[gnso-ppsc-wg] WGT Meeting Summary and Action Items: 26 Aug 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 August 2009 (1700 UTC / 1300 EST / 1000 PT) 

 

Meeting Summary and Action Items 

 

Community Participants: 

            J. Scott Evans (Chair)

Avri Doria 
S. Subbiah 
Alexei Sozonov
Graham Chynoweth 

Alexey Mykhaylov
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Jonne Soininen
Iliya Bazlyankov 

 

Staff Participants: 

Ken Bour
Marika Konings
Glen de Saint Gery
Gisella Gruber-White


Agenda:

 

Review 1st draft of the "Working Groups: Implementation and Charter Drafting
Guidelines" (WG-ICDG) prepared by Marika Konings (21 August 2009).  

 

Meeting Summary:

 

J. Scott opened the meeting by observing that Marika uploaded versions in
Microsoft Word, Adobe PDF, and a text-based WIKI format, all of which can be
found at:  https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?working_group_team.
J. Scott also noted that Avri made a number of parenthetical comments in the
WIKI version, which would be helpful to display in the Adobe Connect room to
facilitate group discussion.   He then turned the session over to Marika to
guide the team through the document.   

 

Marika began with Section 1.1-Announcement of a Working Group.   The team
discussed and agreed that the first two announcement bullets should be
required whereas the 3rd bullet should be made optional in the next
iteration.    Other discussions involved "word-smithing" certain sentences
to substitute less confusing and emotionally-laden terms, which Marika
acknowledged and will incorporate into the next version.   

 

In Section 1.2, Marika commented that she changed the meaning/title from
"Security and Safety" to "Transparency and Openness."   There was no
objection expressed to that alteration.   The group then briefly discussed
an idea raised by J. Scott concerning cross-referencing with other
documents.   Marika noted that Staff would take the responsibility to ensure
that, at the end of the WT processes, an effort would be undertaken to
ensure that all final documents were properly synchronized and
cross-referenced.   

 

In Section 1.3-Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair, there was
discussion and consensus to alter several word choices to improve clarity
and meaning, which will be reflected in the next iteration.   The group also
discussed a comment that Avri embedded into the draft regarding under what
circumstances it should be allowable to revisit closed WG decisions, e.g.
based upon new evidence or information that had not been previously
considered.   After some discussion, J. Scott recommended that Marika
annotate this item so that the team can reconsider this question in a
subsequent session.   The group then confirmed that a Chair's role should be
a neutral facilitator and, while permitted to express opinions, should
refrain from advocacy.   The next topic involved the advisability of
co-chairs vs. vice-chairs and a recommendation, articulated by Cheryl, was
accepted that co-chairs be encouraged, where appropriate, but not mandatory.


 

The group moved on to Section 1.4-Other Important Roles.   There was much
discussion on the what restrictions, if any, there should be on the role of
"Liaison" to a WG.   Marika pointed out that, in current practice, liaisons
frequently have passionate interest in the topic for which they are
functioning in such capacity and are treated as full participants.    She
wondered if it might become difficult to recruit liaisons if they are
restricted too narrowly.   Gray offered three general classifications that
might apply in this discussion:  observer, facilitator (not advocate), and
full participant.   The operative question is where on the spectrum should
liaisons be placed?   Avri recommended that, although they should not have
more restrictions than a Chair, liaisons should act principally in an
informational capacity, but not one of advocacy.   She explained that
liaisons often have special expertise and/or position power that could
potentially be abused in a WG environment; furthermore, they may ultimately
be involved in decision-making related to WG outcomes that creates a
potential conflict.   In the newly restructured GNSO Council, for example,
which is intended to become a "manager" of the policy development process,
it was suggested that a Council Member who is passionate about a particular
topic should offer to liaison for some other group where s/he is not
invested in the outcome.   J. Scott concurred and reformulated what appeared
to be a consensus of the team that liaisons should monitor, assist Chair,
keep the CO informed about progress/schedules, resolve disputes, and provide
information; but, should refrain from advising and/or advocating.   He also
suggested that the next draft clarify that the reference, in this section,
should be to CO Liaisons vs. any "other" liaison.   

 

J. Scott terminated the call at the end of Section 1.0 and suggested another
one hour meeting next week to continue with Sections 2.0 and 3.0.   

 

On behalf of the WGT, J. Scott thanked Marika for picking up the heavy
drafting load and doing it so "deftly."    Ken would like to add his special
appreciation to Marika for her willingness to embrace this task and for
enabling such a timely and facile transition.    

 

The revised document is now available on the WIKI (27 August) at:
https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?working_group_team.   

 

Action Items: 

 

J. Scott requested the next meeting to be scheduled for the week of 31
August to continue discussing the document beginning with Section 2.0.
Gisella will send out a Doodle for dates/times.   

 

Authored by:  Ken Bour 

 

P.S.  For those who missed the call, an MP3 recording is available at:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#august (see 26 August entry entitled "PPSC
Working Group Model Work Team"; 1700 UTC; MP3 download).