[gnso-ppsc-pdp] Material for today's PDP call
Dear all, In order to facilitate our discussion on today's call regarding Phase A of the Work Plan (Planning and initiation of a PDP), and in addition to Jeff's useful table, I have tried to extract from the excellent Background document prepared by the staff, a few key questions directly related to the points that are not currently mentioned in the bylaws (questions 3 to 11 of the list). I separated two general questions (linked to staff's background paper para 4 and 5) and a few practical ones corresponding to the 11 questions of the Work Plan. Please find them below in the body of the text and also attached in word format. I hope this will be useful for our discussion. Apologies for sending it that late, but this is envisaged just as *a guide to the oral discussion on the call*. We have agreed to have a small group put down the outcomes of the discussion afterwards. Best Bertrand _______________________________________________________________________ *PPSC – PDP WT (material for the April 14 Conference Call)* Background elements for this call (available on the Wiki) : - Staff Background document<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-ppsc/attachments/pdp_team:20090404075350-0-32410/original/Staff%20PDP%20Background%20Document%20-%202%20April%202009.pdf>(paragraphs 4, 5 and 6.1 to 6. 5 included) - Draft Work Plan (Phase A : Planning/initiation) : use the .doc version * * *1. Preliminary questions (from Background Paper para 4 and 5)* *PDP WT Scope* : Types of policies “Consensus policies” actually mean the portion of contractual agreements that can be modified through a PDP and that become binding for registries and registrars. But there are more broad-ranging policies (for instance the process for introducing new gTLDs). *Does the work of the PDP Work Team focus on the first ones only or both ? If both, should the processes be the same ?* There can be more narrow decisions, such as validating modifications to a specific contractual agreement (for instance : allocation of single letters in .mobi). This is usually handled through a different process : RSEP/funnel. This probably not within scope of the PDP work Team, but the funnel itself was established in 2006 through a PDP and some people are wondering whether the planned review of the funnel should not be done through a PDP. So it is important to keep in mind that PDPs can also be used to establish internal procedures for handling a category of issues. *How should those processes be handled ?* *PDP WT objective* : At what level are we talking ? What should be : - in the Bylaws, - in the gNSO operating procedures, - in Guidelines for Working Groups or WG Charter templates. * * *2. Issues related to the initiation phase (Background paper 6.1 to 6.5 + WP Phase A))* Key questions raised in the background paper (paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5) a) *Actual starting point of the PDP* : Terminology question : confusion between “policy process” and “policy development process” and confusion on the term “initiate” in the Bylaws. *When does the PDP actually begin ?* b) *“Issues paper” and/or “mission paper”* (Q 4, 5, 6, 9 of the WP) : The scope and objectives (common goal) of the anticipated policy must be clearly stated in the preliminary phase. *Should there be a distinction between an early “issues paper” (issue-scoping) and a “mission paper” defining the commonly agreed goals ?* This mission could be embedded in the subsequent Working Group Charter, as well as the positions of constituencies and maybe the General Counsel’s advice ? c) *Duration of the initiation phase* (Q 10, 11 of WP) : Currently, the PDP initiation phase only consists of an issues report established within 13 days. Should the duration be more flexible and “commensurate with the importance of the issue ? d) *Public comments* (Q2, 7 of WP)* *: Should more community interaction be envisaged early on ? Would there be a benefit (except in the case of urgency) in a *preliminary workshop at an ICANN public meeting* (analogy with the Birds of a Feather approach in IETF ?) e) *“Statements of position” vs. “dimensions of a policy problem” *(Q3 of WP)* : *Constituencies currently submit a “statement of position” at the launch; this too often rigidifies positions instead of contributing to consensus-building. *Should the statements be more around the dimensions of an issue and why the issue is important ?* f) Would there be a benefit in setting up *informal contact groups* to help staff draft the preliminary issues papers ? * * *Work Plan Item A* : Initiation (ie : Preliminary work before the actual launch) Questions of the current Work Plan : 1. Who has the right to initiate a request for an issues report 2. Procedures for requesting an issues report (see 2.d above) 3. Issues Scoping – identify the agreed upon goal of the PDP (see 2.e above) 4. What can be the end result of a PDP (see 2.b above) 5. The ongoing role of the Office of the General Counsel in providing legal advice to the policy development process (see 2.b above) 6. How to incorporate public comments (see 2.b above) 7. Whether to conduct informative workshops to educate the public(see 2.d above) 8. How to make PDPs more efficient (too general ?) 9. Expected Outcome of Planning/Initiation Phase (see 2.b above) 10. Build in flexibility to allow for additional research and/or fact finding (see 2.c above) 11. Whether to conduct preliminary economic analysis, such as to evaluate market demands, impact to Community, ICANN staff costs, and other resources needed from ICANN (see 2.c above) -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") Attachment:
Questions for April 14 Conference call.doc |