The PDP3.0 call is scheduled for Tuesday, 13 August 2019 at 13:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
To check your time zone conversion: https://tinyurl.com/yxpnao34
PROPOSED AGENDA
- Welcome and roll call
- #3. Criteria for joining of new members after a PDP working group is formed or re-chartered. Final Review of Finalized Documents. (~15 minutes – Marie/Julie)
- #6. Document expectations for WG leaders that outlines role & responsibilities as well as minimum skills/expertise required. Final Review of Finalized Document. (~30 minutes – Philippe/Julie)
- Time permitting, #13 Review of Working Group Leadership. Review of the Draft Anonymous Survey. (~TBD minutes – Darcy)
- Time permitting, #16 Criteria for PDP WG Updates. Introduction. (~ TBD minutes – Berry)
- AOB
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
PARTICIPATION
Notes/ Action Items
ACTION ITEMS
- Staff to include the suggestion and clarify the process for an observer changing status to a member in the charter template revision.
- Staff to put in the parking lot about tools/processes for WG leaders to assess whether there is a sufficient number of WG members present to proceed with a WG meeting.
- Darcy to work with staff to produce the draft anonymous survey and share with the Small Team by the end of August.
- Staff to reserve a placeholder meeting for the PDP 3.0 Small Team in ICANN66 Montreal.
NOTES
1. Welcome and roll call
2. #3
- Regarding the general comment from Elsa made on #2 but is related to #3 (related to Observer status), it doesn’t fit in #3 but can be incorporated in the charter template revision.
- It is relevant to say that some people joining the WG in order to support current members who are trying to reopen previously closed items or delay the progress. This happened before.
- Recommend rephrasing the sentence to make it more ‘procedural’. Revision is not content related, only to modify the tone.
- Suggested revision: However, new members may not join for reasons that the GNSO Council does not procedurally support, such as reopening old conversations or delaying certain conversations in bad faith to delay the progress of the Working Group.
- Use “consider” instead of “examine”, as examine creates a different expectation.
- Keep the bullet point “The Working Group Charter dictates levels of representation and the new member would alter that level of representation.”
- Text in Annex 1 is pulled from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. All the suggested changes for WG guidelines won’t be accepted.
- ACTION ITEM: Staff to include the suggestion and clarify the process for an observer changing status to a member in the charter template revision.
3. #6
- Philippe’s suggestion, overall comment #2 has been incorporated in suggested language on page 6 and page 11. The other points may not be appropriate to be addressed in the document.
- “Unless the appeal is against the Working Group leaders” – no need to have such language. The current process does not include this exception.
- “Working Group leaders may be able to distinguish between Working Group participants offering genuine dissent and those raising irrelevant or already-closed issues merely to block the Working Group’s progress toward its goal.” --> How this can be done? Leaders may make a determination in bad faith, so we want to prevent leaders abusing that power. If leaders abuse that power, there is an appeal process.
- Change “may” to “should”. It is really a skill that a leader should have. It is an expectation.
- How was this point added? A lot of the content was taken from the “GNSO Basics: Module 2c – GNSO Working Groups Chair’s Guide”: https://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/101/wg-chairs-guide
- ACTION ITEM: Staff to put in the parking lot about tools/processes for WG leaders to assess whether there is a sufficient number of WG members present to proceed with a WG meeting.
4. #13 (time permitting)
- Refer to the four themes for the anonymous survey posted by Darcy in Slack on 8 Aug.
- Would it be a long survey? How do we phrase these questions for respondents to provide valuable input?
- 2 questions per theme, and the language comes from the expectations document for WG leaders.
- Marie’s suggested theme: “would it also be appropriate to add whether they are approachable/responsive to WG members”. This theme may be related to theme 3 or 4.
- ACTION ITEM: Darcy to work with staff to produce the draft anonymous survey and share with the Small Team by the end of August.
5. #16 (time permitting)
- The Small Team did not have time to address this item.
6. AOB
- Should the PDP 3.0 Small Team meet in Montreal? Small Team is aiming to finish its work before Montreal. Maybe a meeting would be helpful to reflect on the work and discuss the items in the parking lot/next phase of PDP 3.0.
- ACTION ITEM: Staff to reserve a placeholder meeting for the PDP 3.0 Small Team in ICANN66 Montreal.
