Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] FW: PDP Feb 06: Draft Agenda 10 August
Marilyn Thank you for your note. I have copied my response to your email to me on 1 August which I did not, at the time, send to the TF as a whole as it wasn't addressed to the group. ICANN staff cannot be expected to produce results from a policy development process which is not receiving the attention you think it needs. I suggested to you that the Council be asked for further direction from the TF, in accordance with the Bylaws, to guide the work of the group and to clearly prioritise it in the context of the new TLDs work, the IDN work and the ongoing work on WHOIS. I reiterate the need for the TF to do the things which they agreed to in the minutes of the Marrakech meeting (and at previous meetings in Wellington and via teleconference). None of these things require staff resources -- they require the TF to do the work that has been set for it and agreed on unanimously at meetings. 1. Agree on an appropriate work schedule (this could have been done prior to today's meeting using email) at the conference call today. 2. Respond to the Preliminary Taskforce Report which has been posted and which has received no follow up input from any constituency since the Marrakech meeting. 3. Send to me suggestions for expert materials (which I have asked for many times and for which I've extended deadlines) that can be considered. I am well advanced on this work and will be consulting with Dan Halloran further on it before releasing materials for the TF to use. Until the group does the work above, it is premature to consider using any expert advisors or adding any additional resources -- the group haven't defined the questions they would ask assistance on as they are not sufficiently well informed yet. That is the purpose of providing to the group expert materials. Kind regards. Liz ... insert email referred to above -- sent 1 August in response to an off list set of questions.
Thank you for your note. There are several issues that you have raised and I respond to each in turn. The first is wrapped up in the posting of contracts which is John Jeffrey's domain. The second is resources for the PDP. At a personal level, you know that I have devoted substantial resources to this work, in addition to ensuring that the work is consistent with that being done in the new TLDs PDP. You also know that we have devoted substantial Council time to this work -- with conference calls and with a full day of discussion at the Marrakech meeting and a full day at the Wellington meeting. That is evident in the report which has been drafted. You also know that I take very seriously the existing ICANN Bylaws which I am obligated to follow as closely as possible -- even when the TF give themselves permission to extend their deadlines. What is missing in that equation is similar commitment from the Constituencies. We have seen a very poor response to the call for Constituency Statements and I have spent significant time asking for further information; cajoling members to submit; offering help where I could and ensuring that the process stayed on track. The quality of the constituency statements was generally poor -- they did not uniformally address the terms of reference which, as you say, are very important issues. It was clear at the Marrakech meeting that constituencies had not done any further work within their constituencies to clarify their views. I cannot write a report which makes up responses we did not receive nor can I second guess the constituencies views. I had given extra time for that work to take place post Marrakech and I have received nothing from any constituency. The third is the calendar. There is little point focusing on the calendar until substantive work is done by the constituencies on the second part of the action items which were listed in the Marrakech minutes. That was to provide me with detailed suggestions about expert materials for consideration by the TF in relation to specific TOR areas. I have received nothing from the constituencies -- despite repeated requests and reminders. As you know, I am preparing comprehensive materials to address particular areas -- in the absence of constituency input -- and I have to balance very carefully seriously competing objectives. That work is being done, most appropriately, in consultation with Dan Halloran who has also been heavily involved in the PDP from the beginning. I am not and have not ignored the need for "people" experts. The first step is to have the TF members actually do their homework and read about very specific areas of a PDP which are not within the existing expertise of the group. It is premature to involve any of the ACs or SOs at this stage -- the results of the work are immature and would not withstand scrutiny from those organisations. Indeed, the Preliminary Task Force Report has not been discussed by the GNSO Council as a whole and it certainly premature to expect GAC or other involvement without that step taking place first, as set out in the Bylaws. It is, as I have said separately, premature to be planning a face to face meeting. A face to face meeting is not a substitute for doing the work that is required for a face to face meeting to have any value. Repeating the Marrakech meeting, without having done the expert materials phase and without an intervening conference call with the group to discuss the impact of those materials is too early. The TF should also be seeking direction from the broader Council about the work. Finally on credibility of process. You are more than aware that the GNSO's policy development processes have improved markedly in the last year. You have been kind enough to thank me for those efforts and for the efforts of others. I would suggest that the credibility of the process, in this case alone, rests with the constituencies doing what you have said is important work. It may well be that the introduction of new TLDs, the discussion of IDNs and the ongoing debate on WHOIS is more important that this work and that is why we are seeing very low traction from the constituencies in this area. That should be a matter for the Council to discuss at its next call -- the group always struggles on prioritisation of tasks which requires the agreement of everyone rather than just the energy of a few. Kind regards. Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob On 09 Aug 2006, at 22:27, Marilyn Cade wrote: I raised a topic on the Council call last week and believe it should also be noted in the minutes of the TF meeting tomorrow as an issue of concern. I’ll preview it here for the TF members, and have copied Council, since not all Councilors are on the TF.
|