[gnso-ppsc-pdp] comments on PPSC PDP WG Draft Final Report
Hi Marika, James and I combined our comments/edits into the attached PPSC PDP WG Draft Final Report. Much of it is straightforward, but we do have a couple of significant concerns: In Section 1, Executive Summary: * RE: Recommendation 10 (starting on Line 190), we believe the WT should put forward a single recommendation - Option B. If the WT does not have consensus on this, then the Report should note the level(s) of support for the other options. * RE: Recommendation 15 (starting on Line 242), we thought the WT has come down AGAINST recommending a "fast track" procedure for PDPs. As such, we believe this Recommendation should be deleted from the Report. * RE: Recommendation 22 (starting on Line 318), this sounds like a round-a-bout way to say "status quo." We suggest deleting this text. * RE: Recommendation 24 (starting on Line 335), we want to see the text flipped, i.e. "in scope" should be based upon contracted parties' definitions of Concensus Policies." While an ideal and robust definition of "in scope" would see no difference between the perspectives on ICANN's scope, the simple reality is that no such definition exists. As "ICANN's mission and the role of the GNSO" will always be open to different interpretations," we don't see how potential issues can be predictably "mapped" against the Bylaws and/or Affirmation of Commitments. If the other members of the WG are unwilling to change this formulation, then we cannot support the proposal and will want to see our strong opposition to the text duly noted. * RE: Recommendation 28 (starting on Line 368), we suggest including "and how the proposed PDP is aligned with ICANN's Strategic Plan" to the end of the sentence. This will further prevent frivolous PDPs and unnecessary wasting of ICANN's and the Community's limited resources. * On Line 463, it appears the text is garbled. We're not sure what really is being recommended here. In Section 2, all of our comments/edits apply (as most of the Executive Summary text appears to have been lifted from this section). In Section 3, RE: Translation (starting on Line 1076), the Report should note that ICANN should not default to paid translation, as this will incur more time and costs make. Rather, multi-lingual volunteers should be sought for (non-governing) translations of key documents. We offer suggested language at Line 1114. RE: Transition (starting on Line 1379), we think the WT settled this on our 13 January 2011 call, but need to see proposed text. In our view, simplicity favors the cut-in approach. In Section 4, RE: Basis for a new Annex A: * Is the WT proposing the wholesale replacement of the existing Bylaws section with the language we have developed? We realize that a lot of the existing text simply carries over, but are concerned that the Community will balk if/when we suggest an entire "rewrite." Shouldn't we just show the changes we're proposing, so it's easier for non-WT members to see the differences? * Weren't we going to set all public comment periods at no less than 30 days? If so, see edit at Line 1421. * At Line 1440, please clarify that we mean ICANN (the Corporation). * RE: Board Approval Processes (f) (starting at Line 1459), what is the point of a "tentative vote"? Board votes should not be taken lightly, especially in an age of significant resource constraints. If the Board is looking for input ahead of a formal vote, they have plenty of informal opportunities and communication channels to vet the Community's positions. We strongly recommend deleting this sub-section (f). * In sub-section 9, Maintenance of Records (starting at Line 1492), please add our proposed clarifying text about what is expected. In Section 5, PDP Procedure Manual: * Suggest adding "Consistent with ICANN's commitment to fact-based policy development," to the beginning of Line 1532. * RE: sub-section 6.5, Creation of the Preliminary Issue Report (starting on Line 1558), shouldn't the WT just offer a single option? We support Option #1. If there's support for Option #2, please poll the WT and note the levels of support for each option. RE: the list if issues for the ICANN General Counsel to consider (Lines 1586-1599), should these be read with "and" connectors or with "or" connectors? We believe some kind of connectors should be used or else the GC is left free to pick and choose at his sole discretion. Finally, on Lines 1598-1599 please split the issues into two bullet points. * Again, for consistency, aren't all public comment periods through the Report to be "no less than thirty (30) days" (see Line 1738)? * RE: sub-section 6.12, Expedited PDP Procedures, didn't the WT move away from supporting such a process? If so, this sub-section should be cut (again, as we suggested re: deletion of Recommendation #15). If it stays in, we believe the Council threshold to approve a "fast track" PDP should be a super-majority vote of BOTH houses. Otherwise, we raise the possibility that this mechanism will easily over-used/abused. * RE: sub-section 6.16, Termination of PDP Prior to Final Report, the WT discussed this at the 13 January 2011 call. We still need to see proposed text, but offer some suggested edits consistent with where we believe the WT came down. Best regards, P Attachment:
PDPWT Draft Final Report_PD + JB edits.doc
|