[council] RrSG Feedback to GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper

Wed Aug 15 22:03:34 UTC 2018

Council,

Please see the comments below from the RrRSG regarding the GNSO PDP 3.0
discussion paper.

Thank you,
Darcy

The Registrar Stakeholder Group appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the GNSO PDP 3.0 document and offers the following:

4.1 Working Group Dynamics – Incremental Improvements

#1. Terms of participation for WG members

The RrSG supports outlining commitment expectations for WG members, so long
as it doesn’t adversely impact the ability to coordinate volunteers and
solicit appropriate representation for a PDP based on its charter and
specified structure.  To ensure volunteers understand what will be asked of
them, the RrSG suggests any call for volunteers include some basic
commitments/expectations, such as:

   -

   anticipated duration of the PDP, meeting commitment (e.g., weekly
   meetings of 90 minutes) and expected  availability to attend [the majority
   of] meetings and devote sufficient time to prepare for meetings (e.g.,
   require reading);
   -

   recommended expertise, if necessary, for the subject matter of the PDP;
   -

   knowledge of and respect for the GNSO policy development process; and
   -

   good faith commitment to working to build consensus.

PDP participants should be appropriately trained on how to use ICANN’s
remote meeting tools, including AdobeConnect, to ensure that PDP work is
not disrupted due to user challenges with the technology.

#2. Consider alternatives to open WG model

The RrSG supports balanced representation when it comes to policy
development.  However, a one-size-fits-all approach to PDP team structures
is not appropriate.  The RrSG encourages the Council to consider team make
up specific to each PDP, just as it does with drafting the scope, to ensure
that the team make up is fit for purpose.  The RrSG believes the Council’s
approach to the recent EPDP is a good example of considering the uniqueness
of the issue and creating a suitable team model.

#3. Limitations to joining of new members after a certain time

The RrSG cautions the Council to remember that, at times, a PDP participant
withdraws due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., job change, medical issue,
etc.).  Rather than prohibiting new members in such cases, an expectation
should be made of replacement members to come up to speed on what has
transpired, understand where consensus has been reached, etc., to avoid any
delay in the PDP’s work or the rehashing of previously decided issues as a
result of the new member’s concern.

4.2 WG Leadership – Incremental Improvements

#4. Capture vs. Consensus Playbook

The RrSG supports the idea of a “playbook” or expanded guidelines to assist
WG leaders, but we are also concerned that there may be a more systemic
issue.  Groups seem ever more willing to “lay down on the tracks” for
almost any issue. The community as a whole needs to determine a way to
replenish its “lake of goodwill” which appears in a severe drought.

#5. Active role for and clear description of Council liaison to PDP WGs

The RrSG supports the idea of the Council liaison having a more active role
in PDP WGs, including the ability to actively be involved in
leadership/preparatory meetings.

#6. Document expectations for WG leaders that outlines role &
responsibilities as well as minimum skills/expertise required

No strong position here.

4.3 Complexity of Subject Matter – Incremental Improvements

#7. Creation of Cooperative Teams

Effective policy development requires participation from the PDP team
members, especially active members responsible for responding to calls for
consensus.  ICANN staff ensures that meetings are recorded with audio
recordings and written transcripts available to participants. The RrSG
strongly disagrees that any subset of members should be preparing summaries
for “observers / less active” members to utilize in place of the recordings
and transcripts.  That information is already available without
interpretation by others that could alter the message.

#8. PDP Plenary or Model PDP

Since there are no limitations on observers in most PDPs, the RrSG has no
objections to allowing individuals to observe to learn more about the
subject matter.  However, given the demand already placed on PDP leadership
and participants, it is an unnecessary burden to ask PDP leadership to hold
plenary sessions specifically to educate newcomers on PDP subjects.

Further, ICANN already offers a number of methods of education on the GNSO
policy development process.  These tools are already available, and the
RrSG questions the need for further resources to be developed in that arena.

4.4 Consensus Building – Incremental Improvements

#9. Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 (Standard Methodology for
decision making)

The RrSG supports this improvement.  We would suggest that Council and
staff meet with PDP leadership at the outset to discuss the consensus
categories outlined in each PDP charter and acceptable methods for
identifying consensus status.  We also suggest providing a basic training
to PDP team members on the same.

#10. Document positions at the outset

The RrSG generally supports using surveys or other methods to try to find
middle ground on issues in order to make the policy development process
more efficient.  However, the RrSG is concerned that limitations on
restating positions be carefully considered and outlined. It would
undermine the policy development process to refuse to allow a participant
to restate a position during a formal call for consensus when that
participant’s knowledge and understanding of the full scope of the issue
has changed, based on PDP discussions, since the initial survey on middle
ground.

4.5 Role of Council as Manager of the PDP – Incremental Improvements

#11. Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces

Adequate, narrow PDP scoping is critical to creating an attainable,
realistic work plan.  The RrSG recommends that each PDP leadership team
engage with Council in a PDP evaluation process following PDP completion.
Similar to #16 below, we recommend a standardized summary template be
created to provide Council with data to indicate the effectiveness and
efficiency the PDP had in achieving its work plan, meeting the scope of the
PDP, etc.

