Val, to date 6 WG members have responded to the survey. The survey is still open for those interested to provide feedback (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/86N33WX). The idea is that all feedback received will be included together with any input from SG/C/SO/ACs for review by the WG when it starts its deliberations on the charter questions. Attached you'll find the input as it was received until 7 January (note, additional responses came in after that date but we have not collated those yet). Best regards, Marika From: Val Sherman <VSherman@sgbdc.com> Date: Tuesday 4 February 2014 23:17 To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Committee of the Whole vs Subteams Don, Thanks. That clarifies our approach. Since we are moving forward as a Committee of the Whole for the time being, it could be helpful to us as a group to do two things. First, it might be helpful for someone (e.g, the ICANN staff) to compile, summarize, and circulate the responses to the internal WG questionnaire. It would be interesting to know where all WG members--including those who may not be actively participating during our regular calls or on our e-mails--stand on each issue, and may enable us to identify areas of consensus or near consensus sooner, rather than later. It may also be easier to evaluate, incorporate, and address the external SO/AC and SG/C input we will eventually receive if the WG questionnaire responses are already shared and discussed. Second, to further focus our weekly discussions, what are your thoughts on tackling the issues category by category, in logical order? For example, the whole WG would begin work on "Registration" issues next week. We would seek to crystallize consensus and other positions on the topics within that category over the following weeks, and then move on to the next category (i.e. ³Maintenance²). Of course, input from WG members on one issue might overlap with other issues, but keeping our focus on a particular category of issues at a time might enable us to progress more efficiently and productively through our work. Val ----------- Valeriya Sherman | Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff LLP 1101 30th Street NW |Washington DC 20007 (w) 202 944 3300 | (c) 303 589 7477 | vsherman@sgbdc.com <mailto:vsherman@law.gwu.edu> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Don Blumenthal [dblumenthal@pir.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 2:29 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil; PPSAI Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Committee of the Whole vs Subteams Kiran, Thanks. That definitely is the way we will start and reassess if needed. This project will have to be flexible in a few ways as we go along. Best, Don From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 2:16 PM To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Committee of the Whole vs Subteams Thanks Don, I think Committee of the Whole is a better approach at this stage, especially for those of us that want to be involved in and aware of multiple issues, but don¹t have time to attend multiple calls per week. Best, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415.222.8318 (t) 415.419.9138 (m) www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com/> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Blumenthal Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:50 AM To: PPSAI Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Committee of the Whole vs Subteams I¹m concerned that my outline of a full WG approach to our work as opposed to subteams was not as clear as I wanted. Some very interesting things were going on in chat and I made the mistake of trying to read and talk at the same time. Please contribute by voice if you can. I think that the interaction is better and I¹m not sure that everybody reads the transcript later (sorry, Nathalie). Mary, Marika, Steve, Graeme, and I looked at comments on the list and shared our experiences. The high points: Committee of the Whole Allows everyone to be involved Is particularly appropriate when issues don¹t separate cleanly Avoids problems that subteams create when a WG member wants to be on multiple teams or can¹t devote the time to subteams and the full WG Subteams Is good for people who have specific interest or expertise and want to focus their efforts Works best when major issues don¹t overlap much Can add efficiency in that topics are split out for concurrent analysis instead of the WG tackling them in sequence Add staff burden and the possibility of failure points if subchairs or members don¹t follow through We decided to start with a Committee of the Whole approach because we have some overarching issues to address. In addition, as we saw today and on prior calls, dividing topics may not be so easy when we get into section discussions. However, the WG can decide later whether we want to create smaller groups and, if so, how to do it. ICANN WGs have used many different models. Don