FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
Updated Draft as at 26.11.2019
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed implementation documents for PDP 3.0.
The ALAC appreciates proposed reforms to the PDP process that may make the process more effective and efficient in achieving outcomes. However, in striving for timely, inclusive, productive and broad-based participation in PDP 3.0, the ALAC wish to share some feedback with the GNSO Council.
Selection of WG Model
The proposed Improvement #2 suggests 3 models from which the GNSO Council (or the PDP Team Charter drafting team) would select, subject to rationale and arguments for their selection and presumably based on a pre-determined set of elements. The ALAC believes that membership and participation in a WG should be limited only in VERY specific situations. The current Open Model clearly was problematic in the Registration Directory Service (RDS) Review and perhaps would be in the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, but it has served us well in many other PDPs, so any decision to depart from it under regular circumstances will lead us back to the Task Force model that was abandoned for good reasons after the first GNSO Organizational Review over ten years ago. Therefore we propose the default should be the Open Model and that the GNSO Council (or the PDP Team Charter drafting team) should always be called upon to explicitly address why their selection should not be the Open Model.
In the case of the Open Model and the Representative & Open Model where participation is open to anyone, we suggest that a process be put in place for a periodic reminder (or invitation) be issued to persons who had volunteered to be WG members but do not appear to be actively turning up for calls or contributing on mailing lists to renew their Statement of Participation (see: proposed Improvement #1) failing which, they could opt to become observers instead. We think this would assist in ensuring active engagement by WG participants.
Encouraging Compromise and Cooperation
Regardless of the WG Model selected, we do need better ways to ensure compromise and cooperation among WG participants. This aspect does not appear to have been considered within the proposed implementation documents and we hope to see some developments on this in the near future.
WG Leadership Selection
We are concerned about a lack of considered improvements to the selection of WG Leadership as such selection is critical to the success of a PDP. WG leader(s) MUST be able to do the job, and must be able to do it without bias or vested interest in the outcomes. That has been a major issue in previous successes and failures.
Better Support to Facilitate Broad-based Participation
The GNSO Review of 2014 recognised the need for the GNSO WGs to more broadly reflect the ICANN community and made several recommendations to achieve those ends. Specifically, its first three recommendations - grouped together under the heading 'participation and representation' - recommended that the GNSO develop outreach strategies for new WG membership, a drive to recruit volunteers for new WGs and remove any cost barriers to participation in GNSO WGs.
While there are no specific cost barriers to direct participation in GNSO WG, indirectly, there are costs. Almost all ALAC and At-Large Community members are volunteers, and their participation in WG is generally not related to their employment. Therefore participation in WGs does represent a loss - either of time with family and friends or loss of holiday time since many such 'volunteers' use their holiday leave to attend ICANN meetings and/or WG meetings.
We also ask that the GNSO recognise and take into account the barriers others, including ALAC and At-Large community members face in participation in WGs. Those barriers include lack of technical knowledge on the issue, language barriers, geographical barriers (making the time of WG calls very difficult for 'the other half' of the globe), and the fact that ALAC and At-Large community members are volunteers; time taken to understand and participate in WGs is time away from paid employment and/or family.
Thus, the GNSO could help ensure more participation by members of the At-Large Community through steps such as:
- Providing webinars (to accommodate different time zones) to explain the issues to be considered
- Providing webinars in different languages
- In the webinars, either have a technical expert to explain in simple terms the issues to be addressed, or have a separate webinar specifically to provide background information on the issue to be considered.
Request for Data Gathering
We are supportive of the proposed Improvement #14 in its aims to not only clarify the criteria for data gathering at the charter drafting phase or during the working phase of a PDP, but also to optimise flexibility for the same as we recognise the value of possessing relevant data to aide the drawing of conclusions in a PDP.
In concluding, the ALAC would welcome the opportunity to work with the GNSO for reforms to the PDP that encourage and support broad-based participation which upholds ICANN's mission as a truly multi-stakeholder organisation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on PDP3 planning.
