The PDP3.0 call is scheduled for Tuesday, 01 October 2019 at 13:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
To check your time zone conversion: https://tinyurl.com/yxtw5e3z
PROPOSED AGENDA
- Welcome and roll call
- Package 4 Improvements (~Flip)
- #9 Provide further guidance for section 3.6 and clarification of section 3.7
- #15 Independent Conflict Resolution
- AOB
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
As a reminder, please check Flip’s latest memo on #9 in advance of next week’s call. You should be able to provide comments directly on the Google Doc, if you wish:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mZ2Xr511FnvMASNVGR7CI2MqLHoaQigdeuL1MkojiN8/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
PARTICIPATION
Notes/ Action Items
ACTION ITEMS
- Staff to organize a super small team (including Flip, Rafik, Pam, Heather, Staff) and create a first draft proposal for #9.
- Staff to circulate the draft response to the MSM public comment, and Small Team to provide input/feedback. Aim to share the draft response with the Council by this Friday, 4 October.
NOTES
1. Welcome & Roll Call
2. Package 4 Improvements
#9
- The latest memo focuses on the changes in the Operating Procedure and further fine tuning of the changes.
- Need to take into account the comments from Heather and see how we can put her comments into concrete text.
- We have three memos to describe the issues and challenges, and we have comments from Heather and input from others. We can start with what we are aiming to deliver first and what we expect to do with the Operating Procedure. Start with a single document, add comments from Heather and others, and create 2-3 versions.
- Set up a super small team to develop a first draft proposal.
- Focus on what the improvements is about. The deliverable should be a proposed amendment to Section 3.6/3.7.
- The problem is that discussion about the previous memo was a while ago, it would be good to go through the memos and refresh the memory.
- Staff and some community members have concrete experience with 3.6/3.7. These experiences should be incorporated into the proposal.
- Comment 1 from Heather: being succinct – an appeal should have a 500-word limit? 1,000 words will span over two pages. If PDFs with e-mails are allowed, then it is ok.
- Second comment: avoid over engineering of the process. A complainant represented by a legal counsel raised several issues.
- Comment 4: If the WG Chair(s) have different views about the appeals, what does that mean? Should they refer the issue to the appeals committee? Do we want this kind of issue being handled expeditiously based on certain timeframe? Perhaps the liaison has an initial role to play if the co-chairs are in conflict? Would the liaison be a facilitator, or communicator between the Co-Chairs and the Appeals Committee?
- Comment 5: how to demonstrate that a single member gets sufficient amount of support? If no one actually supports the complaint, does that mean the process gets suspended?
- Comment 7: what does the Ombudsman do in this situation? Not sure whether having the Ombudsman handle the complaint is the way to go. The Ombudsman has jurisdiction over very limited issues. Complainant about the expected standards and behaviors can be handled by the Ombudsman. 3.6/3.7 complaints are more about the conduct of the WG chair. It may be more appropriate to confine this within the GNSO. Try to understand why the point of Ombudsman is raised, so we can figure out who is the best to handle the situation. If the Co-Chairs disagree about the appeal, the liaison should report it to the Council. Maybe ask ICANN Legal to get involved here?
- Maybe also include Heather in the super small team in the drafting exercise?
- Appreciate the iterative approach of Flip. In the staff draft, the first part can be the “problem statement”, and the second part can be a high-level proposal for solution to the problem, integrating both Flip and Heather’s input.
- The problem may have stemmed from the wording of the improvement. 3.7 does not interfere the work in a WG, but the second part of the improvement requires the rewriting the Operating Procedure, including the detailed appeal process. The task seems daunting. Improvement #9 seems like one of the hardest improvements.
- ACTION ITEM: Staff to organize a super small team (including Flip, Rafik, Pam, Heather, Staff) and create a first draft proposal for #9.
- ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate the draft response to the MSM public comment, and Small Team to provide input/feedback. Aim to share the draft response with the Council by this Friday, 4 October.
#15
- Not discussed
3. AOB
