2019-05-28 PDP3.0

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS

• Re #2, Staff to update the document by including a list of criteria/consideration to provide guidance on which WG model to use. Staff to circulate a google doc for the Small Team to comment. (DONE)
• Small Team to review the chartering and termination of PDPs sections in the WG Guidelines, consider whether sufficient flexibility has been provided and whether they continue to be fit for purpose. With respect to the drafting of PDP Working Group charters, see pp.62-65 and 71 of the GNSO Operating Procedures. With respect to the termination of PDPs (including EPDP), see pp.75-76 and 85 of the GNSO Operating Procedures: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-18jun18-en.pdf
• Rafik Dammak and staff to follow up with Heather and Donna about purpose of recommendation #14. 

NOTES

1. Welcome and roll call

2. #2

• Three models: 1) open WG model, 2) representative model (e.g., EPDP), 3) hybrid model (e.g., CCWG). The revised document highlights what approach/aspect would be like for each model.
• Questions for the Small Team: 1) Are there any other criteria that should be defined? 2) What are the considerations the Council/Drafting Team should take into account?
• There may be a need to develop a checklist or decision tree in order to provide guidance on which model to use. Fill in the “considerations” before developing the checklist. This step is to avoid using gut feeling to decide which model to choose.
• Since the WG model choices are not that many, deciding on which model to choose should be principle based, rather than rule based. It should not be over engineered.
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to update the document by including a list of criteria/consideration to provide guidance on which WG model to use. Staff to circulate a google doc for the Small Team to comment.

3. #14

• The checklist has some redundancy with the Decision Tree and the Tips/Hints in the WG guidelines. Some of the questions will be hard to answer upon request. What is to be done if there is no budget available?
• Checklist should be used by both the WG and the Council. There should be some initial investigation to determine if there is any budget available. The questions have taken into account some elements to be considered in the procurement process.
• The purpose of the checklist is to make the process more effective and predictable. For data storage and privacy, for instance, should we include the limits in these areas?
• The documentation/checklists are to help make decision-making more consistent and effective for current and future Councils.
• Flexibility doesn’t mean that there should be an absence of guidance. We should try to build something that lasts for many years. Flexibility guidance/guidelines are needed for future Councils. 
• Questions about context of the checklist. Need to think of the original problem statement, especially termination. Data requests should not be used as a delay tactic. Maybe need to review SPS report and/or consult with Heather/Donna.
• ACTION ITEM: Small Team to review the chartering and termination of PDPs sections in the WG Guidelines, consider whether sufficient flexibility has been provided and they continue to be fit for purpose. With respect to the drafting of PDP Working Group charters, see pp.62-65 and 71 of the GNSO Operating Procedures. With respect to the termination of PDPs (including EPDP), see pp.75-76 and 85 of the GNSO Operating Procedures: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-18jun18-en.pdf
• ACTION ITEM: Rafik Dammak and Staff to follow up with Heather, Donna about purpose of recommendation #14

4. Planning for ICANN65

• There is limitation in schedule for the small team to meet at ICANN65, but need to determine where it best fits.