[Gnso-bylaws-dt] PLEASE READ: URGENT NEXT STEPS to finalising our work

[Heather Forrest]

Dear DT colleagues,

In completing my review today of Guideline 3.2, I came upon an idea to
include the following explanatory text before the table in the introductory
Background section of each of our Guidelines documents:

The following table sets out the applicable Bylaws provision/s, the actions
already completed by the GNSO in relation to those Bylaws provisions, and
the additional proposed steps that were tasked to the GNSO DT. The
remaining sections of these Guidelines are intended to address the
Additional Proposed Steps.

What do you think? Would this be helpful? I realised I was struggling, even
with the headings in the table, to fully understand what had/hadn't been
done in that table and how the table information related to the Guidelines
in which it sits.

If you're willing to consider this as you review your allocated Guidelines
doc and insert it if you believe it is helpful, that would be very helpful.
Staff and I can do a final sweep at the end to ensure consistency across
all docs.

Best wishes, happy reviewing,

Heather

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:42 AM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear DT colleagues,
>
> An *update* and a *reminder* as we hit mid-week here in Australia (though
> still Tuesday in many DT members' time zones).
>
> *UPDATE*: On commencing final review of the 18.12 Guidelines, David very
> sensibly flagged that this guideline is inherently tied to the accompanying
> Joint Consultation Guidelines still under development with the ccNSO. David
> suggests, and I fully support, parking final review of this Guideline until
> the ccNSO-GNSO Joint Consultation Guidelines are complete. As I had
> allocated myself two final reviews and David had already reviewed one of
> those this past weekend, I've suggested that he take over review of 2.2/2.3
> instead. I have updated our workplan allocation accordingly:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n0PnY/edit
>
> *REMINDER*: Final reviews must be completed by this Friday in order to
> meet the Council document deadline. If at this point in the week you
> believe that you will be unable to complete your review on time, just let
> me know so that the document can be re-allocated in good time to finish.
>
> Best wishes to all,
>
> Heather
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:19 AM Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear DT colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> We have reached the end of our work plan! There are 2 things immediately
>> left to do (we'll circle back to clean up the last item, the Joint
>> Consultation Guidelines with ccNSO, once our looming deadline to Council is
>> met). To meet Council's document deadline, both tasks must be done before
>> Monday, 14 October:
>>
>>
>>
>> *FIRST: FINALIZE 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 - TO COMPLETE BY THIS SUNDAY, 6 OCTOBER*
>>  in your time zone: Ariel has worked diligently to clean up these
>> documents following our call, and I have reviewed her edits and tinkered a
>> bit further. Please can all DT members review these, with particular
>> attention to:
>>
>>    - 3.2 - the revisions to 4.2.3 (*SO/AC Director Removal Petition
>>    Review and Certification of Completeness*): Ariel has tidied up, and
>>    you will see I have also further added the words 'Certification of
>>    Completeness' in the heading of this section and some plain-English
>>    introductory words in the introduction at the bottom of page 1 to more
>>    clearly distinguish between Certification of Completeness by Council
>>    leadership;  Acceptance of the Petition by Vote of Relevant House; and
>>    Approval of Petition by entire Council. The same language has been
>>    ported to 2.2/2.3, 3.1, and 3.3 as well.
>>    - 3.3 - the revisions to  4.2.4 (*GNSO Community Feedback on
>>    Certified Board Recall Petition) *to address David's comment to
>>    specify the help from staff to compile, and if time permits, summarise, any
>>    comments received through Community Feedback. The same language has
>>    been ported to other relevant sections in 1.3/1.4, 2.2/2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and
>>    3.3 (as noted in Ariel’s response to David).
>>
>> *SECOND: REVIEW OF FULL PACKAGE - TO COMPLETE BY NEXT FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER* in
>> your time zone: Ariel has added a table at the top of our work plan to set
>> out each Guideline/Template we have developed. WORKPLAN found here (
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeydtqli8UWOrrvChIf9EMprGxo0pOr5lcadM-n0PnY/edit?usp=sharing).
>> I have randomly nominated an active DT member to each Guideline. If you are
>> completely dissatisfied with your allocated document, please convince
>> another DT member to swap with you (bear with me please, as we don't have
>> too much time to rock-paper-scissors over who gets what). I'm happy to take
>> on 2 reviews to complete the list unless a DT member who was not allocated
>> a doc wants to take on a review. Starting from next Monday morning, 7
>> October (please wait until Monday morning so Julie, Ariel and I can ensure
>> that 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are ready and port any relevant changes across to the
>> other docs) please review your allocated document next week. When your
>> review is complete, indicate so in the workplan table by typing 'yes' or
>> 'complete' into the relevant box in the chart. Ariel has diligently ported
>> backwards to earlier documents our learnings and decisions from the more
>> recent documents, but we're all more experienced now, and this final review
>> may catch further things we didn't think about earlier in the year. If you
>> find any issues of concern in your review, please raise them ASAP on the DT
>> list, making very clear which document you're referring to and what the
>> problem is.
>>
>> Very best wishes to all,
>>
>>
>> Heather
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20191009/4486669c/attachment-0001.html>