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

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

https://www.blacknight.com/

http://blacknight.blog/

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

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 considered by the GNSO Council for potential adoption in the near term:" Thanks, Darcy From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Cc: gnso-SECS <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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 https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ 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<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Date: Sunday 21 October 2018 at 11:53 To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>; gnso-SECS <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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

Thanks Darcy and Marie. Any objections to Marie's proposal, as agreed by Darcy? Best wishes, Heather On 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.

On Oct 22, 2018, at 12:01, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> wrote:

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 considered* by 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

https://www.blacknight.com/

http://blacknight.blog/

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

Thanks so much for all of your work on this, Heather. Very much appreciated. From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:59 PM To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> Cc: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>; Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>; gnso-SECS <gnso-secs@icann.org>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Updated PDP3.0 report Not having heard any objections to the amendments suggested by Marie and Darcy, please find attached the amended PDP3.0 Final Report, which: * Edits the Executive Summary at page 3 from " "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 improvements, which have varying degrees of support from the full Council, are recorded to be further developed and considered by the GNSO Council." * Adds the following to the entries in the table for each of improvements 7, 8 and 10 which currently do not have in principle support: [For further discussion, not submitted to GNSO Council in October 2018] Best wishes, Heather On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:22 PM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Darcy and Marie. Any objections to Marie's proposal, as agreed by Darcy? Best wishes, Heather On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:47 PM Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> wrote: Agree about ending the sentence with “Council.” Sent from Darcy's iPhone. Please excuse errors. On Oct 22, 2018, at 12:01, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> wrote: 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<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 11:37 AM To: 'Heather Forrest' <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>; 'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight' <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Cc: 'gnso-SECS' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>; 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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 considered by the GNSO Council for potential adoption in the near term:" Thanks, Darcy From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Cc: gnso-SECS <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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 https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ 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<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Date: Sunday 21 October 2018 at 11:53 To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>; gnso-SECS <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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