[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Wed Jul 4 04:18:18 EEST 2018
Hi Kathy,
here we go, report attached
Rafik
Le mar. 3 juil. 2018 à 23:24, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> a
écrit :
> 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>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> 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>; Heather Forrest <
> haforrestesq at gmail.com>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>;
> 'Rafik Dammak' <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 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> *On Behalf Of *Marika
> Konings
> *Sent:* Friday, May 11, 2018 11:24 PM
> *To:* 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 <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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
> <#m_-2124589915980557372_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180704/01548836/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO PDP 3.0 - 8 May 2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 692229 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180704/01548836/attachment.pdf>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list