[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Committee of the Whole vs Subteams

Wed Feb 5 08:07:24 UTC 2014

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 at sgbdc.com>
Date:  Tuesday 4 February 2014 23:17
To:  Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org"
<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at 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 at sgbdc.com
<mailto:vsherman at law.gwu.edu>

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
[gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Don Blumenthal
[dblumenthal at 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 at markmonitor.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 2:16 PM
To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org>, PPSAI
<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at 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 at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140205/7c57ce69/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Survey Responses - 7 January 2013.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 146399 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140205/7c57ce69/SurveyResponses-7January2013-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140205/7c57ce69/smime-0001.p7s>