May 2019 - GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT

Actions & Notes: GNSO PDP 3.0 Small Team Meeting 28 May 13:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang May 29, 2019

May 29, 2019

Dear All, Please find below the action items and notes captured during the small team call on Tuesday, 28 May at 13:00 UTC. Staff has post to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording and chat room records, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/P4GjBg Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS * Re #2, Staff to update the document by including a list of criteria/consideration to provide guidance on which WG model to use. Staff to circulate a google doc for the Small Team to comment. (DONE) * Small Team to review the chartering and termination of PDPs sections in the WG Guidelines, consider whether sufficient flexibility has been provided and whether they continue to be fit for purpose. With respect to the drafting of PDP Working Group charters, see pp.62-65 and 71 of the GNSO Operating Procedures. With respect to the termination of PDPs (including EPDP), see pp.75-76 and 85 of the GNSO Operating Procedures: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-proced… * Rafik Dammak and staff to follow up with Heather and Donna about the purpose of recommendation #14. NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call 2. #2 * Three models: 1) open WG model, 2) representative model (e.g., EPDP), 3) hybrid model (e.g., CCWG). The revised document highlights what approach/aspect would be like for each model. * Questions for the Small Team: 1) Are there any other criteria that should be defined? 2) What are the considerations the Council/Drafting Team should take into account? * There may be a need to develop a checklist or decision tree in order to provide guidance on which model to use. Fill in the “considerations” before developing the checklist. This step is to avoid using gut feeling to decide which model to choose. * Since the WG model choices are not that many, deciding on which model to choose should be principle based, rather than rule based. It should not be over engineered. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to update the document by including a list of criteria/consideration to provide guidance on which WG model to use. Staff to circulate a google doc for the Small Team to comment. 3. #14 * The checklist has some redundancy with the Decision Tree and the Tips/Hints in the WG guidelines. Some of the questions will be hard to answer upon request. What is to be done if there is no budget available? * Checklist should be used by both the WG and the Council. There should be some initial investigation to determine if there is any budget available. The questions have taken into account some elements to be considered in the procurement process. * The purpose of the checklist is to make the process more effective and predictable. For data storage and privacy, for instance, should we include the limits in these areas? * The documentation/checklists are to help make decision-making more consistent and effective for current and future Councils. * Flexibility doesn’t mean that there should be an absence of guidance. We should try to build something that lasts for many years. Flexibility guidance/guidelines are needed for future Councils. * Questions about context of the checklist. Need to think of the original problem statement, especially termination. Data requests should not be used as a delay tactic. Maybe need to review SPS report and/or consult with Heather/Donna. * ACTION ITEM: Small Team to review the chartering and termination of PDPs sections in the WG Guidelines, consider whether sufficient flexibility has been provided and they continue to be fit for purpose. With respect to the drafting of PDP Working Group charters, see pp.62-65 and 71 of the GNSO Operating Procedures. With respect to the termination of PDPs (including EPDP), see pp.75-76 and 85 of the GNSO Operating Procedures: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-proced… * ACTION ITEM: Rafik Dammak and Staff to follow up with Heather and Donna about the purpose of recommendation #14. 4. Planning for ICANN65 * There is limitation in schedule for the small team to meet at ICANN65, but need to determine where it best fits.

1 0

Resigning
by Arsène Tungali May 29, 2019

May 29, 2019

Dear colleagues, I am sorry that i have to leave this small group because i find it hard, for now, to be able to follow the work due to a number of chalenges. I will therefore unsubscribe to this mailing list. Thanks for your undertaking. Arsene

2 1

Attendance and recording PDP3.0 call / Tuesday 28 May 2019 at 13:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine May 28, 2019

May 28, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the attendance attached and below, the Chat, Audio & Zoom recordings of the PDP3.0 call on Tuesday 28 May 2019 at 13:00 UTC. Audio recording: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/gJX0eYj37DhNnZgAwPb7jyLsxqUOtRDPbLqhk_… Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab): https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/vFS4-vrtyL8iy2rXpLBgDJv6jayIRR2HkNvCO… Chat transcript: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/download/mjGNAV8gZEHpfkkra291V1Itl0w7I4cNnW… Thank you! Nathalie