ALAC appreciates proposed reforms to the PDP process that may make the process more effective and efficient in achieving outcomes. The concerns ALAC have are that those reforms are not accompanied by reforms that will encourage and support ALAC or At-Large Community members both to join a WG and to continue with constructive membership in that WG.
The GNSO Review of 2014 recognised the need for the GNSO WGs to more broadly reflect the ICANN community and made several recommendations to achieve those ends. The final report of that Review suggests that the GNSO has implemented all of those recommendations. We strongly suggest that the GNSO Council revisit those proposed reforms to ensure their continued implementation.
We also ask that the GNSO recognise and take into account the barriers others, including ALAC and At-Large community members face in participation in WGs. Those barriers include lack of technical knowledge on the issue, language barriers, geographical barriers (making the time of WG calls very difficult for 'the other half' of the globe), and the fact that ALAC and At-Large community members are volunteers; time taken to understand and participate in WGs is time away from paid employment and/or family.
The GNSO could take steps to ensure more participation by members of the At-Large Community through steps such as:
- providing webinars (to accomodate different time zones) to explain the issues to be considered
- providing webinars in different languages
- In the webinars, either have a technical expert to explain in simple terms the issues to be addressed, or have a separate webinar specifically to provide background information on the issue to be considered.
ALAC would welcome the opportunity to work with the GNSO to ensure that reforms to the PDP processes ensure that other ICANN members are encouraged and supported to constructively contribute to ensure that those processes reflect ICANN's mission as upholding a truly multistakeholder organisation.
DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).
Speaking from context of ALAC participation in a ccwg under PDP 3.0
1 - ccwgs are becoming so complex now that there must be an expected level knowledge, expertise and competency, plus a firm commitment to stick with some of these long-standing PDPs. We had a disappointing drop out rate from our own group and had to relegate an appointed member to observer status and replace him with an active participant who was also a regular attendee from the outset. Sometimes people volunteer who have the knowledge but not the commitment (staying power)
2. The different levels of participants in a working group as an alternative WG model worked for us from the example of our own participation in a CCWG in #1. It means that everyone will be keen to join in at the start, however as the number of issues get drawn out, they tend to drop off until you have a core. Every now and again the WG needs to review the representation of constituency groups still the WG and if there is still a balance of representatives. I have been on Auction WG meetings where ALAC reps equalled all other participants at the meeting (not counting the Chair, VC and staff.).
3. The stratified membership of a WG does allow for people to step up to member status for participation. However it can be disruptive to have people joining in after a considerable time and has not completely read up with where the WG is at. I think the joining up cruteria is very dependent on what background they have on the topic and if they actually will bring any new perspectives. It takes us back to the expectations of #1
4. suggest you distribute the playbook to other constituencies as well so that we all play the same game - we mght get consensus better that way
5. I think that it is extremely important for the GNSO to have a Council liaison to support the WG leadership and to help keep the WG on track and achieving their goals and hopefully timeframes. More of an advisor to the group as Board liaisons have been in the Auction Proceeds WG.
6. Documentation about roles and responsibilities should be given to all WG leaders but more importantly they have to have the necessary skills and expertise to manage groups that have high level technical knowledge and a diverse range of views, and achieve consensus.
9. Perhaps there should be an Academy program for WG Chairs to learn not only chairmanship, but mediation and consensus building skills as well as conflict resolution for #15
11. The scope of a pdp should be limited and focused. Some PDPs have been so complex that there is no way they can be done in a reasonable timeframe. People get tired of the same old thing, especially if it is controversial and complex enough to easily get people tied up and frustrated because consensus can then seem impossible. Small bite-sized pieces as recommended could get the WG through a PDP much more effectively as well as efficiently. And you would keep your WG team together longer. But it requires a lot of work to ensure that the PDP is carved up into its specific objective components so that you work towards one goal at a time.
12. Notifying the Council if anything wass changed would be the responsibility of the Council Liaison. This would enable the Council to make the next set of decisions about the WG.
