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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I support A, but have some comments.

Avri is correct on entend vs extent.

Paul is correct about semicolons. As it is now, 
"to the extent feasible" is another item to be 
included along with definition of the issue.
That phrase could be moved to the end as Avri 
suggested, but I think it reads better as:
... developed including, to the extent feasible, 
items such as definition of issue; identification 
and quantification of problems; supporting 
evidence; economic impact(s); effect(s) on 
competition and consumer trust; and rationale for policy development.
I wouldn't have added it myself, but I can live 
with adding "privacy and other rights".
I see no reason to add "but not required". It is 
redundant given that "strongly encouraged" implies it is not required.
Lastly, I think that "rationale" should be preceded by "the".

Alan

At 20/05/2011 09:47 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 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