Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Reminder: For review - updated version of proposed Final Report

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 15 Feb 2011, at 04:01, Marika Konings wrote:

> As a reminder, especially for those of you that were not on yesterday's call, 
> any substantial issues on the updated version of the proposed Final Report 
> (see attached) will need to be submitted before Thursday's meeting of the PDP 
> WT (14.30 UTC). Any non-substantial issues (typos, etc.) should be submitted 
> at the latest by close of business on Friday 18 February.
> 
> Thanks,
> 

I have these initial issues, though I may have more later:

-- Recommendation 39

> The Council should be strongly discouraged from
> itemizing
> recommendations that the PDP WT has identified as interdependent.


I don't believe 'itemizing' is the appropriate word in this context.  I think 
the issue of one of separating the recommendation into its component 
recommendations.  And the real problem is voting on them this way.

I suggest something like:

The Council should be strongly discouraged from dividing the question 
especially in regard to any recommendations that the PDP WT has identified as 
interdependent.

Note: Dividing the question is a term of art in parliamentary process.   But if 
necessary a footnote with a definition can be included.

-- Recommendation 45

> . However, the Work Team also notes that there is no standard or template for 
> such an assessment, nor clear guidance on who (Chair, Liaison and/or all WG 
> participants) should conduct the assessment, and recommends that these 
> guidelines be developed


I think it is clear to me that in a group that needs to do a self assessment, 
it is the participants in that group who are the self that is self assessing.  
While I do not mind indicating there should be guidelines, I would hate to see 
a current lack of such guidelines prevent such a self assessment.  Also, given 
that ICANN is a somewhat unique institution and in fact self-assesments are 
very particular to each institution, it may be necessary to let ICANN's 
self-assesment methodology evolve organically and get documented after that has 
happened.

-- Overarching Issue 2 Translation

> ICANN is strongly encouraged to use volunteers to assist with translation, 
> where appropriate and practical

I believe this should at best be bracketed text.  I know I was strongly against 
strongly encouraging the use of volunteers, and I do not believe I was alone 
this time.  As I and others discussed, translation is an obligation in an 
international institution, ICANN's strategy even recognizes the need for an 
enhanced translation strategy.  It should be done professionally and the budget 
should be set at an appropriate level for this to happen.

A statement I would accept is:

ICANN is encouraged to consider whether the use of volunteers to assist with 
translation is appropriate and practical while it is  considering the 
enhancements of the translation strategy, which is part of the overall 
strategic plan.

thanks

a.