From charla.shambley at icann.org Thu Nov 5 18:37:04 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 18:37:04 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call Message-ID: <837d837baf434d7792b6442f8d43989f@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear GNSO Review Working Party, For those of you that attended ICANN54, I hope you enjoyed your time in Dublin and had an uneventful trip home. During our working session in Dublin, the Working Party made significant progress towards reviewing the feasibility and implementability of the 36 recommendations in the Final Report. Attached is an Excel document categorizing the recommendations based on the Working Party's assessment of the recommendations during their working session. A color-coded legend is provided as follows: [cid:image001.png at 01D117B5.E7C45C20] Recommendations to be reviewed by Working Party [cid:image002.png at 01D117B5.E7C45C20] Working Party suggests adoption of this recommendation [cid:image003.png at 01D117B5.E7C45C20] Working Party is in agreement and flags that work is already underway [cid:image004.png at 01D117B5.E7C45C20] Working Party agrees with intent and suggests modification to recommendation language [cid:image005.png at 01D117B5.E7C45C20] Do not implement Of the 36 recommendations, 9 still need to be reviewed by the Working Party (see the recommendations under the blue heading in the Excel document - specifically recommendations 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 36). It was proposed that we schedule a call some time mid-November to review these remaining recommendations. Please click on the doodle poll link to provide your availability for an upcoming call. Thank you and I look forward to your doodle poll results. Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 214 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 215 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 202 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 202 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 214 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (5 Nov).xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 113111 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (5 Nov).xlsx URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Mon Nov 9 20:49:15 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:49:15 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call Message-ID: <6a3a8cfe798944f29123e9c224db83a2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear Working Party, To date, five members have participated in the doodle poll and, so far, next Wednesday, 18 November @ 15:00 UTC is the most convenient time. I will keep the doodle poll open until COB tomorrow and will send out an invite based on the responses. Please also note that it is estimated that the call may take up to two hours to discuss the remaining nine recommendations. Thank you and I look forward to your participation in the doodle poll. Charla From: Charla Shambley Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 10:37 AM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: Pamela Smith Subject: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call Dear GNSO Review Working Party, For those of you that attended ICANN54, I hope you enjoyed your time in Dublin and had an uneventful trip home. During our working session in Dublin, the Working Party made significant progress towards reviewing the feasibility and implementability of the 36 recommendations in the Final Report. Attached is an Excel document categorizing the recommendations based on the Working Party's assessment of the recommendations during their working session. A color-coded legend is provided as follows: [cid:image001.png at 01D117B5.E7C45C20] Recommendations to be reviewed by Working Party [cid:image002.png at 01D117B5.E7C45C20] Working Party suggests adoption of this recommendation [cid:image003.png at 01D117B5.E7C45C20] Working Party is in agreement and flags that work is already underway [cid:image004.png at 01D117B5.E7C45C20] Working Party agrees with intent and suggests modification to recommendation language [cid:image005.png at 01D117B5.E7C45C20] Do not implement Of the 36 recommendations, 9 still need to be reviewed by the Working Party (see the recommendations under the blue heading in the Excel document - specifically recommendations 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 36). It was proposed that we schedule a call some time mid-November to review these remaining recommendations. Please click on the doodle poll link to provide your availability for an upcoming call. Thank you and I look forward to your doodle poll results. Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 214 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 215 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 202 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 202 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 214 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (5 Nov).xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 113111 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (5 Nov).xlsx URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Mon Nov 9 23:33:04 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 23:33:04 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call In-Reply-To: <837d837baf434d7792b6442f8d43989f@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <837d837baf434d7792b6442f8d43989f@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49724DFA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I finally reviewed the recommendations that came out of Dublin. My feedback is provided below. Chuck First I have a question. What do the percents mean? In some cases it seems obvious but in others not at all. WORKING PARTY SUGGESTS ADOPTION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION * I have no objection to the recommendations that were put into this category. WORKING PARTY IS IN AGREEMENT AND FLAGS THAT WORK IS ALREADY UNDERWAY * It seems to me that it would be helpful if we said more about some, if not all, of these. I think more may be needed instead of simply saying 'work is already underway'. I provide my personal suggestions for possible Working Party responses and GNSO action items where appropriate. Also, I think a more applicable title for this category would be something like this: "Working Party is in agreement but notes that work is already underway and/or needs follow-on action." * Rec.8 (That WGs should have an explicit role in responding to implementation issues related to policy they have developed.) o My suggested Working Party Response: "The already approved Policy & Implementation WG recommendations cover this." o Ongoing GNSO action item: Ensure it happens in all future policy implementation efforts. * Rec.11 (That the face-to-face PDP WG pilot project be assessed when completed. If the results are beneficial, guidelines should be developed and support funding made available.) o The Working Party Response seems fine to me: "Has been done for two years. Need to evaluate." o GNSO action items: i) Develop guidelines; ii) encourage support funding in the ICANN budget. * Rec.15 (That the GNSO continues current PDP Improvements Project initiatives to address timeliness of the PDP.) o The Working Party Response seems fine to me: "Already being done." o Ongoing GNSO action item: Ensure that efforts to improve the timeliness of PDPs continue. * Rec.16 (That a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a standard part of any policy process.) o The Working Party Response seems fine to me: "Already in the PDP manual. " o GNSO action items: i) Develop an analytical framework for assessing policy impacts; ii) determine what should be measured and corresponding metrics. * Rec.18 (That the GNSO Council evaluate post implementation policy effectiveness on an ongoing basis (rather than periodically as stated in the current GNSO Operating Procedures); and that these evaluations are analysed by the GNSO Council to monitor and improve the drafting and scope of future PDP Charters and facilitate the effectiveness of GNSO policy outcomes over time.) o Proposed Working Party Response: "The Working Party supports this recommendation." o GNSO action items: i) Change the PDP Guidelines to make post-implementation policy effectiveness evaluation an ongoing