1 0

Proposed Agenda GNSO PDP 3.0
by Steve Chan May 25, 2019

May 25, 2019

Dear Team, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the PDP 3.0 Small Team Meeting on Tuesday 28 May at 13:00 UTC. Welcome and roll call #2. Consider alternatives to open WG model: Prepare a comparison table for the proposed Working Group models, which could include several factors: membership eligibility, operating procedures, decision-making, communicating decision-making, urgency/timing (e.g., prioritization). Consider creating pros/cons as well. (Action item coming out of Council SPS 2019). Continued discussion on the draft and possible next steps (e.g., exploring the mechanism/criteria for determining which model is appropriate) #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. Discussion on updated draft and identification of next steps, if any. Planning for ICANN65 Time-permitting - #6. Document expectations for WG leaders (Chairs/Co- Chairs/Leads) that outlines role & responsibilities as well as minimum skills / expertise required. Discussion on initial draft. AOB Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Re: [GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT] PDP3.0 call
by Steve Chan May 20, 2019

May 20, 2019

Dear All, I just wanted to make sure you all noticed that the upcoming PDP 3.0 call is scheduled for a Tuesday rather than a Monday, on account of the U.S. ICANN office being closed that day for holiday. Best, Steve

1 0

Actions & Notes: GNSO PDP 3.0 Small Team Meeting 13 May 13:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang May 14, 2019

May 14, 2019

Dear All, Please find below the action items and notes captured during the small team call on Monday, 13 May at 13:00 UTC. Staff has post to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording and chat room records, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/3YWGBg Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS For Small Team: * Small Team to continue providing comment/input to Improvement #2 and #11 via SLACK channels. * In particular for #2, Small Team to develop language for the different attributes (e.g., membership, leadership, etc.) to help guide the decision-making process for choosing different options for working groups For Staff: * For Improvement #11, Staff to create a next version of the overall project list by removing the “activity” section and including a “risk mitigation” section, a change log, an ownership proposal for designating the “status/condition”, and other additional revisions. Staff should also consider developing an instruction/FAQ document to accompany the prototype/template. * For Improvement #2, Staff to synthesize the list of working group models, pare down to 2-3 variations (e.g., open WG model, representative model), and create a menu of options for mix and match (e.g., options for selecting the working group chair). NOTES 2. Improvement #11 * Main components of the Fact Sheet have been inherited from the IANA Stewardship Transition CWG. The EPDP Phase 1 also used the Fact Sheet because it had resource/fund allocated; the Fact Sheet will be used again in EPDP Phase 2. The Fact Sheet focuses on the financial component of the project. Some enhancements have been made to the prototype in order to address Improvement #11. * Five questions for the group to consider (bolded questions were focused on during the call): * Not all projects on the projects list will look as complete as the prototype. For example projects not yet started but in the pipeline will have very little content and almost an empty shell. Do we create a “thin version” vs. the “thick” version of the prototype? * What do we want to do about priority, if anything? I’ve not yet included a priority field in the prototype, but there has been lots of discussion in the community about priority of projects. We know we’re running well above 100% capacity. Do priority assignments help to park new or lesser priority projects until bandwidth is freed? * How do we handle projects that become owned by GDD during Implementation (stage 7)? While the GNSO needs to be informed about the implementation of projects, Policy does not own the delivery. Is it worth keeping this same design, or would it be better to link to a set of status reports maintained by GDD outside of the projects list? * Who should own project status designation and/or input into a designation change (Staff, WG Leadership, Liaison, or all)? How does this compliment a PCR (Project Change Request) of a WG when they can’t deliver to the agreed date? * Do we somehow integrate Council Action Items better into the project list?https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items * A “thin” version of the milestone/workplan can be developed as the steps/phases in GNSO projects are generally consistent on a high level. * There are six possible indicators for status, and they are differentiated by colors. Who are the primary owners for the status components? * It would be most helpful if the project end date does not change much. * The assigned support staff to the WG should work with the WG leadership to update the Fact Sheet. * The “Project Change Request (PCR)” should be formalized. It can affect deliverables, additional issues, and timeline. Leadership should be invited to join the Council call and explain why they submit a PCR. * The designation of status/condition should be done collaboratively between the Council liaison, WG leadership, and assigned staff member(s) to the WG, but the overhead should be kept low. * If there is no agreement between the liaison the WG leadership regarding the status/condition, the liaison should speak with the Council about the disagreement. * There is a need to create a change log for the status/condition, perhaps in a separate document. * The high-level milestone/task table does not provide enough details to reflect the work between the milestones. It is up to the WG leadership to manage those “sub milestones” and continued deliberations. ACTION ITEM: Staff to create a next version of the overall project list by removing the “activity” section, including a “risk mitigation” section, a change log, an ownership proposal for designating the “status/condition”, and other additional revisions. Staff should also consider developing an instruction/FAQ document to accompany the prototype/template. ACTION ITEM: Small Team to continue providing comments/input via the SLACK channel. 3. Improvement #2 * During SPS, staff have compiled a complete list of WG models being used over years, and the list has been updated incorporating feedback from the Small Team. * Small Team will need to develop criteria and relevant questions for the Council to help clarify what type/model of the WG would be best suited for the policy development purpose. There may be need to develop a check-list/decision tree to facilitate the decision making process. * The reference to the working group should be consistent – e.g., PDP Team, PDP WG, or PDP WG/Team. * Some group that carry out ad-hoc work (e.g., drafting team, small team, etc.) may not have charters but they are not concerned by Improvement #2. It may be helpful to include a “special features” section to include information on those “non-standard” working groups. * If the Small Team believes some models in the list are not suitable for policy work, they should be discussed, clarified, and/or removed from the list. * According to the GNSO Operating Procedures, the GNSO Council may form a working group, task force, committee of the whole or drafting team (the “PDP Team”), to perform the PDP activities. The preferred model for the PDP Team is the Working Group model due to the availability of specific Working Group rules and procedures that are included in the GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures. The GNSO Council should not select another model for conducting PDPs unless the GNSO Council first identifies the specific rules and procedures to guide the PDP Team’s deliberations which should at a minimum include those set forth in the ICANN Bylaws and PDP Manual. ACTION ITEM: Staff to synthesize the list of working group models, pare down to 2-3 variations (e.g., open WG model, representative model), and create a menu of options for mix and match (e.g., options for selecting the working group chair). ACTION ITEM: Small Team to develop language for the different attributes (e.g., membership, leadership, etc.) to help guide the decision-making process for choosing different options for working groups. Small Team to continue the discussion in the SLACK channel.

