I share Marie's concern with #7.  Community feedback was not supportive of this recommendation.  So maybe the better way to approach recommendations 7, 8, ad 10 is to replace "To be developed" with "For further consideration and possible development."

Thanks,
Darcy

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 11:53 AM Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> wrote:

Thanks so much Heather.

 

We didn’t get to #7 but may I please ask a basic question: why is it there? It didn’t have any support in our discussions to date so I’m a bit confused as to why the report says that it is “proposed to be further developed and considered by the GNSO Council for potential adoption in the near term”.

 

I’m worried that putting out this idea of the “Creation of Cooperative Teams” as a potential “improvement” could suggest to the community that if you don’t/can’t/won’t engage in a PDP, that’s OK as the most active/engaged/involved members will double their own hours by synthesising and explaining things to you. I’d rather pass the message that being a WG member comes with the personal responsibility to, well, do the “work” part.

 

Sorry if I have totally misunderstood this!

 

M  

 

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 11:13 AM
To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>; gnso-SECS <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: [council] Updated PDP3.0 report

 

Dear colleagues,

 

Please find attached a revised version of the PDP3.0 report (in clean and redline versions) that incorporates our discussions this morning.

 

Best wishes,

 

Heather

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council