[GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT] Actions & Notes: GNSO PDP 3.0 Small Team Meeting 19 November 13:00 UTC

[Ariel Liang]

Dear All,

Please find below the action items and notes captured during the PDP 3.0 Small Team meeting on Tuesday, 19 November at 13:00-14:00 UTC.

Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording and chat room records, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/QpIzBw

Best Regards,
Ariel

Ariel Xinyue Liang
GNSO Policy Support Specialist
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

==
ACTIONS:
- Staff to start developing relevant documents for Improvement #17 based on small team input.
- Small Team/Staff to coordinate on the leads for presentation during the PDP 3.0 webinar.


NOTES:
1. Welcome and roll call

2. Improvement #17 ~Initial Discussion
- page 1 is an abstract of the work plan. Initial take away is that there are some broad/yet defined terms, e.g., “resources” can be multiple things, such as warm bodies that do the work, financial resources. It can imply tracking components. Question is about the “oversight” and who is doing the oversight.
- With the exception of EPDP, we don’t do any of the regular update of WG resources, as there are no existing resources allocated to the other working groups. Need better definition of who is doing the reporting and how the report is being consumed.
- No understand how much money has been allocated to each working group. No specific budget is trickled down to individual working group, and exception is the EPDP. The driving component of the dedicated fund for EPDP is that it comes from the ICANN contingency fund/slush fund.
- Possible implementation steps need more clarity. “Resource” is vague. Chartering phase needs to take into consideration the resources.
- The fact sheet is not a panacea that fixes everything. Only EPDP uses it. It has some aspects to track warm body resources, doing an FTE estimation plus using attendance and other data to guestimate how much time the community has spent on the EPDP efforts.
- Improvement #11 tries to address problems when they come to the way of a working group.
- Need to understand what the expected deliverables are for the “resource and bandwidth analysis”.
- Page 2 includes the Council action items related to improvement #17. Two items from SPS2019 are related the scary spreadsheet to get a comprehensive picture of ongoing activities.
- Engaging working group leadership on the financial resources in an action item in the next fiscal year. This action item is not workable in the current form, as all GNSO PDP WGs are set to conclude their work in FY2020.
- There is another action item to understand the capacity of the Council.
- PDFs attached are draft working progress, trying to quantify the amount of efforts/participation in GNSO working groups. These PDFs are out of date now. Very time consuming to put together these PDFs. All the data that we collect is in decentralized places (e.g., wiki, spreadsheet). It is hard to report against the data.
- A graphic shows the growth of WG participation over time. Participation grows due to advertisement through engagement efforts and importance of the subjects.
- A graphic that calculates the number of dates/overall duration of each WG. Once the board adopts the recommendations, there is time needed to implement the policies.
- Scary spreadsheet: either update/create another version or convert it into some other format to facilitate more regular update. Create a larger time scale to reflect how these projects affect us. Action items on the right-hand side are to introduce the prioritization of the projects.
- Do we need to guard against an expectation that there will always be funds? Asking a general question could lead to a presupposition that there is money available, which in turn could become a spend on nice-but-unnecessary.
- High contributor does not equate to useful contributions.
- Another spreadsheet that reflects our pipeline of inflight projects. The aim is to understand how many FTEs are required to get some outcome. The idea is to take a snapshot of how people review/respond to mailing list. Within the working group there are different levels of contributors. Assign some kind of hours to those different levels of contributors. Took a long time to put together the data.
- Resourcing and budgeting are just puzzle pieces to a larger puzzle. We need better definition of what the Council really wants to accomplish.
- Page 3 is a starter list of things that need to be done.
- Improvement #17 is really about the resource, so defining it is a good place to start.
- The idea of pipeline is important. The rest of the improvement is related to project management, and it is centered around pipeline.
- In terms of resources, it should start from the chartering phase. EPDP starts to do that but it wasn’t very advanced. Maybe involve planning work at the beginning. How to adjust the way that we plan our work to align with the timeline. How to synchronize/coordinate the work.
- Prioritization of GNSO projects should be done in SPS2020. Should have one PDP no longer than one/two years?
- Reflect more in the charter template, to specify what kind of resources are needed.
- Community hours are hard to track/require. No SGs/Cs have the ability to know specifically how many of their members can participate in a WG.
- Struggle to figure out what deliverable is required for this improvement. The point about community resource is that it is difficult to measure, and it varies. But ICANN financial resources and staff resources should be fixed for a given year/time. The purpose is not just about reporting/recording the number of hours. It is more meaningful if we have a view of the resources from ICANN Org side in order to decide whether the Council can take on another project. Need to understand how to prioritize.
- Is it possible to use the data regarding staff resources? If policy staff are already stretched, then maybe we cannot have staff to support another policy effort.
- The pain and scream come from the community resources. FTE allocation remains relatively flat. 7/34 out of policy department supports the GNSO PDPs. The growth of the number of WG has increased. Staff is overworked, but we are not going to say that. It is up to community to say what needs to come along.
- We are running at 130-140% out of the 100% utilization availability. Staff will make it work. The real issue is the number of balls being juggled at the same time from the community perspective.
- 3 or 4 WGs are launched and wrapping up at around the same time.
- Each WG has attendance record in separate tabs in one of Berry’s spreadsheet. At the individual level, you can see who is participating and how often he/she is participating. It took a very long time to compile the information but it hasn’t been used much. Get a better picture of who are the community’s key performers by how much they are participating. It does not address the elephant in the room – how to decide which WG can be launched.
- The only method to ensure we have resources is to limit the number of projects. We have three types of resources: ICANN staff, WG members. A good indicator is when active members stop participating in certain WG. They may be fed up.
- Start with something basic to help the community understand their capacity.
- Community resources will vary depending on topics. For example, IGO Curative Rights will have more GAC members and IGOs while Transfer Policy review will have more from registrars.
- Not concerned about getting accuracy for estimating resources at the first go. It may take several iterations.
- ACTION ITEM: Staff to start developing relevant documents for Improvement #17 based on small team input.

3. PDP 3.0 Webinar Prep
- Webinar is scheduled on 27 November at 21:00 UTC. Concerns about conflict with IGF 2019 in Berlin. Several small team members are unable to attend.
- Webinar is to focus on key takeaway from the proposed implementation for each improvement. Following presentation of each package of improvements is the Q&A. Scheduled for 90 min but may wrap up early.
- ACTION ITEM: Small Team/Staff to coordinate on the leads for presentation during the PDP 3.0 webinar.

4. AOB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-pdp3dot0-dt/attachments/20191119/bac73d63/attachment-0001.html>