13. An annual report by the WG Chair would enable the Council to assess performance and results of the WG Chair in relation to progress according to milestones set within its Charter.
14. Such flexibility must be made possible to prevent PDPs going on forever with no chance of consensus being achieved. If the situation gets to this level, then a rigorous review of the scope and clarity of the expectatons of the original charter may be required
15. Conflict resolution mechanisms should be available to assist WG leaders to manage any possible conflicts that may challenge the progress of the WG. It would be hand.y to share these among other groups
16. As part of this issue Id like to request that the updated information be in language that allows non-technical ICANN participants to really understand what is actually developing within the PDP. In At-Large we are impressing on communication as an important aspect of our role in ICANN to ensure that all participants understand policy and why it is important to them, and why they should care. If these updates were already provided so that the key issues can be clearly understood across the diverse set of end-users within the ICANN community, it would be very much appreciated.
17. Resource reporting - internal
13 Comments
Alan Greenberg
Maureen, your first two responses refer to Cross Community Working Groups and not to GNSO PDPs.
I strongly suggest that we keep our response short and to the point on the issues that are most important to us, specifically to ensure that we can fully support the interests of Internet Individual Users on GNSO PDPs.
To this end, I suggest the following statement.
The ALAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on PDP 3.0 planning. This work is clearly needed and the ALAC looks forward to more effective PDPs in the future.
Among the issues being addressed, the ALAC believes that there are two that are CRITICAL to such future success.
1. Membership and participation should be limited only in VERY specific situations. To do so regularly goes back to the Task Force model that was abandoned for good reasons after the first GNSO Organizational Review over ten years ago. The current model clearly was problematic in the RDS review and perhaps would be in the EPDP, but it has served us well in many other PDPs. That being said, we DO need better ways to ensure compromise and cooperation. Stubbornness and the desire to maintain the status quo is too readily rewarded in the current model.
2. WG Leadership is CRITICAL. WG leader(s) MUST be able to do the job, and must be able to do it without bias or vested interest in the outcomes. That has been a major issue in previous successes and failures.
Maureen Hilyard
Hi Alan
I am sure that Holly who offered to be the penholder on this certainly appreciates your summary and doing the work for her
I happened to be going through the document and felt I should add my comments on their new considerations for PDPs based on my only personal involvement in a recent GNSO process - the ccwg which is why I mentioned that at the beginning and asked Holly to ignore what was not relevant. BUT it is the penholder's job to gather the information and craft a summarised statement incorporating whatever is relevant from provided comments. Id like to encourage our participants to feel that they can comment from their own experiences. If it can be included it will be but that is the prerogative of the penholder. And we can't be pedantic of what we ask for and get. That will surely put people off contributing.
Alan Greenberg
A CCWG is NOT a GNSO process, this CCWG was chartered jointly by all 7 SO/ACs and is unrealted to the issue presented here.
As you know, I am trying to take a backseat and not be overly vocal, but we are one day away from this comment closing and I found that the draft presented (attributed to you not Holly) is not addressing what I believe to be the crucial issues that the ALAC needs to raise.
Holly Raiche
Background: This PDP was discussed as part of the ALAC response to the policy on Improving the Effectiveness of ICANN's Miltistakeholder Model and in response to the presentation Brian Chute gave to the CPWG - at our request. The issues raised in that context were about finding ways to encourage participation in PDPs. (acknowledging that membership in a WG is a far better way to influence outcomes that comments made in the 30 days usually allowed for public comment. The comments included a reminder that the GNSO review of 2014 made specific recommendations on ensuring inclusion of others, particularly ALAC. The comments also applauded having clarity in the Charter of the PDP WG, having a realistic idea of what can be accomplished, with assistance in assisting new members in understanding the issues. Other recommendations (which Brian was happy to pass on) were about having the GNSO develop ways to inform other constituencies of the issues - in simple and non-technical terms - and recognise other barriers to participation - language, geography (i.e., time zones that make participation problematic). Taking all that into account, I would propose the following:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on PDP3 planning.
