[council] EPDP Weekly update
kdrazek at verisign.com
Fri Sep 14 16:08:14 UTC 2018
Thank you for your response to my observations and questions, and thanks for your hard work as Council liaison and Vice Chair. As you know, as managers of this expedited PDP process, we need to make sure Council receives early warning of any potential issues or road blocks. I encourage you and Kurt to proactively communicate with Council when faced with impediments to the success of the ePDP. I have some follow up thoughts to your responses:
* In creating the charter, the drafting team recognized the complexity of what the working group was being asked to do and the tight timeframe involved, and so deliberately laid out the charter questions in the mission and scope section to guide the working group through the questions it would need to answer and the steps it would need to follow to develop consensus policy recommendations to address the temporary specification.
* Am I correct in understanding your response that the leadership team and support staff have made the decision not to follow the path laid out in the charter? It appears, instead, that the working group is going through and deliberating on each section of the temporary specification which, as you put it, is likely to product both redlines and policy recommendations.
* You referenced the “Discussion Summary Index” found on the working group wiki page (https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/c.+Temporary+Specification+Discussion+Summary+Indexes). While these documents contain the temporary specification language, relevant advice from DPA/EDPB correspondence, input from the triage exercise and a mapping to related charter question(s), it is not clear how those summaries are being used to help guide the group toward consensus.
* Noting the work and project plan on the working group wiki page (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=88574682), I’d like to understand the rationale behind deliberating section by section through the temporary specification instead of following the charter questions.
Finally, I am concerned with the part of your response where you say the working group still needs to figure out what the outcome of the EPDP should be. How can the group organize its work if they do not know what they are working towards as a deliverable? I’d appreciate an update to Council from you or Kurt on this matter specifically.
Thanks and regards,
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 8:32 PM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Cc: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>; Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>; Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] EPDP Weekly update
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<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>> a écrit :
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.
From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>; 'Council GNSO' <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto: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.
From: council [mailto: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<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: [council] EPDP Weekly update
please find the EPDP update of last week. Happy to answer questions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council