RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] For your review - draft PDP-WT Final Report posted on wiki

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marika and PDP Team:

I am ok with striking Rec #13 (Impact Analysis) provided we make some
minor changes to the language supporting Rec #4 (Issue Report Template).

On line 239-240 of the Draft Final (PDF), we list the various elements
to be included in the issues report.  One of these elements is listed
as: "identification of problem."  This  is close to what I was trying to
capture with my statements regarding the Impact Analysis. But ideally I
believe we should strive for a -quantified- problem definition.  It is
only through understanding the problem/harm/"impact" in the beginning of
the process can the PDP have any chance of making meaningful policy or
best practice recommendations.

Also, we should spend perhaps 5-10 minutes reviewing the decision that
this template be "strongly encouraged" but not "mandatory."  Why?  Did
we believe that some issues wouldn't cleanly fit in to existing
categories?  If so, what does that indicate for the PDP's ability to
address these issues? Or, what does it say about scoping?

Some have expressed concerns that having a mandatory template could be
gamed as a "blocking" move against unwanted PDPs.  I suppose this is
possible. But in my relatively brief (4 year) experience with ICANN, it
seems that any blanks left unfilled by the Issues Report or Charter are
simply punted to the PDP WG, which can be hamstrung by these initial
ambiguities.

So it is possible that requiring additional prep work early in the life
cycle of a PDP may result in fewer PDPs.  But I believe this would also
result in more meaningful PDPs, more robust problem definitions, and
consensus policies (or best practices) that are narrowly targeted and
easy to measure for compliance.

In any event, I'm looking forward to finalizing this (and other)
section, and getting this effort put to bed.

Thanks--

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] For your review - draft PDP-WT Final Report
posted on wiki
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, May 18, 2011 3:24 am
To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>

   Dear All,


Please find posted on the wiki
(https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/Next+Meeting) a first
draft of the Final Report. This version incorporates the agreed upon
changes following the WT's review of the public comments, as well as
discussion on some of the outstanding issues. In addition, it includes
some minor edits and clarifications. I would like to especially draw
your attention to the following items that need WT consideration:

+ Recommendation #4 – Request for an Issue Report Template: Based on
public comments received, WT to review template (see page 49) and
determine which elements of the template should be required and how
sufficient flexibility can be guaranteed.
+ Recommendation #13 – Impact Analysis (deleted): 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.
(James to review text in relation to content of Issue Report to
determine whether it sufficiently addresses consideration of 'scope'. If
not, James to provide alternative language for consideration). 
+ Recommendation #31 – Implementation, Impact and Feasibility &
section 5.10: WT to review edits proposed by Avri
+ Council Recommendation Report (5.13): Staff wonders whether the
current language as proposed will work in practice: the GNSO Council
approves the report and designates someone to write the recommendation
report, but the report needs to be submitted within 21 days. Elsewhere,
in the proposed bylaws - the recommendation report is to be approved by
the GNSO Council. We are not sure how this can be done in 21 days. To
address this we would propose changing 'approved by' to 'written at the
direction of' the GNSO Council in section 7.
+ PDP Flow Chart – I still need to update the chart to reflect any
changes / updates based on the latest version of the report. Some
commenters also suggested that it would be helpful to include the chart
and/or broken down in different sub-sections in the PDP Manual. I agree
that it would be helpful, but would maybe suggest to develop those once
the overall PDP has been approved to avoid duplication of work (and
maybe at that stage a 'professional' graphics designer could do a better
job at translating the process in graphics than I can with my improvised
graphic designer skills ;-).
+ Board Vote / Transition – I've requested input from ICANN Legal on
suggested language for these items to convey the WT's view. I hope to
receive their suggestions shortly.
+ Public comment review tool – You'll also find the latest version of
the public comment review tool posted on the wiki. This document will be
included in either the annex or as a link in the Final Report. Please
review this document to make sure it captures the WT's views and
comments accurately.

On the wiki you will also find a pdf version that includes line numbers.
Please feel free to submit your comments and/or proposed edits either by
marking up the Word document or to send comments/edits + line numbers to
the mailing list.


With best regards,


Marika