[council] EPDP Weekly update

Wed Sep 12 00:32:22 UTC 2018

Hi Keith,

thanks for the comments and suggestions, I am responding to the extent of
possible and quickly. I put Kurt in cc as he can add more comments to some
of them as they seem addressed to EPDP leadership.

Le mer. 12 sept. 2018 à 04:05, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> a
écrit :

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I have joined a couple of the recent EPDP WG calls as an observer, and I
> have a few observations and questions we should consider. From a Council
> “process management” perspective, these are intended to be constructive in
> the hopes of ensuring success of the EPDP:
>
>
>
>    - Following the Triage exercise, the EPDP working group does not
>    appear to be working toward answering the questions contained in the
>    Charter in a systematic way. What was the decision process behind not
>    following the Charter questions? When will the group return to the Charter
>    questions?
>
> I think that was not clear and missing from our side, but the thinking
from leadership and support staff is to use the "Discussion Summary Index"
to include the charter questions and the relevant temp spec sections in
same place.  The  idea is that through updates to the temp spec, the
charter questions will be answered using the rationale for the changes for
that purpose.

>
>    - What does the WG leadership see as the ultimate outcome of this
>    EPDP, and what do we as Council expect the deliverable to be? Rather than
>    focusing on the gating questions enumerated in the Charter, the WG has been
>    engaged in a Temp Spec red-lining exercise.  Is our expected deliverable a
>    list of policy recommendations or a revised version of the Temporary
>    Specification? Or both?  We should all be clear on the expected deliverable.
>
>
>

it is likely to be both redlines and policy recommendations. The aim would
be to get the EPDP team to agree on the outcome from this effort and being
clear about that.
I concurr with you that we have to be more clear about the expected
deliverable and I know that some SGs already raised those questions.

>
>    - After 12 meetings and the Triage process, there doesn’t appear to be
>    much progress toward consensus. It seems that different groups keep
>    restating their positions with little variation when it comes to discussing
>    purposes. Does leadership have a plan for breaking through this and moving
>    the ball forward? Do we as Council need to provide additional guidance or
>    clarification?
>
>
I think the council guidance to the EPDP leadership is important and
helpful.  We suggested a new approach to manage our calls with aim to get
things done and  everyone focused on the same goal than getting the same
arguments/positions rehashed. Other approaches are under discussion or to
be discussed to use them to make more steady progress.

>
>
>    - Noting that the discussion on many calls seems to meander, it might
>    be helpful for leadership and staff to identify a goal or goals that the
>    day’s discussion is meant to achieve, and to communicate such goal(s) to
>    the WG prior to the call along with the agenda.
>
>
that is something we are working toward as the number of calls left is
limited. We are currently discussing changes  on the agenda and stating
goals and deliverables for each topic in order to steer the deliberations.
I understand that messaging and communciation have to be improved in order
to get all EPDP members understand what we are trying to achieve and have
everyone on board.

>
>
>    - Have leadership and staff developed a plan for how to structure the
>    face-to-face meeting in Los Angeles later this month?
>
>
we are working on that currently and aiming to share details with EPDP team
asap.

>
>
> Thanks, and I welcome further discussion on this. I know the WG leadership
> and staff and members/alternates are all working hard under very compressed
> timelines, so we should look for opportunities to help focus and streamline
> the work without interfering in the substantive discussions.
>
>
>
as you can see from my responses, we got several actions to take and are
being work out. We are aware about the issues and shortcomings and trying
to fix them.  I personally welcome those suggestions and comments. This
EPDP is an experiment for PDP 3.0 and we have to make it successful.
The weekly report will include more details. I may send more later on
depending on the ongoing discussions.

Best,

Rafik

>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Darcy
> Southwell
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:46 PM
> *To:* rafik.dammak at gmail.com; 'Council GNSO' <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] EPDP Weekly update
>
>
>
> Thanks, Rafik.  Have a couple of questions from your update:
>
>
>
>    - What is the deadline for EPDP members to complete the training?
>    - You noted the project is behind, and I see the items highlighted in
>    yellow as “manageable delay/issue.”  You agree that these are manageable?
>    I wasn’t sure from your update.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darcy
>
>
>
> *From:* council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org
> <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak
> *Sent:* Monday, September 10, 2018 10:31 AM
> *To:* Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* [council] EPDP Weekly update
>
>
>
> hi all,
>
>
>
> please find the EPDP update of last week. Happy to answer questions.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180912/0f25fe15/attachment-0001.html>