From mike at rodenbaugh.com  Fri Aug  1 15:40:39 2014
From: mike at rodenbaugh.com (Mike Rodenbaugh)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:40:39 -0700
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
In-Reply-To: <f416e9d95e27406293ce724d59e93a33@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com>
	<6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<f416e9d95e27406293ce724d59e93a33@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <CA+5qodL_RJhdgYgxq1ELXfXbCFqVGbeZa0nM5BRWnqjjHHazxw@mail.gmail.com>

Feedback on Q3 from one IPC member:

I found it quite difficult to know how I am supposed to answer question 3,
and what the purpose of it is (ie does it matter):

?I am responding on behalf of:

Myself

An organisation or company

A part of the GNSO

Another part of ICANN?



I would probably take the view that I am responding on my own behalf or
that of Valideus, rather than as a part of the GNSO, eg IPC, since I don?t
have any official capacity to speak for the IPC.  But in which case, who
would ever respond that they were taking this survey on behalf of a part of
the GNSO?

And what is the purpose of this question anyway:

If it is to capture people?s affiliations then it does not do so if they
answer in the same way that I probably would;

Even if they respond that they are answering on behalf of a part of the
GNSO, then this does not really capture that they may have affiliations
with more than one part, eg IPC or BC *and* RySG/NTAG

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Larisa B. Gurnick <
larisa.gurnick at icann.org> wrote:

>  Chuck and Ron,
>
> Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered
> by Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review -
> review and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO
> Review Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to
> Westlake Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for
> review.
>
>
>
> As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment,
> what do you think about the following:
>
>
>
> New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to
> accomplish a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from
> throughout the Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as
> the result of the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its
> general purpose.
>
>
>
> The question would have all the same answer options as other questions,
> including a text box for additional feedback.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Larisa
>
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
> *To:* Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
> *Cc:* 'Richard G A Westlake'
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> I am fine with that Ron if it doesn?t cause too much delay.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com <ra at dotsportllc.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
> *Cc:* 'Richard G A Westlake'
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> Dear Chuck and all,
>
>
>
> Yes, but? ?you make a good point that we are not delving into Working
> Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO
> review moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would
> be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and
> perhaps another to flesh out the community?s overall view of them.  Let?s
> do our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward
> Chuck.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> RA
>
>
>
> *Ron Andruff*
>
> *dotSport LLC*
>
> *www.lifedotsport.com <http://www.lifedotsport.com> *
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org
> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
> *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
> *Cc:* Richard G A Westlake
> *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered
> questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last
> three open ended questions.
>
>
>
> I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are
> such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there
> are no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of
> trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we
> add more questions at this time.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [
> mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org <owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Larisa B. Gurnick
> *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
> *To:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org
> *Cc:* Richard G A Westlake
> *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback
> received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here
> <https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3>.  Please provide your
> final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  *by
>  August 1, 23:59 UTC*.
>
>
>
> The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions
> pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A
> responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these
> groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as
> he/she would like.
>
>
>
> The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear
> roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options
> available to the responder.
>
>
>
> Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing
> and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of
> acronyms, etc.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment
> useful and informative.
>
>
>
> *Larisa B. Gurnick*
>
> Director, Strategic Initiatives
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> larisa.gurnick at icann.org
>
> 310 383-8995
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140801/7f087a30/attachment.html>

From ra at dotsportllc.com  Fri Aug  1 16:29:27 2014
From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:29:27 -0400
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
In-Reply-To: <f416e9d95e27406293ce724d59e93a33@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <f416e9d95e27406293ce724d59e93a33@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <038b01cfada5$c6db3ea0$5491bbe0$@dotsportllc.com>

Thanks for this input, Larisa.  I will defer to Chuck and other members for
a better response to your proposed question, but the purpose of a WG is not:
"enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community" as I
understand it.

 

Chuck, your thoughts?

 

Kind regards,

 

RA 

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> www.lifedotsport.com 

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 14:17
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Chuck and Ron,

Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered by
Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review - review
and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO Review
Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to Westlake
Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for review.  

 

As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment, what
do you think about the following:

 

New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to accomplish
a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from throughout the
Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as the result of
the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its general purpose.

 

The question would have all the same answer options as other questions,
including a text box for additional feedback.

 

Thanks,

 

Larisa

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org> 
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

I am fine with that Ron if it doesn't cause too much delay.

 

Chuck

 

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org> 
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Dear Chuck and all,

 

Yes, but. .you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups
at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review
moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would be
prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and
perhaps another to flesh out the community's overall view of them.  Let's do
our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> www.lifedotsport.com 

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]
<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]>  On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org> 
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered
questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last
three open ended questions.

 

I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are
such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are
no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of trying
to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more
questions at this time.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org> 
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Dear All,

The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback
received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here
<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3> .  Please provide your
final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by
August 1, 23:59 UTC.

 

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions
pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A
responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these
groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as
he/she would like.

 

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap
of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the
responder.

 

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing
and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of
acronyms, etc.

 

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful
and informative.

 

Larisa B. Gurnick

Director, Strategic Initiatives

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

larisa.gurnick at icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org> 

310 383-8995

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140801/24248262/attachment.html>

From larisa.gurnick at icann.org  Fri Aug  1 17:58:34 2014
From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 17:58:34 +0000
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
In-Reply-To: <038b01cfada5$c6db3ea0$5491bbe0$@dotsportllc.com>
References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <f416e9d95e27406293ce724d59e93a33@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <038b01cfada5$c6db3ea0$5491bbe0$@dotsportllc.com>
Message-ID: <58a70e7ade734949849181cc3fb177e2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Further clarification would be very much appreciated as Westlake is finalizing the 360 Assessment in preparation for launch on Monday.
The purpose of the Working Groups was  based on the information posted on the GNSO web site - http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/101/wg-operations.

