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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Are you sure about the way all people read documents in ICANN.  We are talking 
about the GNSO here and people in other organizations may not have such 
confidence in their benevolence. there is also the cross-cultural elements of 
interpretation.  

If this is indeed what strong encouragement  means, what is the harm of adding 
the phrase to make sure people understand that is what it means?

As I say, I still prefer B.  And the more I think about it, the more convinced 
I become.

a.



On 20 May 2011, at 22:10, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
>