[gnso-ppsc-wg] Summary and Action Items: WGT Conf Call (26 March 2009)

["Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

KB Note:  also uploaded in PDF format to the WIKI at:
https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?working_group_team 

 

Working Group Team (WGT) Conference Call

26 March 2009 (1500 UTC / 1100 EST / 0800 PT) 

 

Meeting Summary and Action Items 

 

Community Participants: 

Zac Brandstater

Bertrand de la Chapelle 

Avri Doria 

J. Scott Evans (Chair)

Caroline Greer

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

Alexei Sozonov

Konstantinos Komaitis

Alexey Mykhaylov 

Thomas Roessler

Greg Ruth

Tim Ruiz

Jonne Soininen 

Alexei Sozonov 

S. Subbiah

Staff Participants: 

Ken Bour

Glen De Saint Géry

Liz Gasster

 

J. Scott asked each of the Group leads (see table below) to cover their
individual reports.  

 


Charter Items

Group

Lead

Initial Volunteers


#1, 2, 3

A

Tim

Cheryl, Iliya, Mike


#4, 5, 9

B

Subbiah

Alexei


#6, 7, 8

C

Zac

Caroline

 

Note:  all three reports are available at:
https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?working_group_team (see Last
Meeting Agenda Item 1).  

 

Subbiah led the WGT through the ?B? report.   It was noted that this
sub-group covered Charter Items 4, 5, and 6 versus 4, 5, 9 as was originally
assigned.  As a result, Item 9 was not explicitly looked at by any of the
three groups.   During this discussion, Subbiah attempted to draw a parallel
between his Group B and the term ?drafting group? as used in Item #5?s
description.   J. Scott cautioned everyone that these sub-teams  were not
intended to be ?drafting groups? per se.  The groups were merely asked to
develop ideas for the larger team with no delegated drafting or
decision-making responsibility.   Subbiah also expressed concern that his
team, being very small  (2 members), might not be sufficiently diverse or
representative to make recommendations.  J. Scott also cautioned all of the
teams (Avri echoed similar sentiment) that, often in ICANN, there are only a
few passionate volunteers engaged in the early stages of group work;
however, that approach can and often does lead to positive outcomes as
others become involved (e.g. to review, confirm, and/or approve) further
into the process.   Subbiah suggested that Item #4 (Consensus Thresholds) in
Group B?s report could be considered controversial.   J. Scott recommended
that the entire team take note of that observation and spend time reviewing
that section of the report versus using time on this call to discuss it.  

 

Zac reported briefly on Group ?C?, which covered Charter Items 6, 7, and 8.
During that review, Bertrand observed that this team actually marked up the
Interim Rules document.  Caroline confirmed that their approach was to
edit/mark-up the Interim Rules (Section III) to reflect their three items.
Staff Suggestion:  would it be possible for Zac or Caroline to indicate in
the comments which changes apply to each of the three individual Charter
Items so that the team members can see how they were handled?  

 

Tim completed this portion of the agenda by reviewing Group ?A?, Charter
Items 1, 2, and 3.   The sub-group added suggestions concerning Working
Group size, an element that was not addressed in the Interim Rules.   The
sub-group also recommended that Statements of Interest be expanded to
include skills/expertise that might apply to a Working Group?s charter.
They addressed notifications including identifying the need to  determine
which languages should be utilized other than English.   Their third section
dealt with qualifications for Working Group chairs, another item not
referenced in the Interim Rules.  

 

Bertrand inquired about what stage(s) of the PDP are we attacking in this
effort related to Working Groups.  J. Scott encouraged Bertrand to send his
thoughts to the list for further discussion.  

 

J. Scott suggested to the WGT that, when this current effort is further
along, we should subdivide into two drafting teams as follows:  

Team 1:  complete the current ?rules? work that should ultimately be
incorporated into a more comprehensive ?Working Group Operating Model?; and 

Team 2:  draft a ?Working Group Charter Guidelines? document that is
intended to be a roadmap for the GNSO Council (and others) to use when
writing Working Group charters in the future. 

 

Before we actually move in that direction, he recommended that we take the
next two weeks to finish up our analysis and recommendations related to the
current three ?Interim Rules? sub-group reports.   

