[gnso-ppsc-wg] WG Team Mtg: Summary and Action Items ( 15 Apr 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

15 April 2009 (1400 UTC / 1000 EST / 0700 PT) 

 

Meeting Summary and Action Items 

 

Community Participants: 

Nacho Amadoz

Iliya Bazlyankov      

Graham Chynoweth

Avri Doria 

J. Scott Evans (Chair)

Caroline Greer

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

Konstantinos Komaitis

Alexey Mykhaylov 

Tim Ruiz

Greg Ruth

Jonne Soininen 

Alexei Sozonov

S. Subbiah

Staff Participants: 

Ken Bour

Glen De Saint Géry

Liz Gasster

 

Agenda:

1) Review Sub-Team Reports (A, B, & C)

*       Note: See Ken's Consolidated
<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-ppsc/attachments/working_group_t
eam:20090415152858-0-24088/original/Interim%20Rules-SubTeam%20Reports%20Cons
olidated%20(KBv2).doc>  Version-Updated for Item #9 of the three reports
similarly formatted and presented along with all 9 original items from the
Team Charter document. 
*       Recommend that we table this document for subsequent use in the next
phase of the WGT's work 

2) Discuss Next Phase of Project Work

*       Build two drafting teams (1-Charter Guidelines & 2-Operating Model) 
*       Discuss approach to developing these documents 
*       Assign team members to each one 
*       Set milestones 

3) AOB

 

Meeting Summary:

 

After roll call, J. Scott asked Tim Ruiz to cover the email he sent to the
list concerning ?consensus.?   Tim presented his suggested ?Consensus
Thresholds? (the main bullets were copied from the email and are presented
below):  

 

1)      Full Consensus:  everyone is in confirmed agreement (100%).

2)      Rough Consensus:  a clear and demonstrable majority (more than 50%)
are in agreement.  Minority views must be recognized and included in any
subsequent reports.

3)      No Consensus:  it cannot be demonstrated that a clear majority are
in agreement (no view or position has more than 50% agreement).   All
views/positions are Minority Views and all are included in any subsequent
report.

4)      Minority View:  any viewpoint or position that has support of one or
more participants but less than a majority (50% or less).

 

J. Scott mentioned that, while helpful, the team should not consider any of
these recommendations as set in stone.  There was some discussion that
definitions and thresholds, such as those above that utilize percentages,
sound very similar to actual voting.   Tim emphasized an important point
that any ?consensus? policy is enforceable on the contracted parties and
those so obligated will want to be sure that any consensus reached was
definitive and rigorously defined/enforced.   As a result, it may be
difficult to get past headcount and numbers if we expect others to be bound
to the results.   Avri noted that numeric guidelines are probably workable
even without voting; however, in any case, whatever the consensus thresholds
are, they should be demonstrable beyond a Chair's gut feel.   She also
offered that ?rough consensus? should correspond more to the current ICANN
definition of 2/3 versus a simple majority.   She wondered if we might need
a 4th category that might be called ?majority.?   J. Scott summarized by
noting that ?consensus? is a complex topic and the team will need to circle
back to it later on a future call (see schedule below).  

 

A question was raised as to whether the definition of ?consensus,? which
should have, as Avri wrote, a ?consistent and enduring? meaning, should be
in the Charter Guidelines or Operating Model document.   Staff suggests that
the most appropriate place for such a definition to be presented is the
Charter Guidelines.   The rationale for this placement is that the sponsors
of a Working Group should determine, in advance, what consensus rules need
to be in place before a chartered WG begins its deliberations.   As Tim
pointed out and Cheryl concurred, in certain cases, stricter and more
rigorous definitions of consensus may be appropriate depending upon the
specific charter being drafted and what groups (e.g. contracted parties) may
be obligated to accept and be bound by the result of any resultant policy
that emanates from a WG operating on a consensus basis.   This question is
more substantive vs. procedural and, as a result, it seems to belong in the
Charter Guidelines document vs. the Operating Model.   Under normal
circumstances, especially as it relates to a PDP initiative, Working Groups
would be required to adhere to the definition of consensus that is provided
to them in the Charter unless it is silent or defers the issue in which case
it could define its own consensus rules.      

 

The Sub-Group reports (A, B, & C) that were prepared and discussed in prior
sessions are now consolidated into a single report (see:
https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?working_group_team; Last Meeting,
1st bullet under Agenda).   The missing Item #9 information was located
(contained in an email provided by Subbiah) and has been updated on the
WIKI.   These contributions should be used to inform the new sub-teams in
their deliberations.  