ALAC appreciates proposed reforms to the PDP process that may make the process more effective and efficient in achieving outcomes. The concerns ALAC have are that those reforms are not accompanied by reforms that will encourage and support ALAC or At-Large Community members both to join a WG and to continue with constructive membership in that WG.
The GNSO Review of 2014 recognised the need for the GNSO WGs to more broadly reflect the ICANN community and made several recommendations to achieve those ends. The final report of that Review suggests that the GNSO has implemented all of those recommendations. We strongly suggest that the GNSO Council revisit those proposed reforms to ensure their continued implementation.
We also ask that the GNSO recognise and take into account the barriers others, including ALAC and At-Large community members face in participation in WGs. Those barriers include lack of technical knowledge on the issue, language barriers, geographical barriers (making the time of WG calls very difficult for 'the other half' of the globe), and the fact that ALAC and At-Large community members are volunteers; time taken to understand and participate in WGs is time away from paid employment and/or family.
The GNSO could take steps to ensure more participation by members of the At-Large Community through steps such as:
ALAC would welcome the opportunity to work with the GNSO to ensure that reforms to the PDP processes ensure that other ICANN members are encouraged and supported to constructively contribute to ensure that those processes reflect ICANN's mission as upholding a truly multistakeholder organisation.
Justine Chew
Some observations (in order that the points were made):
Some further suggestions:
Thanks!
Holly Raiche
Responding to Justine;
On the GNSO recommendations, the first three were grouped under the heading of 'Participation and Representation" and included calls for outreach strategies, recruitment of volunteers and the removal of cost barriers to particpate. My point is that ALAC needs to work with the GNSO so that the outreach strategies are developed in cooperation with other AC/SOs - including ALAC. That would include recruitment strategies as well. On cost, the response of the GNSO were that there were no real cost barriers to participate in WGs. In the sense in which that was taken, there are few cost barriers to actual participation; the calls are largely by Zoom - which is of no cost to the user and if WG members must travel to meetings, ICANN bears the cost. But in a wider sense, because ALAC nad AT-Large community members are volunteers with participation on WGs generally not related to their employment, participation in WGs does representa loss of either family or holiday time.
Justine Chew
Holly Raiche
My suggestion to amend what I am proposing.
Replace the second paragraph with the following:
The GNSO Review of 2014 recognised the need for the GNSO WGs to more broadly reflect the ICANN community and made several recommendations to achieve those ends. Specifically, its first three recommendations - grouped together under the heading 'participation and representation' - recommended that the GNSO develop outreach strategies for new WG membership, a drive to recruit volunteers for new WGs and remove any cost barriers to participation in GNSO WGs.
While there are no specific cost barriers to direct participation in GNSO WG, indirectly, there are costs. Almost all ALAC and At-Large Community members are volunteers, and their participation in WG is generally not related to their empoloyment. Therefore participation in WGs does represent a loss - either of time with family and friends or loss of holiday time since many such 'volunteers' use their holiday leave to attend ICANN meetings and/or WG meetings.
Then follow with the third paragraph
Justine Chew
Holly Raiche Maureen Hilyard Alan Greenberg
If I may tweak the last draft .....
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed implementation documents for PDP 3.0.
The ALAC appreciates proposed reforms to the PDP process that may make the process more effective and efficient in achieving outcomes. However, in striving for timely, inclusive, productive and broad-based participation in PDP 3.0, the ALAC wish to share some feedback with the GNSO Council.
Selection of WG Model
The proposed Improvement #2 suggests 3 models from which the GNSO Council (or the PDP Team Charter drafting team) would select, subject to rationale and arguments for their selection and presumably based on a pre-determined set of elements. The ALAC believes that membership and participation in a WG should be limited only in VERY specific situations. The current Open Model clearly was problematic in the RDS review and perhaps would be in the EPDP, but it has served us well in many other PDPs, so any decision to depart from it under regular circumstances will lead us back to the Task Force model that was abandoned for good reasons after the first GNSO Organizational Review over ten years ago. Therefore we proposed the default should be the Open Model and the GNSO Council (or the PDP Team Charter drafting team) should be required to explicitly address why their selection should not be the Open Model.
