Dear All, Please find below the action items and notes captured during the PDP 3.0 Small Team meeting on Tuesday, 04 February at 13:00 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/display/GCP/2020-02-04+PDP3.0. Best Regards, Julie == Actions: 1. Incorporation of PDP 3.0 in GNSO Operating Procedures ACTION ITEM: Put the document out for review by the Small Team on the list. 2. Proposed effective time to deploy PDP 3.0 improvement implementation ACTION ITEM: Put the document out for review by the Small Team on the list. 3. Parking lot items discussion ACTION ITEM: Keep in the parking lot except noting that Flip as an action to produce a revision of the Statement of Interest. Councilors’ WG Participation - No change and no further work required. 4. PDP 3.0 Final Report preview ACTION ITEM: Put the document out for review by the Small Team on the list. Notes: 1. Incorporation of PDP 3.0 in GNSO Operating Procedures See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V7Xfoh_xnr51JDJqF8HsEn_buVak36GNrKafnx1F... -- Table of Contents: sections that could be revised. -- Most are in Annex 1 and Annex 2. -- Individual Sections: 1) Instructions on how to add contents. 2) The clean version is in this document, but not all of the text is new. -- Staff’s suggestion is to decouple this effort from the overall PDP 3.0 improvement implementation. Council may wish to review the implementation first, and then wait to make changes to the Operating Procedures after implementation. -- This is a work in program; not a final document. -- Changes to the Operating Procedures will take time. They need to go through public comment and then be approved by the Council. -- Need to start implementing the changes and do a review. Should do this before making the changes to the Operating Procedures. -- Question: The GNSO Council is supposed to manage the PDP using the Operating Procedures, so don’t we need to amend the Operating Procedures in order to carry out the PDP 3.0 improvements. Not sure about timing. -- If we make it too prescriptive then we have to change the Operating Procedures every time we do something different. -- We already started experimenting with the improvements – such as with the RPMs PDP WG revised charter. Not superseding what we have, but providing tools. -- It would take many months to update the Operating Procedures and that would need to be done by another team. -- It may not be a requirement for the Council to wait until after the review of the Operating Procedures. -- This document could be an extreme version of possible changes. Small Team from the Council working on the changes could use this as a reference. -- Actual changes are lightly to be much fewer and more high-level. -- Keep this as a reference for future work. Put it out for review. ACTION ITEM: Put the document out for review by the Small Team on the list. 2. Proposed effective time to deploy PDP 3.0 improvement implementation See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWJc4LwUuwDJex7OIHUktcQXRKUapSUNgU0zjI4j... 
 Overview: -- This is part of the MSM Evolution Workstream. -- For many of the improvements relating to working groups the suggestion is to make them effective immediately. -- Next generation project list has already been deployed. -- Project Change Request has already been used/implemented. Discussion: -- Providing that the GNSO Operating Procedures allow us to deploy/implement immediately the proposed timeline is okay. -- Change “applied for” to “applied to”. ACTION ITEM: Put the document out for review by the Small Team on the list. 3. Parking lot items discussion -- Confirm which ones of these items need to be moved forward. -- Any suggestions to narrow this group of items, or we can defer them to the Council. -- After our discussions at the SPS, I think there was a clear majority not to proceed with the idea that a councilor should be barred from PDP participation. -- Flip took the action at the SPS to develop a new draft of the Statement of Interest. -- Don’t think we’ll get further feedback from our respective groups. -- Better if this Small Team has a suggestion of what to do with them. -- We should wait to see how the current proposals operate in practice before changing even more. -- Councilors’ WG Participation - No change and no further work required. -- Others: continue to hold in the parking lot. ACTION ITEM: Keep in the parking lot except that Flip as an action to produce a revision of the Statement of Interest. Councilors’ WG Participation - No change and no further work required. 4. PDP 3.0 Final Report preview See the wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/GCP/%5BDraft+Space%5D+PDP+3.0+Implementa... and the report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OfQkmpp1yhAECpQy7nc4_1K7Jlb4iwg2_6nT2I3E... -- Per action item above, remove Councilor’s WG Participation from the parking lot. -- Section 2: Do we want to copy and paste all the work products or link to the table? If we list all of the documents it will be very lengthy, but if we include only links people may not click on the link. -- Could we include the deliverable documents as annexes? Like the idea of having a table with links to the documents, but given that this is a final report it might be good to have everything in one place as a record. Then they are all there and captured. -- No objections to include the score-cards and webinar materials as annexes. ACTION ITEM: Put the document out for review by the Small Team on the list.