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

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

 

As we discussed on the call, it doesn't make sense to add to the
bureaucracy to the PDP process.  Comment providers often have colleagues
that participate in the WGs, so their views - and the team's reaction
to/incorporation of the input - can be exchanged.  Also, as Staff noted,
the forum for public input is disabled shortly after the close of the
comment period.  Mandating explicit response to all comments would
require additional expense (assuming such feedback could be provided
through the mailing list) and time of WG participants - many of whom are
already stretched thin in the regular course of the policy work.

 

Regards, P

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David W. Maher
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:52 AM
To: Marika Konings; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
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