RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] GNSO PDP Feb 06: Proposed Work Plan

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Maureen, for your thinking. 

 

It might be helpful to reflect on past practices. It has been the practice
for TFs to use interim reports, and preliminary drafts as means to document
and progress work. Experience in other TFs and in the Council has been that
having interim written materials /reports, help to organize and document and
drive work.  So, this is a baseline start, and I support the need to
continue to work as a TF, including identifying items and discussing them,
which is the way we are progressing work in other TFs.  That requires
working sessions of the TF, which can be done by conference call, and
transcribed. 

 

This report is clearly preliminary and I support that comment. However, as
the BC representatives stated in the first TF meeting and have continued to
note, we need to assist staff and ourselves by gaining additional expertise.
The continued effort to push work back into the Constituencies and to force
the constituencies to fund individual experts to provide additional input is
both not effective and doomed to failure. The only rational action is to
centralize gaining additional materials and expert information. There seems
to be an assumption that we as the TF wait for staff to do things. I believe
in other TFs, that work has been progressed by identifying topics and
discussing and debating them, and looking as optional sets of
recommendations, etc. 

 

I provided a rather robust set of suggestions for modifications to the work
plan last night that also change the dates around, and also structure conf.
calls to discuss expert materials, etc. 

 

 

We also have received some questions from a few sources, as staff requested,
which is a great contribution. In my modified work plan suggestions, I
suggested that a couple of additional days be provided for gathering
additional questions for independent experts.  But we could certainly
support the staff by examining the questions. We need to be actively engaged
as a TF. I'd certainly volunteer Alistair - JUST KIDDING - and myself to
participate in a call related to the discussion of the set of questions
submitted so far and to see if the list of questions sparks additional
thoughts from TF members to add to the core list of questions to ask the
independent experts.

 

As to funding for a face to face meeting, I  believe we need to be
proactive about pursuing that decision asap.  Regarding the ICANN travel
support. If we use the AT&T offer of free facilities, that will represent a
several thousand dollar saving. IF we book airfares now, we may get lower
rates for travel. IF we wait to make these decisions, fares go up. I admit
to a bias on using the AT&T facilities/my commute and my travel costs are
minimal. :-) 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cubberley, Maureen
(CHT)
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:33 AM
To: Cubberley, Maureen (CHT); Liz Williams; pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: m.cubberley@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] GNSO PDP Feb 06: Proposed Work Plan

 

Fellow TF Members, and ICANN Staff,

Liz, thank you for this draft work plan. As I noted in my email earlier
today, I have reviewed my notes from the Aug 10 task force teleconference
and the MP3 recording, and I have added some elements to the work plan and
altered the timeline to reflect the TF's discussion. I have also considered
the points that have been raised by some of the task force members in emails
over the past few days. 

I do understand that the dates you have proposed reflect the PDP guidelines
as they stand, and the importance of working within the PDP guidelines,
according to the bylaws. However, it is my view that the preliminary Report
does not contain the information we need to move forward within the
timeframes set out in the guidelines and bylaws. 

My understanding, and an understanding that was also voiced on the call by
other TF members, is that the PDP guidelines call for only two reports, a
Preliminary Report and a Final Report, and in between those two reports, the
TF meets and votes on the Preliminary Report. 

As I read the guidelines, there is an anticipation and understanding that
the Preliminary Report will contain all of the input and materials needed to
enable it to also contain analysis and conclusions.  What we have in this
particular preliminary Report for TF Feb 06 reads much more like initial
thinking. Analysis and conclusions are absent.

I realize that Liz has repeatedly asked the TF for additional input, and in
particular for specific input from the Constituencies. As well, some TF
members have asked that resources be allocated in order that we may solicit
expert advice on some of the questions raised in the Terms of Reference.

Consideration of the guidelines and bylaws is what is driving the work
schedule that has been proposed.  I continue, nonetheless, to believe that
it is counter-productive to place process before content and to adhere to a
process if the content is missing.  

While Staff has worked diligently to provide us with a Preliminary Report,
the reality is that it does not give us enough content to move ahead to the
Final Report, so we have asked for additional iterations of it.  This in
itself compromises the guidelines, which call for only 2 reports,
Preliminary and final, as I noted above.

Time has lapsed between the establishment of this TF and now. Please review
the adjustments I have made to the work plan that was originally proposed.
It is my intention that it these changes will

a) reflect the Aug 10 discussions more fully

b) provide a framework for moving to the Final Report stage as efficiently
and quickly as possible.

 

My changes are highlighted in yellow

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Williams
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 5:38 AM
To: pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] GNSO PDP Feb 06: Proposed Work Plan

 

Colleagues

 

I have set out below my understanding of where the group had agreement from
yesterday's call.  During the call, no motions were agreed and the minutes
will only reflect tentative discussions.

 

Work plan

 

16 August 2006:  Final edits to be sent on Preliminary Taskforce Report.
Please include "impact on constituency analysis" and identify specific areas
where expert opinion should be sought. and please provide specific text
change suggestions.

 

16 August 2006:  Final deadline for submission of suggestions for expert
materials

 

 

23 August 2006:  Distribution of expert materials for consideration by the
TF together with an analysis by Staff of whether the expert materials
provided  address the specific areas where advice is needed, or whether live
experts should be retained to work directly with the TF

 

21 September 2006: Proposed date for next teleconference I believe we need
to move this date up 

Proposed new date September 12. 

Note to Glen: Please ascertain TF and Staff availability for week of Sept 11
- 15, ideally before the Sept 14 GNSO Council Call 

- agenda will be sent 7 days prior to the call.  Call designed to discuss
expert materials and proceed with plans for bringing in experts, if needed. 

***PRIOR TO THIS MEETING, WE WILL KNOW IF WE HAVE FUNDS FOR A FACE TO FACE
MEETING

and impact on drafting of Preliminary Taskforce Report.  Note that this is
after the already scheduled Amsterdam meetings and after the regular GNSO
Council call on 14 September.

 

If Funds are available, schedule F2F meeting for 2 days during period
October 10, 11, 12. 3 locations have been proposed, DC, LA, Toronto

 

After October F2F Meeting - or - extended teleconferences instead of F2F
2006:  Release completed  Preliminary Taskforce Report and begin 20 day
public comment period

 

20 days later :  Public comment period closes

 

Note:  Remainder of schedule moves forward accordingly...and GNSO Council
meets in Sao Paulo to discuss and approve FINAL REPORT

 

 

20 October 2006:  Release of Final Report to GNSO Council -- please note
section 10 of PDP guidelines which refers to Council deliberation and, if
the Council chooses, hearing of expert advisors

 

30 October 2006:  GNSO Council meets to discuss Final Report.  Incorporation
of any final commentary. 

 

3 November 2006:  Release of Board Report.

 

Note that these dates reflect the PDP guidelines as they stand. 

 

I would appreciate a formal motion being passed to agree this schedule.
This can be done by email.  Note section 11 of the current PDP guidelines
that require minuting of all decisions for incorporation into the Board
Report.

 

In addition, I would also appreciate a motion that would approve the minutes
of the previous call -- please consult those minutes if you were present at
the meeting so that you can vote to accept those minutes before our next
teleconference.

 

Of course, any questions or comments, let me know.

 

Liz

 

....................................................

 

Liz Williams

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN - Brussels

+32 2 234 7874 tel

+32 2 234 7848 fax

+32 497 07 4243 mob