[gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Fri Aug 1 22:19:08 UTC 2014

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>