The PDP3.0 call is scheduled for Tuesday, 27 August 2019 at 13:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
To check your time zone conversion: https://tinyurl.com/yxa4bsr9
PROPOSED AGENDA
- Welcome and roll call
- Proposed workplan/timeline & ICANN66 planning. (45 minutes – Rafik & Ariel )
- (time permitting) #11 Enforce Deadlines and Ensure Bite Size Pieces. Seek clarification and guidance. (~TBD minutes - Berry)
- AOB
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
PARTICIPATION
Notes/ Action Items
ACTION ITEMS:
- Staff to work with Rafik and Pam to develop a proposal on how to solicit input from the wider GNSO community for PDP 3.0 improvement implementation
- Staff to circulate the workplan with the Small Team for comments/input
NOTES:
1. Welcome and roll call
2. Proposed workplan/timeline & ICANN66 planning
- The Small Team needs to further discuss how to solicit input from the wider GNSO Community. PDP 3.0 may not be of great interest to all Councilors.
- A point to consider to do the consultation before Montreal = current Council are up to speed. Doing if after = education & possible divergence in new Council?
- We need to be careful with messaging; input from community = good; re-litigating from point zero = not good.
- ACTION ITEM: Staff to work with Rafik and Pam to develop a proposal on how to solicit input from the wider GNSO community for PDP 3.0 improvement implementation
- ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate the workplan with the Small Team for comments/input
3. #11 & #12 & #16
- #16 has multiple products feed into it (e.g., gantt chart, fact sheet, project situation report, etc.).
- See Berry’s email to the Small Team last weekend regarding the suggestion for how to implement #16. Slowly introduce the work products without interruption of current work. Project situation report would be the main work product reflecting the progress in a WG. #16 will wrap up when #11 is completed.
- #12 is related to #11. Staff is in process creating six use cases to complement the escalation procedure.
- Project change request (#12) helps formalize the request process when a WG needs to change its delivery schedule: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1atq-97a4KlNixU7xkMqH-7l-pHLH5T5zQvP4YhZqZ8w/edit
- Formalizing the change process at this stage is a huge leap for the Council as many Councilors may not have project management experience/training. Consider doing this in the future phase of PDP 3.0? It seems a lot of formality coming out of the gate, worried about how sustainable it is for the Council.
- The Council needs to decide: 1) how many PDPs can be launched at the same time; 2) chartering; 3) when a WG misses the target, the process to change the delivery schedule needs to be managed, in addition to other important changes (e.g., shaving down the charter, change of WG leadership, terminate the PDP).
- WGs doing a better job of informing the Council about issues cropping up in PDPs is critical. It is part of the concern around the project change request process, and how formal that seems?
- Having a PCR will help the WG leadership understand they need to make request early on if they see target is slipping. This is about EARLY intervention to mitigate a need for a PCR. But when it is invoked, it should be formal.
- implementing something sustainable with Council has to be considered. It’s a process to move from wishful thinking to pragmatic management. It can’t happen overnight.
4. AOB