rather than a periodic process and to include an assessment period at the start of the implementation process; ii) develop guidelines for how implementation of policies should be evaluated. * Rec.24 (That the GNSO Council and SGs and Cs adhere to the published process for applications for new Constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application satisfy itself that all parties have followed the published process, subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted. That all applications for new Constituencies, including historic applications, be published on the ICANN website with full transparency of decision-making.) o Proposed Working Party Response: "Some in the Working Party believe this is already being done; some disagree. If it is being done, it should be easier to find. If it is not being done, it should be done at the beginning of the process. Regardless, the Working Party believes that this recommendation will require some due diligence on the part of the GNSO." o GNSO action items; i) Determine whether new Constituency application processes are clearly posted and easily accessible; ii) determine what steps are taken to ensure compliance with those processes and whether those steps are adequate; iii) determine if all Constituency applications, including historic ones, are publicly posted along with full transparency of the decision-making process; iv) determine whether or not there is a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met and if such a presumption is appropriate; v) determine what process the Board uses to evaluate new Constituency applications and whether they are ensuring process compliance; vi) make recommendations for any modifications to the process, if any. * Rec.25 (That the GNSO Council commission the development of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing to establish a new Constituency.) o Proposed modified Working Party Response: "The Working Party believes that guidance already exists and that assistance is already made available but suggests that the effectiveness and ease of finding the guidance and obtaining assistance be evaluated to see if improvements may be in order." o GNSO action items: i) Evaluate the effectiveness and accessibility of guidance for new Constituency applications; ii) recommend improvements to the guidance and the available assistance as appropriate. * Rec.30 (That the GNSO develop and implement a policy for the provision of administrative support for SGs and Cs; and that SGs and Cs annually review and evaluate the effectiveness of administrative support they receive.) o Proposed modified response: "The Working Party believes that there is already a procedure for providing some forms of administrative support to SGs and Cs but that there is not a procedure for SGs and Cs to evaluate the effectiveness of the support provided." o GNSO action items: i) Identify and review the existing procedures for SGs and Cs to obtain administrative support; ii) evaluate the adequacy & effectiveness of the existing procedures including whether additional forms of support might be beneficial; iii) develop recommendations for improvements to the procedures and new types of support, if any. * Rec.31 (That the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in the GNSO Policy Development Process continue its two work streams as priority projects. As a part of its work it should consider how the GAC could appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.) o Proposed Working Party response: "The Working Party encourages the ongoing work of the Consultation Group and suggests that it consider whether 'the GAC could appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.'" o GNSO action item: Send a letter to the GAC expressing appreciation for the work of the Consultation Group, encourage continuation of the group and ask whether it might be worthwhile for the GAC to consider appointing 'a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.' (An alternative approach here may be to first test this with the GNSO GAC liaison.) WORKING PARTY AGREES WITH INTENT AND SUGGESTS MODIFICATION TO RECOMMENDATION LANGUAGE * Rec.20 (That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN's Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN's Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.) o I am fine with the proposed Working Party response: "Modify rec - input from GNSO should go into the Strategic Planning process." * Rec.35 (That the GNSO Council establish a WG, whose membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity of the Internet as a whole, to recommend to Council ways to reduce barriers to participation in the GNSO by non- English speakers and those with limited command of English.) o I think the proposed Working Party response (Agree with the intent, but not the WG approach.) needs explanation. What is wrong with the WG approach? What would be an alternative way of fulfilling the intent of this recommendation? DO NOT IMPLEMENT * I support the recommendation to not implement recommendations 23 & 32. From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 1:37 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: Pamela Smith Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call Dear GNSO Review Working Party, For those of you that attended ICANN54, I hope you enjoyed your time in Dublin and had an uneventful trip home. During our working session in Dublin, the Working Party made significant progress towards reviewing the feasibility and implementability of the 36 recommendations in the Final Report. Attached is an Excel document categorizing the recommendations based on the Working Party's assessment of the recommendations during their working session. A color-coded legend is provided as follows: [cid:image006.png at 01D11B10.094A3560] Recommendations to be reviewed by Working Party [cid:image007.png at 01D11B10.094A3560] Working Party suggests adoption of this recommendation [cid:image008.png at 01D11B10.094A3560] Working Party is in agreement and flags that work is already underway [cid:image009.png at 01D11B10.094A3560] Working Party agrees with intent and suggests modification to recommendation language [cid:image010.png at 01D11B10.094A3560] Do not implement Of the 36 recommendations, 9 still need to be reviewed by the Working Party (see the recommendations under the blue heading in the Excel document - specifically recommendations 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 36). It was proposed that we schedule a call some time mid-November to review these remaining recommendations. Please click on the doodle poll link to provide your availability for an upcoming call. Thank you and I look forward to your doodle poll results. Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 214 bytes Desc: image006.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 215 bytes Desc: image007.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 202 bytes Desc: image008.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 202 bytes Desc: image009.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.png Type: image/png Size: 214 bytes Desc: image010.png URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Tue Nov 10 00:58:49 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 00:58:49 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49724DFA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <837d837baf434d7792b6442f8d43989f@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49724DFA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <8efde3d44f054ee2ac199cceea8b7b18@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Hi Chuck. Thank you for your very detailed response to the recommendations. To answer your question regarding the percentages, the Excel document indicates the answers with the highest response by working party members. So, for example, Recommendation 3 indicates that 50% of respondents thought that "ease of implementation" would be hard; 8.3% thought that it would be easy, 33.3% responded with medium and 8.3% responded with no opinion. Continuing with Recommendation 3, 66.7% thought that the "cost of implementation" would be high, while 16.7% thought it would be medium, 8.3% thought it would be low and 8.3% responded with no opinion. Therefore, the chart reflects the highest response rate to a particular question. While not scientific, it helped me "rank" the recommendations in order of agreement by the Working Party which allowed us to review the recommendations quickly during our working session in Dublin. The backup data for each recommendation is listed under separate worksheets in the Excel document which may help further explain my note above. I hope that this clarifies the percentages for you. Charla From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 3:33 PM To: Charla Shambley ; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: Pamela Smith Subject: RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call I finally reviewed the recommendations that came out of Dublin. My feedback is provided below. Chuck First I have a question. What do the percents mean? In some cases it seems obvious but in others not at all. WORKING PARTY SUGGESTS ADOPTION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION * I have no objection to the recommendations that were put into this category. WORKING PARTY IS IN AGREEMENT AND FLAGS THAT WORK IS ALREADY UNDERWAY * It seems to me that it would be helpful if we said more about some, if not all, of these. I think more may be needed instead of simply saying 'work is already underway'. I provide my personal suggestions for possible Working Party responses and GNSO action items where appropriate. Also, I think a more applicable title for this category would be something like this: "Working Party is in agreement but notes that work is already underway and/or needs follow-on action." * Rec.8 (That WGs should have an explicit role in responding to implementation issues related to policy they have developed.) o My suggested Working Party Response: "The already approved Policy & Implementation WG recommendations cover this." o Ongoing GNSO action item: Ensure it happens in all future policy implementation efforts. * Rec.11 (That the face-to-face PDP WG pilot project be assessed when completed. If the results are beneficial, guidelines should be developed and support funding made available.) o The Working Party Response seems fine to me: "Has been done for two years. Need to evaluate." o GNSO action items: i) Develop guidelines; ii) encourage support funding in the ICANN budget. * Rec.15 (That the GNSO continues current PDP Improvements Project initiatives to address timeliness of the PDP.) o The Working Party Response seems fine to me: "Already being done." o Ongoing GNSO action item: Ensure that efforts to improve the timeliness of PDPs continue. * Rec.16 (That a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a standard part of any policy process.) o The Working Party Response seems fine to me: "Already in the PDP manual. " o GNSO action items: i) Develop an analytical framework for assessing policy impacts; ii) determine what should be measured and corresponding metrics. * Rec.18 (That the GNSO Council evaluate post implementation policy effectiveness on an ongoing basis (rather than periodically as stated in the current GNSO Operating Procedures); and that these evaluations are analysed by the GNSO Council to monitor and improve the drafting and scope of future PDP Charters and facilitate the effectiveness of GNSO policy outcomes over time.) o Proposed Working Party Response: "The Working Party supports this recommendation." o GNSO action items: i) Change the PDP Guidelines to make post-implementation policy effectiveness evaluation an ongoing rather than a periodic process and to include an assessment period at the start of the implementation process; ii) develop guidelines for how implementation of policies should be evaluated. * Rec.24 (That the GNSO Council and SGs and Cs adhere to the published process for applications for new Constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application satisfy itself that all parties have followed the published process, subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted. That all applications for new Constituencies, including historic applications, be published on the ICANN website with full transparency of decision-making.) o Proposed Working Party Response: "Some in the Working Party believe this is already being done; some disagree. If it is being done, it should be easier to find. If it is not being done, it should be done at the beginning of the process. Regardless, the Working Party believes that this recommendation will require some due diligence on the part of the GNSO." o GNSO action items; i) Determine whether new Constituency application processes are clearly posted and easily accessible; ii) determine what steps are taken to ensure compliance with those processes and whether those steps are adequate; iii) determine if all Constituency applications, including historic ones, are publicly posted along with full transparency of the decision-making process; iv) determine whether or not there is a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met and if such a presumption is appropriate; v) determine what process the Board uses to evaluate new Constituency applications and whether they are ensuring process compliance; vi) make recommendations for any modifications to the process, if any. * Rec.25 (That the GNSO Council commission the development of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing to establish a new Constituency.) o Proposed modified Working Party Response: "The Working Party believes that guidance already exists and that assistance is already made available but suggests that the effectiveness and ease of finding the guidance and obtaining assistance be evaluated to see if improvements may be in order." o GNSO action items: i) Evaluate the effectiveness and accessibility of guidance for new Constituency applications; ii) recommend improvements to the guidance and the available assistance as appropriate. * Rec.30 (That the GNSO develop and implement a policy for the provision of administrative support for SGs and Cs; and that SGs and Cs annually review and evaluate the effectiveness of administrative support they receive.) o Proposed modified response: "The Working Party believes that there is already a procedure for providing some forms of administrative support to SGs and Cs but that there is not a procedure for SGs and Cs to evaluate the effectiveness of the support provided." o GNSO action items: i) Identify and review the existing procedures for SGs and Cs to obtain administrative support; ii) evaluate the adequacy & effectiveness of the existing procedures including whether additional forms of support might be beneficial; iii) develop recommendations for improvements to the procedures and new types of support, if any. * Rec.31 (That the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in the GNSO Policy Development Process continue its two work streams as priority projects. As a part of its work it should consider how the GAC could appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.) o Proposed Working Party response: "The Working Party encourages the ongoing work of the Consultation Group and suggests that it consider whether 'the GAC could appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.'" o GNSO action item: Send a letter to the GAC expressing appreciation for the work of the Consultation Group, encourage continuation of the group and ask whether it might be worthwhile for the GAC to consider appointing 'a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.' (An alternative approach here may be to first test this with the GNSO GAC liaison.) WORKING PARTY AGREES WITH INTENT AND SUGGESTS MODIFICATION TO RECOMMENDATION LANGUAGE * Rec.20 (That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN's Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN's Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.) o I am fine with the proposed Working Party response: "Modify rec - input from GNSO should go into the Strategic Planning process." * Rec.35 (That the GNSO Council establish a WG, whose membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity of the Internet as a whole, to recommend to Council ways to reduce barriers to participation in the GNSO by non- English speakers and those with limited command of English.) o I think the proposed Working Party response (Agree with the intent, but not the WG approach.) needs explanation. What is wrong with the WG approach? What would be an alternative way of fulfilling the intent of this recommendation? DO NOT IMPLEMENT * I support