[gnso-ppsc-wg] Working Group Team Conf Call-6 May 2009: Summary & Action Items

["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

6 May 2009 (1700 UTC / 1300 EST / 1000 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 

Jonne Soininen 

Alexei Sozonov

S. Subbiah

Staff Participants: 

Ken Bour

Glen De Saint Géry

Liz Gasster

Agenda:

1)      Review sub-team Tasks (J. Scott)                               5-10
Mins.

2)      ?Model? Outline Summary (Subbiah)                    15-20 Mins.

3)      ?Charter? Outline Summary (Ken)                          15-20 Mins.

4)      Next Steps & Timeline (J. Scott and All)                 10-15 Mins.

 

Meeting Summary:

 

After roll call, J. Scott summarized the activities, including two
conference calls, of the ?Model? sub-team that took place between 15 April
and today.  He noted that, by breaking up into mini-teams, they were able to
make considerable progress, but did not have an opportunity on their last
conference call to complete a full review/discussion of Section 5.0-Products
& Outputs.   Subbiah then led the group through the major outline topics
(Sections 1.0-6.0) as published on the WIKI page
(https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?wg_team_model).    

 

J. Scott commented that the sub-team?s idea to make this Guidebook a ?living
document? seems appropriate to ensure that it remains current and useful to
future WGs, but he cautioned everyone not to let these products grow to such
a point that they become cumbersome and, thereby, ineffective.    Ken notes
that, perhaps, this advice could be incorporated into each document in the
appropriate section (e.g. 1.4 Revisions).

 

J. Scott asked Ken to review the ?Charter? sub-team?s outline since Avri was
not on the call at that point (she joined later) and noted that the group
was only able to meet one time in the intervening weeks due to scheduling
constraints.   Ken then reviewed the product
(https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?wg_team_charter) indicating that
a General section and numbering remains to be completed (now done as of 6
May).   Ken observed that the sub-team did not have any opportunity to begin
fleshing out the topic outline; as such, that work remains to be finished.  

 

There was a spirited discussion concerning both documents, their purposes,
and what their contents should contain.  Ken offered that it might be
helpful to think about the intended audiences of these products.   As Staff
originally conceived it, the ?Charter Guidelines? document was intended to
inform a sponsor organization (e.g. GNSO Council) concerning those elements
to be considered in creating, purposing, funding, staffing, and
instructing/guiding a WG to accomplish some desired outcome.   Ken
acknowledged that the original document title may have led to confusion and
a narrower interpretation of its scope as encompassing only the development
of a WG charter; whereas, the actual outline comprises a wider set of
topics.   He recommended that the document be re-titled, ?Working Groups:
Implementation and Charter Drafting Guidelines? (or WG-ICDG) to convey that
broader purpose.   On the other hand, the intended audience for the ?Working
Groups:  Operating Model Guidebook? is the leaders/members of individual WGs
commissioned by a sponsoring organization; as such, they would consider such
elements as structuring, norming, tasking, reporting, and delivering the
outcome(s) as chartered.   

 

J. Scott suggested that, if one of the audiences is the GNSO Council, its
guidelines can probably be written in a terse, bulleted fashion since that
body has abundant experience in forming Working Groups.  Graham observed
that, even though a current GNSO Council may be quite competent at forming
and chartering Working Groups, it is useful to document their procedures as
a ?repository of institutional wisdom? that can be maintained and handed
down from one sitting body to its successors.    Since GNSO Councilors serve
two year terms, such a document should be instructive for new
representatives in learning how these processes are handled.   Although not
discussed during the meeting, Ken notes that a third reason for developing a
robust and comprehensive WG-ICDG is that it could be used by sponsoring
organizations other than the GNSO Council.   For example, our two Steering
Committees chartered five individual working groups and might have benefited
from being able to consult a guideline when forming, staffing, and
chartering them.  Subbiah, borrowing an idea from his sub-team?s outline,
suggested that the concept of a ?checklist? could also apply to the WG-ICDG
and would offer a sponsoring organization a quick and easy way to ensure
that a wide array of topics were properly considered.   Ken will add that
concept to the WG-ICDG outline for the larger group to review.  

