Dear All, Please find below the action items and notes captured during the small team call on Monday, 15 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/UgB1Bg. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS For the Small Team: * Small Team to check the target dates of the items that are at risk or failing behind and determine if an adjustment needs to be made. * After accepting the modification to the Improvement #1 document, Small Team to reach out to ongoing PDP working groups (including Kurt for the EPDP) for input. * Small Team to review the WG charter template and see whether/what modification is needed in order to effectively integrate the data gathering checklist (Improvement #14). * Small Team to circle back to Improvement #13 after discussion on Improvement #6 has been completed. * Small Team to follow up on the homework for the following items via SLACK channels: * #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. For Staff: * Staff to make an explicit reference to action items related to the implementation steps in the work plan. [ONGOING] * Staff to investigate origins of the implementation recommendation #14, making sure the underlying purpose is well understood. NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call 2. Review of work plan a. Understanding the format b. Determining if changes should be made (e.g., to make it more achievable) - The Work Plan has visual cues that indicate when things are falling behind/at risk, so give readers a sense what needs to be worked on. Green = time, red = behind, yellow = at risk. - Actions are grouped together based on the specific implementation and further, by the category of improvements. - Original schedule was built in early 2019 so needs a reality check / adjustment. There are probably dependencies that can be built into the schedule. - Need to check the items with the default target completion date of July and see whether a new target date is needed ACTION ITEM: Small Team to check the target dates of the items that are at risk or failing behind and determine if an adjustment needs to be made. 3. Review of topics from last meeting and agreement on next steps a. #1 (Terms of participation for WG members): Review EPDP Statement of Participation and consult with EPDP Team / leadership what impact, if any, the statement of participation has had. Is this complete? - There is a need to consult with the EPDP Leadership Team on the implementation, after the changes to the revised document have been agreed by the Small Team. - Should the Small Team consolidate all the outreach items, or deal with outreach per individual improvement? - Besides the EPDP Leadership Team, the Small Team should solicit input from the leadership of other PDP WGs. - When the statement of participation needs to be completed by WG members? This may impact the WG member sign up process when SalesForce is used. - Suggested edits are intended to make the language more standard to be applied to all PDP working groups. - After the Small Team accepts the modification, the ongoing PDP chairs need to be consulted on the document. Their input may help make the decision on whether the statement of participation can be used for every PDP working group effort. ACTION ITEM: After accepting the modification to the Improvement #1 document, Small Team to reach out to ongoing PDP working groups (including Kurt for the EPDP) for input. b. #14 (flexibility of PDP): Develop draft set of criteria to evaluate request for data gathering and document this as a checklist to be used by a PDP WG. Is this complete? - If the check list is approved, it would likely require an update to the WG charter template. - If a consensus cannot be achieved, it seems that we have long past the point for collecting data to effectively facilitate the PDP effort. Need clarification on when the checklist can be used and how it can be used. - The purpose for this improvement is to “unstick” a PDP when consensus cannot be achieved. There are other implementations that are related to this purpose. - Need to think about what implementation steps are intended. In the working group charter there should be an item about data gathering, and the Council should contemplate on the potential budget required for data gathering. ACTION ITEM: Small Team to review the WG charter template and see whether/what modification is needed in order to effectively integrate the data gathering checklist. ACTION ITEM: Staff to make an explicit reference to action items related to the implementation steps in the work plan. [ONGOING] ACTION ITEM: Staff to investigate origins of the implementation recommendation #14, making sure the underlying purpose is well understood. c. #13. (Review of Working Group Leadership): Continue work of the SPS sub-group to make specific PDP 3.0 implementation recommendations. Discussion on next steps. - During the SPS, there was a document developed regarding leveraging the existing PDP assessment form and surveying how the PDP leadership are performing. The document did not get much traction. - Feedback on survey is that it is not helpful, but it can be part of the evaluation mechanism/toolkit. It is not clear what the evaluation mechanism would be. - Shouldn’t criteria be developed to hold the working group chairs accountable? A simple review form can be developed against the criteria. - Question is who should conduct the review of WG leadership and how. This question may be dealt later. - It may be helpful to tackle #13 and #6 together, as #6 identifies items that WG leaders should do. ACTION ITEM: Small Team to circle back to #13 after discussion on #6 has been completed. 4. Begin review of next topics: - The Small Team did not get to this part of the agenda; hence the following items have been assigned as homework for the Small Team to follow up on via SLACK channels. - #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. 5. AOB