RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Tuesday's PDP Call
My recollection is that we were told that staff were looking at what would need to be changed related to the PDP process to factor in the new Council structure (as part of the overall Bylaws revision regarding the new GNSO). I think the number of changes will be pretty small and will not likely be controversial. but I do think that this group should ratify them before they go to Council. Alan At 14/04/2009 08:33 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: Apologize for the format. I have now put this in pdf.I appreciate your thoughts towards the agenda today, but the agenda and format was suggested by members of the group on the last call. An mp3 of the call is available and I am sure Glen would be happy to resend it to you. It?s a little difficult to reset expectations completely just 3 hours before a call as there is usually prep work done prior. That said, agendas are not fixed in stone so we can briefly address at the beginning of the call.Also on the last call the group started with an initial discussion of transition and it was the general sense of the group to continue on the path that we were going; namely, to figure out a long term new PDP process and not to spend time on just discussing transition. There seemed to be no disagreement on the call on this point. So, I think we are all in agreement that we are not discussing an Interim PDP. Despite Mike?s post last week, if you listen to the mp3 recording, you will note that no one even suggested doing that.Let me end this note by imploring you all to attend the calls or alternatively listen to the mp3 recordings before commenting on items you think may have been discussed on those calls. Its unfortunate that time needs to be taken to address (and indeed defend) points that were never even discussed.Thank you. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc. Vice President, Law & PolicyThe information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.From: Liz Williams [mailto:lizawilliams@xxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:01 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Tuesday's PDP Call JeffI can't read the docx format documents. Could you either post them on a wiki or send them in word format?I also wanted to echo my support for Mike's post last week and reiterate that it is only worth doing work that will be adopted over the longer term and certainly not wasting any time on any interim PDP proposals. That is a recipe for ensuring no policy development work actually ever gets done that is within the "picket fence" and which relates to either registrar or registry contracts.I suggest that we focus on three main tasks.1. Amendments to the GNSO Rules of Procedure (Article X) -- very straightforward to do a line by line amendment of an existing document taking into account the mammoth amount of discussion that has taken place through the GNSO improvement process2. A glossary of special terms -- see Bertrand's previous post3. A set of timelines -- that ensure this group gets 1 & 2 done above pre Sydney and our expectations for implementation.Liz On 14 Apr 2009, at 04:27, Neuman, Jeff wrote: All,I will note that to date we have not received any responses or comments on Topic A identified in the Work Plan. A reminder that our call is in on Tuesday and we will go through the questions for Topic A. We are trying a new format. At the end of the call we will take volunteers to take the notes from the call (which I will ask ICANN staff to take) and start putting pen to paper to come up with suggestions.Enclosed please find a chart I did on Topic A and how it would relate to the current PDP. You will note that most of the issues brought up are NOT addressed by the current PDP.Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc. Vice President, Law & PolicyThe information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [<mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie MilamSent: Friday, April 03, 2009 7:39 PM To: <mailto:Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Action Items from Today's PDP Call Dear All, The following action items came out of our PDP Team call today:1. Please respond to the Doodle to be sent out by Glen to schedule the next call2. Please review the Staff PDP Background Document posted on the Wiki for ideas/comments for the Work Plan3. Please review and email suggestions/comments on Topic A of the Work Plan by Friday April 10th, since we will begin the analysis of Topic A on the next call4. Please review and comment on Bertrand?s suggested terminology so that we can define and use consistent terms5. I will try to schedule a call with the chairs of the other GNSO Improvements work teams to avoid duplication of issues among the respective groupsThe Wiki link is: <https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team>https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team Best Regards, Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor <Topic A - Current PDP.docx>
|