[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan

Wed Jan 29 18:23:57 UTC 2014

I would greatly appreciate any comments based on anyone's 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 at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:57 AM
To: Mary Wong
Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at 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 at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at 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 at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>

* One World. One Internet. *

From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal at pir.org>>
Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM
To: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff at sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at 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 group's 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 at sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com>>
Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM
To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org<mailto:dblumenthal at pir.org>>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at 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 "Publication" or "Termination" 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 at sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com>

<PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping - 29 Jan 2014 - kk.gb.mw.docx>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140129/98863b3a/attachment-0001.html>