the recommendation to not implement recommendations 23 & 32. From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 1:37 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: Pamela Smith Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call Dear GNSO Review Working Party, For those of you that attended ICANN54, I hope you enjoyed your time in Dublin and had an uneventful trip home. During our working session in Dublin, the Working Party made significant progress towards reviewing the feasibility and implementability of the 36 recommendations in the Final Report. Attached is an Excel document categorizing the recommendations based on the Working Party's assessment of the recommendations during their working session. A color-coded legend is provided as follows: [cid:image001.png at 01D11B0F.587E8100] Recommendations to be reviewed by Working Party [cid:image002.png at 01D11B0F.587E8100] Working Party suggests adoption of this recommendation [cid:image003.png at 01D11B0F.587E8100] Working Party is in agreement and flags that work is already underway [cid:image004.png at 01D11B0F.587E8100] Working Party agrees with intent and suggests modification to recommendation language [cid:image005.png at 01D11B0F.587E8100] Do not implement Of the 36 recommendations, 9 still need to be reviewed by the Working Party (see the recommendations under the blue heading in the Excel document - specifically recommendations 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 36). It was proposed that we schedule a call some time mid-November to review these remaining recommendations. Please click on the doodle poll link to provide your availability for an upcoming call. Thank you and I look forward to your doodle poll results. Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 214 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 215 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 202 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 202 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 214 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (5 Nov).xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 113111 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (5 Nov).xlsx URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Nov 10 19:09:41 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:09:41 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call In-Reply-To: <8efde3d44f054ee2ac199cceea8b7b18@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <837d837baf434d7792b6442f8d43989f@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49724DFA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8efde3d44f054ee2ac199cceea8b7b18@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49725CCE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thanks Charla. Chuck From: Charla Shambley [mailto:charla.shambley at icann.org] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 7:59 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: Pamela Smith Subject: RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call Hi Chuck. Thank you for your very detailed response to the recommendations. To answer your question regarding the percentages, the Excel document indicates the answers with the highest response by working party members. So, for example, Recommendation 3 indicates that 50% of respondents thought that "ease of implementation" would be hard; 8.3% thought that it would be easy, 33.3% responded with medium and 8.3% responded with no opinion. Continuing with Recommendation 3, 66.7% thought that the "cost of implementation" would be high, while 16.7% thought it would be medium, 8.3% thought it would be low and 8.3% responded with no opinion. Therefore, the chart reflects the highest response rate to a particular question. While not scientific, it helped me "rank" the recommendations in order of agreement by the Working Party which allowed us to review the recommendations quickly during our working session in Dublin. The backup data for each recommendation is listed under separate worksheets in the Excel document which may help further explain my note above. I hope that this clarifies the percentages for you. Charla From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 3:33 PM To: Charla Shambley >; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > Cc: Pamela Smith > Subject: RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call I finally reviewed the recommendations that came out of Dublin. My feedback is provided below. Chuck First I have a question. What do the percents mean? In some cases it seems obvious but in others not at all. WORKING PARTY SUGGESTS ADOPTION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION * I have no objection to the recommendations that were put into this category. WORKING PARTY IS IN AGREEMENT AND FLAGS THAT WORK IS ALREADY UNDERWAY * It seems to me that it would be helpful if we said more about some, if not all, of these. I think more may be needed instead of simply saying 'work is already underway'. I provide my personal suggestions for possible Working Party responses and GNSO action items where appropriate. Also, I think a more applicable title for this category would be something like this: "Working Party is in agreement but notes that work is already underway and/or needs follow-on action." * Rec.8 (That WGs should have an explicit role in responding to implementation issues related to policy they have developed.) o My suggested Working Party Response: "The already approved Policy & Implementation WG recommendations cover this." o Ongoing GNSO action item: Ensure it happens in all future policy implementation efforts. * Rec.11 (That the face-to-face PDP WG pilot project be assessed when completed. If the results are beneficial, guidelines should be developed and support funding made available.) o The Working Party Response seems fine to me: "Has been done for two years. Need to evaluate." o GNSO action items: i) Develop guidelines; ii) encourage support funding in the ICANN budget. * Rec.15 (That the GNSO continues current PDP Improvements Project initiatives to address timeliness of the PDP.) o The Working Party Response seems fine to me: "Already being done." o Ongoing GNSO action item: Ensure that efforts to improve the timeliness of PDPs continue. * Rec.16 (That a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a standard part of any policy process.) o The Working Party Response seems fine to me: "Already in the PDP manual. " o GNSO action items: i) Develop an analytical framework for assessing policy impacts; ii) determine what should be measured and corresponding metrics. * Rec.18 (That the GNSO Council evaluate post implementation policy effectiveness on an ongoing basis (rather than periodically as stated in the current GNSO Operating Procedures); and that these evaluations are analysed by the GNSO Council to monitor and improve the drafting and scope of future PDP Charters and facilitate the effectiveness of GNSO policy outcomes over time.) o Proposed Working Party Response: "The Working Party supports this recommendation." o GNSO action items: i) Change the PDP Guidelines to make post-implementation policy effectiveness evaluation an ongoing rather than a periodic process and to include an assessment period at the start of the implementation process; ii) develop guidelines for how implementation of policies should be evaluated. * Rec.24 (That the GNSO Council and SGs and Cs adhere to the published process for applications for new Constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application satisfy itself that all parties have followed the published process, subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted. That all applications for new Constituencies, including historic applications, be published on the ICANN website with full transparency of decision-making.) o Proposed Working Party Response: "Some in the Working Party believe this is already being done; some disagree. If it is being done, it should be easier to find. If it is not being done, it should be done at the beginning of the process. Regardless, the Working Party believes that this recommendation will require some due diligence on the part of the GNSO." o GNSO action items; i) Determine whether new Constituency application processes are clearly posted and easily accessible; ii) determine what steps are taken to ensure compliance with