#12. Notification to Council of changes in work plan

Not only is it important that PDP leadership communicate changes to the
work plan and the rationale for such changes, but both the PDP leadership
and the Council should be sure to consider the effect the change may have
on the totality of the PDP and how do accommodate for the changes.
Continually extending a PDP because of work plan changes isn’t acceptable.
Further, if work plan changes are necessitated by challenges with the PDP
scope, the Council should consider whether the original scope was
appropriate and, if not, review the scope for necessary changes in order to
ensure the PDP accomplishes the necessary goal(s).

#13. Review of Chair(s)

The RrSG is concerned that an anonymous survey could easily be gamed or
abused.  Instead of an anonymous survey, the RrSG suggests using the
monthly reporting (comparing performance to the work plan) in #16 as a
better means to ascertain if potential issues exist.  Council would then be
able to speak with the PDP leadership to determine what has gone off track
and why.

#14. Make better use of existing flexibility in PDP to allow for data
gathering, chartering and termination when it is clear that no consensus
can be achieved.

Data and metrics are vitally important and should be a stand-alone item,
instead of being lumped with chartering and termination. The DMPM WG made
the following observations in its Final Report, which seem still relevant
today (see pages 12 & 13,
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_48169/dmpm-final-09oct15-en
.pdf):

   -

   Lacking baseline data hampers the understanding of problems which should
   be a primary rationale for making changes to policy. Therefore, ensuring
   relevant baseline data as one element guiding the policy process is
   critical and should be mandated by WGs.
   -

   ... ideally, data gathering and analysis should occur prior to and/or
   while scoping the issue with the policy development process to follow.
   Note however, at the working group phase, a group should not be limited in
   seeking further data and metrics should additional analysis be required,
   especially when new forms of data may become available.
   -

   When a WG makes recommendations, it should include a policy impact
   assessment, and recommend suitable metrics to measure the impact.
Specifically,
   implementation of Consensus Policies should ensure post- implementation
   data is collected to analyze whether or not policy goals are achieved using
   defined metrics.

The RrSG, however, also believes that it is important to ensure that WGs do
not engage in data gathering exercises for the sake of gathering data.
Data gathering should not be used as a fishing expedition. We are
concerned, for example, that some in the RPM PDP have used the “date
gathering” requirement as an exercise to try to either 1) delay the
progress or the group or 2) test hypotheses that have yet to have any
supporting detail.  In other words, a data gathering exercise should not be
used to test academic or philosophical theories, but rather should be used
only where there is at least some evidence or reliable anecdotal data that
support the notion of a more comprehensive data collection exercise.

#15. Independent conflict resolution

Possible implementation: ICANN org put out a call for expressions of
interests seeking volunteer mediators to form a standing panel that could
be called upon by PDP WGs if and when needed.

#16. Criteria for PDP WG Updates

The RrSG encourages the Council to set the parameters (e.g., timing,
content) for PDP WG updates to ensure reporting provides the Council with
the information needed to effectively management the policy development
process.  For example, request monthly data that indicates:  (a) which
issues contained in the scope are complete and which are not; (b) whether
or not the PDP is on track to the work plan; (c) identify roadblocks
causing the PDP to miss work plan deadlines; (d) identify resource
concerns. Providing such regular reporting will allow the Council to more
effectively manage policy development, evaluate timelines and issues, and
 ensure overall policy work is efficient and effective.

#17. Resource reporting for PDP WGs

The RrSG understands that ICANN has not done any sort of resourcing data
collection or analysis in the past, but that is expected from the EPDP.
The RrSG encourages such reporting and analysis. In order for the Council
to effectively prioritize policy development work, one component it needs
to understand is the resourcing efforts involved.

Further general comments/suggestions:

   -

   The RrSG asks that Council consider the limitations of the PDP process,
   and its utility in making decisions, versus finding compromise.  The PDP
   excels at identifying issues, convening diverse stakeholders and
   perspectives, and conducting an analysis of potential solutions.  The PDP
   fails, however, when it is tasked with an either-or proposition, where the
   implications and views are known and well-established, and where the
   solutions are not suited for private contracts (unenforceable).  In these
   situations, the Council should prevent SGs and Cs from proposing or
   initiating PDPs, and instead look for other avenues to advance the work.

   -

   The RrSG encourages the Council to consider how to determine the right
   timing for policy development.  For example, at times policy development
   has begun while technical analysis may have been the more appropriate first
   step (e.g., IRTP-C (Change of Registrant), Across Field Validation
   (AFAV)).  We encourage the Council to consider what issues or information
   are necessary prior to policy development, and engage those avenues first
   to ensure policy development is as effective as possible.  In addition,
   there have been times when multiple PDPs are underway and competing for
   resources. Sometimes PDPs are working on similar issues but working
   separately and are, therefore, somewhat out of alignment. We encourage the
   Council to consider competing resources, timing, etc., to ensure that
   policy development is getting the attention it deserves, is adequately
   resourced, and is aligned with other ICANN community work to avoid
   duplication of efforts or competing results.

__________

*Darcy Southwell *| Compliance Officer

M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180815/51d0698f/attachment-0001.html>