Logo

PDP3.0 Webinar - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
37:49
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Terri Agnew
37:59
To ask a question, click the Q&A box and type in your question at bottom of your zoom screen or you may also raise your hand. All unanswered questions will be answered at the end of the webinar
Terri Agnew
38:09
@all: to ensure everyone can see your chat messages, please change the dropdown to include All Panelists and Attendees.
Terri Agnew
39:05
Slides and recordings can be found on the GNSO Calendar and wiki agenda pagehttps://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep and https://community.icann.org/x/EQebC
Maarten Botterman
41:03
Really appreciate to see this briefing - looking forward to attend!
Ariel Liang
47:30
Just to add to Keith’s opening remark - there will be a discussion portion after each segment of presentation, instead of an overall Q&A at the end
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
48:48
Yes, thanks Ariel!
Terri Agnew
57:44
To ask a question, click the Q&A box and type in your question at bottom of your zoom screen or you may also raise your hand. All unanswered questions will be answered at the end of the webinarIf you raise your hand, you will be unmuted, but you may also need to unmute yourself.
Amr Elsadr
58:28
Europe and “Africa”!! ;-)
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
01:00:03
True Amr. it's late in Africa too
Jeffrey Neuman
01:00:55
To be honest, I believe that the fourth pillar of issues (Consensus) is the hardest and most important one to address. Without solving that, I am not sure what impact the structure has.
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
01:01:18
Pam is correct. This representative model in the EPDP has been an experiment and it's now incumbent upon the Council and the community to assess whether it was, in fact, more effective and efficient!
Jeffrey Neuman
01:02:04
I guess the jury is still out on whether it worked or not as we have not seen the final results.
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
01:02:48
@Jeff: We have preliminary results from EPDP Phase 1, but your point is taken regarding Phase 2.
Berry Cobb
01:02:48
Indeed. Participation percentages were near or above 90% for both phases.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:03:12
@Rafik - your point about regular participation is important and perhaps it is due to the model. But it can also be attributed to the narrower issue
Michele Neylon (Blacknight)
01:03:22
It might have been easier to see if it worked with something less contentious and polarised
Michele Neylon (Blacknight)
01:03:51
Because with anything whois related it’ll always be seen as a failure at some level by somebody who didn’t get what they wanted
John McElwaine
01:04:50
I believe that the EPDP- and future PDPs - could have benefited by undertaking an assessment process and report as set forth in the Consensus Playbook (Play 1).
Amr Elsadr
01:04:51
I would argue that it was more efficient and effective. Not sure that the final result is required to reach that conclusion. Participation on the “Team” as opposed to an open “WG” was clearly a different experience. I doubt the EPDP Team could have finalized its work as efficiently with an open WG.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:07:05
there is also the issue of the recognised "work load" on a few reps in this model
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:07:22
we did hear a lot about the intensity of these demands
Amr Elsadr
01:07:28
@Cheryl: Very true!!
Jeffrey Neuman
01:07:53
My hand was up...but oh well :)
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap)
01:08:18
Repeating my comment to include all attendees…
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap)
01:08:20
I think the EPDP model worked well. While there were certain reps from different groups repeating the same comments, it was a lot better than previous PDPs where it seemed entire calls were just different individuals repeating everyone else.
Amr Elsadr
01:08:40
@Owen: +1
Jeffrey Neuman
01:09:03
My comment, if I was called on, would have been that I do not believe any decisions should be made based on one ePDP.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:09:22
WHOIS has always been an issue that has attracted the most amount of people.
Amr Elsadr
01:09:32
Good point, Jeff.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:33
AND specificity of scope and intended outcomes/timelines also plays a big part comparison is not quite so simple between apples and oranges ;-)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:10:24
So participation can be attributed to (a) the issue itself, (b) the fact that ICANN contributed monetary resources for studies, legal work, travel, etc., and (c) it remains to be seen whether the end results will be a consensus solution.
Pam Little
01:10:56
@Jeff, apologies I missed you hand. Will come back to you shortly.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:12:00
I may be biased, but I couldn't imagine the SubPro PDP being a representative model. We would not have gotten the diversity of views that we did with a limited membership.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:13:00
Especially because there are a number of topics where there were disagreements even within constituencies and stakeholder groups. How 2 or three reps for each group would have been able to represent all of the views, I am not sure
Jeffrey Neuman
01:14:48
@Pam - its ok, I have lowered my hand.
Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong
01:15:21
they reviewed only the applications or they selected and send to Council for approval?
Pam Little
01:16:04
Thanks Jeff.
Terri Agnew
01:16:31
**Reminder: to ensure everyone can see your chat messages, please change the dropdown to include All Panelists and Attendees.
