[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Jul 3 17:23:40 EEST 2018
Hi Rafik, would it be possible to add a link to the full paper? I see
that the CSG has commented broadly, and I'm happy to do the same (and
hope others will as well!).
Tx, Kathu
On 7/2/2018 6:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is the input from BC on PDP 3.0 report. there is an extension for
> SG/C to send their comments on the report.
> we have a google doc to populate with an NCSG input
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Marie Pattullo* <marie.pattullo at aim.be
> <mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>>
> Date: lun. 2 juil. 2018 à 19:13
> Subject: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper
> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Trust you had a good journey home!
>
> As requested during our meetings last week, please see below the input
> that the BC provided on PDP 3.0. We’re of course more than happy to
> discuss further.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marie
>
> *From:*Marie Pattullo
> *Sent:* Friday, June 8, 2018 4:42 PM
> *To:* 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>; Heather Forrest
> <haforrestesq at gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>; Austin,
> Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar <mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>;
> 'Rafik Dammak' <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* bc-excomm at icann.org <mailto:bc-excomm at icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper
>
> All,
>
> Many thanks for this. As requested, input from the BC is below.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Marie
>
> The BC welcomes the discussion of how to improve the GNSO Policy
> Development Process (PDP). Ensuring an efficient and effective way to
> gather, synthesise and advance community-based policies is a vital
> part of ICANN’s DNA.
>
> As a starting point, not only has the current average timeline for
> PDPs increased, so has the amount of working groups, reviews and
> policy dossiers – not least the unprecedented EPDP/Temporary
> Specification work. A balance must be found between allowing enough
> time and community input on the one hand and an efficient and timely
> process on the other; we thank the Council leadership and staff for
> setting out the challenges in a concise and realistic way. Taking the
> potential incremental improvements in order:
>
> */Working Group Dynamics /*
>
> * /Terms of participation for WG members/: while a “Commitment of
> Participation” template may be worthwhile, in practice this is
> unlikely to have a practical effect on participation. We already
> have standards of behaviour but experience shows that this does
> not stop bad faith or even the wilfully unpleasant, and at a
> lesser level one person’s joke is another’s affront. This would
> have to be policed carefully.
> * /Consider alternatives to open WG model/: designation by
> SO/AC/SG/Cs should help to ensure more objectivity and expertise,
> but we would add that the designee should also act as the conduit
> for their designator’s views and not in their personal capacity.
> Individuals must be allowed to join as either participants or
> observers to preserve the multistakeholder model; would it however
> be possible to consider “weighted voting” in contentious matters
> (so more “weight” for designees)? For example, could the Chair
> call a vote on a discussion point when it seems that deadlock has
> been reached based on ideology rather than reason and community
> benefit?
> * /Limitations to joining of new members after a certain time/: if
> this is to happen, new observers must still be allowed to join and
> newsletters issued regularly to ensure transparency. The decision
> to widen/restrict the membership should not fall on the PDP
> leadership alone, but on Council as a whole to prevent unwarranted
> pressure/capture of the Chairs.
>
> */WG Leadership/*
>
> * /Capture vs. Consensus Playbook/: any practical tools and support
> to ensure effective and efficient leadership should be seen as a
> positive. Experienced Chairs/leadership would be the most obvious
> drafters to share hands-on experience and solutions.
> * /Active role for and clear description of Council liaison to PDP
> WGs/: support.
> * /Document expectations for WG leaders that outlines role &
> responsibilities as well as minimum skills / expertise required/:
> support.
>
> //
>
> */Complexity of Subject Matter /*
>
> * /Creation of Cooperative Teams/: while we understand the good
> faith reasoning, this goes against the idea of the “Commitment of
> Participation” and could develop into a shortcut for those who do
> not/cannot engage who then rely on these Teams to do extra
> work/outreach to compensate for their lack of engagement. It would
> also lead to further complexity by adding another structural
> element that could cause confusion about who really is the shaping
> the PDP – the drafting team, the subgroup, the Chair, Cooperative
> Team..? It could also be vulnerable to claims that the Teams were
> misdirecting the members/ misrepresenting the discussions.
>
> ·/PDP Plenary or Model PDP/: full support.
>
> */Consensus Building/*
>
> * /Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 (Standard Methodology
> for decision making)/: general support but a note of caution:
> “Consensus” means different things to different organisations and
> at the beginning of a PDP it would be helpful to remind everyone
> about what “consensus” will mean in the PDP process. However there
> is value in considering consensus-building lessons and approaches
> used by other organisations.
> * /Document positions at the outset/: possible, but would this not
> extend the opening phases of the PDP before substantive work could
> start? And whose positions – those of members, or aggregate views?
> There will also by default be sub-positions of positions. We are
> not convinced that this would be of benefit.
>
> */Role of Council as Manager of the PDP/*
>
> * /Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces/: full support.
> * /Notification to Council of changes in work plan/: full support.
> * /Review of Chair(s/): this leads to a further question – do we
> need a policy on the appointment of Chairs in the first place?
> While we support the idea of a “process... that allows a WG to
> challenge and/or replace its leadership team” this should be
> carefully crafted. The 12-month reappointment seems sensible.
> * /Make better use of existing flexibility in PDP to allow for data
> gathering, chartering and termination when it is clear that no
> consensus can be achieved/: support.
> * /Independent conflict resolution/: We are concerned that an
> independent conflict resolution process has the potential of
> becoming the default way to resolve seemingly intractable WG
> disagreements rather than forcing WG members to do the hard work
> of consensus-building and employing the toolkit of possible
> responses mentioned under WG Leadership. After two years under the
> revised PDP process, we might then reconsider the
> desirability/need for recourse to independent conflict resolution.
> Further - who would do this? If external – cost implications?
> Could it fall under the remit of (e.g.) the Standing Selection
> Committee? Whoever it is, this should be known to all WGs from the
> outset.
> * /Criteria for PDP WG Updates/: support.
> * /Resource reporting for PDP WGs/: support.
>
> *From:*council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* Friday, May 11, 2018 11:24 PM
> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper
>
> /Sending on behalf of the Council leadership/
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion
> paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in
> bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for
> your and your respective communities’ consideration. We welcome input,
> particularly on section 4 – potential incremental improvements for
> consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements
> should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional
> implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving
> feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation
> plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental
> improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next
> step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback
> and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can
> consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62.
>
> Best regards,
>
> GNSO Council leadership team
>
> */Marika Konings/*
>
> /Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) /
>
> /Email: marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> /
>
> //
>
> /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/
>
> /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses
> <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer
> pages
> <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.
> /
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180703/6c45e334/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list