Thanks,
Larisa

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:29 AM
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Thanks for this input, Larisa.  I will defer to Chuck and other members for a better response to your proposed question, but the purpose of a WG is not: "enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community" as I understand it.

Chuck, your thoughts?

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 14:17
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Chuck and Ron,
Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered by Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review - review and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO Review Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to Westlake Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for review.

As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment, what do you think about the following:

New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to accomplish a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as the result of the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its general purpose.

The question would have all the same answer options as other questions, including a text box for additional feedback.

Thanks,

Larisa

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I am fine with that Ron if it doesn't cause too much delay.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear Chuck and all,

Yes, but... ...you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and perhaps another to flesh out the community's overall view of them.  Let's do our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck.

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last three open ended questions.

I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more questions at this time.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear All,
The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3>.  Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by  August 1, 23:59 UTC.

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like.

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder.

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc.

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative.

Larisa B. Gurnick
Director, Strategic Initiatives
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
310 383-8995

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140801/9628d923/attachment.html>

From ra at dotsportllc.com  Fri Aug  1 18:52:12 2014
From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:52:12 -0400
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
In-Reply-To: <58a70e7ade734949849181cc3fb177e2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <f416e9d95e27406293ce724d59e93a33@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <038b01cfada5$c6db3ea0$5491bbe0$@dotsportllc.com> <58a70e7ade734949849181cc3fb177e2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <03fc01cfadb9$b813bcd0$283b3670$@dotsportllc.com>

Dear Larisa,

Dear all,

 

In absence of Chuck's or other member's comments (I expect that they may
come in later today and make my suggestion below mute), to help things along
I would suggest posing the question like this:

 

GNSO Working Groups became the primary policy development vehicle as the
result of the last GNSO Review. Working Groups are tasked by specific
Charter to address a specific policy issue.  At the conclusion of the
Working Group efforts, their results are returned to the GNSO Council to
[need the specific language as to the next step Council takes].  The Working
Group model that has been implemented in the last GNSO Review is effective
in accomplishing its purpose.

 

Again, I defer to Chuck on this because he is so deeply familiar with this
specific topic.

 

Thank you,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> www.lifedotsport.com 

 

From: Larisa B. Gurnick [mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org] 
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 13:59
To: Ron Andruff; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Further clarification would be very much appreciated as Westlake is
finalizing the 360 Assessment in preparation for launch on Monday.

The purpose of the Working Groups was  based on the information posted on
the GNSO web site - http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/101/wg-operations.

 

Thanks,

Larisa

 

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:29 AM
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org> 
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Thanks for this input, Larisa.  I will defer to Chuck and other members for
a better response to your proposed question, but the purpose of a WG is not:
"enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community" as I
understand it.

 

Chuck, your thoughts?

 

Kind regards,

 

RA 

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> www.lifedotsport.com 

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 14:17
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org> 
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Chuck and Ron,

Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered by
Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review - review
and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO Review
Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to Westlake
Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for review.  

 

As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment, what
do you think about the following:

 

New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to accomplish
a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from throughout the
Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as the result of
the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its general purpose.

 

The question would have all the same answer options as other questions,
including a text box for additional feedback.

 

Thanks,

 

Larisa

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org> 
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

I am fine with that Ron if it doesn't cause too much delay.

 

Chuck

 

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org> 
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Dear Chuck and all,

 

Yes, but. .you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups
at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review
moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would be
prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and
perhaps another to flesh out the community's overall view of them.  Let's do
our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> www.lifedotsport.com 

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]
<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]>  On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org> 
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered
questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last
three open ended questions.

 

I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are
such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are
no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of trying
to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more
questions at this time.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org> 
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Dear All,

The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback
received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here
<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3> .  Please provide your
final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by
August 1, 23:59 UTC.

 

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions
pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A
responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these
groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as
he/she would like.

 

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap
of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the
responder.

 

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing
and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of
acronyms, etc.

 

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful
and informative.

 

Larisa B. Gurnick

Director, Strategic Initiatives

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

larisa.gurnick at icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org> 

310 383-8995

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140801/35033bab/attachment.html>

From cgomes at Verisign.com  Fri Aug  1 22:19:08 2014
From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 22:19:08 +0000
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
In-Reply-To: <03fc01cfadb9$b813bcd0$283b3670$@dotsportllc.com>
References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <f416e9d95e27406293ce724d59e93a33@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <038b01cfada5$c6db3ea0$5491bbe0$@dotsportllc.com>
 <58a70e7ade734949849181cc3fb177e2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <03fc01cfadb9$b813bcd0$283b3670$@dotsportllc.com>
Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C59D6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>

Thanks for getting this started Ron.  I am concerned about such a broad question because I am afraid that we will get answers all over the place depending on the different levels of experience people have had.  What about a few specific questions like the following, which could following the first two introductory sentences from Ron.  I don't think the third one is needed.


a.       Are any interested stakeholders prevented from participating in WGs?  If so, why?

b.      How would you rate the leadership of WGs?

c.       How would you rate the staff support for WGs?

d.      How would you rate the level of understanding about the complexities of a bottom-up multistakeholder process by each of the following groups?

                                i.            Board members

                              ii.            ICANN Executives & Senior Managers

                            iii.            Community members outside of the GNSO

                             iv.            GNSO participants who have never participated in a WG

                               v.            GNSO participants who have participated in at least one WG

A common complaint is that WGs take too long to complete their task.

a.       Do you agree with this assessment?

b.      If so, what would you recommend to speed up the process?  (Choose as many as desired; note that the ideas listed are just a sampling of possible ideas.)

