https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

can you put the google doc link in the chat?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-f9Ml-z9LcxVs9WuX53kIkp29j0JLh6d/edit

thanks :)

No problem

I am not sure that no limits is a good idea with the hybrid model

so some reasonable limit like 30 might be enough (and I doubt we see more than 20 in reality)

@Maxim - I think we should try it without a limit. I think we need to test it out before artificially putting a limit. If it doesn't work, then we at least have some data for future PDPs

1+1 and no limit seems to make sense

@Maxim - How do we know that?

The chair has to measure consensus by quality, not quantity

the open model has been a hallmark of GNSO though...

the reps will have to represent the views of their entire group

and consensus call is only for members, not participants

we are not "limiting" to one

just at least have 1?

so we have some participation?

A good chair/leadership team should be able to cut through all of the discussions

how does such unlimited group ensures that the time is consumed reasonable?

@Maxim - that is the role of the leadership team

The number of "Members" needs to be limited. The number of participants do not need a limit.

Ultimately I would prefer a completely open group.

if the email exchange starts in the group of 40 it is way different than in group of 20

@Donna, that would just be an open model then

That's the definition of the Hybrid model

+1 to both donna and jeff

but i may be completely getting it wrong

:-D

2 plus 1 is fine too

2 plus 2

1 can not replace 2

I am not sure we need 2 alternates. A Paricipant can always be upgraded to a Member by the SG/C

more hurry, what danger do we see in same number of alternatives?

I don't like giving people a higher elevated status and make them feel less important

how that is tied with the alternative seat status?

I would have no objection to an 'open' model for the this PDP because I don't think there is going to be a lot of interest in participation.

ssac might not participate but post the SAC document later, like with subpro

And presumably there will be participants that can be elevated if the need should arise

So 1+1 or 2+1 is fine IF the Council does not want the completely open model.

I did not agree with the Council only PDP 3.0 group.

@Jeff, what particular danger do we see in 2+2?

I disagree that the size of the group necessarily impacts the timeline.

The Charter is the Number 1 thing that has an impact on the speed of the group.

there are more than one factors, it also depends on composition

Look at us. We are a VERY small group and it has taken us 4 months so far on coming up with a charter.

hmm but making it open i doubt would have extended the timeline too much :-P

I agree Edmon

this task is not of the highest importance

i see it as a "hybrid" as it there is a "requirement" of "at least some participation from each stakeholder group", but otherwise we should leave it open

+1 @Donna

Good Point Donna. Which is why I don't think we should have alternates since participants can be elevated

To answer Donna’s question, this is the role description of the alternate: Alternates will only participate if a Member is not available. Alternates will be responsible for keeping up with all relevant WG deliberations to ensure they remain informed and can contribute when needed. Alternates are also required to have similar levels of expertise as members.

@Steve, if a participant can also serve as an alternate that might overcome some of my concern. Thanks for the reminder on social loafing.

I have not heard anyone on this call disagree with the notion of an "Alternate" lso being a Participant.

Does anyone disagree that "Alternates" should be Participants?

If no one disagrees, we can then change that language and move on.

Important considerations Dennis

FWIW, from the staff side, that makes logical sense to have alternates be able to participate substantively if there are also participants.

@Steve, I agree.

Agree Edmon that maybe we can do without alternates for this PDP

I think the "minimum" creates a perception of inequality. You will get complaints that a group like the "registries who have time to be members" will have an advantage. I personally disagree with that argument, but perceptions are important.

We don't define quorum

except perhaps for a Consensussss Call

Consensus call

Quorum has always been at the leadership discretion

Jeff is right

@jeff... i see... hmm

But a general rule is that no decision is made on one call. You have a call plus time to discuss on a list and then a second call

This protects somewhat against a small number of people making decisions

Sorry all, I lost connectivity for a minute or two.

ok if quorum is not a big issue, we can go with 3+1 with a consensus call model based on any response from each stakeholder group does not need all 3

not necessary consensus call can not be conducted offline

leadership is not for the replacement of the WG in terms of decision making.

hmm but woudnt 1 make the person more elevated?

than having 5?

I think the point is here that we won't have a lot of people wanting to be involved in this PDP.

outside person should not have the same weight than the SOs in terms of consensus

that

There is a distinction with the participant/alternate. Participant can do so in their individual capacity whereas if they stand in as an alternate they will do so representing a member of a group.

@donna, why is that so?

i would see them as same?

@Donna is right, which is why I don't think we need alternates. Just Members and Participants

A Participant can be elevated at any time

Edmon, representative represent the SO, it is like title

An alternate is appointed by a group. A participant does so in their individual capacity.

i see ok

So do we really need Alternates in a Hybrid model?

For the purposes of the consensus call?

Unlikely, but there if needed?

When the Consensus call comes, the SG/C can always find a person to elevate to a Member at that time

I am fine with 1+1 or 2+0

With a consensus call it doesn't matter how many members a group has, wouldn't they only get one vote so to speak?

1+1 makes best optics

That rationale for having more than 1 member is to help share the load…

Yes Donna, but if there is a split view within an SG/C, that is also taken into consideration. But hopefully the one person can/will represent those views.

Donna - yes, the charter can include language as: “, for the purpose of assessing consensus, groups that do not fulfill their maximum membership allowance should not be disadvantaged.”

Yes we will do that

thanks all

I think its a case that a participant can also serve as an alternative if the group that appoints agrees.

+1 @Donna

+1 Donna

thx bye