out, if there was such support; if not, again, I think this
paragraph should be considered for deletion.

Regards,

Joe

Disclaimer: all opinions strictly my own