[gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Public Comment on the Review Schedule

Tue Jun 30 17:33:23 UTC 2015

Jennifer
Very nicely put

I’ll be the first to admit that I currently cannot engage with this group and many others as much as I might like to due to the overall workload combined with $dayjob
Seeing the upcoming reviews in the pipeline sends a shiver down my spine

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish/
-------------------------------
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 Jen Wolfe
Date: Tuesday 30 June 2015 17:09
To: "gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>"
Cc: Larisa Gurnick, Charla Shambley
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Public Comment on the Review Schedule

Hello GNSO Review Working Party,

I hope everyone had a safe trip back from Buenos Aires!  During our meeting last we discussed the importance of theGNSO Review Working Party providing a response to the Public Commen<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-aoc-org-reviews-process-2015-05-15-en>t on the Proposed Review Schedule and Process/Operational Improvements for AoC and Organizational Reviews. This public comment is due Thursday, July 2nd.  Based upon our discussion, I have drafted  a public comment related to the timing issues we all agreed upon as problematic to the process.   I realize this is a very short turn-around time, but respectfully request any proposed changes or support in submitting the public comment.  I focused the public comment on the importance of allowing community members sufficient time to respond to the Review process, so hopefully it is non-controversial.

If I don’t hear any objections, I will go ahead and submit this by the deadline on Thursday, July 2nd.    If you do have an objection to the comment, please let me know.  Of course, we certainly encourage all of your in your individual capacities to provide a comment if there are other concerns you would like to raise regarding the Review time frame and process.

DRAFT COMMENT:

On behalf of the GNSO Review Working Party, I appreciate the opportunity to submit this public comment regarding the schedule and process for Reviews mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments and the ICANN Bylaws.  The GNSO Review began approximately one year ago following the ICANN 50 meeting in London.   Since that time, the members of the GNSO Review Working Party have requested two extensions of time in order to allow for the necessary time to review, contemplate and provide thoughtful and meaningful feedback to ICANN staff and the independent examiner.

As a result of these extensions of time, we were able to provide important feedback into the scope of the questions asked in the 360 survey and to provide additional time for announcements and outreach during the ICANN 51 Los Angeles meeting to encourage more participation.  This allowed for more meaningful results from the community.  We also requested an extension of time to review the initial draft report provided by the independent examiner.  This extension gave members of the Working Party additional time to consider the voluminous information and track more than 120 comments to the report.  This feedback was documented and responses were provided by the independent examiner.

We believe this additional time allowed for a better outcome and end result.  Accordingly, we urge you to consider allotting additional time for other Reviews and their respective Working Parties so that the time and consideration can be given to obtain quality results in the survey and interview process and quality feedback to the report produced by the independent examiner.

Additionally, we ask you to consider the impact of scheduled reviews on the volunteer workload. Qualified, experienced and knowledgeable community members willing to dedicate focused and significant effort are an essential component of this important accountability mechanism functioning effectively.  As the GNSO Review Working Party, our group of 20 volunteers has put in significant energy and time to help make the GNSO Review and recommendations useful and supportive of continuous improvement - 17 meetings and two rounds of nearly 120 comments leading up to the Draft Report.   The broader community also contributed to the GNSO Review in important ways by offering their views and feedback – 178 people completed online surveys and 40 people participated in one on one interviews.  As we begin planning for the implementation phase, we expect a significant volunteer time to be invested into planning and implementing  needed improvements.  We fully support this approach to conducting future Organizational Reviews and urge you to ensure that adequate time and volunteer resources are available not just to conduct each Review, but as importantly, to contribute to a productive implementation of Review recommendations and applying lessons learned to future reviews.

I thank you for the opportunity to provide this public comment and share our experiences in the GNSO Review.

The GNSO Review Working Party

Thank you for your time and input!

Jen

jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB
Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348
IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014
What will you do with your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P
Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs  http://ow.ly/Eblgc
Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column  http://ow.ly/EbljP
Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20150630/4fab4631/attachment.html>