<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Action items for Monday's PDP-WT meeting
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, PDP <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Action items for Monday's PDP-WT meeting
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 22:10:18 -0400
When I was typing the note, I did think about
situations where you are "encouraged" to do
something knowing that the penalty for not
following the encouragement would be dire. But
that is not the context in which we write or read such ICANN documents.
Alan
At 20/05/2011 04:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
The reason I feel compelled to request the
addition of ", and not required," is that when
i was draft by the Israeli Army, oh so very very
long ago in my youth, they 'invited me' to come
in. Of course this was an invitation that could
not be refused. Ever since, when I see an
invitation or strong encouragement, I wonder if
i am allowed to say no; not that being
disallowed would necessarily stop me, but it might stop others.
a.
On 20 May 2011, at 15:59, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|