RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi folks.  Sorry for the delayed response, but here are my thoughts on
outstanding issues #10 and #18:

* Issue 10 / Recommendation 13
Adding an explicit reference to "human rights" would significantly
expand ICANN's scope and mission.  Section 3 of the Affirmation of
Commitments outlines ICANN's commitments to uphold / preserve
(paraphrasing): 
  1.  The Public Interest,
  2.  The Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS,
  3.  Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice, and
  4.  International Participation.
  
Suggest that any edits to Recommendation 13 simply reference these items
as Section 3 of the Affirmation of Commitments.


* Recommendation 18
Reconsidering this issue, I am now of the opinion that we should leave
the existing text intact.  Designing a formal appeals mechanism would
have numerous unknown (and perhaps unanticipated) consequences, and
could be seen as undermining the role of Council in policy development. 
We can discuss further on today's call, but I would oppose any
additional language here.

Thanks--

J.
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, January 31, 2011 2:04 am
To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>

   Dear All,


Please find attached an updated version of the outstanding issues
document including the notes from our last meeting. As a reminder, these
are the remaining action items:

+ Recommendation 10 Impact Analyses: WT Agreed Approach: Instead of
adding ‘human rights’ it was suggested to add the term ‘rights’
to cover a broader set of rights. Alternatively, it was proposed that
the language should track the language in the AoC and/or ICANN By-Laws.
(James / Avri towork on proposed alternative language).
+ Recommendation 18 Appeals Mechanism: WT Agreed Approach: Some
suggested that it would be appropriate to allow an appeal mechanism for
those with standing. The following language was proposed: 'the PDP-WT
recommends that on those occasions that the GNSO council rejects the
initiation of a PDP, it should form a committee with the AC requesting
the issues report to attempt to find a solution that is amenable to both
the GNSO and the AC. Following such a discussion the GNSO council should
vote again on initiating thePDP.' It was suggested that the proposed
language should include a timeframe. James agreed to review the proposed
language and circulate proposed revisions to the mailing list. 

With best regards,


Marika