those processes and whether those steps are adequate; iii) determine if all Constituency applications, including historic ones, are publicly posted along with full transparency of the decision-making process; iv) determine whether or not there is a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met and if such a presumption is appropriate; v) determine what process the Board uses to evaluate new Constituency applications and whether they are ensuring process compliance; vi) make recommendations for any modifications to the process, if any. * Rec.25 (That the GNSO Council commission the development of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing to establish a new Constituency.) o Proposed modified Working Party Response: "The Working Party believes that guidance already exists and that assistance is already made available but suggests that the effectiveness and ease of finding the guidance and obtaining assistance be evaluated to see if improvements may be in order." o GNSO action items: i) Evaluate the effectiveness and accessibility of guidance for new Constituency applications; ii) recommend improvements to the guidance and the available assistance as appropriate. * Rec.30 (That the GNSO develop and implement a policy for the provision of administrative support for SGs and Cs; and that SGs and Cs annually review and evaluate the effectiveness of administrative support they receive.) o Proposed modified response: "The Working Party believes that there is already a procedure for providing some forms of administrative support to SGs and Cs but that there is not a procedure for SGs and Cs to evaluate the effectiveness of the support provided." o GNSO action items: i) Identify and review the existing procedures for SGs and Cs to obtain administrative support; ii) evaluate the adequacy & effectiveness of the existing procedures including whether additional forms of support might be beneficial; iii) develop recommendations for improvements to the procedures and new types of support, if any. * Rec.31 (That the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in the GNSO Policy Development Process continue its two work streams as priority projects. As a part of its work it should consider how the GAC could appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.) o Proposed Working Party response: "The Working Party encourages the ongoing work of the Consultation Group and suggests that it consider whether 'the GAC could appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.'" o GNSO action item: Send a letter to the GAC expressing appreciation for the work of the Consultation Group, encourage continuation of the group and ask whether it might be worthwhile for the GAC to consider appointing 'a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.' (An alternative approach here may be to first test this with the GNSO GAC liaison.) WORKING PARTY AGREES WITH INTENT AND SUGGESTS MODIFICATION TO RECOMMENDATION LANGUAGE * Rec.20 (That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN's Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN's Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.) o I am fine with the proposed Working Party response: "Modify rec - input from GNSO should go into the Strategic Planning process." * Rec.35 (That the GNSO Council establish a WG, whose membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity of the Internet as a whole, to recommend to Council ways to reduce barriers to participation in the GNSO by non- English speakers and those with limited command of English.) o I think the proposed Working Party response (Agree with the intent, but not the WG approach.) needs explanation. What is wrong with the WG approach? What would be an alternative way of fulfilling the intent of this recommendation? DO NOT IMPLEMENT * I support the recommendation to not implement recommendations 23 & 32. From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 1:37 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: Pamela Smith Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call Dear GNSO Review Working Party, For those of you that attended ICANN54, I hope you enjoyed your time in Dublin and had an uneventful trip home. During our working session in Dublin, the Working Party made significant progress towards reviewing the feasibility and implementability of the 36 recommendations in the Final Report. Attached is an Excel document categorizing the recommendations based on the Working Party's assessment of the recommendations during their working session. A color-coded legend is provided as follows: [cid:image006.png at 01D11BC1.6F3530D0] Recommendations to be reviewed by Working Party [cid:image007.png at 01D11BC1.6F3530D0] Working Party suggests adoption of this recommendation [cid:image008.png at 01D11BC1.6F3530D0] Working Party is in agreement and flags that work is already underway [cid:image009.png at 01D11BC1.6F3530D0] Working Party agrees with intent and suggests modification to recommendation language [cid:image010.png at 01D11BC1.6F3530D0] Do not implement Of the 36 recommendations, 9 still need to be reviewed by the Working Party (see the recommendations under the blue heading in the Excel document - specifically recommendations 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 36). It was proposed that we schedule a call some time mid-November to review these remaining recommendations. Please click on the doodle poll link to provide your availability for an upcoming call. Thank you and I look forward to your doodle poll results. Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 214 bytes Desc: image006.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 215 bytes Desc: image007.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 202 bytes Desc: image008.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.png Type: image/png Size: 202 bytes Desc: image009.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.png Type: image/png Size: 214 bytes Desc: image010.png URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Tue Nov 17 19:30:47 2015 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:30:47 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Policy Team Strategic Workshop 30 November - 4 December 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Policy staff will taking part in a Strategic Workshop from the 30th November to the 4th December 2015. Whilst minimum coverage of conference calls will be provided, please expect delays regarding email response time. If you do have an urgent request, please mark URGENT in the email title, so we can treat it as a matter of priority. We thank you for your understanding. Kind regards Nathalie _____________________________ Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Wed Nov 18 00:56:25 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 00:56:25 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Updated Excel Document for Call Message-ID: <971619606c8a4dc6bac15ceda689feae@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear GNSO Review WP - Attached is a revised Excel document that incorporates comments received during our working session in Dublin and comments provided by Chuck in his email last week. I look forward to our call tomorrow (15:00 UTC). Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (17 Nov).xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 115511 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (17 Nov).xlsx URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Wed Nov 18 14:50:59 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:50:59 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday 18 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <290efd44158f444d89b00d3bd89c3e7d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <290efd44158f444d89b00d3bd89c3e7d@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <00572b0f37ab4de781b319319402409b@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Just a reminder that today's call starts in 10 minutes. Dial-in details are located below. Charla Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Review Working Party is scheduled for Wednesday, 18 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC for 2 hours. 