I think Michele has hit the nail on the head ­ from my experience, sub-teams can be very productive, but only if their work is narrowly defined and the broader WG is comfortable with a small group going away to come up with concrete recommendations because they have provided specific directions on what the general views of the WG are on that topic and/or it is not a controversial issue but something that is considered easier dealt with by a smaller group of (expert) WG members. It seems that neither of those two conditions apply at this juncture of our work. An alternative approach the WG may want to consider is mapping out very clearly which topics / charter questions are discussed at which meetings so that there can be a natural selection of WG members that may be particularly interested in one topic and not in another. Obviously, any conclusions / draft recommendations would need to go out on the mailing list for review / discussion for anything is labelled 'final', but that may provide a path to clearly set out topics and allow WG members to self-select which topics they want to be closely involved in and which ones they prefer to monitor from a distance. If at some point the WG feels that not enough progress is made in weekly 1 hour meetings, the WG could also consider extending its meetings to 90 minutes and/or meeting twice a week. Just my two cents. Marika From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Date: Wednesday 29 January 2014 22:24 To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com>, Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan TBH I think subteams at this juncture is possibly counter-productive We¹ve used them in past working groups when we were quite advanced in our work and needed to break off a small group of people to work on a specific issue / problem / hypothesis and then fold their work back into the main group. At this stage we¹re nowhere near that .. As others have pointed out, some people will want to participate in several subteams ­ again this down to the premature stage of development of the WG¹s work Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:24 PM To: Tim Ruiz; Mary Wong Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan I would greatly appreciate any comments based on anyone¹s past experience regarding whether or not the subteam model (in cases where their conclusions are not governing) speed the process, or just add layers. Best, Paul From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:57 AM To: Mary Wong Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan One issue I have seen with the subteam concept is that there are many who end up wanting to be on several or every subteam (including myself in that at times). So it is crucial that everyone feels comfortable with the fact that the subteam will not be making final decisions, but only informing the group to aid with consensus decisions, and will not have undue influence on the decision to be made. In any event, many may still want to be on many or all subteams and I feel it is not appropriate to tell anyone what they may or may not participate in. Tim On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:57 AM, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Don, Jim and everyone,

One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example, whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.

Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g. Main Issues) may be more organic than others.

Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the deliverables from those are due in short order!).

I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 603 574 4892

Email: mary.wong@icann.org

* One World. One Internet. *

From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM To: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan

...

Jim,

Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to see the group¹s thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)

I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.

Best,

Don

From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com> Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: PPSAI Work Plan

Dear Don,

As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.

Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work Plan:

1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN Staff.

2. Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.

3. Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a) Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f) Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions do not include ³Publication² or ³Termination² categories. We propose adding these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.

a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group teleconference.

b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group. Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.

4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of responses to survey accordingly.

5. Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2) Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of Support.

6. Present Report for Public Comment.

This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues questions.

Regards,

Jim

James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com

<PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping - 29 Jan 2014 - kk.gb.mw.docx>

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. **************************************************************************** ** Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.