ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-ppsc-pdp]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-ppsc-pdp] Follow-up on our last PDP call

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Follow-up on our last PDP call
  • From: Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:17:58 +0200

Dear Jeff, dear all,

Following our very interesting exchange, I tried to clarify the proposal I
made during the call for the "preparation phase", centered around :
- an initial, short, "Issue Paper", serving the educational purpose
mentioned by Marilyn and others
- a final "Staff Recommendation" on whether launching a PDP or not (deadline
to be determined)
- the possibility for the Council to extend the deadline for the staff
recommendation or to request additional research.

You'll find a proposed wording in the attached document. The format is a
very rough proposal for revision of the early parts of Annex A (including a
shortening of the paragraphs dealing with the three possible initiators).
This is of course a personal contribution and just a very preliminary draft
for comments (and destruction if needed :-) But the discussion was
substantive enough to perhaps be somewhat formalized already.

I adopted the terminology suggested in a previous mail (following our
previous call), distinguishing within a general "Policy Process" several
phases, the first one of them being "Preparation". But this is also up for
comments of course.

As a side remark, I noted during the call two important topics that will
need to be addressed at some point :
- whether what we're discussing is mostly related to what is currently
called "consensus policies" only or should apply to any policy elaboration
(in the later case, should there be different procedures according to the
amplitude of the topic, or just different timescales/durations ?)
- the importance of the educational part mentioned by Sofia, in order to
facilitate inclusion and participation : this may not have to be included in
the Bylaws (to avoid cluttering them and excessive formalization), but it
could be helpful to establish in due time some explanatory guidelines and
recommendations on how to introduce an issue in the ACs or the gNSO
constituencies.

On that later point, as mentioned during the call, the RFC 54384 written by
Thomas Narten, the IETF liaison to the Board on "how to hold a successful
Birds of a Feather" session is particularly interesting and I encourage you
to have a look at it :
http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=5434&tag=Considerations-for-Having-a-Successful-Birds-of-a-Feather-(BOF)-Session<http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=5434&tag=Considerations-for-Having-a-Successful-Birds-of-a-Feather-%28BOF%29-Session>

I hope this helps our future work and the staff as well in preparing
minutes.

Best

Bertrand

-- 
____________________
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: Draft Policy Process - Preparation phase.doc
Description: MS-Word document



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy