[Ccpdp-rm] ccPDP3-RM postmortem ICANN76 | 16 March 2023, 09:00 local

[Joke Braeken]

Hello,

During the informal meeting by the ccPDP3-RM group in Cancun, those attending reflected on what went well and what should be improved regarding this policy development process. Do you have any items to add to this list? Please respond to this thread.  Thank you!

Best regards,

Joke


ccPDP3-RM postmortem ICANN76 | 16 March 2023, 09:00 local

What went well?


  *   Good result
  *   No big controversy
  *   Familiarity with way people worked helped
  *   Specific personalities in the WG
  *   Involved in previous WG
  *   We got it done
  *   Chided by the Board because it was taking long. Ironic. GNSO NextGen and new gTLD round is ongoing for several years
  *   Bart and Bernie are used to personalities and the way of work organisation
  *   We did fine on time
  *   First WG followed from the beginning. Start was hard, but there was a clear focus to make it happen and to have it done
  *   Amazing staff support. Impressed by Bernie’s work. Diplomatic approach.
  *   Accessibility of Stephen and Bernie was very much appreciated by Kim C.
  *   First establish basic principles how to deal with RM. Thus, isolate major issues, or controversial topics and revisit later
  *   The WG started and closed during the pandemic. Only once met in person. good that people knew each other previously.
  *   Cadence of meetings was good
  *   Second reading was valuable
  *   Good turnout
  *   Good to have people with legal background
  *   Intermediary updates on progress. Both during icann meetings and written.

What needs improvement?


  *   Not a fan of a line-by-line going through the document.  Would have preferred discussing around central focus points. It is hard to stay engaged.  Too focused on text on the page, rather than focusing on the principles.  Staff support to draft afterwards. Editorial phase should be a smaller portion of the work
  *   Finding the right balance: discussing structure and main content, but in the end, there is need to go line by line
  *   For various reasons (shyness, language barriers), you do not get into gear until people see something in writing.
  *   Language barriers. People that contribute are strong English speakers
  *   Scheduling. Same time: often meetings clashed with other commitments. Rotating would be better. Rotation combined with 2nd reading
  *   Span of time was difficult, duration of the process: we committed to something and planned accordingly. And then things extended. That makes it a scheduling issue.
  *   Community interaction. Very few people can follow.
  *   For average community members, the policy matters seem “far from my bed”. We should present the results in an easier to understand manner. People need to have a clear understanding on what they are going to vote on.
  *   Regular check-ins with community members: have preferences changed?
  *   Set expectations: when we need the answer






Joke Braeken
joke.braeken at icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org>

= = =

ICANN76 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW
• ccNSO Schedule
https://community.icann.org/x/8IMFDQ
• ccNSO Session Highlights
https://community.icann.org/x/kYYFDQ
• Tech Day
https://community.icann.org/x/WIQ-DQ

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20230316/edbbec27/attachment.html>