In the case of the Open Model and the Representative & Open Model where participation is open to anyone, we suggest that a process be put in place for a periodic reminder (or invitation) be issued to persons who had volunteered to be WG members but do not appear to be actively turning up for calls or contributing on mailing lists to renew their Statement of Participation (see: proposed Improvement #1) failing which, they could opt to become observers instead. We think this would assist in ensuring active engagement by WG participants.
Encouraging Compromise and Cooperation
Regardless of the WG Model selected, we do need better ways to ensure compromise and cooperation among WG participants. This aspect does not appear to have been considered within the proposed implementation documents and we hope to see some developments on this in the near future.
WG Leadership Selection
We are concerned about a lack of considered improvements to the selection of WG Leadership as such selection is critical to the success of a PDP. WG leader(s) MUST be able to do the job, and must be able to do it without bias or vested interest in the outcomes. That has been a major issue in previous successes and failures.
Better Support to Facilitate Broad-based Participation
The GNSO Review of 2014 recognised the need for the GNSO WGs to more broadly reflect the ICANN community and made several recommendations to achieve those ends. Specifically, its first three recommendations - grouped together under the heading 'participation and representation' - recommended that the GNSO develop outreach strategies for new WG membership, a drive to recruit volunteers for new WGs and remove any cost barriers to participation in GNSO WGs.
While there are no specific cost barriers to direct participation in GNSO WG, indirectly, there are costs. Almost all ALAC and At-Large Community members are volunteers, and their participation in WG is generally not related to their employment. Therefore participation in WGs does represent a loss - either of time with family and friends or loss of holiday time since many such 'volunteers' use their holiday leave to attend ICANN meetings and/or WG meetings.
We also ask that the GNSO recognise and take into account the barriers others, including ALAC and At-Large community members face in participation in WGs. Those barriers include lack of technical knowledge on the issue, language barriers, geographical barriers (making the time of WG calls very difficult for 'the other half' of the globe), and the fact that ALAC and At-Large community members are volunteers; time taken to understand and participate in WGs is time away from paid employment and/or family.
Thus, the GNSO could help ensure more participation by members of the At-Large Community through steps such as:
Request for Data Gathering
We are supportive of the proposed Improvement #14 in its aims to not only clarify the criteria for data gathering at the charter drafting phase or during the working phase of a PDP, but also to optimise flexibility for the same as we recognise the value of relevant data in aiding the drawing of conclusions in a PDP.
In concluding, the ALAC would welcome the opportunity to work with the GNSO for reforms to the PDP that encourage and support broad-based participation which upholds ICANN's mission as a truly multi-stakeholder organisation.
Alan Greenberg
Please include the text (or similar) that I suggested for models. This is VERY important. We are working hard with the At-Large review and ATLAS III to have more people who can participate in such processes and the GNSO is likely to bring in new models that will not allow them to participate.
And my comments on leadership are crucial. The only PDPs that have failed in the last decade were, in my mind, due to WG leadership failure.
If this were a regular public comment I would have made these statements myself, but it is a request for ALAC input!
Alan
Justine Chew
Alan,
You are listed as a co-penholder (whether intended or not).
In any case, I did have your suggested text for models in my suggested re-worked draft (text now marked in red).
I have now added further text (also in red) on WG Leadership for pen-holders' consideration.
Alan Greenberg
I understood your changes. I just was not sure if they would be incorporated into the formal statement. I now see that it is in the latest version above.
Thanks!
Alan
Justine Chew
GNSO 9 Dec 2019 Webinar slide deck and Zoom recordings are available at 2019-12-09 PDP3.0 Webinar