07:00 PST, 10:00 EST, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET, +1 02:00 Sydney For other places: http://tinyurl.com/phb9nv5 Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnso-review/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ The dial-in details are below - please let me know if you require a dial-out. Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats gnso-secs at icann.org _________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: GNSO REVIEW For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Thank you, Terri Agnew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Wed Nov 18 18:52:24 2015 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:52:24 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Attendance list and mp3 GNSO Review WP 18 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attendance and mp3 mp3 below for the GNSO Review WP call held on Wednesday, 18 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-18nov15-en.mp3 Attendance: Avri Doria Chuck Gomes Jen Wolfe Klaus Stoll Rudi Vansnick Amr Elsadr Osvaldo Novoa Apologies: none Staff: Larisa Gurnick, Charla Shambley Marika Konings Mary Wong Glen de St Gery Nathalie Peregrine Thanks! Nathalie AC Chat: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Party on the 18 November 2015 Osvaldo Novoa:Hello, am I too early? Nathalie Peregrine:never to early Osvaldo :) Nathalie Peregrine:*too Osvaldo Novoa:Thank you Osvaldo Novoa:I have some problem with my microphone, if I cannot get it to work I will dial in. Chuck Gomes:Hi all. Nathalie Peregrine:@ Osvaldo, have you clicked onthe telephone icon at the topof the AC room? If you follow instructions there, the icon should become amic, and this willshow your mic is activated Nathalie Peregrine:alternatively, we can dial out to you Osvaldo Novoa:@Nathalie, I think the problem is in the microphone cable, I am changing it Rudi Vansnick:still a small group here Marika Konings:It would first require identification of cost barriers... Marika Konings:as participation happens at different levels (e.g. participation in a conference call requires only time - is that a cost barrier?) Rudi Vansnick:+1 Marika Amr Elsadr:@Marika: Good point. Larisa Gurnick:It may be useful for the Working Party to rephrase this recommendation to make it more precise and useful, if you agree with the spirit of the recommendation. Amr Elsadr:@Larissa: My instinct is that; to make this rec useful, quite a bit of work needs to go into it. A lot of questions that need to be raised and addressed. Klaus Stoll:I agree with Amr, as it is the staement is in a way meaningless Marika Konings:for the GNSO, most of the work is actually done in between physical meetings, something that many do not seem to realise as the focus is often on travel funding as a means to participate. Agree with Rudi that enhancing that understanding may help clarify that participation in F2F meetings is not necessarily the end goal. Amr Elsadr:For one thing, "cost barrier" needs to be defined. I don't recall a scope to what is considered cost barriers in the report. Rudi Vansnick:"cost" not equal finances Amr Elsadr:@Rudi: Emotional costs paid as a result of participation in ICANN? ;-) Rudi Vansnick:;) @ Amr Mary Wong:@Chuck, perhaps the WP can take a look at Westlake's analysis that led to this (and the other related recommendations) in the Final Report , to see if there is any explanation for this. Marika Konings:The PDP Manual does have some guidance on translation, especially in relation to executive summaries Rudi Vansnick:i mean translation Mary Wong:e.g. all executive summaries of WG reports are translated on publication. Mary Wong:This Rec 7 is grouped by Westlake with Rec 6 - which is that the GNSO record diversity statistics. Mary Wong:The accompanying text seems to indicate that these two recs came out of Westlake's analysis that "Working Groups are dominated by English speakers from NA/EU." Rudi Vansnick:@Amr : +1 Rudi Vansnick:agree with Chuck Rudi Vansnick:let's have an ad-hoc group working out some proposals for implementation Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Yes... this rec is under Theme 1: Participation and Representation, but still didn't strike me to be WG centric like other recommendations under the same theme. Marika Konings:Good point Klaus Mary Wong:There were comments WEstlake noted about the need for skilled WG chairs. Klaus Stoll:this needs to be reworded Mary Wong:Note that the rec specifies "WG leadership" as "part of the overall training" provided by ICANN. Avri Doria:did you mena more harm than good? that is what i think. Mary Wong:Please note that Westlake had this to say about pro facilitators: "The Westlake Review Team considers that the use of a professional facilitator/moderator, who is well briefed on the subject matter of the WG, is helpful in certain situations (for example, when policy issues are complex, where members of the WG are generally inexperienced and/or where WG members have interests that conflict)." Mary Wong:This was based on community responses and the surveys. Avri Doria:sometimes when a group breaks down, it might be useful to bring in someone to help a group find its balance. Rudi Vansnick:@Avri : couldn't that be done by staff ? Mary Wong:That is why this recommendation applies only "in certain situations". Avri Doria:but as a general rule, group facilitation by those who do not know the subject matter often wasted a lot of time and patience. Amr Elsadr:This was also in the Westlake report: The Westlake Review Team considers that an experienced independentchair is the preferred option because, as a full member of the WG, they will be seento be working within the WG and have incentives to complete the process in a timelymanner. An independent paid facilitator may have no such incentive ? indeed theymay benefit personally from prolonging the process. Klaus Stoll:what are"certain situations" Avri Doria:Rudi, sometimes, it might be. sometime you need a specialist in group dynamic who has no ties. Klaus Stoll:I agree with that Marika Konings:that's a very good point too Chuck - I think when reading this people assume it is someone external but it doesn't need to be Mary Wong:@Amr, that may be why the final rec is phrased the way it is. Rudi Vansnick:going back to rec 9 : perhaps specific training at this level too Amr Elsadr:I'm fine with Orange. Rudi Vansnick:Orange fine for me too Osvaldo Novoa:orange is fine for me too Amr Elsadr:Mix of orange/yellow then. :) Charla Shambley:Thanks, Amr. I'll work on that :) Klaus Stoll:That's another orange Larisa Gurnick:Staff is looking into solutions, there is definitely work going on Mary Wong:Question whether the WP wants to endorse a specific tool, as mentioned in this recommendation? Klaus Stoll:No endorsement of a specific tool, I think this is about the general idea Larisa Gurnick:@Mary - Westlake was using Loomio as an example of a tool that could be useful. Chuck Gomes:I don't think it is our place to endorse a specific tool or tools but we could recommend tools to be evaluated just like Westlake did. Rudi Vansnick:yellow status Chuck Gomes:@ Rudi: What needs to be modified? Amr Elsadr:@Jen: Yes. Thanks. Avri Doria:and yet, we need to find a way to introduce new methods and systems. we could all do our work by sending sheaves of paper back and forth for traditonal markup. Avri Doria:but we should pick new systems based on needs and not pick new tools based on their coolness. Rudi Vansnick:agree with Avri Rudi Vansnick:define objectives and then look which solution will enable improvement Mary Wong:The three are: RDS to replace WHOIS; the potential one on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures; and another potential one on rights protection mechanisms. It's not a given that all will be done in the way Westlake describes, but the topic is under active discussion. Avri Doria:it is really about apporpriate serialization not chunking. Rudi Vansnick:so the wording needs adoption Amr Elsadr:@Chuck: yes to the next gen RDS PDP. It's basically set up in chunks (although called phases) with the GNSO council having a role along each "chunk". Mary Wong:Besides chunking, there are other ideas such as parallel efforts, review of stages, etc. Amr Elsadr:@Chuck: +1 again. I think the wording of the recommendation is fine the way it is. I believe it provides the GNSO the flexibility it needs. Osvaldo Novoa:ok Mary Wong:It sounds like what we are talking about is highlighting the need for each PDP to be conducted in a flexible way, and for