[GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT] [council] GAC Member Feedback to GNSO on GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Documents

[Maxim Alzoba]

Hello All, 


I think  we just thank GAC and consider the input.

Some of the items in their letter are quite questionable and effectively can kill the spirit of PDP3.0 :

page 1: 	• There should be some appeal mechanism included or referenced in the document in the event a group or team member disagrees with any leadership action to restrict group participation.

-> this one allows some well known person from GAC to get into the 
group and to block things from happening.
(if we want to add something - it should not be 'any action' and should not 
work without the reference to the team composition style (like group of representatives and an individual who 'wants to be there too')

page 2:
	• If not initially appointed by the GNSO Council, leadership of a working group or team should be determined by members of the group or team itself with subsequent confirmation by the GNSO Council.

-> this one shows they do not care about GNSO procedures

	• The overall concept conveyed in recommendation 2, of having appointed representatives in the PDP working groups, is very valuable. It may be helpful to have participants who represent identified wider interests, may be more motivated, more responsible and accountable, while at the same time maintaining the openness of the working groups.

-> this one is questionable, the group can not be totally open and representation type the same time

page 3,4:
	• As valuable as the best practices described in the document are, they remain somewhat subjective. The GNSO should consider adopting or incorporating specific standard certifications as a vehicle for evaluating the eligibility of potential working group leaders.

-> there are no proofs yet that having a specific training gives all necessary required GNSO leadership skills, 
requiring some specific certifications makes number of potential candidates lower
and potentially leads to 'closed club of leaders' model, which is not good. 
(listening to a course and reading texts is not equal to understanding what and how should be done 
and understanding the ideas)

	• The references in the document to ICANN Academy and ICANN Learn resources suggest that a certification or credentialing program could be considered as part of or related to the PDP 3.0 effort.

-> we are not in advertisement business, some items there
are good for initial understanding of things, but definitely can not replace what the leadership role requires
(certifications do not even grant you that the person who 'passed web-exams' is the 
same person who actually did it, though listening to those courses will take time,
which can be spent on reading GNSO procedures and other bits of wisdom :)

	• The GNSO Council may also wish to consider how to incorporate its working group leadership review mechanisms (Improvement #13) into the assessment of future working group leader candidates. Review feedback is something that could be incorporated into some form of a group chair/leader accreditation, credentialing or certification program.

-> this practice (adding certification) might lead to 
creation of 'leaders silos', which is not good many reasons, including lack of fresh blood

	• The GNSO should consider establishing some basic key performance indicators (KPIs) that can be determined by reviewing the various update/report products. Tracked and measured over time, those KPIs could be used to gauge the relative overall health of individual PDPs (and by extension, the overall PDP 3.0 process itself) as implemented.

-> this one is extremely dangerous, KPIs are only good for a corporate management getting bonuses in the direction, 
which the organization top management wanted (and badly designed KPIs lead to some unpleasant side effects, because
managers do not care about the cause, only about KPIs). This might create situation, where the outcome of the group work
will be guided by 'hitting milestones on time'(it is important, but should not be the reason for degradation of the process) and other ideas leading to the loss of quality for sake of reaching KPIs. 


page 5:
		• It is an excellent reference document that would appear to be of limited value to outside audiences.

-> this one shows that they do not care about our processes


page 6:	
	• Although it appears that the survey questions are intended to measure levels of success over the lifetime of the PDP effort, please consider adding a numerical component to the survey responses. This could enable the application of the survey results (or some aggregate) into a possible credentialing or certification process for working group leaders that could be applicable across the community with a possible application in broader cross-community working group settings.

-> we need quality, not quantitative measurement (this leads to the situation where SSC will use it 
as a metric, and basing GNSO selections on numbers assigned not solely by GNSO is a bad idea - we need to ensure that 
we choose candidates basing on the info processed by GNSO and not blindly trust results of outside assessments).

P.s: I do not define SSC, as GAC mentioned on page 1 :)

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,
FAITID

m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp)
skype oldfrogger

Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)





> On 26 Nov 2019, at 17:43, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear all, 
>  
> For Small Team record -- please find the GAC input to PDP 3.0 improvements attached.
>  
> Thank you,
> Ariel
>  
> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org>
> Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 9:24 AM
> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> Subject: [council] GAC Member Feedback to GNSO on GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Documents
>  
> Dear Council,
>  
> Please find attached a transmittal letter and accompanying document providing feedback from GAC Members on the GNSO PDP 3.0 implementation documents.
>  
> Thank you.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Terri 
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
> 
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=FjyrrNmFA89DMnsIrUXfPKkiKWvAU6Ev8LDVyzwU_Eo&s=d-Fg_1ah2sUEp9yZKDZjm-plXrcsg2Nejuc1k-4eyUM&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=FjyrrNmFA89DMnsIrUXfPKkiKWvAU6Ev8LDVyzwU_Eo&s=f2iuYL020ZhlnSIEbCPlZdjbSz_RWOiT8tfBzLNrcgE&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on._______________________________________________
> GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT mailing list
> GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-pdp3dot0-dt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.