<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[pdp-pcceg-feb06] Fwd: Today's AGENDA RE: PD Feb 06 - considerations for going forward
- To: pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Fwd: Today's AGENDA RE: PD Feb 06 - considerations for going forward
- From: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:09:13 +0100
this is being re-sent on Maureen's behalf.
.....................................................
Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Cubberley, Maureen \(CHT\)" <MCubberley@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri 17 Nov 2006 17:41:08 GMT+01:00
To: "Cubberley, Maureen \(CHT\)" <MCubberley@xxxxxxxxx>, <pdpfeb06-
wg1@xxxxxxxxx>, <pdpfeb06-wg2@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Maureen
Cubberley" <m.cubberley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Liz Williams"
<liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Today's AGENDA RE: PD Feb 06 - considerations for going
forward
Dear Members of the PDP Feb 06 Task Force,
For today’s call, I propose that we address the questions that I
asked in this memo, which was originally said yesterday morning,
and those questions that are inherent in it.
We are at a crossroads because we have the Draft Report that
indicates no supermajority on any of the draft policy
recommendations put forward, and a PDP timeline established in the
bylaws that requires that the report be made public. I have
expressed this personal view in the past and will do so again; our
deliberations seemed to be driven by flawed bylaws in that, once
again, process appears to be taking precedent over substance.
The questions from the end of my memo, (which follows in its
entirety), are excerpted here;
A. Do you believe we can make progress if we continue the detailed
discussions that we are now engaged in?
B. Do you believe we should go back to the beginning and develop
new Terms of Reference?
C. I don't have a question C, but I'm sure someone will. (Always a
good idea to leave room for alternate suggestions)
In addition to those questions, I pose the following ones,
1. We have a Draft Task Force Report. According to the bylaws it
is required to go forward. If it goes forward as it is it will do
so indicating that we have not reached supermajority on any of the
elements. Our option then would be to seek Council’s advice as to
the next steps, and to provide recommendations as to what those
next steps might be. One of the options could be developing new
terms of reference, as I noted in question B. above.
So the question is, should we send the Draft Task Force Report
forward now?
2. The Board will meet on November 22, and may approve the three
contracts that are currently under negotiation. If they do, what
will be the impact on the work of this Task Force?
3. If we do choose to carry on with the discussions that we are now
engaged in, with the objective of determining the level of support
for the draft recommendations put forward by the two rapporteur
groups, what is the best way to utilize staff resources to support
this process?
I look forward to speaking with you in a couple of hours.
Best regards,
Maureen
From: Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 10:50 AM
To: 'pdpfeb06-wg1@xxxxxxxxx'; 'pdpfeb06-wg2@xxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin'; Maureen Cubberley; Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)
Subject: PD Feb 06 - considerations for going forward
Dear Members of the PDP Feb 06 Task Force,
Subsequent to my request to Bruce, an update on PDP Feb 06 with
respect to existing gTLDs was added to today's council meeting
agenda, under item #5. It is my intention to address the items I
raise in this e-mail during today's Council teleconference.
Please accept my apologies for the 11th hour delivery of this memo.
This final version differs from the original I intended to send a
as you will see, as you read on. I am sending it to you now, so
you have it in advance of the council meeting
Yesterday, in Bruce's posting to the Council list regarding Topics
for GNSO Public forum on Wednesday 6 Dec 2006, he noted that
“(1) PDP-Feb06 - contractual conditions for existing TLDs
I am assuming that we may not have recommendations with consensus
support ready for this meeting, so it might be useful to have a few
presentations with different perspectives.”
And then Ross posted to the list regarding the PDP 05 report.
And thus began my dilemma.
Prior to receiving this e-mail from Bruce I, had drafted a short
memo to you, the Task Force, suggesting that we consider revisiting
the terms of reference. I had predicated this suggestion on my
understanding of the following factors.
(Please note, these are personal observations based on my
experience with ICANN – the wholistic ICANN - the community, ICANN
Board and Staff, as an individual whose career and volunteer life
has provided many opportunities to work with and in groups.)
Factors influencing my suggestion regarding the Terms of Reference
1. While the PDP Feb 06 Terms of Reference was passed by a majority
decision at the meeting in Wellington, the Registry constituency,
from the beginning, was on record saying that many of the elements
of the terms of reference were “out of scope”.
2. Contracts for renewals continue to be negotiated while the task
force is still working. My written request for clarification on the
status of the task force's work in light of these ongoing
negotiations yielded a response but in my view, it provided
inadequate clarification.
3. The task force has attempted several working methods to address
the Terms of Reference, including working as a whole and working as
two separate groups of rapporteurs. Progress has been made in that
draft recommendations / straw proposals have been developed to
address some elements of some of the terms of reference. Indeed,
the work of the rapporteur groups has been persistent and productive.
4. It seemed clear that the next step, then, was to take what we
had - the draft recommendations/ straw proposals - and determine
where the support is and how strong it is for each of them. Once we
had an indication of that level of support we would then advise
staff to incorporate those recommendations into the Task Force
Report, together with analysis of the deliberations and the
outcomes. That is, where there is strong enough support the
recommendations would go forward as such. And where there is not,
the variances would be identified, and the work further developed
as a series of policy options that reflects the diversity of
opinion on the task force.
5. Each time we have attempted to determine the level of support
for the work that has been done, we have instead, spent our time
discussing, more often debating, an even more often arguing about
the terms of reference themselves, despite employing a variety of
approaches to accomplishing the task. With one constituency firmly
believing that the work we have undertaken is inappropriate, and
“out of scope” this is understandable.
6. We have been close to, but never entirely able to come to
agreement about what constitutes qualified “expert advice”, and its
role in our deliberations.
So, my initial thinking was that one way to work with this dilemma
was to return to the starting point, and approach Council with a
request that the original terms of reference be reconsidered, and
that new terms of reference be developed. The flaw in that thinking
of course, is that it ignores the underlying and substantial
conflict of beliefs that exists within the ICANN community about
the appropriateness, or not, of keeping contract negotiation and
policy work separate.
And then Bruce’s e-mail came, suggesting that it might be useful to
have a few presentations with different perspectives. My initial
response to this was that it would not be useful; it would,
instead, emphasize the continuing and likely permanent opinion
split that exists in the task force. More importantly I did not see
how it would advance our work. And at this point advancing our
work is what I am most interested in.
And then Ross posted a comment that the Council list regarding PDP
05. I knowingly take it out of context here, in order to present
another approach. Ross wrote;
“……………..excerpt…………..Opinions only become shared realities through
discussion - such as those that happen within the Council. Its real
tough to make progress on any issues until the range of opinions,
interests and positions are understood.”
His words have caused me to reconsider my initial recommendation
that we returned to the beginning and develop new terms of
reference for PDP Feb 06. Please note, I say reconsider, not abandon.
Ideally, we should take the time to engage in the discussion that
will yield “shared realities”. Doing so, however, will mean
consciously abandoning the established PDP timeline and making an
informed decision to allocate a significant amount of time over the
coming months, and I would estimate it will take at least six
months, to complete that discussion.
My questions as Chair of This Task Force to you, the Task Force
members are these –
A. Do you believe we can make progress if we continued the detailed
discussions that we are now engaged in?
B. Do you believe we should go back to the beginning and develop
new Terms of Reference?
C. I don't have a question C, but I'm sure someone will. (Always a
good idea to leave room for alternate suggestions)
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Maureen
Maureen Cubberley, Director
Public Library Services Branch
Department of Culture, Heritage and Tourism
Government of Manitoba
mcubberley@xxxxxxxxx
http://maplin.gov.mb.ca
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|