[gnso-ppsc-pdp] Items for discussion on today's call
Dear All, Please find attached an updated version of the proposed PDP-WT Final Report for review and discussion on today's call which includes the changes proposed by Jeff (note that these changes are not marked as made by Jeff – if you want to review his changes separately, please review the documents he sent out earlier today). For today's call, I've noted the following items for discussion: >From Avri: * 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. >From Jeff * Recommendation 24 – Did we come to an agreement on this? * Recommendation 29 – Deletion of ' which will be responsible for reviewing and taking into consideration the public comments received' Please let me know if I've missed anything. Best regards, Marika Attachment:
Draft Final PDP-WT Report - Updated version - 17 February 2011.doc |