different methods of accomplishing this to be explored. Marika Konings:This was the announcement I was referring to:https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-11-17-en Amr Elsadr:That seems interesting Marika. Will have to check it out. Amr Elsadr:Thnx. Chuck Gomes:I would break this into two parts and code them differently. Chuck Gomes:21.a & 21.b Rudi Vansnick:good idea @Chuck Amr Elsadr:@Larissa: +1. Yes..., we need to go back to the report first before contacting Westlake. Chuck Gomes:Let's defer 21 Klaus Stoll:I don't understand what it means Avri Doria:i support going back to the report for clarification of what was said. I do not recommend going back to Westlake. Rudi Vansnick:i think it comes from the ATRT2 Avri Doria:i do not mean ti imply they mention the nomcom. i meant that much of what we do may already constitute a framework, and it just needs to be discussed in the form of a framework. Rudi Vansnick:quick reading of report doesn't make it clearer Amr Elsadr:didn't we go through this one in Dublin? Marika Konings:Chuck is correct Amr Elsadr:Isn't there already language in the OP that the council needs to be sure that reasonalbe efforts are made to recruit geographically diverse WG members? Amr Elsadr:@jen: Right. :) Marika Konings:The WG Manual does foresee that: 'The Chair should make it clear that participation on sub-teams is open to all and he/she should encourage representational balance to the degree possible. However, it should be understood that there will not always be volunteers from every interest group and that it is often acceptable to have a small sub-team that is not totally representational perform an initial role that will later be reviewed by a broader more representational group. In those cases where initially there is insufficient balance, the Chair should make a special outreach effort to those groups not represented. In all cases where the Chair believes that one set of interests or expertise is missing from a group, special efforts must be made to bring that interest or expertise into the group via invitation or other method and the situation must be documented in the final report, including a discussion of the efforts made to redress the balance. Additionally, the Chair should ensure that particular outreach eff Amr Elsadr:@Marika: Isn't the role of the chair in the WG limited to sub-team membership? Not WG membership, right? Marika Konings:@Amr, no, the chair is also responsible to assess at the start of every meeting as well as in general that there is sufficiently broad participation and engagement in the WG. Klaus Stoll:I recomment that we do not approve this recommendation Amr Elsadr:@Marika: OK, thanks. Got it. Marika Konings:@Chuck - and that wasn't as a result of lack of reminders to participate ;-) Amr Elsadr:@Chuck: Thanks. You said it better than I did. :) Klaus Stoll:red Rudi Vansnick:red Chuck Gomes:I think I am leaning more toward yellow. Osvaldo Novoa:I would prefer yellow Amr Elsadr:Sounds good Jen. Thnx. Amr Elsadr:Some might argue that the role of the board here is important from a "public interest" perspective. :) Chuck Gomes:It is important for the Board to have a role here but they must look at the whole process. Amr Elsadr:@Chuck: Yes..., fully agree. Amr Elsadr:Within the next month sounds good. Get it done before the holidays. Avri Doria:sounds good Avri Doria:look forward to that survey Amr Elsadr:@Larissa: +1 Avri Doria:agree Chuck Gomes:Thanks to all. Very good call. Rudi Vansnick:thanks Jen, very good session Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Avri Doria:thanks, bye Rudi Vansnick:bye Osvaldo Novoa:Thank you and by to all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Mon Nov 23 22:34:33 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:34:33 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps Message-ID: <072e4aae8b274fbc8f830adeae92d355@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear GNSO Review Working Party, Thank you for the productive call last week to finish categorizing the remaining recommendations from the Final Report. I am attaching the Excel spreadsheet which now sorts the recommendations according to the color coding scheme and then by "Ease of Implementation". The objective of your next call is to determine prioritization of the recommendations and preparation of a Working Party report to the GNSO Council and ultimately the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with suggestions on how to proceed with the 36 recommendations issued by the independent examiner. Please complete the doodle poll so that we can schedule a one hour call during the week of 30 November - I will close this poll on Friday, 27 November. You will notice that there are three outstanding recommendations that the Working Party flagged during our last call which require further discussion and review of the Final Report. I have highlighted relevant sections from the Final Report that support these three recommendations and have attached these two documents as well: Section 6 - recommendations 21 and 22 Section 9 - recommendation 36 WP ACTION ITEM: Complete the doodle poll by 27 November. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (17 Nov).xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 116354 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (17 Nov).xlsx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Final Report - Section 6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 165363 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Final Report - Section 6.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Final Report - Section 9.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162235 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Final Report - Section 9.pdf URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Mon Nov 23 22:49:50 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:49:50 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Next Steps In-Reply-To: <072e4aae8b274fbc8f830adeae92d355@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <072e4aae8b274fbc8f830adeae92d355@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4973F943@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thank you very much Charla. I find the way you organized the input tab of the spreadsheet to be very helpful. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 5:35 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps Dear GNSO Review Working Party, Thank you for the productive call last week to finish categorizing the remaining recommendations from the Final Report. I am attaching the Excel spreadsheet which now sorts the recommendations according to the color coding scheme and then by "Ease of Implementation". The objective of your next call is to determine prioritization of the recommendations and preparation of a Working Party report to the GNSO Council and ultimately the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with suggestions on how to proceed with the 36 recommendations issued by the independent examiner. Please complete the doodle poll so that we can schedule a one hour call during the week of 30 November - I will close this poll on Friday, 27 November. You will notice that there are three outstanding recommendations that the Working Party flagged during our last call which require further discussion and review of the Final Report. I have highlighted relevant sections from the Final Report that support these three recommendations and have attached these two documents as well: Section 6 - recommendations 21 and 22 Section 9 - recommendation 36 WP ACTION ITEM: Complete the doodle poll by 27 November. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at rodenbaugh.com Mon Nov 23 22:53:40 2015 From: mike at rodenbaugh.com (Mike Rodenbaugh) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:53:40 -0800 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps In-Reply-To: <072e4aae8b274fbc8f830adeae92d355@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <072e4aae8b274fbc8f830adeae92d355@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Thanks Charla, for those of us who could not make the last call at the scheduled hour, can you please briefly state what are the open issues about the three recommendations that you say require further discussion? