[gnso-ppsc-pdp] Re: comments on PPSC PDP WG Draft Final Report

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Paul and James for your feedback. Please see some initial comments below 
in blue in relation to some of your concerns.

Marika

From: "Diaz, Paul" 
<pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 05:44:43 -0800
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: 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.

MK: Please see the notes in the outstanding issues document. The WT agreed to 
include option 2 in a slightly modified form. This will be included in the next 
version of the report.


 *   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.

MK: Please see notes in the outstanding issues document. There was no 
consensus, but it was agreed to 'keep this issue open for the moment and 
discuss it in the near future after having reviewed again the comments received 
in relation to this issue'. This recommendation will be updated (or deleted) 
following this further discussion.


 *   RE: Recommendation 22 (starting on Line 318), this sounds like a 
round-a-bout way to say “status quo.”  We suggest deleting this text.

v      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 Bylawsand/or 
Affirmation of Commitments.  If the other members of the WG areunwilling 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?
 MK: This is indeed what has been proposed (the wholesale replacement).

 *   Weren’t we going to set all public comment periods at no less than 30 
days?  If so, see edit at Line 1421.

MK: Please see notes in outstanding issues document. WT agreed to 'Require 
public comment period of a minimum of 30 days for Issue Report and Initial 
Report, with a minimum of 21 days for other public comment periods a WG might 
choose to initiate'. This will be updated in the next version of the report.


 *   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.

MK: Please see notes in the outstanding issues document. This section will be 
updated according to the WT agreement in the next version of the document.


 *   Again, for consistency, aren’t all public comment periods through the 
Report to be “no less than thirty (30) days” (see Line 1738)?

MK: As noted before, this will be updated in the next version of the report 
according to the WT agreement.


 *   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.
 MK: As noted before, this will be updated in the next version of the report 
according to the WT agreement.

 *   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.

MK: Please see notes in the outstanding issues document. This will be updated 
in the next version of the report according to the WT agreement.

Best regards, P