[council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper

[Marie Pattullo]

Dear all,
Trust you had a good journey home!
As requested during our meetings last week, please see below the input that the BC provided on PDP 3.0. We’re of course more than happy to discuss further.
Kind regards,
Marie


From: Marie Pattullo
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 4:42 PM
To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>; 'Rafik Dammak' <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
Cc: bc-excomm at icann.org<mailto:bc-excomm at icann.org>
Subject: RE: GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper

All,
Many thanks for this. As requested, input from the BC is below.
Kind regards
Marie


The BC welcomes the discussion of how to improve the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Ensuring an efficient and effective way to gather, synthesise and advance community-based policies is a vital part of ICANN’s DNA.

As a starting point, not only has the current average timeline for PDPs increased, so has the amount of working groups, reviews and policy dossiers – not least the unprecedented EPDP/Temporary Specification work. A balance must be found between allowing enough time and community input on the one hand and an efficient and timely process on the other; we thank the Council leadership and staff for setting out the challenges in a concise and realistic way. Taking the potential incremental improvements in order:

Working Group Dynamics

  *   Terms of participation for WG members: while a “Commitment of Participation” template may be worthwhile, in practice this is unlikely to have a practical effect on participation. We already have standards of behaviour but experience shows that this does not stop bad faith or even the wilfully unpleasant, and at a lesser level one person’s joke is another’s affront. This would have to be policed carefully.
  *   Consider alternatives to open WG model: designation by SO/AC/SG/Cs should help to ensure more objectivity and expertise, but we would add that the designee should also act as the conduit for their designator’s views and not in their personal capacity. Individuals must be allowed to join as either participants or observers to preserve the multistakeholder model; would it however be possible to consider “weighted voting” in contentious matters (so more “weight” for designees)? For example, could the Chair call a vote on a discussion point when it seems that deadlock has been reached based on ideology rather than reason and community benefit?
  *   Limitations to joining of new members after a certain time: if this is to happen, new observers must still be allowed to join and newsletters issued regularly to ensure transparency. The decision to widen/restrict the membership should not fall on the PDP leadership alone, but on Council as a whole to prevent unwarranted pressure/capture of the Chairs.

WG Leadership

  *   Capture vs. Consensus Playbook: any practical tools and support to ensure effective and efficient leadership should be seen as a positive. Experienced Chairs/leadership would be the most obvious drafters to share hands-on experience and solutions.
  *   Active role for and clear description of Council liaison to PDP WGs: support.
  *   Document expectations for WG leaders that outlines role & responsibilities as well as minimum skills / expertise required: support.

Complexity of Subject Matter

  *   Creation of Cooperative Teams: while we understand the good faith reasoning, this goes against the idea of the “Commitment of Participation” and could develop into a shortcut for those who do not/cannot engage who then rely on these Teams to do extra work/outreach to compensate for their lack of engagement. It would also lead to further complexity by adding another structural element that could cause confusion about who really is the shaping the PDP – the drafting team, the subgroup, the Chair, Cooperative Team..? It could also be vulnerable to claims that the Teams were misdirecting the members/ misrepresenting the discussions.

·         PDP Plenary or Model PDP: full support.


Consensus Building

  *   Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 (Standard Methodology for decision making): general support but a note of caution:  “Consensus” means different things to different organisations and at the beginning of a PDP it would be helpful to remind everyone about what “consensus” will mean in the PDP process. However there is value in considering consensus-building lessons and approaches used by other organisations.
  *   Document positions at the outset: possible, but would this not extend the opening phases of the PDP before substantive work could start? And whose positions – those of members, or aggregate views? There will also by default be sub-positions of positions. We are not convinced that this would be of benefit.

Role of Council as Manager of the PDP

  *   Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces: full support.
  *   Notification to Council of changes in work plan: full support.
  *   Review of Chair(s): this leads to a further question – do we need a policy on the appointment of Chairs in the first place? While we support the idea of a “process... that allows a WG to challenge and/or replace its leadership team” this should be carefully crafted. The 12-month reappointment seems sensible.
  *   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: support.
  *   Independent conflict resolution: We are concerned that an independent conflict resolution process has the potential of becoming the default way to resolve seemingly intractable WG disagreements rather than forcing WG members to do the hard work of consensus-building and employing the toolkit of possible responses mentioned under WG Leadership. After two years under the revised PDP process, we might then reconsider the desirability/need for recourse to independent conflict resolution. Further - who would do this? If external – cost implications? Could it fall under the remit of (e.g.) the Standing Selection Committee? Whoever it is, this should be known to all WGs from the outset.
  *   Criteria for PDP WG Updates: support.
  *   Resource reporting for PDP WGs: support.



From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 11:24 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper

Sending on behalf of the Council leadership

Dear colleagues,

Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities’ consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 – potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62.

Best regards,

GNSO Council leadership team

Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180702/9529bdb9/attachment-0001.html>