Some top of mind thoughts while reading this through: · It’s not about “limiting” any AC/SO involvement - it’s about ensuring the right people for the job are involved, wherever they come from. That will of course be case-by-case. · No problem with periodic reminders to inactive members, although if we do that it should be assessed in practice to see if it has any effect. · Not sure I know how they want to “encourage compromise and cooperation” as they make no concrete suggestions. · I think we do have better leadership criteria? · On the participation paragraph, we appreciate difficulties everyone in the community has in volunteering their own time (she types well into the evening, about to talk to people who should be in bed & who are very much “on the other side of the globe” ;-) ). Webinars: sure, but if we are explaining the subject 101 then perhaps the person who needs this is not the person best placed to contribute to that WG? Being a member of a WG should imply that you are bringing something to the table and can contribute, not that you are learning about the subject. That isn’t what PDPs are for. Off to Zoom. Talk to you all soon! M From: GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT <gnso-pdp3dot0-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2019 1:36 AM To: gnso-pdp3dot0-dt@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT] FW: ALAC Feedback: Invitation to Provide Input for PDP 3.0 Implementation Dear All, For Small Team’s record, please see ALAC’s input for PDP 3.0 implementation attached. Thank you! Ariel From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu@icann.org<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:27 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, Maureen Hilyard, Alan Greenberg, Holly Raiche, Justine Chew Subject: Update: ALAC Feedback: Invitation to Provide Input for PDP 3.0 Implementation Dear Ariel and All, There is one revision added to the statement (attached) in the second paragraph on the first page: The ALAC appreciates proposed reforms to the PDP process that may make the process more effective and efficient in achieving outcomes. However, concern was expressed that the “reforms” suggested by the PDP 3.0 could be used to actually limit the participation by the ALAC / At-Large Community. In striving for timely, inclusive, productive and broad-based participation in PDP 3.0, the ALAC wish to share some feedback with the GNSO Council. ​ Please share this final, revised statement with the GNSO Council Small Team. Thank you for confirmation of receipt - and Happy Thanksgiving to you as well! Cheers, Evin