AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Action items for Monday's PDP-WT meeting

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I like Option A with a small edit
 
Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich .

 

________________________________

        Von: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Marika Konings
        Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Mai 2011 16:45
        An: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Action items for Monday's PDP-WT
meeting
        
        
        Dear All,

        As discussed on today's call, especially for those that cannot
attend Monday's meeting (starting at 13.30 UTC), please share your
comments / edits / suggestions on the issues outlined below, or any
other items in the report, with the mailing list. With regard to
recommendation #4, please review the following two alternatives and
indicate your preference:

        Option A:  The PDP-WT recommends that a 'request for an Issue
Report' template should be developed including items such as definition
of issue, identification and quantification of problems, to the extend
feasible, supporting evidence, economic impact(s), effect(s) on
competition and consumer trust, and rationale for policy development.
The use of such a template[WUK: ] which is included in the PDP Manual
should be strongly encouraged.
        
        
        Option B:  The PDP-WT recommends that a 'request for an Issue
Report' template should be developed including items such as definition
of issue, identification and quantification of problems, to the extend
feasible, supporting evidence, economic impact(s), effect(s) on
competition and consumer trust, and rationale for policy development.
Any request for an Issue Report, either by completing the template
included in the PDP Manual or in another form, should include at a
minimum: the name of the requestor; definition of the issue, and;
identification and quantification of problems, to the extend feasible.
The submission of any additional information, as outlined for example in
the template, is strongly encouraged.
        
        
        With best regards,
        
        
        Marika
        
        
        
        From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 01:24:34 -0700
        To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
        Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] For your review - draft PDP-WT Final
Report posted on wiki
        

        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