 

Jonne expressed concern that, as currently structured, the two documents
might contain overlapping rules.   Ken assured the team that, although there
might be similarly titled chapter and sub-section headings, they are written
from a very different perspective and are not duplicative in any substantive
way that would lead to confusion.  Ultimately, the WG-ICDG overrides
anything in the WG-OMG and it should be drafted with that in mind.   Ken
illustrated this concept using the example of consensus (under ?Rules of
Engagement?) which appears in both document outlines.   The WG-ICDG advises
a sponsor to consider whether, for the specific purposes of the charter, a
strict definition of consensus should be drafted.   In certain project
scopes, e.g. policy development, the charter drafters may choose to tie down
the implementation of consensus narrowly leaving no discretion to the WGs.
The WG-OMG, in its discussion of this topic, advises the WG to consult its
charter to determine if it contains specific rules concerning consensus.
If the charter is silent on that matter, the WG is advised to create its own
definition and implementation rules for achieving consensus.   Although both
documents address the same topic, they do so from unique perspectives and,
as Graham observed, they answer different questions for each audience. 

 

Although Ken raised the subject of consensus only to illustrate how
duplication can be avoided between the two guidelines, J. Scott took that
opportunity to state his view that the definition of consensus should never
be left to individual groups and, in fact, the WGT should nail down a
precise definition to apply universally within the GNSO.   Avri?s input was
that, while the term itself should mean the same thing everywhere, the
levels (e.g. rough, full) that are required could and naturally would vary
depending upon the specific mission of a WG.   For policy matters (e.g.
PDP), consensus may need to be narrowly and tightly prescribed in those
charters; whereas, for non-policy outcomes, the implementation of consensus
may be left to the WG?s discretion.   

 

Jonne inquired whether the document content discussion had been resolved
satisfactorily.   J. Scott confirmed that he interpreted the majority as
accepting and supporting the recommendation to create two documents oriented
to two separate audiences.  Ken will add an intended audience sub-section to
each document so that readers will understand its purpose and scope.   

 

In terms of next steps, J. Scott requested that we push everything back one
week to give each sub-team more time to finish their outlines.   The newly
revised schedule appears below:  

 

Revised Schedule of Activities through Sydney:  

 

6 May                         WGT Conf Call:

Sub-teams presented their proposals to the WGT for approval (incomplete-no
consensus call)

7 May?13 May          WGT completes work on BOTH outlines using the WIKI
and/or email list

13 May?15 May        J. Scott will call for consensus that the outlines are
ready for drafting           

Week of 18 May       Sub-teams begin detailed document drafting activities

Week of 25 May       Sub-teams continue drafting 

Week of 1 June         Sub-teams continue drafting 

10 June                       WGT Conf Call:

                                    Review draft documents from both
sub-teams

                                    Larger WGT discussion and confirmation
of ?consensus? definitions (WG-ICDG)

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

                                    Finalize draft documents and approve for
release to the PPSC                      

 

Ken asked if the ?drafting? tasks should be assumed by the existing
sub-teams.   J. Scott answered that, to preserve continuity, the groups
should remain as originally formed.   To those individuals from the larger
group who have not yet selected a sub-team, J. Scott urged that they join
the Charter effort which could use additional resources.   The current
distribution of volunteers is as follows:  

            Model Sub-Team     (9)

            Charter Sub-Team   (5)

 

ACTION 1:   The entire WGT should begin immediately to complete the outlines
on the following WIKI pages no later than 13 May.   See tasks below: 

 

Working Group:  Implementation and Charter Drafting Guidelines (WG-ICDG) 

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

Tasks:

1)      Continue discussion/commentary on individual outline topics to
determine value for inclusion

2)      Draft 1-2 explanatory sentences for each approved topic 

 

Working Groups:  Operating Model Guidebook (WG-OMG)

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

Tasks:

1)      Resolve outstanding issues and questions as indicated by various
individual comments

2)      Provide further review/input to Section 5.0-Products & Outputs

 

If anyone has difficulty editing the WIKI documents and would like
assistance, please contact Ken Bour.  

 

ACTION 2:  For future meetings prior to Sydney, Glen will send out separate
Doodles as follows:

·         ?Charter? Sub-Team:   Dates/times for weeks of 18 May, 25 May, and
1 June

·         ?Model? Sub-Team:    Dates/times for weeks of 18 May, 25 May, and
1 June

·         Working Group Team:   Time only for 10 June, 2009 

 

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/#may (see 6 May entry entitled ?PPSC Working
Group Model Work Team?; 1700 UTC; MP3 download).