[gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated public comment review tool posted

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

For your information, an updated version of the PDP-WT public comment review 
tool has been posted on the wiki (see 
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/Next+Meeting). The main discussion 
items of our last meeting have been captured as follows:

Recommendation #42 Board Vote: Following further review and explanation of the 
staff memo on this issue (see 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/msg00628.html), the WT agreed that 
the current provision 13f should be seen in the context of when the Board is 
able to reject a GNSO recommendation (either as explained in 13b if the GNSO 
recommendation is adopted by a GNSO Supermajority or as explained in 13f if the 
GNSO recommendation was not adopted by a GNSO Supermajority). The WT noted that 
this provision does not provide the option for the board to adopt a 
recommendation that was not adequately supported by the GNSO as this whole 
section only relates to rejection of the Board of GNSO recommendations. The WT 
noted that the current placing of provision 13f is confusing and that it would 
make more sense to link it closer to provision 13 b, as in both instances the 
desirednext steps would be further discussion with the GNSO as outlined in 
provisions 13 c, d and e. Recommended action: Modify provision 13 to make clear 
that this section and especially provision 13f relates to the rejection of GNSO 
recommendations and clarify that discussion between the Board and GNSO Council 
is desirable both when the Board rejects a GNSO supermajority recommendation or 
a GNSO recommendation that was not adopted by supermajority.

Recommendation #13 – Impact Analysis: Following further review of the WT 
deliberations on the comments in relation to recommendation #13, the WT agreed 
that an ‘impact assessment’ at the time of the initiation of a PDP did not make 
sense and noted that a ‘scope assessment’ is already carried out as part of the 
Issue Report. The WT is therefore considering deleting recommendation #13. At 
the same time, the WT agreed that there should be a recommendation that 
addresses the possibility to assess the impact of proposed policy 
recommendations. It was noted that recommendation #31 already foresees that the 
PDP WG should provide input on impact related issues, but it does not address 
if/how/when the GNSO Council should consider an impact assessment. [The WT 
should give further consideration to if/how recommendation #31 should be 
modified (or an additional recommendation be added) that would deal with this 
question – similar issues would need to be considered as initially raised in 
relation to recommendation #13: who should carry out such an assessment, how to 
prevent gaming / delay, which areas should be considered as part of such an 
impact assessment.]

If you have any additional considerations, proposed edits and/or changes, 
please feel free to share those with the mailing list.

With best regards,

Marika