[council] Updated PDP3.0 report

Heather Forrest haforrestesq at gmail.com
Mon Oct 22 08:25:51 UTC 2018


Dear Darcy, Marie, Michele, all,

Responding to your concerns on improvements 7, 8 and 10 which did not have
in principle support, as well as the other suggestions captured in the
submissions of Phil Corwin and Petter Rindforth and others that add further
improvements than those we had initially put out for comment.

As I noted at the end of our working session yesterday, the Executive
Summary sets out the following to differentiate improvements with support
from those for further discussion. If you have any concerns about this
language or suggestions to make it more clear that 7, 8 and 10 are not in,
please weigh in before Tuesday evening.

The following improvements, which have support from the full Council, are
proposed to the GNSO Council for its immediate adoption:

 *Improvement #1: Terms of participation for WG members*

*Improvement #2: Consider alternatives to open WG model*

*Improvement #3: Criteria for joining of new members after a PDP WG’s
formation*

*Improvement #4: Capture vs. Consensus Playbook*

*Improvement #5: Active role for and clear description of Council liaison
to PDP WGs*

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

*Improvement #9: Provide further guidance for section 3.6 (Standard
Methodology for Decision Making)*

*Improvement #11: Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces*

*Improvement #12: Notification to Council of changes in work plan*

*Improvement #13: Review of Chair(s)*

*Improvement #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*

*Improvement #15: Independent conflict resolution*

*Improvement #16: Criteria for PDP WG Updates*

*Improvement #17: Resource reporting for PDP WGs*

 It is intended that, following adoption by the GNSO Council, the Council
will further develop and take action on the proposed implementation
strategies documented here.

The following improvements, which have varying degrees of support from the
full Council, are proposed to be further developed and considered by the
GNSO Council for potential adoption in the near term:

 *Improvement #7: Creation of Cooperative Teams*

*Improvement #8: PDP Plenary or Model *

*Improvement #10: Document positions at the outset*

Additional proposed improvements stemming from comments received during
consultations of these recommendations which are documented in this report
should be considered alongside these three improvements.



The GNSO Council acknowledges and wishes to thank all those who have
contributed to this initial phase of the GNSO PDP 3.0 Project.


On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:36 PM Michele Neylon - Blacknight <
michele at blacknight.com> wrote:

> I think there are a few items that need to be further explored and
> developed, so we shouldn’t be voting on blank items but maybe recommending
> further work?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
>
> Blacknight Solutions
>
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>
> https://www.blacknight.com/
>
> http://blacknight.blog/
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
>
> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marie
> Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
> *Date: *Sunday 21 October 2018 at 11:53
> *To: *Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, GNSO Council List <
> council at gnso.icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [council] Updated PDP3.0 report
>
>
>
> Thanks so much Heather.
>
>
>
> We didn’t get to #7 but may I please ask a basic question: why is it
> there? It didn’t have any support in our discussions to date so I’m a bit
> confused as to why the report says that it is “proposed to be further
> developed and considered by the GNSO Council for potential adoption in the
> near term”.
>
>
>
> I’m worried that putting out this idea of the “Creation of Cooperative
> Teams” as a potential “improvement” could suggest to the community that if
> you don’t/can’t/won’t engage in a PDP, that’s OK as the most
> active/engaged/involved members will double their own hours by synthesising
> and explaining things to you. I’d rather pass the message that being a WG
> member comes with the personal responsibility to, well, do the “work” part.
>
>
>
> Sorry if I have totally misunderstood this!
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Heather
> Forrest
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 21, 2018 11:13 AM
> *To:* GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>; gnso-SECS <
> gnso-secs at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [council] Updated PDP3.0 report
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> Please find attached a revised version of the PDP3.0 report (in clean and
> redline versions) that incorporates our discussions this morning.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Heather
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20181022/d99843e2/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list