Thanks Kurt. This is great. I like the two Findings documents, they give a really good overview.

On the recommendations, there are a couple I’m not sure I agree with:

Representative model - I can certainly see the value on the big issue efforts, but I think there are some PDPs where it’s just not necessary and I don’t think it should be the default (albeit from Staff perspective it already is). I’m thinking of:

the Transfer PDP. We knew that the interest and expertise would sit largely with Registrars so the “representative slots” from that group were higher than for others. I just don’t think that was necessary, I think it would have naturally found its level anyway.
Diacritics - I don’t know how many have joined that PDP but I highly doubt it’s hundreds. Again I suspect it’s found its level without artificial scarcity of places
Generally, whether representation works depends on who the reps are. I’ve seen good and bad. Obviously that’s the responsibility of the appointing group, but it’s hard to call out your volunteer constituency colleague when they don’t perform.

2. The Public Interest Checklist - has anyone but Avri made that suggestion? To me it’s very circular “if ICANN does it then it’s in the PI”.

I strongly agree we should all be working with the same information. Although I do think that it’s expecting a lot in practice to think that people will give up their deeply entrenched ideologies, regardless of what we’re told.

Susan

Apologies for the odd formatting. Typing on my phone which is not cooperating.

Hi Everyone (Small Team and Support Team):

We are at a bit of an inflection point as we transition to interviews with the SubPro team. We thought it’d be a good idea to pause, see where we are, and decide if any changes are required. As you, I am anxious to move ahead and get done.

With that in mind, I have attached three docs for our discussion as they might provide direction in how we conduct the next round of interviews. (I ask that you keep these docs confidential, from your co-workers and others in the ICANN community. I think making preliminary findings public will poison or influence the next round of interviews):

A n interview summary (Finding Notes), where I have grouped the feedback into a few, general headings.

This document is NOT intended for publication. Rather, it is a tool to create the next two docs that are intended for publication and also identify the attribution of the different findings that we make.
I created it by reviewing the posted interview notes (including the interviews with Board members but not including Susan’s SubPro interview)
Please review for completeness, Did I miss any interviews or important points? (You can use your memory for this review rather than digging out the docs. Our collective memories should suffice. As a complete review.)
Do the headings look ok?

A set of FINDINGS that is intended to inform the reader of our interview results and support our Recommendation

It is a slight reorganisation and rewording of the first document.
Please review the opening paragraph, it needs work.
Your review of the first doc should cover this one too.

A set of RECOMMENDATIONS based on the Findings.

They are Recommendation only, not with justification or defence — that is provided in the Findings.
The Recommendations are not grouped by headings, so it make the choice of grouping less important.
There were findings that did not result in Recommendations but I thought the audience should read thise Findings also as they are educational.
Do we have any others? Any with which you disagree?

These last two docs would be chapters in our report, surrounding by sections on the purpose and methodology of the study, etc. After getting feedback on the docs, we will discuss changes to questions and methodology if any.

Thanks everyone, Hang in there.

Kurt