Jim Prendergast
01:16:52
take 2 - @Jeff - But the problem with Sub Pro is we may have "100+ members" but only a small handful are attending on a regular basis and doing the work. The participation stats tell the story. But you are right - in a representative model you'd also have higher likelihood of burnout over the years.
Amr Elsadr
01:19:19
It’d be too difficult to attribute the outcome of a PDP to the model (Team vs Open WG) alone. There are too many factors, which may influence the outcome of a PDP in either one.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:19:30
@Jim - that's true, but I have found that there is some greater participation on the mailing lists. At the end of the day, my main comment is that we cannot use the experience of one PDP to determine the structure, dynamics, etc. of all future PDPs. AND, the proof of success or not is still yet to be decided.
Amr Elsadr
01:19:59
Some of these factors may be far more significant than what model is used.
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
01:20:15
"One size does not fit all."
Jeffrey Neuman
01:20:25
- Poor Flip - Sorry we have not yet had issues in SubPro for you to really handle ;) But we still have a few months to go!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:06
Gee @Jeff I see that lack of issue to solve as a *good thing* ;-)
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap)
01:21:45
@Jeff- some whois topics attract a lot of volunteers. When I did internationalization of registration data PDP, it was a very small group.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:58
Design and implementation always needs to be 'fit for purpose' these options seem to me at least as now a feature of PDP 3.0 guidlines
Philippe Fouquart
01:23:21
+1 to the instrument having to meet the nature of PDP. It seems to me that one of the main reasons to go for a representative model was to channel the inputs and have it deliver in the intended timeframe especially for phase 1.
Philippe Fouquart
01:23:46
not neccesarily as critical for all PDPs...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:58
Indeed!
Terri Agnew
01:24:15
Reminder: to ensure everyone can see your chat messages, please change the dropdown to include All Panelists and Attendees.
Terri Agnew
01:24:23
To ask a question, click the Q&A box and type in your question at bottom of your zoom screen or you may also raise your hand. If you raise your hand, you will be unmuted, but you may also need to unmute yourself.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:38
and good and specific (insert manageable) scoping also helps a heap
Jeffrey Neuman
01:25:30
So, are we covering the remaining areas?
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
01:27:22
I hope so. I hope to hear more about the fourth pillar
Ariel Liang
01:27:48
@Jeff - the total duration of the webinar is 90 min, so we will have time to cover the remaining areas
Jeffrey Neuman
01:28:08
Ok, thanks.....for some reason I thought this was just 60 minutes.
Ariel Liang
01:28:17
No worries
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:47
@Jeff one of the iCals was 60 the following reminder was 90
Jeffrey Neuman
01:29:15
If we went to a representative model, I can imagine that would eat up much more time for each participant than a purely open TLD.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:29:33
But hard to say
Berry Cobb
01:32:02
@Jeff it is something we have to balance. In some cases work may eat up more time for each participant, but from a macro perspective, the GNSO and the Council also has to balance overall resources given the larger number of policy issues in the pipeline.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:55
Scope is indeed Key … achievable in a timely manner bits and a practical and achievable WP is also key as stated, that said it would be great to ensure some concept(s) of min commitments also is included in early planning for volunteers (Reps +etc.,) to be well informed...
Jeffrey Neuman
01:33:44
@Berry - true, but we have a problem here in the ICANN community of a "fear of missing out." The belief that everyone needs to be a part of every group. And that has as much to do with volunteer burnout as does the number of issues.
Amr Elsadr
01:34:13
Also important to keep in mind that different groups may have trouble populating representative Teams, if too many are running in parallel.
Berry Cobb
01:34:58
@Jeff - I can't argue that. But I don't see how PDP3.0 or a PDP4.0 can fix that. That is self and or represented group regulation.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:35:31
@Amr - yes, which is why more focus needs to be made to get others in to participate. Our groups need to be more open and inclusive to encourage new members to join.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:48
indeed @Amr and some 'recovery times'might aso need to be observed for Reps in that model who have had very tight and highly demanding WP's
Ariel Liang
01:36:43
You are welcome to check the full doc of project list here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/projects-list-14sep20-en.pdf
Jeffrey Neuman
01:36:51
@Berry - I agree with you completely. This is not something that the GNSO Council can fix. It is a new mindset that participants need to embrace. But the Council should not be catering to the old mindset by refusing to do necessary work simply because the few that participate feel like they are burnt out
Ariel Liang
01:37:00
Action/Decision Radar here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20200817/2890dc11/action_decision_radar_20200820-0001.pdf
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:39:17
demands on Reps (or even formal liaisons to a PDP from other groups) might also include time commitments for frequent interactions/briefings/ discussion/ position development with and within their sending entities... this also is a demand on some volunteers, but *if* managed effectively and efficiently, can help reduce that "fear of missing out" issue @Jeff raised
Berry Cobb
01:39:51
@Jeff indeed. The work must go on and the pipeline is large with the planned work and there always seems to be aspects of unplanned work. The new PMT (Program Mgmt Tool) that helps to inform the ADR attempts to map that out over 5 years.
