2019-12-17 PDP3.0

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

See the spreadsheet at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AXJnTP-xX6eQWRTeOMopFD-iUr1tlGA5uy-FXNE80pc/edit?usp=sharing

#2: A Comparison Table of Working Group Models

ALAC Comment:

ACTION: Re: Participation: As to making someone an observer if they aren’t actively participating – not comfortable with that; difficult to gauge what is active participation and what is not; seems arbitrary.  Suggest we don’t adopt it.

ACTION: Re: Enforcement Mechanism: Revise to make it less prescriptive – some kind a reminder but don’t say who will send it and link it to the SoP so it is enforceable.  Give Council the flexibility for how to enforce this requirement.  Change text in Column E to: “Reminders will be sent to non-active members.”

Webinar Comment (Jeff Neuman):

ACTION: Work on revised language for Columns D and F.

#4 Capture vs. Consensus Playbook

Webinar (Jeff Neuman):

ACTION: Need further messaging and clarification concerning the Consensus Playbook.

ACTION: By 20 December – Review rows 13-28 of the spreadsheet and provide comments on the mailing list.  Indicate whether you agree with the text in columns D, E, and F.  Reference what row number you are commenting on.

Notes:

1. Review scorecard of community input to PDP 3.0 implementation

-- New text is in column D and E – so most of the spreadsheet is new.

-- Highlight are actions for the Small Team to consider.

-- Covered #1 last meeting.

-- Separated each sentence into numbers.

#2: A Comparison Table of Working Group Models:

GAC Comment, Column E – Small Team Action:

1) In the implementation document, spell out SSC as "GNSO Council Standing Selection Committee" 2) In the implementation document, consider adding "to be confirmed by GNSO Council" in "Vice-Chair(s)/Co-Chair(s)" row for Option A and Option B 4) In the revised charter template, consider adding a section to include expectations / requirements for additional expertise for working group members

-- Okay with suggested response and action.

ALAC Comment, Column E -- Small Team Action:

1) - In the revised charter template, consider adding a section to include rationale for the working group model selection - In the implementation document, consider adding the following sentence in the "Membership" row for the "Open Model" in Table 1: "GNSO Secretariats will send periodic reminders to members who have not been active for some time to renew their Statement of Participation." - In the implementation document, consider adding the following sentence in the "participants" row for the "Representative & Open Model" in Table 1: "GNSO Secretariats will send periodic reminders to participants who have not been active for some time to renew their Statement of Participation."

-- Giving rationale: always good for transparency.
Periodic reminders: IF we do this, can we monitor it for effect? It's a fair amount of work so want to be sure that it is worthwhile.

-- Is this sustainable for the Secretariat?  We would have to discuss this.

-- Realistically the Secretariat/Support Staff would have to hunt down members and not get responses.  If we do this we should run a test period.  You could do a lot of work that may not actually help.

-- Sending lots of reminder messages is not a good idea.  We could ask them to check the wiki.  Use the wiki as a tool for reminders.

-- An Open Model is open: there has never been a requirement for high attendance for participation.  Some members may never attend meetings and instead listen to recordings and participate on the list.  We probably should be better about doing reminders around critical points of a WG and better scope around who is going to be involved in determining consensus.  There will probably be issues at the Council level to determine the best working model for a group.

-- Perhaps what we may want to build into this, because this is such a transformative change, that we circle back in 6 months on this one – what worked and what didn’t work.

-- Also there is a page of GNSO Calendar , where all willing parties could check what is going on.

-- But isn't our SoP clear that we expect you to actually participate?
Sending mails etc. = participating. Reserving the right to not bother turning up until 23:59 then demanding equal say does not = good cooperation to me.

-- We need to consider this recommendation, we do not have to follow it.

-- There's isn't an enforcement Berry as we said we couldn't force anyone to be an observer.

-- Re: Reminders: Suggest that we could partially accept the recommendation on reminders – we could have the Chairs do it during the meeting.

ACTION: Re: Participation: As to making someone an observer if they aren’t actively participating – not comfortable with that; difficult to gauge what is active participation and what is not; seems arbitrary.  Suggest we don’t adopt it.

ACTION: Re: Enforcement Mechanism: Participation is part of the SoP; Chairs have the option to remove members if they aren’t participating.  Revise to make it less prescriptive – some kind a reminder but don’t say who will send it and link it to the SoP so it is enforceable.  Give Council the flexibility for how to enforce this requirement.  Change text in Column E to: “Reminders will be sent to non-active members.”

