<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Issues with current draft final report
- To: PDPfeb06 <pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Issues with current draft final report
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:36:49 -0500
On 21 nov 2006, at 14.14, Liz Williams wrote:
There are some very specific requirements which must be included in
any TF report -- reference to the PDP TF guidelines shows that what
is included in the draft, at the headline level, is already there.
The organisation and flow can be improved with commentary from the
group.
I was not specifically recommending removing any necessary elements.
Rather I am recommending substitution with more concise and
understandable content, with the current content, in some cases moved
to addenda. I have no intention of asking you to remove content type
that needs to be there.
i.e. - instead of attendance tables - text explaining the process,
including the existence of transcripts and list discussions, and
indicating that attendance was logged and can be found in addendum X.
i.e. - the somewhat fleshed out skeleton that list the
recommendations with the minimum necessary discussion and cross
reference to the complete discussion contained in the addendum with
the full test of the Rapporteur reports.
I would appreciate the input of others on the working document
which has already been released.
Yes, I would as well. however, I hope my comments are not minimized
by being the comments of a non constituency single person.
The major new elements to be incorporated are the "straw poll"
table which I released today -- that is a first cut and needs
improvement to reflect the intentions of the group, particularly
with respect to the difference between the TOR and the draft policy
recommendations. These two things do not map directly and need
further explanation in the "straw poll" table.
I do not understand this. Each ToR has several recommendation within
its heading. the ToR is the major heading while the recommendations
are minor heading within that major heading.
A number of participants (Jon Nevett and Jeff Neuman in particular)
proposed new text for recommendations which was mentioned on the
call but not provided in the MP3 recording...could that be sent to
me ASAP?
Yes, that is the augmented text I was refering to when I said:
- While the Rapporteur reports need to be included as addenda,
they should not be part of the body of the report. Instead, the
brief report sent by Maureen (she calls it a skeleton), with some
updates and corrections as discussed during the last calls should
be put in place of the cut and paste Rapporteur reports. and the
Rapporteur reports should be included as addenda.
The major piece of work that needs completing is the shifting of
"individual" views to confirmed constituency statements -- that can
happen at the working session at the SP meeting.
I think we already have some of the consituency straw ballots and
need the rest. I agree that this seems a good object for the SP
meeting, but I still think it would be good to use the info from the
last meetings for tentative/preliminary support indication.
Note that from the skeleton report the "levels of support" measure
would show that none of the proposed recommendations have "strong"
support as defined by the chair for the purposes of the 17 November
call. That can be remedied by referring back to the constituencies
the views of individuals in time for the SP session.
That is ok. We should show tentative support for now and move it one
way or the other depending on the completed constituency straw ballot.
I would expect the following next steps which I outlined in my
email earlier today:
1. confirmation of the straw poll table -- come back to me
directly with amendments
though i think any changed straw ballot indications of support should
be public.
2. improvements on the content and structure of the draft Task
Force report -- come back to me with direct amendments and drafting
changes
I think there will be additional textual edits once the form of the
draft is clearer and more concise.
3. completion of the preparations for SP -- I will send an agenda
tomorrow for the Dec 4 meeting.
thanks for the response.
a.
Liz
.....................................................
Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob
On 21 Nov 2006, at 18:06, Avri Doria wrote:
hi,
In reading through the current draft of the final report I am
concerned that its organization is problematic and that in its
current form it will make reaching closure on the final report
much more difficult then it needs to be.
Some of the difficulties I see:
- the attendance reports being so prominent has been seen as
punitive by some. While the information is important in showing
details of the process it is more appropriate to an addendum then
to the front of the document. I think the process should be
described and the fact that attendance was tracked included. The
tracking tables should then me moved to an addendum.
- much of the background discussion in Rapporteur's groups, while
important, contains statements that not all constituencies con
agree with as conclusions or main report content. Trying to get
this language acceptable to all might take a very long time.
- I find the way the consituency reports are scattered in and
between the Rapporteur groups to be confusing. I think it should
be easy to go to the constituency chapter in the report and find
their comments on each ToR.
- While the latest mailing on the Straw ballot is a good start, it
seems to be organized in terms of ToR instead of recommendations
within the ToR. Or maybe I am just not reading it correctly.
While the forthcoming draft of the final report cannot be released
as a final report until the TF has had a time to read and discuss
it as a complete document, perhaps we can again follow the lead
of the PDP 05 group and release it as a working document that can
be distributed to constituencies and others for comment in SP.
This would minimally fulfill the commitment to have something for
the community, the council and the board to take into
consideration by SP.
But, unfortunately, I think that the draft final report needs
major fixes before it can even be released as a working document.
I suggest that the following is necessary:
- The attendance tables need to be moved to end as addenda.
- While the Rapporteur reports need to be included as addenda,
they should not be part of the body of the report. Instead, the
brief report sent by Maureen (she calls it a skeleton), with some
updates and corrections as discussed during the last calls should
be put in place of the cut and paste Rapporteur reports. and the
Rapporteurreports should be included as addenda.
- The constituency reports must, of course, remain in the report,
though they should not be mixed in with the Rapporteur content and
should be individually included as a section of the main body of
the report as seems to be the tradition with other task force
reports.
- While the straw poll table needs to be included as an addenda,
the updated policy recommendation section should include the level
of support - which can be listed as tentative until after the SP
meeting.
In thinking about it, I think we still need to get full
constituency results (support, no support, abstain) for the straw
polls. As part of the agenda for the next meeting, I would like
to ask the constituencies to review their constituencies' straw
votes and fill in the blanks.
Given some of our discussions I am not sure how this fits with the
other TF members views. I do think we need to remove language
from the main part of the report that we cannot come to closure
on. I also think we need to work toward closure on the report -
including a description of both points of agreement and points of
disagreement, as quickly as reasonable. I think the last meeting
with its ordered progression through the recommendations was quite
productive and am only sorry I had to drop out before the end.
In terms of the agenda for the Sao Paolo meeting I think it could
include:
- review of the constituency positions on the recommendations
- review of the revised working document - which Liz will post on
27 Nov
- determine what must be done before the working draft of the
final report is ready for vote and full release as the final
report of the TF.
thanks
a.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|