RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Turning the Preliminary Report to an Initial Report

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey,

It's really up to the working group to decide these things, including what they 
would like to include in the Initial Report.     My concern with calling it an 
Initial  Report at this stage is that it doesn't appear that the VI-WG has 
reached consensus yet on the likely recommendations, nor has it even narrowed 
the list down to 2 or 3 top approaches.

Here's a suggestion for the group to consider:


1.       On Monday, the VI-WG  identifies  the 2 or 3 proposals that will be 
highlighted in the Preliminary Report

2.       The proposers of these finalists draft text  explaining their 
positions to be included in the Preliminary Report by COB  next Tuesday (15 
June)

3.       Someone on the VI-WG volunteers to assists with drafting content on 
the current state of deliberations, and perhaps includes observations from the 
VI working Group on the ABG v.4 board proposal

4.       All comments to the draft Report circulated yesterday should be 
delivered by COB next Tuesday (15 June).

5.       The Preliminary Report is published by no later than Friday of next 
week (18 June)

6.       The Brussels meeting is dedicated to discussion of these finalist 
proposals and attempting to identify the proposal that has garnered the most 
consensus, and any minority positions if no consensus is reached

7.       The Stakeholders/Constituencies would use Brussels time to 
update/retract their Statements as appropriate, and hopefully support one of 
the finalist proposals.

8.       The Initial Report would be published for public comment shortly after 
Brussels (early July) that describes this consensus, and primarily focuses on 
reporting on Objective 1, which is:


"Objective 1: To make policy recommendations that provide clear direction to 
ICANN staff and new gTLD applicants on whether, and if so under what 
conditions, contracts for new gTLD registries can permit vertical Integration 
or otherwise deviate from current forms of registry-registrar separation, and 
equivalent access and non-discriminatory access. "

        The Initial Report would also include the updated 
Constituency/Stakeholder Group Statements.


9.       After analysis of the public comment in August,  the recommendations 
are adjusted as appropriate, and the Final Report is  produced by the end of 
August.

10.   The GNSO Council could then act on the recommendations in September.

I'll be happy to discuss this suggested timeline more on Monday's call.

Best Regards,

Margie





From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 4:17 PM
To: Margie Milam
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Turning the Preliminary Report to an Initial Report

thanks Margie.

could you kinda break this down for me?  i'd really like to see a "what needs 
to be done, by whom, by when" list of tasks/dates/deliverables to get us to 
where we need to be.  this is a great start, but i could use a little more 
granularity.

mikey


On Jun 11, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Margie Milam wrote:


All-

I looked into this issue of whether the VI-WG report could be an Initial Report 
rather than a Preliminary Report.   In referring to the Initial Report, the 
Bylaws state:

"The Staff Manager will take all Constituency/Stakeholder Group Statements, 
Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the 
Comment Site) an Initial Report ..."

That leaves a lot of flexibility for the working group in what should be 
included in an Initial Report.  My understanding is that the Initial Report 
usually addresses the tasks outlined in the PDP Charter.  However, since the 
Working Group has not completed its analysis on any objective in the Charter,  
it may be premature to call the information contained in the report as an 
"Initial Report."

In looking at the document I circulated yesterday, the document already 
includes some Constituency/Stakeholder Group Statements, and a summary of the 
Public Comment Statements.  However,  I recall that some of you were still 
attempting to update or prepare Constituency/Stakeholder Group Statements for 
this purpose.  If the report is to serve as an "Initial Report," we should make 
sure that all of these statements are current, or delete the ones (if any) that 
are now out-of-date.

It is also important to note that the Initial Report will need to be posted for 
public comment of twenty (20) days, and this would be the last public comment 
period required under the Bylaws prior to GNSO Council approval.  As a result, 
the Initial Report should ideally reflect the likely recommendations to come 
from the working group.  If the proposals are not sufficiently developed, then 
the public may be unable to meaningfully participate and respond.


Best Regards,

Margie
____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
____________




- - - - - - - - -
phone    651-647-6109
fax                          866-280-2356
web        www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>
handle   OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)