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

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

Proposing below edits to Option A:

1. [*or a well-grounded theory*]  - objective: adds flexibity
2. [***The use of such a template is strongly encouraged and as is set out
in the PDP Manual.*] - objective: phraselogy only

regards,

Alex


On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 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 [*or a well-grounded theory*],
> 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 should be strongly encouraged and is included in the
> PDP Manual. [***The use of such a template is strongly encouraged and as
> is set out in the PDP Manual.*]
>
> 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
>