[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Marika Konings
marika.konings at icann.org
Thu Jan 30 09:42:08 UTC 2014
I think Michele has hit the nail on the head from my experience, sub-teams
can be very productive, but only if their work is narrowly defined and the
broader WG is comfortable with a small group going away to come up with
concrete recommendations because they have provided specific directions on
what the general views of the WG are on that topic and/or it is not a
controversial issue but something that is considered easier dealt with by a
smaller group of (expert) WG members. It seems that neither of those two
conditions apply at this juncture of our work.
An alternative approach the WG may want to consider is mapping out very
clearly which topics / charter questions are discussed at which meetings so
that there can be a natural selection of WG members that may be particularly
interested in one topic and not in another. Obviously, any conclusions /
draft recommendations would need to go out on the mailing list for review /
discussion for anything is labelled 'final', but that may provide a path to
clearly set out topics and allow WG members to self-select which topics they
want to be closely involved in and which ones they prefer to monitor from a
distance. If at some point the WG feels that not enough progress is made in
weekly 1 hour meetings, the WG could also consider extending its meetings to
90 minutes and/or meeting twice a week.
Just my two cents.
Marika
From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>
Date: Wednesday 29 January 2014 22:24
To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com>, Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>,
Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
TBH I think subteams at this juncture is possibly counter-productive
We¹ve used them in past working groups when we were quite advanced in our
work and needed to break off a small group of people to work on a specific
issue / problem / hypothesis and then fold their work back into the main
group.
At this stage we¹re nowhere near that ..
As others have pointed out, some people will want to participate in several
subteams again this down to the premature stage of development of the WG¹s
work
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D.
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:24 PM
To: Tim Ruiz; Mary Wong
Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
I would greatly appreciate any comments based on anyone¹s past experience
regarding whether or not the subteam model (in cases where their conclusions
are not governing) speed the process, or just add layers.
Best,
Paul
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:57 AM
To: Mary Wong
Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
One issue I have seen with the subteam concept is that there are many who
end up wanting to be on several or every subteam (including myself in that
at times). So it is crucial that everyone feels comfortable with the fact
that the subteam will not be making final decisions, but only informing the
group to aid with consensus decisions, and will not have undue influence on
the decision to be made. In any event, many may still want to be on many or
all subteams and I feel it is not appropriate to tell anyone what they may
or may not participate in.
Tim
On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:57 AM, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Don, Jim and everyone,
>
>
>
> One of the various items for consideration in developing the WG's Work Plan
> will involve the planned timing of deliverables relating to each category of
> questions (however many there ultimately are or whether each category is
> tackled by a different sub-team). The WG may wish to consider, for example,
> whether certain questions/categories need to be addressed before others.
>
>
>
> Hopefully our next iteration of the Mind Map and proposed timeline/work plan
> will assist the WG in discussing Jim's suggestions, which reflects the
> methodology used in a couple of other WGs (and it is good to know that your
> team felt the IGO-INGO WG experience was productive and helpful, Jim!). The
> work plan is likely change over time depending on the nature and outcome of
> the WG (or sub-team) discussions, and as Jim notes certain categories (e.g.
> Main Issues) may be more organic than others.
>
>
>
> Should the WG decide to proceed via sub-teams, another thing to consider would
> be ensuring that the work is spread evenly across the WG rather than have a
> small group of people spread across various sub-teams (especially if the
> deliverables from those are due in short order!).
>
>
>
> I hope these thoughts are useful. To assist with your review of Jim's
> suggestions, I attach an updated version of Jim's document which adds the
> threshold question for Section III discussed on the call yesterday (using
> Steve's suggested wording) and with a couple of comments inserted to help
> provide context to one or two sub-questions that Kathy had asked about.
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
>
> Mary Wong
>
> Senior Policy Director
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>
>
>
> * One World. One Internet. *
>
>
>
> From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org>
> Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:45 AM
> To: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff at sgbdc.com>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org"
> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
>
>
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks very much for all the work you put in on this. I am very anxious to
>> see the group¹s thoughts on it. I will reserve mine for now except to note
>> that reviewing seven reports each week is inducing cold sweats already. :)
>>
>>
>>
>> I will note up front though that apart from process considerations, staff
>> support availability will have to be part of our work plan decisions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff at sgbdc.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM
>> To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal at pir.org>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: PPSAI Work Plan
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Don,
>>
>> As you indicated, a Work Plan should help guide our Group's efforts over the
>> upcoming weeks. We have some suggestions, based on our positive experience in
>> the IGO/INGO PDP Working Group.
>>
>> Please give us the benefit of your thoughts on the following suggested Work
>> Plan:
>>
>> 1. Summarize and compile Working Group survey responses --possibly in an
>> Excel file, circulated among Group members. This should be a task for ICANN
>> Staff.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Based on Working Group survey responses, clarify the terminology and
>> issues in each Group of the Charter questions. Identify consensus or
>> near-consensus responses and hold Consensus Call on these issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Create Working Group sub-teams to work on issues by group: (a)
>> Registration; (b) Maintenance; (c) Contact; (d) Relay; (e) Reveal; (f)
>> Publication; (g) Termination. Note that the current groupings of questions
>> do not include ³Publication² or ³Termination² categories. We propose adding
>> these categories, which would include questions taken out of other current
>> categories, as identified in the attached redline draft. Note also that the
>> remaining questions in the Main Issues group, an overarching category, would
>> be addressed organically as a result of this proposed process.
>>
>>
>>
>> a) Each sub-team produces a report, which is delivered to Don by each
>> Friday or Saturday at the latest, so it can be combined by staff with the
>> other sub-team reports and discussed at the upcoming Tuesday Working Group
>> teleconference.
>>
>>
>>
>> b) When the responses to the survey come in from the other
>> constituencies, ICANN staff summarizes the responses for the Working Group.
>> Each sub-team then analyzes the constituencies' and Working Group's responses
>> (including majority and minority views) in its area, and delivers the result
>> to Don by Friday or Saturday, so ICANN staff can combine it all in one
>> document, such as an Excel file, for full Working Group review.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. Working Group holds Consensus Call and revises final Excel file of
>> responses to survey accordingly.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. Draft report presenting (1) Consensus Proposals (if any); (2)
>> Non-Consensus Proposals w/ Levels of Support; (3) Minority Views w/Levels of
>> Support.
>>
>>
>>
>> 6. Present Report for Public Comment.
>>
>>
>>
>> This process will provide a means to circle back to the remaining Main Issues
>> questions.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> James L. Bikoff
>> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
>> 1101 30th Street, NW
>> Suite 120
>> Washington, DC 20007
>> Tel: 202-944-3303
>> Fax: 202-944-3306
>> jbikoff at sgbdc.com
>>
>>
>
> <PPSAI Charter Questions Grouping - 29 Jan 2014 - kk.gb.mw.docx>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore,
if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading
it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
the author.
****************************************************************************
** Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and
cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140130/8cd8acc2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140130/8cd8acc2/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list