Thanks Darcy and Marie. Any objections to Marie's proposal, as agreed by Darcy?Best wishes,HeatherOn Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:47 PM Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> wrote:Agree about ending the sentence with “Council.”Sent from Darcy's iPhone. Please excuse errors.Thanks Darcy. Could we also stop the sentence at “Council”? I think the reference to “potential adoption in the near term” gives the impression that we are still actively considering implementing these proposals, and soon. I don’t want to give the community the idea that they can sign up for several PDPs as they will be able to count on someone else to do the work for them.
Also, with the full table of proposals it’s not so clear that the 3 are not part of the agreed way forward. Could we separate them out and put them at the end under a different heading, with the same wording:
“The following improvements, which have varying degrees of support from the full Council, are proposed for further consideration and possible development by the GNSO Council”?
Thanks all
Marie
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 11:37 AM
To: 'Heather Forrest' <haforrestesq@gmail.com>; 'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight' <michele@blacknight.com>
Cc: 'gnso-SECS' <gnso-secs@icann.org>; 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Updated PDP3.0 report
Thank you, Heather. I recommend modifying this:
"The following improvements, which have varying degrees of support from the full Council, are proposed to be further developed and considered by the GNSO Council for potential adoption in the near term:"
to the following:
"The following improvements, which have varying degrees of support from the full Council, are proposed for further consideration and possible development
to be further developed and consideredby the GNSO Council for potential adoption in the near term:"
Thanks,
Darcy
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 10:26 AM
To: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>
Cc: gnso-SECS <gnso-secs@icann.org>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Updated PDP3.0 report
Dear Darcy, Marie, Michele, all,
Responding to your concerns on improvements 7, 8 and 10 which did not have in principle support, as well as the other suggestions captured in the submissions of Phil Corwin and Petter Rindforth and others that add further improvements than those we had initially put out for comment.
As I noted at the end of our working session yesterday, the Executive Summary sets out the following to differentiate improvements with support from those for further discussion. If you have any concerns about this language or suggestions to make it more clear that 7, 8 and 10 are not in, please weigh in before Tuesday evening.
The following improvements, which have support from the full Council, are proposed to the GNSO Council for its immediate adoption:
Improvement #1: Terms of participation for WG members
Improvement #2: Consider alternatives to open WG model
Improvement #3: Criteria for joining of new members after a PDP WG’s formation
Improvement #4: Capture vs. Consensus Playbook
Improvement #5: Active role for and clear description of Council liaison to PDP WGs
Improvement #6: Document expectations for WG leaders that outlines role & responsibilities as well as minimum skills / expertise required
Improvement #9: Provide further guidance for section 3.6 (Standard Methodology for Decision Making)
Improvement #11: Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces
Improvement #12: Notification to Council of changes in work plan
Improvement #13: Review of Chair(s)
Improvement #14: 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
Improvement #15: Independent conflict resolution
Improvement #16: Criteria for PDP WG Updates
Improvement #17: Resource reporting for PDP WGs
It is intended that, following adoption by the GNSO Council, the Council will further develop and take action on the proposed implementation strategies documented here.
The following improvements, which have varying degrees of support from the full Council, are proposed to be further developed and considered by the GNSO Council for potential adoption in the near term:
Improvement #7: Creation of Cooperative Teams
Improvement #8: PDP Plenary or Model
Improvement #10: Document positions at the outset
Additional proposed improvements stemming from comments received during consultations of these recommendations which are documented in this report should be considered alongside these three improvements.
The GNSO Council acknowledges and wishes to thank all those who have contributed to this initial phase of the GNSO PDP 3.0 Project.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:36 PM Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
I think there are a few items that need to be further explored and developed, so we shouldn’t be voting on blank items but maybe recommending further work?
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>
Date: Sunday 21 October 2018 at 11:53
To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Updated PDP3.0 report
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