<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-ppsc-pdp] some comments on reading through Section 1
- To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] some comments on reading through Section 1
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:23:21 +0100
Page 4
> The WT discussed the possibility of having additional mechanisms to allow
> future constituencies to initiate a request for an Issues Report.
might want to refer to future communities of future groups. constituencies is
an overloaded term.
> 1.a Some entities such as APWG/ISOC might have reason to make
> suggestions
is the TAC an advisory that could request and issues report?
Page 12 on Recommendation for issues report.
It seems this is an issue we need to come back to.
I think that a set of possibilities is a good idea.
In some cases the issue is fair cut and dried and needs quick handling., In
that case the 5 day basic issue report should be available.
In other cases, the longer process with the option of BOF and briefing papers
before the Issue report would make sense.
This is the sort of thing the Council as managers could decide in relation to
GNSO generated and AC generated requests. For board requests, one can assume a
certain amount of research and thought went into writing their request, and it
will probably be something they need quickly, like the STI request, so the
quick basic Issues report option is probably best.
Page 16 on Staff recommendations.
Seems like another area we need to come back to.
While the restructuring of Policy Staff to be more supportive in the PDP
process is probably a good idea, we should be careful to make sure that any
support work done by the Policy Staff is under GNSO Council management as they
are the managers of the Policy Process. There should be proper tools for
Council oversight of the Policy Staff function. this also feeds into the need
to eliminate to all extent possible any private or secret communications
between the Policy Staff and the Board related to GNSO Council PDP issues.
Page 18 the issue of 15 days.
A default timing should be maintained. But a clause should be added indicating
that the council may opt to extend the time for delivery, including the
insertion of other option steps.
15 days is rather short, though and perhaps 21 days is more reasonable.
---
For the last part seems like there are whole lot of things we need to get back
to.
a.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|