[] The New GNSO Policy Development Process Presented for Approval

[Alex Gakuru]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Note: the unanimity of the PDP WG had to do with the report being an
> accurate representation of the discussion and the compromise struck by the
> participants.
>
> It did not mean we all agreed on everything.  But we did play nicely
> together.
>

As a co-member of the PDP-WT, I confirm the above statement by Avri.

regards,

Alex


> ------------
>
>
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31may11-en.htm
>
> 中文
>
> English
>
> Français
>
> Español
>
> Русский
>
> 日本語
>
> Deutsch
>
> Português
>
> 한국어
>
> Italiano
>
> The New GNSO Policy Development Process Presented for Approval
>
> Policy Development Process Work Team Submits its Final Report
>
> 31 May 2011
>
> The Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) was tasked to develop a
> new GNSO policy development process that incorporates a working group
> approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN’s policy
> development needs. Today, the PDP-WT has submitted its Final Report
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf[PDF, 1.39 MB] to the GNSO Council for its consideration. The Final Report
> contains amongst others forty-seven (47) recommendations, an outline of the
> proposed new Annex A as well as a supporting document that is envisioned to
> be included in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures as the PDP Manual.
>
> The Recommendations include amongst others:
>
>    - Recommending the use of a standardized "Request for an Issue Report
>    Template"
>    - The introduction of a "Preliminary Issues Report" which shall be
>    published for public comment prior to the creation of a Final Issues Report
>    to be acted upon by the GNSO Council
>    - A Requirement that each PDP Working Group operate under a Charter
>    - Dialogue between the GNSO Council and an Advisory Committee in the
>    event that an the GNSO Council decides not to initiate a PDP following an
>    Issues Report requested by such Advisory Committee
>    - Changing the existing Bylaws requiring a mandatory public comment
>    period upon initiation of a PDP to optional at the discretion of the PDP
>    Working Group
>    - Clarification of ‘in scope of ICANN policy process or the GNSO’
>    - Changing the timeframes of public comment periods including (i) a
>    required public comment period of no less than 30 days on a PDP Working
>    Group’s Initial Report and (ii) a minimum of 21 days for any non-required
>    public comment periods the PDP WG might choose to initiate at its discretion
>    - Maintaining the existing requirement of PDP Working Groups producing
>    both an Initial Report and Final Report, but giving PDP Working Groups the
>    discretion to produce additional outputs
>    - A recommendation allowing for the termination of a PDP prior to
>    delivery of the Final Report
>    - Guidance to the GNSO Council on the treatment of PDP WG
>    recommendations
>    - New procedures on the delivery of recommendations to the Board
>    including a requirement that all reports presented to the Board are reviewed
>    by either the PDP Working Group or the GNSO Council and made publicly
>    available
>    - The use of Implementation Review Teams
>
> Further details and background on the different recommendations, the
> proposed Annex A and PDP Manual can be found in the PDP-WT Final Report
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf[PDF, 1.39 MB]. The GNSO Council will now consider this Final Report for
> adoption.
> *Background*
>
> On 26 June 2008 the ICANN Board approved a set of recommendations<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>designed to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy
> activities, structure, operations, and communications. The following
> pertains to the PDP-WT's mission:
>
> *Revising the PDP*: The Policy Development Process (PDP) needs to be
> revised to make it more effective and responsive to ICANN's needs. It should
> be brought in-line with the time and effort actually required to develop
> policy and made consistent with ICANN's existing contracts (including, but
> not limited to, clarifying the appropriate scope of GNSO “consensus policy”
> development). While the procedure for developing "consensus policies" will
> need to continue to be established by the Bylaws as long as required by
> ICANN's contracts, the GNSO Council and Staff should propose new PDP rules
> for the Board's consideration and approval that contain more flexibility.
> The new rules should emphasize the importance of the preparation that must
> be done before launch of a working group or other activity, such as public
> discussion, fact-finding, and expert research in order to properly define
> the scope, objective, and schedule for a specific policy development goal
> and the development of metrics for measuring success.
>
> The revised PDP, after review and approval by the GNSO Council and ICANN
> Board, would replace the current PDP defined in Annex A of the ICANN bylaws.
>
> *Further Information:*
>
> PDP-WT Final Report –
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf[PDF, 1.39 MB]
> PDP-WT Proposed Final Report –
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-proposed-final-report-21feb11-en.pdf[PDF, 1.21 MB]
> PDP-WT Initial Report –
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-initial-report-31may10-en.pdf [PDF, 2.35
> MB]
> PDP-WT Workspace –
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/PDP-WT+Home
> GNSO Improvements – http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/* *
>
> *Staff Responsible*: Marika Konings
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
>
> GNSO Secretariat
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110602/12ae7483/attachment-0001.html>