1 0

Attendance and recording PDP3.0 call / Monday, 13 May 2019 at 12:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine May 13, 2019

May 13, 2019

Dear all, Please find attached the attendance and chat content, and below the Zoom recording of the PDP3.0 call on Monday, 29 April 2019 at 12:00 UTC . Zoom recording: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/4h0b6v3gnKWVuKpPRojziw0G5lTuGMmrYZiFs… Thank you! Nathalie

1 0

Proposed Agenda GNSO PDP 3.0 and "Homework"
by Steve Chan May 8, 2019

May 8, 2019

Hello Team, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the PDP 3.0 Small Team Meeting on Monday 13 May at 13:00 UTC. Welcome and roll call #11. (Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces): Adapt fact sheet that is being used for EPDP Team to template so it can also be used for other efforts (staff is exploring possible integration with CRM / PM tools). Continued discussion on the adapted fact sheet Time-permitting - #2. Consider alternatives to open WG model: Prepare a comparison table for the proposed Working Group models, which could include several factors: membership eligibility, operating procedures, decision-making, communicating decision-making, urgency/timing (e.g., prioritization). Consider creating pros/cons as well. (Action item coming out of Council SPS 2019). Continued discussion on the draft and possible next steps (e.g., exploring the mechanism/criteria for determining which model is appropriate) AOB Please review the documentation on Slack for these specific items, and feel free of course to discuss in advance of the meeting. In addition, please review the latest export of the project plan, attached. The items in red indicate where we are behind, which are quite a few in number. That said, you will also notice that there is no work scheduled after August, meaning we have some flexibility to adjust the work plan to some degree and make your work more achievable. Your input is welcome. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0