                                i.            Meet more frequently

                              ii.            Divide policy development topics into smaller, more manageable subtopics

                            iii.            Reduce the amount of public comment time

                             iv.            Increase the voting threshold for initiating a WG

                               v.            Restrict the number of participants in a WG from each interest group

                             vi.            Make it a prerequisite that impacted parties regularly and constructively participate in the WG if they want to oppose WG recommendations at the end of the process

                           vii.            Hold more in-person WG meetings

                         viii.            Subsidize participation for needy individuals and groups

                             ix.            Other: (provide text box)

Of course, I welcome critique of these suggested questions.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 2:52 PM
To: 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear Larisa,
Dear all,

In absence of Chuck's or other member's comments (I expect that they may come in later today and make my suggestion below mute), to help things along I would suggest posing the question like this:

GNSO Working Groups became the primary policy development vehicle as the result of the last GNSO Review. Working Groups are tasked by specific Charter to address a specific policy issue.  At the conclusion of the Working Group efforts, their results are returned to the GNSO Council to [need the specific language as to the next step Council takes].  The Working Group model that has been implemented in the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its purpose.

Again, I defer to Chuck on this because he is so deeply familiar with this specific topic.

Thank you,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: Larisa B. Gurnick [mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org]>
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 13:59
To: Ron Andruff; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Further clarification would be very much appreciated as Westlake is finalizing the 360 Assessment in preparation for launch on Monday.
The purpose of the Working Groups was  based on the information posted on the GNSO web site - http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/101/wg-operations.

Thanks,
Larisa

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:29 AM
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Thanks for this input, Larisa.  I will defer to Chuck and other members for a better response to your proposed question, but the purpose of a WG is not: "enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community" as I understand it.

Chuck, your thoughts?

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 14:17
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Chuck and Ron,
Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered by Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review - review and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO Review Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to Westlake Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for review.

As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment, what do you think about the following:

New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to accomplish a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as the result of the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its general purpose.

The question would have all the same answer options as other questions, including a text box for additional feedback.

Thanks,

Larisa

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I am fine with that Ron if it doesn't cause too much delay.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear Chuck and all,

Yes, but... ...you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and perhaps another to flesh out the community's overall view of them.  Let's do our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck.

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last three open ended questions.

I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more questions at this time.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear All,
The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3>.  Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by  August 1, 23:59 UTC.

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like.

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder.

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc.

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative.

Larisa B. Gurnick
Director, Strategic Initiatives
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
310 383-8995

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140801/aa9f8a67/attachment.html>

From cgomes at Verisign.com  Fri Aug  1 22:21:52 2014
From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 22:21:52 +0000
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
In-Reply-To: <58a70e7ade734949849181cc3fb177e2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <f416e9d95e27406293ce724d59e93a33@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <038b01cfada5$c6db3ea0$5491bbe0$@dotsportllc.com>
 <58a70e7ade734949849181cc3fb177e2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C59FB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>

In my opinion, it would be better to delay briefly than to add questions that produce unhelpful results.

Chuck

From: Larisa B. Gurnick [mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:59 PM
To: Ron Andruff; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Further clarification would be very much appreciated as Westlake is finalizing the 360 Assessment in preparation for launch on Monday.
The purpose of the Working Groups was  based on the information posted on the GNSO web site - http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/101/wg-operations.

Thanks,
Larisa

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]<mailto:[mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:29 AM
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Thanks for this input, Larisa.  I will defer to Chuck and other members for a better response to your proposed question, but the purpose of a WG is not: "enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community" as I understand it.

Chuck, your thoughts?

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 14:17
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Chuck and Ron,
Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered by Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review - review and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO Review Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to Westlake Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for review.

As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment, what do you think about the following:

New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to accomplish a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as the result of the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its general purpose.

The question would have all the same answer options as other questions, including a text box for additional feedback.

Thanks,

Larisa

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I am fine with that Ron if it doesn't cause too much delay.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear Chuck and all,

Yes, but... ...you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and perhaps another to flesh out the community's overall view of them.  Let's do our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck.

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last three open ended questions.

I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more questions at this time.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear All,
The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3>.  Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by  August 1, 23:59 UTC.

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like.

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder.

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc.

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative.

Larisa B. Gurnick
Director, Strategic Initiatives
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
310 383-8995

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140801/e39087f0/attachment.html>

From michele at blacknight.com  Fri Aug  1 22:23:44 2014
From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 22:23:44 +0000
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C59FB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <f416e9d95e27406293ce724d59e93a33@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <038b01cfada5$c6db3ea0$5491bbe0$@dotsportllc.com>
 <58a70e7ade734949849181cc3fb177e2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C59FB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <D1AC4482BED7C04DAC43491E9A9DBEC399984A8A@BK-EXCHMBX01.blacknight.local>

+1

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 11:22 PM
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

In my opinion, it would be better to delay briefly than to add questions that produce unhelpful results.

Chuck

From: Larisa B. Gurnick [mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:59 PM
To: Ron Andruff; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Further clarification would be very much appreciated as Westlake is finalizing the 360 Assessment in preparation for launch on Monday.
The purpose of the Working Groups was  based on the information posted on the GNSO web site - http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/101/wg-operations.

Thanks,
Larisa

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]<mailto:[mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:29 AM
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Thanks for this input, Larisa.  I will defer to Chuck and other members for a better response to your proposed question, but the purpose of a WG is not: "enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community" as I understand it.

Chuck, your thoughts?

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 14:17
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Chuck and Ron,
Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered by Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review - review and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO Review Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to Westlake Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for review.

As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment, what do you think about the following:

New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to accomplish a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as the result of the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its general purpose.

The question would have all the same answer options as other questions, including a text box for additional feedback.

Thanks,

Larisa

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I am fine with that Ron if it doesn't cause too much delay.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear Chuck and all,

Yes, but... ...you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and perhaps another to flesh out the community's overall view of them.  Let's do our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck.

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last three open ended questions.

I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more questions at this time.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear All,
The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3>.  Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by  August 1, 23:59 UTC.

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like.

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder.

