[gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call

[Gomes, Chuck]

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 <charla.shambley at icann.org<mailto:charla.shambley at icann.org>>; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' <gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>>
Cc: Pamela Smith <pamela.smith at icann.org<mailto:pamela.smith at icann.org>>
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> [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<http://doodle.com/poll/cqhei4x9b3wnwmsb> 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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20151110/de0494c6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 214 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20151110/de0494c6/image006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 215 bytes
Desc: image007.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20151110/de0494c6/image007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 202 bytes
Desc: image008.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20151110/de0494c6/image008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 202 bytes
Desc: image009.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20151110/de0494c6/image009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 214 bytes
Desc: image010.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20151110/de0494c6/image010.png>