Apologies to you all. I may not be able to join the call because my telco provider will be carrying out some scheduled network maintenance work tonight when our call is on. When Steve asked me about leading this call, I completely forgot about the prior email notice I received from the telco provider until today. I will endeavour to join the call if I have connectivity. Otherwise, could Steve or one of the Councilors please lead the call? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Sent At:2019 Apr. 27 (Sat.) 09:24 Recipient:gnso-pdp3dot0-dt@icann.org <gnso-pdp3dot0-dt@icann.org> Subject:Re: [GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT] Proposed Agenda GNSO PDP 3.0 Hi All, In preparation for our next PDP3.0 session, please review the following. Apologies for the lengthy email. As you will see by the actions under Recommendation #11, there is reference to “Adapt Factsheet” to help with “Enforcing Deadlines.” It’s a bit misplaced to note that the Factsheet will directly help solve this issue. As part of our meeting on Monday, I will give a quick demonstration of the Factsheet. In short, while it has some limited Project Management components, it’s mostly built to be a summary communications tool and to help manage an allocation of funds and subsequent expenses. This was first established in the CCWG Accountability and now used as a standard within the MSSI team for reviews. As for the GNSO, our first use of this was for the EPDP Phase 1 and will be used again for Phase 2 as these were the first projects where funds were specifically allocated for a PDP. The above Factsheet is what lead me to create the prototype for the project list, which is a better tool for the Council to manage deadlines. What we’ve been missing with the current project list is a mechanism to quantitatively provide a realistic status of where a given project stands. In the current list, you may have noticed an initial but quick version based on Status and Condition (both of which were leveraged from an internal legacy project management tool). You may have also seen these status conditions used on the ICANN.org projects page. Current Projects List: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project. This current project list work product is organized based on the high-level PDP phases. As you can see by the summary diagram, the process moves from left to right, starting with Issue Identification through to Implementation. After the summary page, the project list moves top to down following the same phases as identified in the summary diagram. I’m hopeful we can maintain this structure on the new project list (https://gnsocouncilsmallteam.slack.com/files/UH2Q3QA80/FHHNKMY69/gnso_projec...). I will speak more to this prototype on our next call. The most notable changes are to quantify activity, especially a better demonstration of duration on the project. But most importantly is the section about project status. The bottom right section of the prototype is an attempt to migrate away from redlines of the project list. My thought is to better document: What was done What we are doing What we will do To not make this email any longer, I would like the team to consider the following questions related to the prototype: 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 Lastly, I will speak a bit to a longer term vision to migrate the project list away from MS Word to align with the projects loaded within WG Enrollment & Management tool. This capability (if it will work) will not be possible until 2020. I hope you find this somewhat helpful. If not, I’m happy to explain in more detail on the call and afterwards. Thank you. B GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobbb From: GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT <gnso-pdp3dot0-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 10:03 PM To: "gnso-pdp3dot0-dt@icann.org" <gnso-pdp3dot0-dt@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT] Proposed Agenda GNSO PDP 3.0 Hello Team, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the PDP 3.0 Small Team Meeting on Monday 29 April at 13:00 UTC. As suggested, we have tried to make the agenda a little less ambitious. Note, Pam will lead the call on Rafik’s behalf. Welcome and roll call Agreement on next steps for implementation #1. (Terms of participation for WG members) and #14. (flexibility of PDP for data gathering, chartering, termination) Discussion of next topics: #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). Comments or suggestions on the draft? #9. Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 and clarification of section 3.7 (Appeal Process) (Standard Methodology for decision making): Develop briefing document as well as slides to explain concept of “consensus” in the PDP. Discussion on the draft. Further changes needed before turning into a slide deck? #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). Discussion on draft. AOB If you have any questions or suggested changes, please let me know. 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/