ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[pdp-pcceg-feb06]


<<< 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 20:08:54 +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 18:07:28 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: RE: Today's AGENDA RE: PD Feb 06 - considerations for going forward


Fyi, here is the reference for my question 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?



http://www.icann.org/minutes/





maureen





From: Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:41 AM
To: Cubberley, Maureen (CHT); pdpfeb06-wg1@xxxxxxxxx; pdpfeb06- wg2@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Bruce Tonkin; Maureen Cubberley; Liz Williams
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 >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy