2019-10-15 PDP3.0

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS

- Staff to finalize the documents for improvements #5 and #13 asap and send them to the Small Team for final call till Monday, 21 October COB. Aim to deliver to the Council by Wed, 22 October.

- Small Team to review sections 1-4 (pages 1-12) of the draft proposal for Improvement #9, in particular: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CDwJe7UroRNnou-VGwN6vMCRjVYFyi8RRNlWmtJDIP8/edit?usp=sharing

- Staff to adjust text in the draft proposal for Improvement #9 to emphasize the situation where the co-chairs do not agree.

NOTES

1. Welcome and roll call

2. Package 3

a. #13 Review of WG leadership

- All changes have been incorporated in the overview document about how the regular review of WG leadership is going to be done

-  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1URP3B3GCYzEj-nWZcVV_dcrdtuSY5wM9/edit is the link to the survey

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to send the final drafts out for final call till Monday, 21 October COB. Aim to deliver the final documents to the Council by Wed, 22 October.

b. #5 Active role for and clear description of Council liaison to PDP WGs

- A handbook that complements the actual procedure/guideline for the PDP liaison

- Column A lists job duties for Council liaisons

- Staff will transform the spreadsheet into a google document and produce a clean version

- Column F include prediction/estimate for time commitment for each job duty

- The handbook was shared initially, prior to additional edits, so former/current liaisons are aware of it conceptually

- Line 4: if a liaison participates in a WG as an active member, the escalation should go directly to the leadership due to conflict of interest. Strongly discourage that a liaison takes off his/her hat too often.

- If we need a corollary to row 4 in row 6, i.e. liaisons are "expected to report in a neutral manner"? Same idea that they're not talking from their own SG/C viewpoint when reporting to Council? Clarify it is for PDP performance reporting.  

- "Neutral" is same terminology as in row 4 so consistent.


- Clarify why liaisons are strongly discouraged to take off hat too often.

- These additional roles/responsibilities are not just for the liaison, but also for the Council and PDP leadership to evaluate whether a liaison has fulfilled his/her duty. If they notice a pattern that a liaison is acting like an active member, it would be noticed/flagged.

- Include an intro at the beginning to reinforce the idea about the role of a liaison

- Description of the liaison role exists in the charter already. This document is to outline early the duty of the liaisons, so they are aware.

- Just say in cases of a direct conflict of interest, issues are going to be escalated directly to the WG leadership level without the liaison step?

- Doing the liaison’s job in a neutral manner is an overarching theme. Maybe put the overarching theme of “neutrality” at the very beginning of the document

- After reading the job duties, it becomes clear that a liaison needs to refrain from participating in a WG as an active member.

- Operating Procedures are what governs the Council liaison’s role. We may not need to list every in and out in the handbook. Be careful not to make the handbook a super long list.

- Neutrality will affect all JOB Duties.

- Why not add a preamble that summarizes the ideas and best practices? It can include the major values such as the overarching statement of neutrality in the preamble.

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to finalize the handbook document asap and send it to the Small Team for final call till Monday, 21 October COB. Aim to deliver to the Council by Wed, 22 October.

3. Package 4

- Having history and context for the evolution of this document is helpful

- What is Section 3.7? Definitions and potential renaming of the process.

- Problems Encountered in Section 3.7 Complain Process: Three problems identified

- Who Should and Should Not Be Involved in the Section 3.7 Proceedings?

- Council

- ICANN Org (Support Staff, Complaints Officer, Conflict Resolution Staff, etc.).

- Ombudsman should be considered additional and external, even if involved in the process.

- External Legal Counsel should NOT be involved.

- Criteria for the Complain Filings: Should be succinct; support from other WG members is an unknown at this point.

- Proposed Steps of a Section 3.7 Proceeding: Super Small Team did not get to discuss this section or those below yet; Staff took inspiration from the Bylaws Drafting Team, that is working on operating procedures and templates.

- Proposed New Text for Section 3.7 in GNSO WG Guidelines

- Difference Between Section 3.6 and Section 3.7

- Annex 1 - Reference to GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures (Version 3.4 - 18 June 2018)

- Concern about any potential confusion with Complaints Officer or compliance with renaming. Clarified that the process is about complaints, not compliance

- Question: What happens when the co-chairs do not agree with each other? Council leadership can help escalate if this situation arises. Potentially, council liaison appointed to help resolve, in collaboration with Council leadership.

- Question: How is the Complain Committee composed? If needed, WG leadership, in consultation with GNSO Chair, Council leadership, and liaison, may invite former or current Councilors to join committee. Aim is balanced viewpoints.

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to adjust text to emphasize the situation where the co-chairs do not agree.

- ACTION ITEM: PDP 3.0 Small Team to review sections 1-4 of the draft (pages 1-12), in particular.

4. AOB