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc.

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative.

Larisa B. Gurnick
Director, Strategic Initiatives
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
310 383-8995

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140801/32949380/attachment.html>

From michele at blacknight.com  Fri Aug  1 22:23:28 2014
From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 22:23:28 +0000
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C59D6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <f416e9d95e27406293ce724d59e93a33@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <038b01cfada5$c6db3ea0$5491bbe0$@dotsportllc.com>
 <58a70e7ade734949849181cc3fb177e2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <03fc01cfadb9$b813bcd0$283b3670$@dotsportllc.com>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C59D6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <D1AC4482BED7C04DAC43491E9A9DBEC399984A7B@BK-EXCHMBX01.blacknight.local>

Chuck

These are excellent questions and I think they'd be very helpful.

Of course you've just made the entire thing longer :) But hey ..

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 11:19 PM
To: Ron Andruff; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Thanks for getting this started Ron.  I am concerned about such a broad question because I am afraid that we will get answers all over the place depending on the different levels of experience people have had.  What about a few specific questions like the following, which could following the first two introductory sentences from Ron.  I don't think the third one is needed.


a.       Are any interested stakeholders prevented from participating in WGs?  If so, why?

b.      How would you rate the leadership of WGs?

c.       How would you rate the staff support for WGs?

d.      How would you rate the level of understanding about the complexities of a bottom-up multistakeholder process by each of the following groups?

                                 i.            Board members

                               ii.            ICANN Executives & Senior Managers

                              iii.            Community members outside of the GNSO

                             iv.            GNSO participants who have never participated in a WG

                               v.            GNSO participants who have participated in at least one WG

A common complaint is that WGs take too long to complete their task.

a.       Do you agree with this assessment?

b.      If so, what would you recommend to speed up the process?  (Choose as many as desired; note that the ideas listed are just a sampling of possible ideas.)

                                 i.            Meet more frequently

                               ii.            Divide policy development topics into smaller, more manageable subtopics

                              iii.            Reduce the amount of public comment time

                             iv.            Increase the voting threshold for initiating a WG

                               v.            Restrict the number of participants in a WG from each interest group

                             vi.            Make it a prerequisite that impacted parties regularly and constructively participate in the WG if they want to oppose WG recommendations at the end of the process

                            vii.            Hold more in-person WG meetings

                          viii.            Subsidize participation for needy individuals and groups

                             ix.            Other: (provide text box)

Of course, I welcome critique of these suggested questions.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 2:52 PM
To: 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear Larisa,
Dear all,

In absence of Chuck's or other member's comments (I expect that they may come in later today and make my suggestion below mute), to help things along I would suggest posing the question like this:

GNSO Working Groups became the primary policy development vehicle as the result of the last GNSO Review. Working Groups are tasked by specific Charter to address a specific policy issue.  At the conclusion of the Working Group efforts, their results are returned to the GNSO Council to [need the specific language as to the next step Council takes].  The Working Group model that has been implemented in the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its purpose.

Again, I defer to Chuck on this because he is so deeply familiar with this specific topic.

Thank you,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: Larisa B. Gurnick [mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org]>
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 13:59
To: Ron Andruff; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Further clarification would be very much appreciated as Westlake is finalizing the 360 Assessment in preparation for launch on Monday.
The purpose of the Working Groups was  based on the information posted on the GNSO web site - http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/101/wg-operations.

Thanks,
Larisa

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:29 AM
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Thanks for this input, Larisa.  I will defer to Chuck and other members for a better response to your proposed question, but the purpose of a WG is not: "enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community" as I understand it.

Chuck, your thoughts?

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 14:17
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Chuck and Ron,
Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered by Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review - review and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO Review Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to Westlake Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for review.

As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment, what do you think about the following:

New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to accomplish a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as the result of the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its general purpose.

The question would have all the same answer options as other questions, including a text box for additional feedback.

Thanks,

Larisa

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I am fine with that Ron if it doesn't cause too much delay.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear Chuck and all,

Yes, but... ...you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and perhaps another to flesh out the community's overall view of them.  Let's do our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck.

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last three open ended questions.

I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more questions at this time.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear All,
The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3>.  Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by  August 1, 23:59 UTC.

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like.

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder.

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc.

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative.

Larisa B. Gurnick
Director, Strategic Initiatives
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
310 383-8995

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140801/51f32afe/attachment.html>

From ra at dotsportllc.com  Fri Aug  1 22:41:37 2014
From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 18:41:37 -0400
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
Message-ID: <fihxfsg4k0j4elg7abc2wn1s.1406932897737@email.android.com>

Thanks Chuck, I knew we could rely on you! ;o)

For my part, I am satisfied with adding the questions he posed and adding them to the survey. ?On the other hand, if the rest of the Work Party would like to delay and massage them, ?I can respect that as well.

Kind regards,

RA




Ron Andruff
www.lifedotsport.com?

-------- Original message --------
From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> 
Date: 08/01/2014  18:23  (GMT-05:00) 
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at Verisign.com>,Ron Andruff <ra at dotsportllc.com>,"'Larisa B. Gurnick'" <larisa.gurnick at icann.org>,gnso-review-dt at icann.org 
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake' <richard at westlakegovernance.com> 
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised 
 
Chuck
?
These are excellent questions and I think they?d be very helpful.
?
Of course you?ve just made the entire thing longer J But hey ..
?
Regards
?
Michele
?
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59? 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland? Company No.: 370845
?
From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 11:19 PM
To: Ron Andruff; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
?
Thanks for getting this started Ron.? I am concerned about such a broad question because I am afraid that we will get answers all over the place depending on the different levels of experience people have had.? What about a few specific questions like the following, which could following the first two introductory sentences from Ron.? I don?t think the third one is needed.
?
a.?????? Are any interested stakeholders prevented from participating in WGs?? If so, why?
b.????? How would you rate the leadership of WGs?
c.?????? How would you rate the staff support for WGs?
d.????? How would you rate the level of understanding about the complexities of a bottom-up multistakeholder process by each of the following groups?
???????????????????????????????? i.??????????? Board members
?????????????????????????????? ii.??????????? ICANN Executives & Senior Managers
????????????????????????????? iii.??????????? Community members outside of the GNSO
???????????????????????????? iv.??????????? GNSO participants who have never participated in a WG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140801/2f423458/attachment.html>

