Thanks Steve; comments included on the slides. Will come back to the draft responses ASAP.

M

From: GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT <gnso-pdp3dot0-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 2:30 AM
To: gnso-pdp3dot0-dt@icann.org
Subject: [GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT] Actions & Notes: GNSO PDP 3.0 Small Team Meeting 03 December 2019 at 21:00 UTC

Dear All, 

Please find below the action items and notes captured during the PDP 3.0 Small Team meeting on Tuesday, 03 December 2019 at 21:00 UTC.

Staff has posted 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/ZZIzBw

ACTIONS:

- Rafik, Pam, and staff to proposes draft responses for the Small Team to consider. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AXJnTP-xX6eQWRTeOMopFD-iUr1tlGA5uy-FXNE80pc/edit?usp=sharing)

- Members should review slides in detail and may continue making comments to the deck until the end of the week. (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1cKpme0QFIkCBWxCngIAio4Vqs80dOVq2UsDQZ6-4DiE/edit?usp=sharing)

NOTES:

1. Welcome & roll call
2. Review input to PDP 3.0 improvements: https://community.icann.org/x/_ZgzBw

Improvement 1

GAC

• If the appeal is during the WG process, and there is a dispute, there is a process under 3.7 to allow for dispute resolution, but if the GNSO is forming a new group, the Council should have a say as to which model is appropriate. If a volunteer would like to sign up to the WG, he/she would need to sign the accompanying statement of participation.
• There is a distinction in the first two bullets – the SOP is a condition of entering a WG. The third bullet suggests that there should be an appeal mechanism (perhaps this is targeted to the structure of a group about to be launched). When a group is being considered for launch at the Council level or when its adopting its charter, this is where the group’s structure will ultimately be determined. B/c GAC and ALAC have liaisons on the Council, the liaisons could speak up if there is disagreement about the proposed structure.
• With respect to the third bullet, there are three issues. The model may not be open, there are already appeal mechanisms, and in terms of Council business, why should there be an appeal? The GNSO Council does not interfere with the GAC’s internal processes.
• Capture in PDP 3.0 small team action: respond to comment with explanation.

Improvement 2

GAC

• These comments are generally supportive of the improvement. The last bullet indicates that this is a good direction. See no other actionable comments other than to define SSC.
• Suggest breaking down each bullet point and then explain what the action item is (if any). Second bullet, for example, is already addressed in the leadership recommendations. That way, if the author asks why any of the bullets are not specifically addressed, there will be an answer of where this is already addressed.
• A bullet-by-bullet response would be time intensive.
• Capture in PDP 3.0 small team action: define SSC

ALAC

• Selection of WG model: alternatives should be the exception and should be explained.
• Proposed response: agree that before RDS PDP, the open model worked. Since the work of RDS, there have not been many successful open WGs, which is why this structure was reconsidered.
• Capture in PDP 3.0 small team action: clarify the concern raised by ALAC re: limitation of participation of PDP. Add element about periodic reminders for participation.

ACTION: Rafik, Pam, and staff to proposes draft responses for the Small Team to consider.

3. Webinar preparation & slide review:https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1cKpme0QFIkCBWxCngIAio4Vqs80dOVq2UsDQZ6-4DiE/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]

- Webinar is scheduled next week to allow for greater participation.

- For the presentation, Rafik will present the first half of the slides, and ICANN Policy Staff will present the second half of the slides.

- Members of the small group are welcome to speak up during the webinar to elucidate points, especially for improvements where they served as lead.

- The webinar is scheduled for 90 minutes, but the webinar is unlikely to take 90 minutes.

- Slides available for review as a Google doc here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1cKpme0QFIkCBWxCngIAio4Vqs80dOVq2UsDQZ6-4DiE/edit?usp=sharing

ACTION: Members should review slides in detail and may continue making comments to the deck until the end of the week.

- Slide 19: Berry could provide examples to help with a 90,000-foot level, and zoom in and out, as appropriate

- The presenters will endeavor to get through everything but also leave enough time for Q&A.

4. (time permitting) Charter template revision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c69yMieH-9MCfhSelpb5vc8dxvIY_IzN/edit [docs.google.com]
5. AOB

Steven Chan


Policy Director, GNSO Support

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536


Email: steve.chan@icann.org

Skype: steve.chan55

Mobile: +1.310.339.4410

Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar