That the GNSO further explores PDP ‘chunking’ and examines each potential PDP as to its feasibility for breaking into discrete stages. |
| Working Party (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness): | CG - Accept as is. |
|---|---|
| Staff (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness): |
Rationale: MK: Accept as-is. The GNSO Council carefully considers with each PDP how it can be best addressed and recently there have even been DTs that have been assigned to explore the best approach for managing complex PDPs. |
| Basis for Assessment: | |
| Work in Progress: | Is being considered as part of upcoming PDPs such as New gTLD subsequent rounds/Purpose of gTLD Registration Data PDPs |
| Expected Completion Date for Work in Progress: | |
| Milestones: | |
| Responsibility: | GNSO Council/Staff |
Comment # | Submitted By | Affiliation | Comment |
Recommendation 14 (Continuous Development): That the GNSO further explores PDP ‘chunking’ and examines each potential PDP as to its feasibility for breaking into discrete stages. | |||
18 | Paul Diaz | gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group | (Support) |
55 | Osvaldo Novoa | ISPCP | (Support) Such an approach can assist in spreading the load across different people with SGs/Constituencies. It should not be assumed that this approach then facilitates dual running of groups engaged in separate parts of the activity. The intention should be to reduce the time constraints placed on participants. Otherwise this approach could effectively dilute the volunteer base available even more and raise more questions over the legitimacy of the process. |
119 | Will Hudson | If adopted would add greater accountability to the policy development process, increase metricsdriven policy decisions, and increase the efficacy of the process by leveraging the services of professional moderators, especially in circumstances where working group members may be conflicted. Additionally, we believe it is crucial that the GAC be involved earlier in the process. | |
180 | Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo | Business Constituency | Logical: breaking complex issues into different aspects should to be at the discretion of the WG on a case-by-case basis. Additional ICANN resources could be crucial in successfully “chunking” a PDP. |
208 | Stephanie Perrin | NCUC/NCSG | This proposal will only work if close attention is paid to the fairness of the procedures, and the scoping. |
251 | Greg Shatan | IPC | (Support) Although not all Policy Development Processes are ideal for a “chunking” methodology, an examination on each set of issues at a minimum seems appropriate. |
297 | Amr Elsadr |
| No objection to exploring this method of going through PDPs; considerations could include how implementation of policies being developed in “chunks” is performed. |
325 | Olivier Crepin-Leblond | ALAC | (Support) The ALAC notes that the use of “chunking” in the Cross Community Working Groups on IANA Stewardship and ICANN Accountability was quite successful and looks forward to learning from the GNSO’s further exploration of these working methods. |