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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

It is fine for Council to "negotiate" with regard 
to Issue Reports the *IT* requests. I am totally 
against the GNSO Council having the right to 
negotiate on behalf of Issue Reports that it did 
not initiate. This give Council the ability to 
effectively defer on an issue that it has no 
interest in without even having the issues 
presented to it. This takes a lot of power out of 
having alternative methods of initiating the PDP 
process. And at best adds months to the process.
Alan

At 20/05/2010 08:56 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 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.