From cgomes at Verisign.com  Fri Aug  1 22:47:01 2014
From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 22:47:01 +0000
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
In-Reply-To: <D1AC4482BED7C04DAC43491E9A9DBEC399984A7B@BK-EXCHMBX01.blacknight.local>
References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <f416e9d95e27406293ce724d59e93a33@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <038b01cfada5$c6db3ea0$5491bbe0$@dotsportllc.com>
 <58a70e7ade734949849181cc3fb177e2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <03fc01cfadb9$b813bcd0$283b3670$@dotsportllc.com>
 <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C59D6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
 <D1AC4482BED7C04DAC43491E9A9DBEC399984A7B@BK-EXCHMBX01.blacknight.local>
Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C5AE0@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>

I know it makes it longer Michele and I didn't want that either but I tried to make them easy to answer.

Chuck

From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele at blacknight.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 6:23 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Chuck

These are excellent questions and I think they'd be very helpful.

Of course you've just made the entire thing longer :) But hey ..

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 11:19 PM
To: Ron Andruff; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Thanks for getting this started Ron.  I am concerned about such a broad question because I am afraid that we will get answers all over the place depending on the different levels of experience people have had.  What about a few specific questions like the following, which could following the first two introductory sentences from Ron.  I don't think the third one is needed.


a.       Are any interested stakeholders prevented from participating in WGs?  If so, why?

b.      How would you rate the leadership of WGs?

c.       How would you rate the staff support for WGs?

d.      How would you rate the level of understanding about the complexities of a bottom-up multistakeholder process by each of the following groups?

                                 i.            Board members

                               ii.            ICANN Executives & Senior Managers

                              iii.            Community members outside of the GNSO

                             iv.            GNSO participants who have never participated in a WG

                               v.            GNSO participants who have participated in at least one WG

A common complaint is that WGs take too long to complete their task.

a.       Do you agree with this assessment?

b.      If so, what would you recommend to speed up the process?  (Choose as many as desired; note that the ideas listed are just a sampling of possible ideas.)

                                 i.            Meet more frequently

                               ii.            Divide policy development topics into smaller, more manageable subtopics

                              iii.            Reduce the amount of public comment time

                             iv.            Increase the voting threshold for initiating a WG

                               v.            Restrict the number of participants in a WG from each interest group

                             vi.            Make it a prerequisite that impacted parties regularly and constructively participate in the WG if they want to oppose WG recommendations at the end of the process

                            vii.            Hold more in-person WG meetings

                          viii.            Subsidize participation for needy individuals and groups

                             ix.            Other: (provide text box)

Of course, I welcome critique of these suggested questions.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 2:52 PM
To: 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear Larisa,
Dear all,

In absence of Chuck's or other member's comments (I expect that they may come in later today and make my suggestion below mute), to help things along I would suggest posing the question like this:

GNSO Working Groups became the primary policy development vehicle as the result of the last GNSO Review. Working Groups are tasked by specific Charter to address a specific policy issue.  At the conclusion of the Working Group efforts, their results are returned to the GNSO Council to [need the specific language as to the next step Council takes].  The Working Group model that has been implemented in the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its purpose.

Again, I defer to Chuck on this because he is so deeply familiar with this specific topic.

Thank you,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: Larisa B. Gurnick [mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org]>
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 13:59
To: Ron Andruff; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Further clarification would be very much appreciated as Westlake is finalizing the 360 Assessment in preparation for launch on Monday.
The purpose of the Working Groups was  based on the information posted on the GNSO web site - http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/101/wg-operations.

Thanks,
Larisa

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:29 AM
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Thanks for this input, Larisa.  I will defer to Chuck and other members for a better response to your proposed question, but the purpose of a WG is not: "enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community" as I understand it.

Chuck, your thoughts?

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 14:17
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Chuck and Ron,
Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered by Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review - review and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO Review Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to Westlake Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for review.

As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment, what do you think about the following:

New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to accomplish a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as the result of the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its general purpose.

The question would have all the same answer options as other questions, including a text box for additional feedback.

Thanks,

Larisa

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I am fine with that Ron if it doesn't cause too much delay.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear Chuck and all,

Yes, but... ...you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and perhaps another to flesh out the community's overall view of them.  Let's do our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck.

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last three open ended questions.

I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more questions at this time.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear All,
The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3>.  Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by  August 1, 23:59 UTC.

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like.

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder.

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc.

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative.

Larisa B. Gurnick
Director, Strategic Initiatives
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
310 383-8995

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140801/ed38d54a/attachment.html>

From cgomes at Verisign.com  Fri Aug  1 23:00:12 2014
From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 23:00:12 +0000
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
In-Reply-To: <CA+5qodL_RJhdgYgxq1ELXfXbCFqVGbeZa0nM5BRWnqjjHHazxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com>
	<6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<f416e9d95e27406293ce724d59e93a33@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <CA+5qodL_RJhdgYgxq1ELXfXbCFqVGbeZa0nM5BRWnqjjHHazxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C5B6D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>

I paused on that one too Mike.  Then I realized that I was not authorized to speak on behalf of anyone but myself.  I would predict that that will be the case with most respondents unless a group clearly directs otherwise.

