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

Thu Jan 30 15:16:11 UTC 2014

My interpretation from the mail was STs are for analysis after the
preliminaries and quick consensus items are disposed of.  For I would hate
to think that we could not have really quick "YES" on at least 80% of the
questions.

Its that knotty 20% where the argy bargy is expected and for which focused
analysis of question - and answers received and streamed - would benefit.
 No, STs would not make decisions for the WG but since they will likely
collect the major contenders, the distillates from them might further the
process towards consensus more quickly than not.

In context, ST lead - and who reports - matters.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <
michele at blacknight.com> wrote:

>  TBH I think subteams at this juncture is possibly counter-productive
>
>
>
> We've 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 we're 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 WG's 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 at icann.org [mailto:
> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at 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 at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
>
>
>
> 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<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> 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
>
>
>
> * One World. One Internet. *
>
>
>
> *From: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM
> *To: *Jim Bikoff <jbikoff at sgbdc.com>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <
> 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>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM
> *To: *Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org>, PPSAI <
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>   <PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping - 29 Jan 2014 - kk.gb.mw.docx>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140130/034c3bab/attachment-0001.html>