Dear all,
Trust you had a good journey home!
As requested during our meetings last week, please see below the input that the BC provided on PDP 3.0. We’re of course more than happy to discuss further.
Kind regards,
Marie
All,
Many thanks for this. As requested, input from the BC is below.
Kind regards
Marie
The BC welcomes the discussion of how to improve the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Ensuring an efficient and effective way to gather, synthesise and advance community-based policies
is a vital part of ICANN’s DNA.
As a starting point, not only has the current average timeline for PDPs increased, so has the amount of working groups, reviews and policy dossiers – not least the unprecedented EPDP/Temporary
Specification work. A balance must be found between allowing enough time and community input on the one hand and an efficient and timely process on the other; we thank the Council leadership and staff for setting out the challenges in a concise and realistic
way. Taking the potential incremental improvements in order:
Working Group Dynamics
- Terms of participation for WG members: while a “Commitment of Participation” template may be worthwhile, in practice
this is unlikely to have a practical effect on participation. We already have standards of behaviour but experience shows that this does not stop bad faith or even the wilfully unpleasant, and at a lesser level one person’s joke is another’s affront. This
would have to be policed carefully.
- Consider alternatives to open WG model: designation by SO/AC/SG/Cs should help to ensure more objectivity and expertise,
but we would add that the designee should also act as the conduit for their designator’s views and not in their personal capacity. Individuals must be allowed to join as either participants or observers to preserve the multistakeholder model; would it however
be possible to consider “weighted voting” in contentious matters (so more “weight” for designees)? For example, could the Chair call a vote on a discussion point when it seems that deadlock has been reached based on ideology rather than reason and community
benefit?
- Limitations to joining of new members after a certain time: if this is to happen, new observers must still be allowed
to join and newsletters issued regularly to ensure transparency. The decision to widen/restrict the membership should not fall on the PDP leadership alone, but on Council as a whole to prevent unwarranted pressure/capture of the Chairs.
WG Leadership
- Capture vs. Consensus Playbook: any practical tools and support to ensure effective and efficient leadership should
be seen as a positive. Experienced Chairs/leadership would be the most obvious drafters to share hands-on experience and solutions.
- Active role for and clear description of Council liaison to PDP WGs: support.
- Document expectations for WG leaders that outlines role & responsibilities as well as minimum skills / expertise required:
support.
Complexity of Subject Matter
- Creation of Cooperative Teams: while we understand the good faith reasoning, this goes against the idea of the “Commitment
of Participation” and could develop into a shortcut for those who do not/cannot engage who then rely on these Teams to do extra work/outreach to compensate for their lack of engagement. It would also lead to further complexity by adding another structural
element that could cause confusion about who really is the shaping the PDP – the drafting team, the subgroup, the Chair, Cooperative Team..? It could also be vulnerable to claims that the Teams were misdirecting the members/ misrepresenting the discussions.
·
PDP Plenary or Model PDP: full support.
Consensus Building
- Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 (Standard Methodology for decision making): general support but a note
of caution: “Consensus” means different things to different organisations and at the beginning of a PDP it would be helpful to remind everyone about what “consensus” will mean in the PDP process. However there is value in considering consensus-building lessons
and approaches used by other organisations.
- Document positions at the outset: possible, but would this not extend the opening phases of the PDP before substantive
work could start? And whose positions – those of members, or aggregate views? There will also by default be sub-positions of positions. We are not convinced that this would be of benefit.
Role of Council as Manager of the PDP
- Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces: full support.
- Notification to Council of changes in work plan: full support.
- Review of Chair(s): this leads to a further question – do we need a policy on the appointment of Chairs in the first
place? While we support the idea of a “process... that allows a WG to challenge and/or replace its leadership team” this should be carefully crafted. The 12-month reappointment seems sensible.
- Make better use of existing flexibility in PDP to allow for data gathering, chartering and termination when it is clear that no consensus can be achieved:
support.
- Independent conflict resolution: We are concerned that an independent conflict resolution process has the potential
of becoming the default way to resolve seemingly intractable WG disagreements rather than forcing WG members to do the hard work of consensus-building and employing the toolkit of possible responses mentioned under WG Leadership. After two years under the
revised PDP process, we might then reconsider the desirability/need for recourse to independent conflict resolution. Further - who would do this? If external – cost implications? Could it fall under the remit of (e.g.) the Standing Selection Committee? Whoever
it is, this should be known to all WGs from the outset.
- Criteria for PDP WG Updates: support.
- Resource reporting for PDP WGs: support.
Sending on behalf of the Council leadership
Dear colleagues,
Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions
and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities’ consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 – potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should
be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental
improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62.
Best regards,
GNSO Council leadership team
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email:
marika.konings@icann.org
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO
Newcomer pages.