Chuck

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 11:41 AM
To: Larisa B. Gurnick
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Feedback on Q3 from one IPC member:

I found it quite difficult to know how I am supposed to answer question 3, and what the purpose of it is (ie does it matter):
?I am responding on behalf of:
Myself
An organisation or company
A part of the GNSO
Another part of ICANN?

I would probably take the view that I am responding on my own behalf or that of Valideus, rather than as a part of the GNSO, eg IPC, since I don?t have any official capacity to speak for the IPC.  But in which case, who would ever respond that they were taking this survey on behalf of a part of the GNSO?
And what is the purpose of this question anyway:
If it is to capture people?s affiliations then it does not do so if they answer in the same way that I probably would;
Even if they respond that they are answering on behalf of a part of the GNSO, then this does not really capture that they may have affiliations with more than one part, eg IPC or BC and RySG/NTAG

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Larisa B. Gurnick <larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>> wrote:
Chuck and Ron,
Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered by Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review - review and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO Review Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to Westlake Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for review.

As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment, what do you think about the following:

New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to accomplish a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as the result of the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its general purpose.

The question would have all the same answer options as other questions, including a text box for additional feedback.

Thanks,

Larisa

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I am fine with that Ron if it doesn?t cause too much delay.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear Chuck and all,

Yes, but? ?you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and perhaps another to flesh out the community?s overall view of them.  Let?s do our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck.

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last three open ended questions.

I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more questions at this time.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear All,
The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3>.  Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by  August 1, 23:59 UTC.

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like.

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder.

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc.

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative.

Larisa B. Gurnick
Director, Strategic Initiatives
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
310 383-8995<tel:310%20383-8995>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140801/c956a949/attachment.html>

From philip at brandregistrygroup.org  Sat Aug  2 10:58:55 2014
From: philip at brandregistrygroup.org (BRG)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 12:58:55 +0200
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - working groups
In-Reply-To: <fihxfsg4k0j4elg7abc2wn1s.1406932897737@email.android.com>
References: <fihxfsg4k0j4elg7abc2wn1s.1406932897737@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <9CFD4B0787DF465D9C624D09CEC3E077@ZaparazziL11>

Chuck's questions on working groups look good to me.
 
Philip
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140802/47ed0ef7/attachment.html>

From larisa.gurnick at icann.org  Wed Aug  6 13:57:19 2014
From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:57:19 +0000
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Launch of GNSO Review 360 Assessment
Message-ID: <e636f2d893894e579ee0b9958fb220e9@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear members of the GNSO Review Working Party,

The 360 Assessment was launched on Monday, 4 August  and we thank you for the thoughtful and informative feedback that you have provided along the way. You can read the Announcement and take the assessment here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-08-05-en>.  A number of outreach and engagement activities are underway - webinars<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-04-en>, blogs, social media support and invitations to community to participate.  Westlake will provide regular updates on the number of responses.

Richard Westlake and his team will join the Working Party call this week to provide you an update on how your feedback on survey design and questions was incorporated and why modifications were made in a few cases.

While 360 Assessment responses are being gathered, the review work now turns to analysis of documents and records and plans for interviews.  We look forward to your continued guidance to ensure that the Westlake team has access to key information and people to make informed assessments.  This will be part of the discussion at this week's call.

Best wishes,
Larisa

Larisa B. Gurnick
Director, Strategic Initiatives
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
310 383-8995

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140806/bf6a1c7f/attachment.html>

From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org  Thu Aug  7 15:33:10 2014
From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:33:10 +0000
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Thursday 07
 August 2014 1400 UTC
Message-ID: <433fa4957a144d1b9ddbba3bd16d0675@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

 

Dear All,

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party
teleconference held on Thursday 07 August 2014 at 1400 UTC at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-20140807-en.mp3 

 On page: 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#julty

 

 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO
Master Calendar page:

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

  

Attendees:

Klaus Stoll

Jennifer Wolfe

Philip Sheppard

Ron Andruff

Chuck Gomes

Stephane Van Gelder

Avri Doria

Rafik Dammak

 

Guest speaker: Colin Jackson, Richard Westlake

 

Apologies: none

 

ICANN Staff:

Larisa Gurnick

Mary Wong

Lars Hoffman

Matt Ashtiani

Glen de St Gery

Nathalie Peregrine

 

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

 

Thank you.
Kind regards,

 

Nathalie

 

Adobe Chat transcript:

  Matt Ashtiani:Welcome all to the GNSO Review Working Party Meeting on 7
August 2014!

  Philip:waiting on phone

  Ron A:Greetings all!

  Jennifer Wolfe:Hello to everyone!

  Philip:on phone line now  hello everyone

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Hi

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Avri Doria has joined the AC room

  Matt Ashtiani:survey monkey link -
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSOREVIEW360SURVEY

  Matt Ashtiani:Date: Tuesday, 12 August 2014 Time: 19:00-19:30 UTC (time
converter: http://goo.gl/kJvuIm)

  Matt Ashtiani:Date: Wednesday, 13 August 2014 Time: 14:00-14:30 UTC (time
converter: http://goo.gl/UNDIsl)

  Matt Ashtiani:Additionaly webinar information -
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-05-en

  Nathalie  Peregrine:David Maher has joined the AC room

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I assumed the 50 to 100 number was per major category
not for total responses.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I am okay with waiting until after the webinars but I
wouldn't wait much longer.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Poor participation in the webinars would provide a good
indicator of the problem of August.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I think it would be good to do the webinars again in
early September.

  rafik:@chuck I didnt see announcement circulated yet about the survey

  Jennifer Wolfe:Sorry - my phone line dropped - calling back in.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):What about changing the deadline to September 23.  Then
we could add a week if needed and still end by September 30.

  Ron A:@Chuck: support Sept 23

  Jennifer Wolfe:Back on line.  

  Larisa Gurnick:@rafik - staff circulated the announcement to this group
yesterday via email and you can see the posted announcement here:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-08-05-en

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Please read the WG question that was included.

