Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Your input requested - recommendation 14 - Efficiency and flexibility during the planning / request for an Issues Report phase

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I stil think that the Staff should be given a week to asses the work 
requirements versus existing load and should give an estimate that the council 
can then negotiate with them.

I do not see much value in the ranges or tops ends - every schedule tends 
toward the outside edge of a range since that is the most comfortable for those 
who have to schedule the work.  I think if should rest on a realistic case 
analysis.  We can be sure that if the Staff were to come back with a ridiculous 
estimate thee would be someone in the council to question it. not that I would 
expect this to happen - as a professional staff, I believe the Policy Staff 
takes pride in its ability to get the work done in a timely manner and to give 
accurate measurements.

a.

On 11 May 2010, at 05:47, Marika Konings wrote:

> For discussion / consideration:
> 
>       • The recommendation for item 7 - Community input / How to incorporate 
> public comments would also apply here: A decision is needed on the timeframe 
> for the delivery of an issues report. The WT could consider putting forward a 
> number of different ranges for community consideration e.g. within thirty 
> (30) calendar days / forty-five (45) calendar days / a period determined by 
> the GNSO Council. The WT might also want to consider allowing the Council to 
> modify this timeframe if it is deemed that additional research / discussion 
> is required to develop an informed and balanced Issues Report.
> 
> From PDP-WT – Draft Conclusions and Recommendations – Updated 11 May
> 
> 9. Efficiency and flexibility during planning / request for an issues report 
> phase
> 
> Recommendation 14.       
> 
> §  To be decided [Recommendations suggested for issue 7 could also apply here]
> 
> Efficiency and flexibility during planning / request for an issues report 
> phase
> 
> Current rules and practice 
> 
> From ICANN by-laws:
> Within fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving either (i) an instruction 
> from the Board; (ii) a properly supported motion from a Council member; or 
> (iii) a properly supported motion from an Advisory Committee, the Staff 
> Manager will create a report (an "Issue Report")
> 
> Concerns / Questions
> 
> 9.a          Current deadline of 15 days after receipt of a request is 
> unworkable. How to build in sufficient flexibility to allow for additional 
> research and consultation when needed, while being able to move forward 
> quickly in those cases where additional work is not deemed necessary? Would a 
> flexible timetable be an option i.e. in the request the submitting party with 
> staff support develops a draft timeline which can consist of a number of 
> phases that are pre-determined with a set timeframe?
> 9.b          What flexibility should be foreseen for additional research or 
> study at the initiation phase?
> 
> 
> PDP WT Response
> 
> 9.a          It was suggested that a drafting team that is tasked with 
> developing a charter for a WG should also be in a good position to develop a 
> realistic timeline for delivery of the milestones. Some suggested a maximum 
> deadline of 30 days or 45 days that could be extended but only with the 
> agreement of the requester. Others suggested to include target dates in the 
> by-laws based on the current experience with PDP timelines, but with the 
> flexibility for modification by the GNSO Council if it is deemed necessary to 
> allow for extra time for research or consultation. It as also suggested that 
> guidance could be provided on how much additional time should be needed for 
> certain additional elements such as a workshop or public comment period 
> during the planning and initiation phase. Some noted that this should be left 
> to the Council to decide on a case-by-case basis, with input from Staff as to 
> their current workload and estimate of time to complete each project. Others 
> noted that the timeline should be driven by the complexity of the issue but 
> within a certain date boundary set out. Some suggested that there should be 
> two types of requests, one standard request, which would be queued behind 
> exiting requests / reports, and a second expedited / urgent request which 
> would move up to the queue if it has broad support of multiple SO/ACs and/or 
> the Board or GNSO Council.
> 9.b          Some suggested that flexibility should be retained, but that 
> research or study can occur after the initiation phase. Some indicated that 
> research / study at this stage should be minimized.  Others suggested that 
> there should be flexibility at all stages.