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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I have problems with both.

First the editing problem - in both - it should be 'extent' feasible" not 
'extend' feasible.  I would also recommend moving the phrase to the end of its 
sentence.

Second I am troubled by either of them including an itemization of issues to be 
considered without also including privacy and other human rights.  I thought we 
had agreed to move certain content to the WGs obligation in its report and to 
not make these things a-priori. 

Would prefer that the phrase: 
economic impact(s), effect(s) on competition and consumer trust, 

either be dropped or replaced with 

economic impact(s), effect(s) on competition, consumer trust,  and privacy and 
other rights

In general I think I prefer B but don't really care about the form too much.  

If we go with A i would request the addition of the phrase  

... encouraged, but not required, and is ...

a.



On 19 May 2011, at 10:44, Marika Konings 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, 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.
> 
> 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