2019-09-10 PDP3.0

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEM

• Small Team to review and provide feedback for the “Regular Review of PDP Leadership/WG Liaison by GNSO Council” document (improvement #13) by Tuesday, 17 September.
• Staff to note the review of IRT liaisons in the parking lot.
• Staff to send a doodle poll to organize a meeting with the current/past liaisons. Ask if they would prefer direct engagement rather than a group setting (with a group-setting default).
• Small Team to review the documents developed by Berry for improvements #11, #12, and #16, as well as the latest memo by Flip on improvement #9. Staff to send a reminder.

NOTES

1. Welcome and roll call
2. Package 3 improvements

          a.#13 Review of Working Group leadership

- The survey document was closed for further comments/inputs by 27 August. The survey will be utilized in conjunction with the leadership report and other related documents for reviewing the WG leadership.

- The “Regular Review of PDP Leadership/WG Liaison by GNSO Council” document is about the actual leadership review process.

- Seek Small Team’s input: to which extent the WG leadership review needs a structured process, or it can be conducted more informally?

- Would like to see a snapshot of how things are going; it would only needed to be "escalated" to Council in detail - as opposed to an FYI at the beginning of our meetings - if there's an issue.


- We should be clear that the leadership review is a requirement for all PDPs.

- ACTION ITEM: Small Team to review and provide feedback for the “Regular Review of PDP Leadership/WG Liaison by GNSO Council” document by Tuesday, 17 September.

      b. #5 Active role and clear description of Council liaison to PDP Working Groups

- Need to send questions to the liaisons before the meeting with them. It needs to be a discussion with liaisons, even just a short meeting.

- Additional question: Did you feel that leadership didn't want to "defer" to you? Did they feel you were "interfering"? Bad terminology but trying to capture the "did they resent your presence as they're in charge" consideration.

- Does it make sense to add another question or does this one cover it and/or could be adapted: “Did you feel empowered as the liaison to engage the PDP leadership, the PDP working group, and/or Council leadership about challenges”?


- Not “did you feel included”, more “did they resent you being there”?


- Operating procedure for IRT liaisons should be treated separately. The IRT liaisons need to be reviewed but it is not appropriate for PDP 3.0. Perhaps put this item in the parking lot.

- Expand Q6 based on Marie’s and Maxim’s comments. The focus is really on liaison’s experience on the Council. If we ask whether liaison’s involvement is beneficial for the PDP, we will have to ask the PDP members and leadership.

- There is an existing handover document for GNSO Council liaison to PDPs, and it may be changed subject to liaisons’ responses to the questionnaire.

- Next steps is to send the questionnaire to the liaisons in advance and use a doodle poll to schedule a time that can get the Small Team and liaisons together as soon as possible, but not necessarily tied to the Tuesday Small Team meeting schedule.

- Emphasize that liaisons may want to spend more time on certain questions.

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to note the review of IRT liaisons in the parking lot.

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to send a doodle poll to organize a meeting with the current/past liaisons. Ask if they would prefer direct engagement rather than a group setting (with a group-setting default).

      3. AOB

- ACTION ITEM: Small Team to review the documents developed by Berry for improvements #11, #12, and #16, as well as the latest memo by Flip on improvement #9. Staff to send a reminder.