Webinar Comment (Greg Shatan and Justine Chew), Column E – Small Team Action:

1) In the implementation document, consider revising the "Consensus Designation Process" row in the "Representative Model" and "Representative & Open Model" columns (page 3) by adding the following sentence before "Similarly, groups that do not fulfil their entire membership allowance must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus": The Chair shall also apply necessary and appropriate weight to the positions of the representatives from other SOs/ACs as prescribed in the working group charter.  

-- Okay with suggested response and action.

Webinar Comment (Jeff Neuman), Column E – Small Team Action:

1) In the implementation document for PDP 3.0 Improvement #5 GNSO Council Liaisons Supplemental Guidance, consider adding the following sentence in the introduction: The liaison's primary responsibility is to facilitate the managerial role of the GNSO Council in overseeing the activities of the GNSO PDP working group.

-- Until the person says that he is speaking on behalf of my constituency as a representative or for the Council, I don’t see the reason why we should stop Councilors from joining the policy development.  In the response: suggest we say that if the Councilor represents themselves then we don’t see an issue.

-- Column F: Add language that we can’t limit who the appointing organization can appoint.

-- Could we park this with Statements of Interest?  Jeff’s point may be related to potential conflicts of interest.  Worthwhile looking into it at a deeper level.

-- In the role of the liaison we say it is not recommended to be a member of a PDP and a liaison at the same time.  We could respond that if a Councilor is participating in a liaison role then he should be neutral, but if not we don’t see the reason to limit participation.

-- Yes, that’s in improvement #5 - stating liaison needs to fulfill their duty in a neutral manner and it is strongly discouraged that they participate in their individual capacity during WG deliberation.

ACTION: Work on revised language for Columns D and F.

Webinar Comment (Brian Beckham), Column E – Small Team Action:

In the implementation document, consider adding the following sentence in the introduction section: GNSO Council's determination of the membership structure and other components for any GNSO working group model should not conflict with the requirements in ICANN Bylaws, which are paramount.

-- Okay with suggested response and action.

#3 Criteria for Joining of New Members:

GAC, Column E – Small Team Action:

4) In the implementation document, consider revising the following sentences on page 2: [Original] "...or if the Charter requires certain levels of representation and a representative has left and thus must be replaced. In the case where levels of representation may need to be maintained, the relevant SG/C of the member who can no longer participate for any reason may nominate a replacement, although that replacement should have the skills and capacity to participate." [Revision] "...or if the working group has a Representative Model or a Representative & Open Model, and an appointed member has left and thus must be replaced. In the case where levels of representation may need to be maintained, the relevant group that appoints the member who can no longer participate for any reason may nominate a replacement at any time during the lifespan of the working group, so long as the replacement should have the skills and capacity to participate. The group appointing the replacement should make the effort to appropriately prepare the new member."

-- Okay with suggested response and action.

#3 Working Group Member Skills Guide:

GAC and ALAC Comments – No action required.

Webinar (Benjamin Akinmoveje), Column E – Small Team Action:

In the implementation document, consider adding the following paragraph in the Introduction section: According to PDP 3.0 Improvement #2, during the chartering process of a working group, the GNSO Council may require that members/participants must have a certain level of expertise to carry out the policy development activities, and independent evaluation (e.g., GNSO Council Standing Selection Committee) may be conducted as appropriate in the specific circumstances to confirm whether members do have the required expertise. Working Group members are also expected to abide by the Statement of Participation as an outcome from PDP 3.0 Improvement #1. The Statement of Participation, including ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior, are enforceable and the Working Group leadership and GNSO Council Leadership Team have the authority to restrict a member’s participation in the event of non-compliance.

-- Okay with suggested response and action.

#4 Capture vs. Consensus Playbook

Webinar (Jeff Neuman), Column E – Small Team Action:

1) - Consider sending an "invitation to provide input" letter to GNSO SGs/Cs and other SOs/ACs for the Capture vs. Consensus Playbook after the draft has been delivered to the GNSO Council - Consider separating Improvement #4 from the overall timeline of completing the PDP 3.0 project, as it may overlap with the MSM Evolution workstream that the GNSO will lead. In addition, the process for contracting the external vendor has delayed the development of the playbook, thus Improvement #4 is at risk of completion before the SPS 2020 deadline

-- Question: Not sure how we are going to develop the Consensus Playbook – as an expert draft or for comment.  Answer: It is the result of the ABR and will be developed by an expert; was not meant to be a document for comment.

-- Seems like we need more communication about the playbook.  Need to keep messaging and clarifying.

ACTION: By 20 December – Review rows 13-28 of the spreadsheet and provide comments on the mailing list.  Indicate whether you agree with the text in columns D, E, and F.  Reference what row number you are commenting on.