 

J. Scott suggested that the group move to the subject of creating the two
drafting sub-teams:  1-Operating Model vs. 2-Charter Guidelines.   Ken
discussed and explained the two documents by referring to the DRAFT Work
Plan which can be found at:
https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?wg_team_work_plan.   Ken also
covered the two new WIKI pages that have been created for each sub-team as
follows:   

            Operating Model     

https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?wg_team_model 

            Charter Guidelines  

https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?wg_team_charter 

Each page can be reached from the WIKI Home Page
(https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?working_group_team) or from the
Work Plan page
(https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?wg_team_work_plan).  

 

There were questions and comments from various participants concerning how
rigid and prescriptive such documents should be interpreted.   J. Scott and
Staff affirmed that the intention has always been to create a ?toolbox? of
guidelines that could be flexibly utilized depending upon the unique
circumstances of a Working Group.    The list of starting bullets, headings,
topics, etc., are intended as suggestions only and should not limit either
team?s creativity to add, change, delete, or reorganize.  

 

The subject moved to team member assignments to the two drafting sub-teams.
Ken opened the Doodle voting on sub-team selection.   As of the session
close, 13 participants had made a choice out of 19 total WGT members
(excluding the chair).   J. Scott asked Staff to reissue the Doodle voting
reminder and that action was taken immediately after the call ended.   The
Doodle poll to facilitate the selection process is located at:
http://www.doodle.com/fchkyguxbrxmwmwa  

 

J. Scott reminded everyone that the teams need to be roughly balanced.   As
of the writing of this summary, the count was as follows:

            Operating Model     (8)

            Charter Guidelines (5)

 

ACTION:   J. Scott requested that we have both sub-teams fully constituted
no later than close of business, Friday 17 April 2009.   The sub-teams are
to schedule a call during the weeks of 20 April and 27 April.   Since chairs
were not appointed or identified during this call, Staff will coordinate a
Doodle among team participants for the 1st session to be held during the
week of 20 April.    

 

Schedule of Activities through Sydney:  

 

Week of 20 April      Sub-teams meet to begin their work (defined in the
Notes below)

Week of 27 April      Sub-teams meet a 2nd time to continue their work

6 May                         WGT Conf Call:

Sub-teams present their proposals to the WGT for approval (consensus model
applies)

Week of 11 May       Sub-teams begin detailed document drafting activities

Week of 18 May       Sub-teams continue drafting 

Week of 25 May       Sub-teams continue drafting 

3 June                         WGT Conf Call:

                                    Review draft documents from both
sub-teams

                                    Larger WGT discussion and confirmation
of ?consensus? definitions (Charter Guidelines)

20-21 June (TBD)      WGT meeting in Sydney, AU

                                    Finalize draft documents and approve for
release to the PPSC                       

 

Notes Relating to the Schedule:  

 

·         Sub-team proposals (above), that are due on or before 6 May,
should include fully fleshed out section outlines, headings, sub-bullets
including 1-2 sentences informing each lowest level element.   

·         Full-fledged detailed drafting activities should not commence
until the WGT has reached consensus on the outlines (fleshed out) that will
be presented to the team on 6 May.    

·         Sub-teams should be aware that finished draft reports are targeted
for completion by 3 June?s conference call.    The final drafts will be
reviewed and approved in Sydney and, after approval, will be forwarded to
the PPSC.   

·         The WGT should plan on meeting either Sat or Sun (20-21 Jun) in
Sydney (TBD).    J. Scott will work with Glen to finalize the meeting
details and Cheryl Langdon Orr agreed to serve in a liaison capacity to
assist with the planning.   

 

In the AOB discussion, Ken raised the question as to whether the team needed
to submit a Work Plan to the PPSC, which was originally scheduled for
delivery by 21 March.   Ken and J. Scott discussed an approach to creating
the plan and Ken took the action item to complete.   As of this writing, the
WGT Work Plan has been sent to J. Scott for review and approval.    Once it
is finalized, that document will be moved to the Work Plan page of the WIKI
at:  https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?wg_team_work_plan.  (Note:
not there yet).  

 

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/#april (see 15 April entry entitled ?PPSC
Working Group Model Work Team?; 1400 UTC; MP3 download).