[gnso-ppsc-wg] WGWT Sub-team Report for Group A of Initial Work Plan Elements
Current version of report on Group A (1-3) attached as text and Word doc. Tim Sub-team for Group A (Elements 1, 2, and 3): Tim Ruiz (Leader) <TR> Cheryl Langdon-Orr <CLO> Mike O'Connor <MO> Iliya Bazlyankov <IB> 1. Be open to anyone interested in joining and offering their insights and expertise; with a balance that keeps working groups to a manageable size and to the extent feasible include participants with the expertise, skills, and interests that may be deemed necessary based on the subject matter. 1.1. Sub-team Comments on size: 1.1.1. The Interim rules do not exclude anyone or suggest a specific size. It does provide for restricting participation of someone who *seriously disrupts* the group's efforts. <TR> 1.1.2. Specific sizes (both minimum and maximum) should be carefully suggested. <IB> 1.1.3. Minimum size is also very important. It might be established within a Terms of Reference (TOR) for a WG where the allied matters of the diversity (or desired diversity) of the WG make up should also be considered. The diversity /design or mandatory participants may be specified in the TOR's for any given WG. They may not need to be extensive instructions but rather a cross check mechanism to see if the desired mix was or could be achieved (and if not why not). What, if any, remedial action or course is to be taken when a WG design/diversity does not meet the TOR or ICANN Community of Interest requirements should also be considered. <CLO> 1.2. Sub-team comments on expertise, skills, and interests: 1.2.1. The Interim rules do not provide for any specific effort to determine expertise or skills that may be necessary or valuable for the WG to complete it's assigned charter. However, it does require the submission of Statements of Interest from all participants. This might be expanded on to include information on specific expertise and/or skills that a WG may state it needs. <TR> 1.2.2. There should be a reference to the statements of interest. <IB> 1.2.3. Options for outsourcing other or specifically required skills may also need to be outlined. Drawing on experiences drafting the Code for the Telco industry in Australia for example, it was found that there can be great benefit in having a balanced supply and demand mix, an independant Chair, and a subcontracted specialist legal drafter. That sort of thing can make big differences to speed, effectivness and the temptation to wordsmith in the WG processes and outcomes. <CLO> 2. Include broadly distributed notification both inside and outside of the ICANN community to encourage wider participation as well as proactive outreach in languages other than English. Sub-team Comments: 2.1. The Interim rules do not make any mention of notification efforts or languages used. <TR> 2.2. There is no mention of preparatory time points and critical preparation planning, or what specific outreach efforts may need to be made to ensure or facilitate this 'radical approach'. <CLO> 2.3. This rule should be more precise in mentioning how and where the notifications should be distributed. I think that "languages other than English" should be defined, somehow. <IB> 3. Include the need for a strong experienced, respected and neutral chair, ensuring fair treatment for all legitimate views and guaranteeing objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. Sub-team Comments: 3.1. Specific core criteria and skill set/experience measures should be included. The development of skills and qualifications within 'experienced or frequent WG members is important because: (a) it increases the skills and experience set for leadership position(s) in WG's (Mentoring and working in an assistant role can be considered here as well); and (b) it helps retrain everyone in a way that increases professionalism, productivity AND minimises the likleyhood of toxic or distructive behavior derailing the process. <CLO> 3.2. The Interim rules do not make mention of specific qualifications for WG Chairs. In developing such qualifications, it should be noted that the BGC recommendations suggested the possibility of using a *professional facilitator* for some WGs to *ensure neutrality, promote consensus, or to provide other expertise.* <TR> Attachment:
InitialWorkPlanElements_GroupA_SubTeam_Comments_v2.doc |