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

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have a question as well: 
There is presently no mechanism to gather complete GNSO comments. The ACs -- 
GAC and ALAC and Root server Advisory group may be unique.  
The GNSO SGs, or constituencies might provide comments but I doubt that it is 
feasible, or advisable to seek to get GNSO wide comments. time, labor, and 
diversity indicate against such an idea. 
and defeat the purpose of a PDP. 

I apologize for missing call and will read the transcript on this section. 







From: dmaher@xxxxxxx
To: marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:52:17 -0500
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] RE: Updated outstanding issues document + action items



Re: Rec. #21 – I don’t see any good reason to provide a special status for the 
comments from ACs and SOs, requiring direct response.David W. Maher             
       
Senior Vice President - Law & Policy    
Public Interest Registry                     

 From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:42 AM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document + action items 
Dear All, Please find attached the updated outstanding issues document, 
including notes from our call today. As a reminder, these are some of the 
remaining action items:Recommendation # 18 - There was support for modifying 
the recommendation so that it would highlight that dialogue between GNSO 
Council members and the requesting AC would be adesirable option to pursue 
following a vote against the initiation of a PDPeither to better understand the 
reasons for declining a PDP and/or determining whether there would be options 
to modify the request so that it would receive support. Alan agreed to draft 
language for consideration by the WT.Recommendation # 21 -  One WT member also 
suggested that the recommendation should include that a response needs to be 
provided to an SO/AC that submits comments. It was agreed to circulate the 
proposed language on the mailing list to obtain further input on this issue. 
The proposed language is as follows: “Comments from ACs and SOs should receive 
a direct response from the WG”. (WG Members are encouraged to provide feedback 
on this proposed language.)Best regards, Marika