Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For review - Updated draft Final Report - Deadline for flagging issues for further consideration - Wednesday 20 May

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Apologies for sending these comments in so close to the WG’s weekly call. Just 
some observations on the current draft final report:

1. There was a discussion last week on adding “that is approved by the ICANN 
Board” to the elaborate on the description of what “GNSO Policy” is in the 
definition of “Implementation of a GNSO Policy”. My understanding from the call 
was to not include this language, as this characteristic already being included 
in the “GNSO Policy” definition makes it redundant. It seems to be added in 
this draft. I would recommend taking it out again, and moving the definitions 
of “Policy” and “GNSO Policy” up in the table to #3. That would serve to define 
“GNSO Policy” before the term is used in another definition, hopefully 
eliminating any confusion in what it is meant to refer to while avoiding the 
redundancy of a duplicated definition. This is not of grave importance to me, 
but only a suggestion that I believe might be helpful.

2. My understanding from the recording of last week’s call also included 
keeping “non-binding” in the description of the input provided in the GIP, 
while taking out “obligatory” from the description of guidance in the GGP. This 
sounds pretty good to me. Those changes seem to be reflected on page 5 of the 
draft final report, but not on page 19.

3. Another idea I thought was a good one was including the premise of not using 
an EPDP to reopen previously explored policy issues based on the desires of a 
SG/C without the availability of new information/circumstances to the 
guidelines of initiating a GGP. There is a change to that effect reflected in 
the language of Annex E, but not in the description of the GGP on pages 19-20 
of the report. Should this be clarified here as well? It was added in the 
description of the EPDP.

4. On the discussion of the predicted timelines for the new processes, I need 
to think about this a bit more, but my instinct would be to include the median 
+ range of timelines instead of the median + minimum estimations. Including the 
range seems to me to include the wider range of possible timelines for each of 
the processes.

Apologies about the late submission once again.

Thanks.

Amr

On May 18, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Please find attached the latest version of the draft Policy & Implementation 
> Final Report. This version includes the changes made during last week’s PI 
> meeting as well as proposed language to reflect that the GGP and IRT should 
> not be used to re-open previously dealt with policy issues (note, I’ve marked 
> these changes with a comment). You’ll also find included a new annex H with 
> the estimated timelines. Staff comments that were addressed during the last 
> meeting have been removed, but please note that there are a still a couple of 
> staff comments in Annex I and K that have not been discussed yet.
> 
> As noted before, please flag any other items that require further discussion 
> by the WG prior to the WG meeting on Wednesday 20 May.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday 13 May 2015 22:47
> To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Deadline for flagging issues for further 
> consideration - Wednesday 20 May
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Following today’s meeting, please note that the deadline for flagging any 
> other items that need further consideration by the WG in relation to the 
> draft Final Report is next Wednesday 20 May prior to the PI WG meeting. For 
> your convenience, you’ll find the latest draft attached. Note that an updated 
> version incorporating the issues discussed during today’s meeting will be 
> circulated early next week.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> <PI Final Report - 18 May 2015.docx>