  Ron A:@ Jen: two in the queue since you dropped

  Ron A:As Chuck has requested: What is the Working Group  question that has
been included?

  Larisa Gurnick:@Avri - who would be the ideal audience for WG survey?

  Colin Jackson:Perhaps any WG survery could be targetted at WG members

  Ron A:All members of the GNSO are potential WG members.

  Avri Doria:Larisa, all who have been in a WG, and that is aa broad
audience that goes beyond gnso

  Avri Doria:Colin, exactly, past and present.  it is a big filed that goes
beyond those who are SG/C members.

  Larisa Gurnick:Thank you, Avri

  Ron A:Thank you for that.  checking back on their affiliation is
excellent.

  Avri Doria:What about people who are members of one group and observers of
another.

  Larisa Gurnick:There is a text box in the actual survey - this is a pdf
version

  Philip:Ignorance has never been a barrier to opinion  within ICANN

  Philip:; )

  Ron A:My concern is that bad actors might see this as an opportunity to
cast dispersions on another group.  May be wrong, but have been a long time
in ICANN...

  Ron A:@ Philip: Well said! ;o)

  stephane van gelder:understood Richard, thx.

  stephane van gelder:that clarification helps a lot

  Ron A:What does question #4 mean?

  Philip:@ron Q4 may help the BRG respond, and another time a BRG member

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Ron: If you were authorized to respond for the BC,
you would list the BC.

  Ron A:Thanks Larisa.  That helps me, but I hope respondents will get it.

  Ron A:It appears that Chuck and Philip did, so I'll step back on this.

  Ron A:One take away from thsi meeting for me is that we need to get a
couple of WG questions into the survey...

  Philip:A helpful call - many thanks everyone

  Mary Wong:Not sure if this helps, as it doesn't reach the full pool you're
hoping for, but existing WG Guidelines do require a WG Self Assessement
survey after a WG competes its work.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140807/1a6ce537/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5457 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140807/1a6ce537/smime.p7s>

From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org  Thu Aug  7 19:14:32 2014
From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 19:14:32 +0000
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Re: [gnso-secs] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party
 teleconference Thursday 07 August 2014 1400 UTC
In-Reply-To: <433fa4957a144d1b9ddbba3bd16d0675@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <433fa4957a144d1b9ddbba3bd16d0675@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <B9D6B223-AB1D-46AE-A416-11E28012F256@icann.org>

With updated attendance




Dear All,

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference held on Thursday 07 August 2014 at 1400 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-20140807-en.mp3
 On page:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#julty


 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

Attendees:
Klaus Stoll
Jennifer Wolfe
Philip Sheppard
Ron Andruff
Chuck Gomes
Stephane Van Gelder
Avri Doria
Rafik Dammak
David Maher

Guest speaker: Colin Jackson, Richard Westlake

Apologies: Michele Neylon

ICANN Staff:
Larisa Gurnick
Mary Wong
Lars Hoffman
Matt Ashtiani
Glen de St Gery
Nathalie Peregrine

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Nathalie


Adobe Chat transcript:

  Matt Ashtiani:Welcome all to the GNSO Review Working Party Meeting on 7 August 2014!

  Philip:waiting on phone

  Ron A:Greetings all!

  Jennifer Wolfe:Hello to everyone!

  Philip:on phone line now  hello everyone

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Hi

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Avri Doria has joined the AC room

  Matt Ashtiani:survey monkey link - https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSOREVIEW360SURVEY

  Matt Ashtiani:Date: Tuesday, 12 August 2014 Time: 19:00-19:30 UTC (time converter: http://goo.gl/kJvuIm)

  Matt Ashtiani:Date: Wednesday, 13 August 2014 Time: 14:00-14:30 UTC (time converter: http://goo.gl/UNDIsl)

  Matt Ashtiani:Additionaly webinar information - https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-05-en

  Nathalie  Peregrine:David Maher has joined the AC room

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I assumed the 50 to 100 number was per major category not for total responses.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I am okay with waiting until after the webinars but I wouldn't wait much longer.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Poor participation in the webinars would provide a good indicator of the problem of August.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I think it would be good to do the webinars again in early September.

  rafik:@chuck I didnt see announcement circulated yet about the survey

  Jennifer Wolfe:Sorry - my phone line dropped - calling back in.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):What about changing the deadline to September 23.  Then we could add a week if needed and still end by September 30.

  Ron A:@Chuck: support Sept 23

  Jennifer Wolfe:Back on line.

  Larisa Gurnick:@rafik - staff circulated the announcement to this group yesterday via email and you can see the posted announcement here:  https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-08-05-en

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Please read the WG question that was included.

  Ron A:@ Jen: two in the queue since you dropped

  Ron A:As Chuck has requested: What is the Working Group  question that has been included?

  Larisa Gurnick:@Avri - who would be the ideal audience for WG survey?

  Colin Jackson:Perhaps any WG survery could be targetted at WG members

  Ron A:All members of the GNSO are potential WG members.

  Avri Doria:Larisa, all who have been in a WG, and that is aa broad audience that goes beyond gnso

  Avri Doria:Colin, exactly, past and present.  it is a big filed that goes beyond those who are SG/C members.

  Larisa Gurnick:Thank you, Avri

  Ron A:Thank you for that.  checking back on their affiliation is excellent.

  Avri Doria:What about people who are members of one group and observers of another.

  Larisa Gurnick:There is a text box in the actual survey - this is a pdf version

  Philip:Ignorance has never been a barrier to opinion  within ICANN

  Philip:; )

  Ron A:My concern is that bad actors might see this as an opportunity to cast dispersions on another group.  May be wrong, but have been a long time in ICANN...

  Ron A:@ Philip: Well said! ;o)

  stephane van gelder:understood Richard, thx.

  stephane van gelder:that clarification helps a lot

  Ron A:What does question #4 mean?

