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

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support Option A, but would rather not add Alex's first edit re: "a
well-grounded theory."  Per yesterday's call, it seemed that the WT's
intent is to have as much objectivity driving an Issue Report as
possible.  Using a word like "theory" in the recommendation/PDP Manual
seems at cross-purposes with our goal.  I strongly believe the community
will overlook the qualifier ("well-grounded") and just deride or rally
around "theories."  "Identification and quantification of problems, to
the extent feasible" already provides enough flexibility, IMO.

 

I also support Alex and Wolf's qualification of Option A's second
sentence re: inclusion in the PDP Manual.

 

Best, P

 

 

PS - minor issue, but the report should use semicolons to separate the
list of Issue Report template items in Option A.

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex Gakuru
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 5:51 AM
To: Marika Konings
Cc: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Action items for Monday's PDP-WT meeting

 

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