2019-07-23 PDP3.0

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS:

- Staff to resend the Improvement #14 document link to the list to prompt the Small Team to review.

- Small Team to review the revised document by Friday, 26 June. Pam/Staff to incorporate suggested changes from the Small Team. Aim to deliver the final document to the Small Team by 31 July.

- Staff to update the tracking document for #14.

- Staff to put the title/description of the PDP improvements on the Google Doc of the charter template. The improvement references can be removed when the charter template is finalized.

- Darcy to work with staff to capture/reflect the concept regarding the anonymous survey for evaluating PDP WG leadership.

- Small Team to discuss the challenge mechanism in Darcy’s presentation during the next meeting (Staff to confirm with Rafik regarding the agenda).

NOTES

1. Welcome and roll call

2. #14

- Main change is the reordering of the checklist questions according to the headings of the data request form

- The questions highlighted in the original order list are suggested for deletion, especially regarding the questions about privacy, usage and storage in order not to overengineer the checklist. A general, overarching question has been suggested to replace those. See “Data Protection & Privacy” section.

- There are other laws re aggregated/anonymous data - e.g. EU competition law - so if we mention "applicable laws" maybe too limited? Suggest changed language to that bullet point to “Will the processing of the requested data comply with applicable laws and regulations, including any applicable data protection and privacy laws and regulations?”

- Small Team does not need to finalize the review of charter template now, as other improvements also have impact on the charter template. It may be the last document to be finalized in the package. There is also a formal adoption process by the Council on changes to the charter template.

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to resend the Improvement #14 document link to the list to prompt the Small Team to review.

- ACTION ITEM: Small Team to review the revised document by Friday, 26 June. Pam/Staff to incorporate suggested changes from the Small Team. Aim to deliver the final document to the Small Team by 31 July.

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to update the tracking document for #14

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to put the title/description of the PDP improvements on the Google Doc of the charter template. The improvement references can be removed when the charter template is finalized.

3. #13

- Darcy’s presentation. See details in the powerpoint slides.

- Link to the Working Group Self Assessment: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49362333. The survey now lives in a different tool, no longer QuestionPro, but the format and content are the same.

- Do we envision lot more policies due to the increasing number of small PDPs? In parallel unlikely. Isn't it taking the same policy development but cutting it into workable bits?

- There are some dependencies between different improvements in relations to evaluating PDP WG leadership.

- Are we aiming to create an anonymous survey for evaluating WG leadership? What would be the criteria (based on the job description of the WG chair)? There is a need to develop the framework for such survey, defining who, when, how, etc.

- The annual review potentially leads up to whether the WG leadership should be replaced. It is an escalation path. Next week the Small Team to review the business process in relations to the project list prototype. Some bullet points in the prototype turn into elaborate process. Scheduling of a project is one component, but condition of a project is more critical. The Council should be proactive in reviewing the leadership and mitigating issues early on.

- Liaison information and monthly report will lead the Council to be aware of issues.

- After the Small Team has reviewed the business process, it can circle back to the review of Improvement #13.

- Any anonymous survey should be limited to members, who are active during the period that the WG leadership is being evaluated, and it should not be open to observers. Survey respondents should be active members for some time. Need to avoid generic responses without detailed evaluation.

- Should the Small Team recommend appointing PDP leadership for 12-month periods? No, it may be effective just appointing leaders and do the annual review, rather than appointing leadership for the dedicated 12-month periods. There won’t be a 12-month term but an annual review process.

- Reviews should take into account how long PDP is expected to take.

- If a PDP takes 12-18 months, may be no need to do the annual review? Perhaps use the term “regular review” to provide flexibility. Could we just say annual reviews for PDPs that are expected to last more than 18 months?


- Significant slippage of timeline can be a trigger for a review. Consider adding text such as “such review can be triggered by significant delays of a PDP timeline, etc.”?

- A review should be neutral. Having a 12-month review period equally for all PDP leadership seems objective, rather than conducting review on a case by case basis by picking on PDPs. 

- The review of the leadership is just one part of the overall review of a PDP.

- ACTION ITEM: Darcy to work with staff to capture/reflect the concept regarding the anonymous survey for evaluating PDP WG leadership.

- ACTION ITEM: Small Team to discuss the challenge mechanism in Darcy’s presentation during the next meeting (Staff to confirm with Rafik regarding the agenda).

4. AOB

- Related improvements will be packaged and sent to the Council in a bite size fashion (e.g., send 3-4 improvements to the Council at one time).