Amr Elsadr
01:45:44
@Jeff: That’s kinda harsh. :-)
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
01:45:45
I'd like to highlight the significant amount of work our ICANN staff colleagues have put into this effort. You are now seeing a snapshot of the project management tools that we're now using and will continue to refine and implement.
Terri Agnew
01:45:50
To ask a question, click the Q&A box and type in your question at bottom of your zoom screen or you may also raise your hand. If you raise your hand, you will be unmuted, but you may also need to unmute yourself.
Ariel Liang
01:46:56
This is an example of a project change request: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20200914/2356c61c/ProjectChangeRequestForm14Sept2020-FINAL-0001.pdf
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
01:47:05
The Council could remove the Chair(s).
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
01:47:39
Or terminate the PDP WG.
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
01:48:08
Those are obviously the extreme cases, but Rafik is addressing the more gradual approach.
Amr Elsadr
01:48:26
@Keith: Was just typing: That’s a bit of a nuclear option, isn’t it? :-)
Berry Cobb
01:48:33
The more extreme measures are a part of the GNSO Operating Procedures. The Council as managers of the process and the chartering organization all for the enforcement of these conditions.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:48:43
if needed it is needed
Amr Elsadr
01:49:44
Thanks, Rafik. I’m not sure that enforcing strict deadlines is practically possible. If deadlines are missed, and outstanding work will still need to be done to answer Charter questions. It’s a difficult puzzle.
Berry Cobb
01:49:51
In the end, these PM tools and the PCR are designed in a way to hold all stakeholders (community, SGs/C, Council and staff. to increase the accountability by all.
Berry Cobb
01:50:45
Project list is more tactical, the PDR is more the pipeline and where key decisions need to be made.....as Pam says.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:06
These overall Management tools are really valuable!
Amr Elsadr
01:51:21
They really are!!
Philippe Fouquart
01:54:00
Agree, it's not easy, Rafik but if we were to put up the old scary spreadsheet n the screen, this would become obvious. Kudos to staff for putting so much effort into this!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:14
This is KEY!!!!
Berry Cobb
01:55:27
Link to the Council Action Item list. At the bottom, you can find links to the ADR/PMT. This is just a temporary home as we're evolving how these work products are managed, stored and presented in a new home. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items
Ariel Liang
01:56:31
This is the download link for the playbook, just FYI: http://go.icann.org/consensus
Jeffrey Neuman
02:02:06
I wrote a few articles on the Consensus issues. Most important are Part 2 (https://www.jjnsolutions.com/post/enhancing-the-multi-stakeholder-model-within-icann-part-2-problems-still-exist) and part 3 (https://www.jjnsolutions.com/post/help-save-the-multi-stakeholder-model-part-3).
Jeffrey Neuman
02:02:25
The Playbook is great for what it is, but it does not really address the main issues
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:05:50
A good tool and a great thoing to introduce for greater use IMO
Terri Agnew
02:07:24
reminder: To ask a question, click the Q&A box and type in your question at bottom of your zoom screen or you may also raise your hand. If you raise your hand, you will be unmuted, but you may also need to unmute yourself.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:07:29
Go and No Go thresholds do need to be established but yes the risk of obstruction is real
Jeffrey Neuman
02:08:42
I agree on the caucuses and have tried to do that a little bit and make sure that it is reported to the full working goru
Jeffrey Neuman
02:08:44
group
Jeffrey Neuman
02:09:59
no, sorry
Jeffrey Neuman
02:10:18
But I really like the playbook, so all should read
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:10:35
Thx Melissa
Jeffrey Neuman
02:10:43
Yes, thanks Melissa
Melissa Peters Allgood
02:11:27
I’m happy to continue the consensus discussions in any way you may feel helpful!
Terri Agnew
02:15:40
Slides and recordings can be found on the GNSO Calendar and wiki agenda pagehttps://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep and https://community.icann.org/x/EQebC
Ariel Liang
02:17:01
This is the revised charter template as part of the PDP 3.0 initiative: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-3-revised-wg-charter-template-10feb20-en.pdf
Jeffrey Neuman
02:17:26
In theory, an Issues Report should help with Step 1
John McElwaine
02:17:59
@Jeff this would be even before an issues report (I think)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:18:05
Excellent session … appreciate everyone's time on all this... Bye for now...
Ariel Liang
02:18:05
All PDP 3.0 work products can be found here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures
Maarten Botterman
02:18:08
Great work - thanks. ICANN at its best!
Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong
02:18:10
thanks and bye
Amr Elsadr
02:18:21
Thanks Keith, Pam, Rafik and staff for this webinar.