 

J. Scott asked each member to please identify, in the next two weeks, which
of the two teams above (Operating Model vs. Charter Guidelines) he/she would
like to join when we get to that point.  Ken created a Doodle poll to
facilitate that selection process at:
http://www.doodle.com/fchkyguxbrxmwmwa 

 

Tim raised a question as to whether the Charter Guidelines effort, as
described, might be overlapping with the PDP Team.  J. Scott indicated that
he will coordinate with Liz and Jeff Neumann to ensure that there is no
overlap.  [KB Note:  in its advisory capacity to the PPSC, Staff recommended
that both the WG Model and Charter tasks be positioned with the WG Team, so
there should be no explicit redundancy in assignments.  These efforts will
need to maintain connectedness and, for that reason, the two Chairs agreed
to sit on each other?s teams.]

 

Liz pointed out to the team that a draft Work Plan is available on the WIKI
(https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?wg_team_work_plan).  It outlines
Staff?s suggestion as to how the two documents might be structured.  For the
sake of completeness, relevant excerpts of that material have been copied
below:  

(1)  A standard Charter Guidelines document or template that would be used
by the GNSO Council to address the essential elements of each newly
commissioned Working Group, including, but not limited to:

*       Naming structures & conventions 
*       Announcement, advertisement 
*       Mission, focus area(s), scope (including when not to employ WG?s) 
*       Objectives & goals 
*       Import, impact, priority 
*       Success criteria 
*       Budgeting impacts 
*       Security (e.g. capture safeguards) 
*       Council vs. WG responsibilities 
*       Council administrative liaison role, duties, and selection 
*       Expert advisor(s) & consultants 
*       Outcomes, products, deliverables 
*       Group formation & dissolution 
*       Team representation, constitution, & roles 
*       Decision Making methodologies: unanimity, consensus and/or voting 
*       Membership criteria 
*       Self-selection guidelines 
*       Declarations of interest by WG members 
*       Constituency statements 
*       Chair/Facilitator expectations for expertise, skills, and selection 
*       Status reporting substance and frequency 
*       Problem/issue escalation and resolution processes 
*       Durations, timeframes, key milestones, extensions 
*       Closure and post-deliberation self-assessment 

(2) An Operating Model document intended to inform a specific Working
Group?s leadership as to its formation, organization (consistent with
charter), and operating processes, including, but not limited to, such
activities as:

*       Implementing self-selection processes 
*       Processing/treatment of member disclosures and declarations of
interest 
*       Formation, assembly, and introductions 
*       Specific group responsibilities (roles, duties, assignments) 
*       "Checklist" for WG Chair 
*       Interpretation and meaning of ?Good Standing? (commitment,
participation, attendance, contribution) 
*       Session planning (logistics, frequency, agenda, minutes) 
*       Communications (mailing lists, collaboration tools, doc versioning) 
*       Use of sub-teams 
*       Meaning of consensus 
*       Quorum requirements 
*       Rules of engagement (support and objection levels, abstention) 
*       Individual/group behavior, norms 
*       Products/results 
*       Review/response timeframes 
*       Closure (drafts, last-call, process self-assessment) 
*       Training, Subject Matter Experts (SME), and
translation/interpretation needs 
*       Staff support 

Next Meeting:   

Glen posted a Doodle at:  http://www.doodle.com/vieqfam6vtkgvqsi to schedule
a call approximately two weeks from today, which will be either Tue or Wed
(14 or 15 April).  The call is expected to be one hour in duration.  

 

J. Scott encouraged everyone to utilize the email list
(gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx) more actively and, in addition, whether you
represent a community informally or formally, be sure to reach out to your
constituents to make them aware of our actions and ensure that their input
is incorporated, as appropriate.  [KB Note:  for ease of reference, these
meeting summaries will be posted to the WIKI (PDF format) in addition to
being emailed to WGT members]. 

 

No other business was raised; the meeting was adjourned by J. Scott. 

 

Authored by:  Ken Bour

 

P.S.  For those who missed the call, an MP3 recording is available at:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#march (see 26 March entry for MP3 download).