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

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

My motivation for suggesting well "Grounded Theory" (or GT) was an
1-4 April, 2011  NCSG conversation on DNS Abuse re: "Domain Name Front
Running", in part:-
....
> Domain name front running does not require knowing anything about the 
> identity of the person searching on the name, only that the name was searched.
>
> Unlike stock front running I do not believe there are laws against it.  I 
> also do not believe there are any policies explicitly related to it at this 
> point, though the GNSO did study it at one point and seemed unable to prove 
> that it occurred:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf  page 34
>
> > It is unclear to what extent front-running happens, and the RAPWG does not 
> > recommend policy development at this time. The RAPWG suggests that the 
> > Council monitor the issue and consider next steps if conditions warrant.
....

Since such a Grounded Theory can, and has, lead to a study, then
perhaps I may not insist on the term's inclusion on the document.

regards,

Alex

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:46 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Agree, we should avoid words like "theory."
> J.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Action items for Monday's PDP-WT meeting
> From: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, May 20, 2011 8:20 am
> To: "Alex Gakuru" <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>, "Marika Konings"
> <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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
>