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Charla Shambley wrote: > Dear GNSO Review Working Party, > > > > Thank you for the productive call last week to finish categorizing the > remaining recommendations from the Final Report. I am attaching the Excel > spreadsheet which now sorts the recommendations according to the color > coding scheme and then by ?Ease of Implementation?. The objective of your > next call is to determine prioritization of the recommendations and > preparation of a Working Party report to the GNSO Council and ultimately > the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with suggestions on how to > proceed with the 36 recommendations issued by the independent examiner. > Please complete the doodle poll > so that we can schedule a one hour call during the week of 30 November ? I > will close this poll on Friday, 27 November. > > > > You will notice that there are three outstanding recommendations that the > Working Party flagged during our last call which require further discussion > and review of the Final Report. I have highlighted relevant sections from > the Final Report that support these three recommendations and have attached > these two documents as well: > > > > Section 6 ? recommendations 21 and 22 > > Section 9 ? recommendation 36 > > > > *WP ACTION ITEM*: Complete the doodle poll > by 27 November. > > > > Regards, > > > > Charla > > > > Charla K. Shambley > > Strategic Initiatives Program Manager > > ICANN > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > > 310-745-1943 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Mon Nov 23 22:59:54 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:59:54 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps In-Reply-To: References: <072e4aae8b274fbc8f830adeae92d355@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4973F9EF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mike, It might be best if you listened to the MP3, at least for the discussion of those three items. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 5:54 PM To: Charla Shambley Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps Thanks Charla, for those of us who could not make the last call at the scheduled hour, can you please briefly state what are the open issues about the three recommendations that you say require further discussion? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Charla Shambley > wrote: Dear GNSO Review Working Party, Thank you for the productive call last week to finish categorizing the remaining recommendations from the Final Report. I am attaching the Excel spreadsheet which now sorts the recommendations according to the color coding scheme and then by ?Ease of Implementation?. The objective of your next call is to determine prioritization of the recommendations and preparation of a Working Party report to the GNSO Council and ultimately the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with suggestions on how to proceed with the 36 recommendations issued by the independent examiner. Please complete the doodle poll so that we can schedule a one hour call during the week of 30 November ? I will close this poll on Friday, 27 November. You will notice that there are three outstanding recommendations that the Working Party flagged during our last call which require further discussion and review of the Final Report. I have highlighted relevant sections from the Final Report that support these three recommendations and have attached these two documents as well: Section 6 ? recommendations 21 and 22 Section 9 ? recommendation 36 WP ACTION ITEM: Complete the doodle poll by 27 November. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Wed Nov 25 19:48:21 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:48:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps - DOODLE POLL REMINDER Message-ID: <0b6647a08d894de98d7a86fb56ddce2e@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear WP - just a reminder that I will close the doodle poll this Friday, 27 November at 23:59 UTC. Please click on the link to provide your availability for our next call. Regards, Charla From: Charla Shambley Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 2:35 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Subject: GNSO Review - Next Steps Dear GNSO Review Working Party, Thank you for the productive call last week to finish categorizing the remaining recommendations from the Final Report. I am attaching the Excel spreadsheet which now sorts the recommendations according to the color coding scheme and then by "Ease of Implementation". The objective of your next call is to determine prioritization of the recommendations and preparation of a Working Party report to the GNSO Council and ultimately the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with suggestions on how to proceed with the 36 recommendations issued by the independent examiner. Please complete the doodle poll so that we can schedule a one hour call during the week of 30 November - I will close this poll on Friday, 27 November. You will notice that there are three outstanding recommendations that the Working Party flagged during our last call which require further discussion and review of the Final Report. I have highlighted relevant sections from the Final Report that support these three recommendations and have attached these two documents as well: Section 6 - recommendations 21 and 22 Section 9 - recommendation 36 WP ACTION ITEM: Complete the doodle poll by 27 November. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (17 Nov).xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 116354 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Survey Analysis (17 Nov).xlsx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Final Report - Section 6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 165363 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Final Report - Section 6.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Final Report - Section 9.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162235 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Final Report - Section 9.pdf URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Wed Nov 25 22:15:42 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 22:15:42 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Next Steps - DOODLE POLL REMINDER In-Reply-To: <0b6647a08d894de98d7a86fb56ddce2e@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <0b6647a08d894de98d7a86fb56ddce2e@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49745AE1@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Considering Jen is our leader, only one option may work. I hope that option will work for others. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 2:48 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps - DOODLE POLL REMINDER Dear WP - just a reminder that I will close the doodle poll this Friday, 27 November at 23:59 UTC. Please click on the link to provide your availability for our next call. Regards, Charla From: Charla Shambley Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 2:35 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > Subject: GNSO Review - Next Steps Dear GNSO Review Working Party, Thank you for the productive call last week to finish categorizing the remaining recommendations from the Final Report. I am attaching the Excel spreadsheet which now sorts the recommendations according to the color coding scheme and then by "Ease of Implementation". The objective of your next call is to determine prioritization of the recommendations and preparation of a Working Party report to the GNSO Council and ultimately the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with suggestions on how to proceed with the 36 recommendations issued by the independent examiner. Please complete the doodle poll so that we can schedule a one hour call during the week of 30 November - I will close this poll on Friday, 27 November. You will notice that there are three outstanding recommendations that the Working Party flagged during our last call which require further discussion and review of the Final Report. I have highlighted relevant sections from the Final Report that support these three recommendations and have attached these two documents as well: Section 6 - recommendations 21 and 22 Section 9 - recommendation 36 WP ACTION ITEM: Complete the doodle poll by 27 November. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: