Re: Astoundingly off-topic [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would argue that proposing a complete change of the PDP process is neither 
within scope of this group, nor helpful in its context.

There has been, and still is, a lot of work on the way the GNSO handles PDPs in 
other groups, as part of the GNSO restructure efforts. I would recommend that 
this type of discussion be had there, or taken up with the GNSO directly.

Stéphane

Le 19 août 2010 à 22:47, Sivasubramanian M a écrit :

> That requires a complete change of working methods of the policy development 
> process. Perhaps we have to move away from weekly phone calls, Interim draft 
> report, Interim report, six weeks of comments, revised Draft Interim Report, 
> Revised final Interim Report, Board deliberations on the continuity of the 
> PDP work group, further weekly meetings, draft final report, comments....... 
> routine to something like a Inter-Constituency PDP meetings on a topic of 
> focus for a day or two at a stretch (during an ICANN meeting for crucial 
> policy decisions and in an online icann-collaborative-facebook-like-interface 
> for lesser policy decisions, where policy development, comments and 
> summarization happen simultaneously, not one after another.   
> 
> Sivasubramanian M