  Philip:@ron Q4 may help the BRG respond, and another time a BRG member

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Ron: If you were authorized to respond for the BC, you would list the BC.

  Ron A:Thanks Larisa.  That helps me, but I hope respondents will get it.

  Ron A:It appears that Chuck and Philip did, so I'll step back on this.

  Ron A:One take away from thsi meeting for me is that we need to get a couple of WG questions into the survey...

  Philip:A helpful call - many thanks everyone

  Mary Wong:Not sure if this helps, as it doesn't reach the full pool you're hoping for, but existing WG Guidelines do require a WG Self Assessement survey after a WG competes its work.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140807/151e49a4/attachment.html>

From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org  Thu Aug 21 18:36:48 2014
From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:36:48 +0000
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Thursday 21
 August 2014 1400 UTC
Message-ID: <b16bb600fff742e7bcdbe9361e954cbb@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party
teleconference held on Tuesday 21 August 2014 at 1400 UTC at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-20140821-en.mp3 

 On page: 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#august

 

 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO
Master Calendar page:

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

  

Attendees:

Jennifer Wolfe

David Maher

Wolf Ullrich Knoben

Chuck Gomes

Rudi Vansnick

 

Guest speaker: Richard Westlake

 

Apologies:

Stephane Van Gelder

Osvaldo Novoa

Ron Andruff

 

ICANN Staff:

Larisa Gurnick

Mary Wong

Matt Ashtiani

Nathalie Peregrine

 

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

 

Thank you.
Kind regards,

 

Nathalie

 

Adobe Chat transcript:

Nathalie  Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Review Working Party on
the 21st August 2014

  Rudi Vansnick:hello everyone

  Matt Ashtiani:hi, rudi!

  Rudi Vansnick:just finished my previous call (PDP WG)

  Rudi Vansnick:begin september there is also the IGF 

  Rudi Vansnick:agree with Chuck

  Larisa Gurnick:@Chuck - we will work with Westlake to address your
reporting request

  Matt Ashtiani:one note, it will be a translated .doc which will then be
translated into english for westlake's review. 

  Larisa Gurnick:Working Group survey would be targeted to participants in
Working Groups

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Larisa: That's good but it would also be useful to
get the perceptions of those who have not, as long as we can differentiate
those who have and those  not

  Larisa Gurnick:Thank you Chuck

  Larisa Gurnick:yes, we were considering an open session in LA

  Mary Wong:@Chuck, I'll take that suggestion back to Jonathan et al

  Mary Wong:Friday 10 Oct: ICANN Academy training and a small GNSO F2F
session for the Privacy/Proxy Accreditation WG

  Mary Wong:Friday 17 Oct: GNSO Council day long session

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Thanks everyone

  Rudi Vansnick:thanks, till next call

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140821/19e919ca/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5457 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140821/19e919ca/smime.p7s>

From matt.ashtiani at icann.org  Wed Aug 27 00:09:12 2014
From: matt.ashtiani at icann.org (Matt Ashtiani)
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:09:12 +0000
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] UPDATE: 360 Assessment
Message-ID: <D021ECC9.74BB8%matt.ashtiani@icann.org>

Dear All,

CALL TO ACTION
Please be sure to <https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSOREVIEW360SURVEY.> participate in the 360 Assessment<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSOREVIEW360SURVEY> and make your voice heard! If you have already participated, please encourage others to do so.

Please note, the survey is now available in all UN Languages<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-08-05-en>.

RECENT AND UPCOMING OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
As we continue our efforts to ensure that a diverse and representative group of people take the survey, the following outreach activities have occurred or are in planning:

  *   Fadi has tweeted<https://twitter.com/icann_president/status/504297200923340802> about the survey, in addition to the tweets<https://twitter.com/hashtag/gnso> being sent out on a regular basis;
  *   All Policy Staff leads have been contacted and asked if their respective groups would like an update on the Review during the Los Angeles meeting;
  *   An official announcement will be sent out next week noting the Review extension;
  *   A blog by Jennifer Wolfe will be posted to the ICANN website next week; and
  *   All SO/AC leaders will be contacted and asked to encourage their constituencies to take the survey.

If there are any additional outreach efforts that the Working Party would like to engage in, please let me know and I will be happy to follow up.

CURRENT SURVEY PROGRESS
Please find below some charts regarding the progress of the 360 Assessment. The following analysis has been provided by Westlake.

  *   The current response numbers are 72 questionnaires started and 38 completed. Last week, 66 questionnaires had been started and 36 were completed.
  *   About one third of the responses have been from people self-selected as being affiliated with the GNSO. 20% of responses have a mark of no affiliation, the others are distributed among ALAC, Board, ccNSO, Fellowship, SSAC, and Staff.
  *   The number of responses answering detailed questions about the constituencies and stakeholder groups range from 3 for NPOC to 11 for the Commercial Stakeholder Group. 18 people have answered detail questions about the GNSO Council.

[cid:508C39DB-B132-4695-B4BC-3914C69E303B]
[cid:6B3DAAF7-98A5-45CE-8D01-91EEC5693A76]
[cid:8F7ADF82-7313-4341-A576-B038E9E00925][cid:C44D6E2A-A5DD-4638-AF26-24AD09228790]


Regards,


Matt Ashtiani

Strategic Initiatives Manager

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140827/ddd1ec7b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-3.png
Type: image/png
Size: 34978 bytes
Desc: PastedGraphic-3.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140827/ddd1ec7b/PastedGraphic-3.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 66107 bytes
Desc: PastedGraphic-1.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140827/ddd1ec7b/PastedGraphic-1.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 23523 bytes
Desc: PastedGraphic-2.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140827/ddd1ec7b/PastedGraphic-2.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-4.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28418 bytes
Desc: PastedGraphic-4.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140827/ddd1ec7b/PastedGraphic-4.png>