[gnso-ppsc-pdp] Elements from our PDP call today

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Jeff, dear all,

Please find below some elements I mentioned during our call today or that
emerged in the discussion, to help move the discussion forward.

*Possible Typology of PDP outcomes*
It was repeatedly mentioned that we use the term PDP for a great variety of
issues and processes that result in very different outcomes. A tentative
typology of PDP outcomes could be :

   - Guidelines/Best practices (non-binding recommendations)
   - Consensus Policies (binding provisions within the framework of existing
   agreements - picket fence - to be implemented by the contracted parties)
   - General Decisions (formal enforceable decisions on a specific topic
   beyond the existing agreements)
   - Policy frameworks (general orientations charting the course for a broad
   range of activities, such as in the introduction of new gTLDs)

The purpose of clarifying such a typology (not limitative and exploratory at
that stage) would be to clarify processes and establish some form of
hierarchy of norms and rules, curently absent from the exclusively
contract-based environment

*Staff*
Several discussions relate to the role of "Staff" in the PDP, but we use the
term to actually describe different functions that should probably be
distinguished more clearly, because they have strong implications in terms
of neutrality. Discussions have identified at least four different roles :

   - Expertise (can be technical, legal, economic, etc... and can also make
   use of external resources such as consultants)
   - Secretariat (fundamentally a support function, covering both logistics
   and drafting assistance in a totally neutral manner reflecting faithfully
   the work of working groups)
   - Operational (day-to-day operations in the framework of existing
   policies and rules)
   - Gate-keeping / Scoping (internal role of the General Counsel, but
   possibly distinct, guaranteeing respect of the procedures and competences of
   the different structures)

Here again, the list is tentative, in particular for the last function. But
it appears important to avoid mentionning "staff" in a generic manner. The
PDP reform we are conducting could lead to/justify corresponding
improvements in the structure of the administrative staff. A clearer
distinction by function would also correspond to specific rights and
responsibilities, as the neutrality of the staff in decision-shaping was
mentioned by some as a concern. (The ACSO session in Sydney on Monday
afternoon will actually address in part this topic).

*Drafting teams*
Some considered that having small drafing teams taken from the working group
participants woudl be a good idea. The question was raised of the
appropriate balance between such small drafting teams and the staff
(currently doing most of the drafting). This issue should be checked with
the Working Group Work Team.
An additional question, in case drafting teams were to be used more broadly,
was whether financial support from ICANN should be envisaged to help them
conduct face to face meetings in between ICANN meetings, given that unequal
ability to cover travel costs could skew representativity.

*Prioritizing issues to avoid too many simultaneous PDPs*
Too many processes in parallel make it difficult for the ICANN community to
fully follow them. At the same time, priorities cannot be established merely
by estimating interest from stakeholders on the basis of actual
participation in preliminary meetings (the discussion was more complex, and
I may not reflect it in sufficient detail).
The existence of Area Directors in the IETF was mentioned in the call as
something that allows the scheduling of different work tracks; although Area
Directors are volunteers in the IETF model, this notion could be worth
exploring for ICANN. It could help the organization evolve into a more
"issue-based" organization, rather than remain merely structured along
constituencies working too often in silos.

*Bylaws revision*
Some of the provisions we are discussing should probably fit within the
Bylaws, as a modification of Annex A. But there was a sense that putting as
much as possible into a different document (gNSO Operating Procedures ?)
would be beneficial.
As a personal note, the various reform processes currently under discussion
(Board, ALAC, NomCom, gNSO Council but also this PDP process) would probably
benefit from some more holistic approach, as they all require some form of
Bylaws modifications and are often interconnected. They form the core of
ICANN's accountability framework and, maybe, the work we are conducting
would benefit ultimately from being placed in a wider context leading to a
significant new version of the Bylaws (ICANN 3.0 ?).

I hope this helps

Best

Bertrand

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")