Dear All, Please find below the action items and notes captured during the small team call on Monday, 29 April 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/QoGGBg 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 dedicate the next meeting to discuss Improvement #11 the questions posted by Berry in his email. - Small Team to continue following up on the discussion of Improvement #9 and #2 via SLACK. For Staff: - Staff to further investigate ICANN’s Conflict of Interest Policy and its applicability to ICANN community members. [DONE – ICANN org’s Conflict of Interest policy is not applicable to ICANN community members] - Staff to incorporate suggestions from the small group and send the updated document for Improvement #1 to the Ombudsman and PDP leadership (including Kurt) for input. Staff to develop the cover note in consultation with Rafik and Pam. - Staff to update the document for Improvement #14 incorporating input from the small team. - Staff to confirm with Rafik and schedule the next meeting on 13 May at 13:00-14:00 UTC NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call 2. Agreement on Improvement #1 and #14 a. #1 - Minor changes proposed from Elsa in SLACK channel. - Is the statement of participation going to be a fixed, standard document for all WGs? Or does a WG have the flexibility to change/modify the statement of participation? It should be one standard document as a baseline to ensure clarity and harmony. Only in rare cases, additional items can be added to the document. - Should we add the language of “bottom up” and “multi-stakeholder model” in the statement of participation? Maybe not, as this language is mentioned in other “higher level” binding documents (e.g., ESB). - Perhaps replace “adhering to ICANN’s Conflict of Interest Policy” with “updating Statement of Interest”? There does not seem to be a Conflict of Interest Policy targeting community members. - ACTION ITEM: Staff to further investigate ICANN’s Conflict of Interest Policy and its applicability to ICANN community members. - ACTION ITEM: Staff to incorporate suggestions from the small group and send the updated document to the Ombudsman and PDP leadership (including Kurt) for input. Staff to develop the cover note in consultation with Rafik and Pam. b. #14 - What is the aim of improvement? Should it be reworded? - This document is prepared to evaluate the data request. However, the language of the recommendation also concerns with charter template and PDP termination. These three purposes should not be lumped together. - The goal of the improvement needs to be clarified. It should just focus on the goal regarding clarifying the criteria for evaluating data request. - Many elements that Elsa mentioned are already identified in the GNSO Operating Procedure. The small group can review the existing language of the Operating Procedure and see if it’s fit for those purposes (e.g., charter drafting, PDP termination) - ACTION ITEM: Staff to update the document incorporating input from the small team. 3. Discussion of next topics a. #11 - This improvement is more about enforcing deadlines and ensuring work is broken into bite size pieces. - CCWG-Accountability had prior experience with using factsheet as a communication/project management tool for the community to track the activity of the group. The EPDP Team has been using a similar tool. - The intent of the Improvement #11 is not so much about the fact sheet, but more about teasing out the key components of the fact sheet to be leveraged by the GNSO Council for facilitating the management of the PDPs on a higher level. - What is missing on the fact sheet is the status of the project, which takes us to our current project list. The current project list aligns a project with the various phases of a PDP. But not all GNSO projects align with PDP phases (e.g., non-PDP project). - The prototype helps provide the visibly to the status condition (e.g., on target, at risk, in trouble) and progress, and includes the rationale. - Question 1: Do we need to create a single template (a “thin” version) for a project that will start/just started? - Question 2: How to deal with project priority? - Question 3: How to deal with the project tracking when it is in the implementation phase? The policy department does not own the policy implementation, and there is a challenge of creating duplicative project list. Should we link out to the project list produced by the GDD? - Question 4: Who owns the project list and is responsible for updating it? - ACTION ITEM: Small Team to dedicate the next meeting to discuss the questions posted by Berry in his email. b. #9 - ACTION ITEM: Small Team to continue following up on #9 via SLACK. c. #2 - ACTION ITEM: Small Team to continue following up on #2 via SLACK. 4. AOB - ACTION ITEM: Staff to confirm with Rafik and schedule the next meeting on 13 May at 13:00-14:00 UTC.