RE: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Summary and Action Items: WGT Conf Call (26 March 2009)
Thanks Ken.
As requested by staff, I have inserted comment boxes in the document from
Subgroup C to more clearly show the Board Recommendations that lead to our
edits of the Interim Rules [please find attached].
In summary:
*
The Interim Rules provide already reference an Appeals Process so we
clarified the text to ensure that that process could also be used for appeals
with respect to the proper application of rules [per Recommendation 6] and not
just for appealing actual decisions and consensus calls. We also went on to add
that every step of the appeal process should be transparent to the WT and we
clarified that members themselves would not be involved in the process other
than to submit statements as requested by the Chair or the PPSC.
Note that I think the Appeals Process will require more discussion within the
group and I recognise the comments made by Subbiah yesterday on this topic.
*
Treatment of latecomers was not addressed in the Interim Rules so we
inserted a paragraph to cover Recommendation 7 - ie, latecomers, in becoming a
WT member, must read all previous documents and agree to not re-open previously
closed issues.
*
Statements of Interest are covered in the Interim Rules but we
clarified that these should be made publicly available online for review per
Recommendation 8.
Hope that helps clarify.
Kind regards
........................
Caroline Greer
Director of Policy & Industry Relations
dotMobi
2 La Touche House
IFSC, Dublin 1
Ireland
+ 353 87 1234244
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: 27 March 2009 13:55
To: gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Summary and Action Items: WGT Conf Call (26 March 2009)
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).
Attachment:
Interim Work Team Rules-Subgroup C.doc
|