2019-09-24 PDP3.0

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS

- Staff to note that the review requirement/process of WG leadership needs to be incorporated in the charter template after ICANN66

- Staff to revise the proposed documents for #13, incorporating feedback from the Small Team.

- Staff to check PDP 3.0 recommendations/implementation plan and consider whether a process of replacing WG leadership needs to be developed. If no existing recommendation for this, consider adding the process to the parking lot.

- Staff to offer a second time slot for the meeting between PDP WG liaisons and Small Team.

NOTES

1. Welcome & Roll Call

2. Package 3

#13 Review of working group leadership (~Emily)

- Survey already has final language.  

- Second piece is the process of reviewing the WG leadership by drawing on the results of the survey and other components.  

- Go through the use case (i.e. AAA Working Group) of the process by reviewing the questions for discussion:

• Is this the right way to structure the review of WG leadership, noting that we want the process to be constructive and ensure that no volunteer feels attacked or criticized?
• Are there any adjustments we can make that ensure that issues/opportunities are identified while also ensuring volunteers feel supported and appreciated? 
• Does this process effectively complement work underway on other PDP 3.0 improvements without being duplicative?

- Need to update the charter of the WG in order to incorporate the language of the review cycle of WG leadership. If a PDP is not phased, it may be helpful to say the review cycle happens once every (xx) months.

- Set the review process at the beginning for PDPs that haven’t started. Another piece is about inflight PDPs, need to consider whether an ad-hoc process needs to be incorporated (avoid making volunteers feel that the review process is sprung on them)

- Probably need about two weeks of survey period, taking into consideration the holiday breaks.

- Important to have the expectation of minimum, viable number of responses from active members, depending on the WG model the PDP has. Qualitative data may also be useful too. May need to flag that the validity of the survey does not solely depend on the survey response rate. Put some language to this effect at the beginning of the survey.

- Add wording that only active members are allowed to participate in the survey? Be careful with setting limitations. Observers shouldn’t be participating in the survey?

- Anonymous survey, access to the data can be available to members of the WG (with names of respondents redacted).

- Should we provide additional guidance to the Council leadership how to identify issues, so the review of WG leadership process can be carried out? It is hard to anticipate the type of issues that will come up, but we can add some questions in the document to prompt the thought process of the Council.

- Have the review kicked off at the request from the Council liaison to the PDP, besides at the request of Council leadership? Liaisons are there to monitor and evaluate whether the WG process is working or not working. It could be tricky and be perceived by the WG leadership as criticism or attack.

- If there is a serious problem arising at the leadership level, it could be escalated without a survey? Survey can also be part of the evaluation process if circumstances arise.

- Another challenge is the replacement of WG leadership. Do we need any additional document developed for this process?

- No formal procedure for such event, but there are other triggers (e.g., escalation procedure) that may lead to the recommendation of replacing WG leadership. May need to develop a process to remove WG leadership, which falls in between several improvements.

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to note that the review requirement/process of WG leadership needs to be incorporated in the charter template after ICANN66

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to revise the proposed documents for #13, incorporating feedback from the Small Team.

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to check PDP 3.0 recommendations/implementation plan and consider whether a process of replacing WG leadership needs to be developed. If no existing recommendation for this, consider adding the process to the parking lot.

#5 Active role for and clear description of Council liaison to PDP working groups (~Steve)

- Cannot accommodate everyone in the timeslot selected (Thu 26 Sep at 22:00 UTC) for the Small Team meeting with liaisons. Maybe schedule another meeting, and also encourage liaisons to provide written responses, if they cannot attend the second call.

- Provide status update first at the beginning of the meeting with liaisons.

- Council liaisons did not have a full grasp of what their responsibilities are. PDPs really give rise to the need to improve the role of liaisons and a number of other PDP 3.0 improvements.

- Some actions include integrating the liaisons into the leadership team, making sure there is handoff process, etc.

- No written feedback from liaisons yet, but hopefully will receive helpful verbal feedback during the call.

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to offer a second time slot for the meeting between PDP WG liaisons and Small Team.

3. AOB