From michelle.desmyter at icann.org Thu Feb 4 01:06:48 2016 From: michelle.desmyter at icann.org (Michelle DeSmyter) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 01:06:48 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Attendance list and mp3 GNSO Review WP 3 February 2016 at 19:00 UTC Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attendance and mp3 along with AC chat below for the GNSO Review WP call held on Wednesday, 3 February 2016 at 19:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-03feb16-en.mp3 Attendance: Chuck Gomes David Maher (PIR) Jen Wolfe Apologies: Rudi Vansnick Stephanie Perrin Staff: Larisa Gurnick Charla Shambley Marika Konings Michelle DeSmyter Thanks! Michelle AC Chat : Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Party on the 3 February 2016 Marika Konings:It is nice and sunny in Costa Rica ;-) David Maher (PIR):i'M FINE, NOT ON PHONE David Maher (PIR):tHANKS David Maher (PIR):+1 David Maher (PIR):ok Larisa Gurnick:A way to think about this could be based on limited resources and time, which recommendations would have the greatest impact? David Maher (PIR):no objection Marika Konings:Can we have scroll control of the document? Charla Shambley:Done Marika Konings:@Charla - I still cannot scroll Charla Shambley:how about now? Marika Konings:Yes! thank you Charla Shambley:interesting! David Maher (PIR):hard David Maher (PIR):ok David Maher (PIR):mdium Marika Konings:On this one, I don't think we actually ask anyone for their age when joining a WG.... Chuck Gomes:Do you want to know my age? Chuck Gomes:Old! Marika Konings::-) Marika Konings:Correct Larisa Gurnick:Thank you all for sticking with this important work! Marika Konings:thanks all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Tue Feb 9 17:13:42 2016 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:13:42 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps Message-ID: <42262594547b4fd1ae91f3ab7485ca74@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear GNSO Review Working Party, Members of the GNSO Review Working Party who participated in last week's call made significant progress and invite any other members of the Working Party to provide feedback on its Report "Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations" by close of business on 24 February. This is in preparation for submitting the attached report to the GNSO Council for consideration at the 9 March meeting. We will schedule a tentative call from 16:00-17:00 UTC on 25 February to discuss the feedback from the Working Party, should it be needed. The attached document contains two worksheets (and is also available on the wiki): the first worksheet is the Executive Summary, the second worksheet sorts the recommendations based on the Working Party's evaluation of several criteria: * Ease or difficulty of implementation * Cost of implementation * Whether it is aligned with the strategic direction of the GNSO * Whether it impacts existing work or other work The Working Party categorized each of the recommendations in two parts. Part One addressed whether the group agreed with the recommendation of the independent examiner (13 recommendations), did not agree (3 recommendations), agreed with modifications (6 recommendations) or determined that work was already underway in the GNSO (14 recommendations). Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO. The spreadsheet is sorted by priority so you will see high priority recommendations first, medium priority recommendations in the second tier, and low priority or do not implement recommendations toward the bottom. Below is an updated timeline: [cid:image003.png at 01D1631A.2B0B5EC0] I look forward to your feedback by close of business on 24 February. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 mobile: 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 75780 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Rec Prioritization - 3Feb2016.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 41817 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Rec Prioritization - 3Feb2016.xlsx URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Wed Feb 10 00:19:49 2016 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:19:49 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Next Steps In-Reply-To: <42262594547b4fd1ae91f3ab7485ca74@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <42262594547b4fd1ae91f3ab7485ca74@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A1EA965@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thank you very much Charla and everyone who contributed to this. This is great work. The Executive Summary looks very good to me but I do have four comments/suggestions: 1. It says: "Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO." Would it be more accurate to say "Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO relative to other factors." At least in my case, possible positive impact on the GNSO was a big consideration but I tried to judge that in light of other facts when choosing a priority. For example, it the impact might be very high but the cost and difficulty were also very high or chance of success was low, I lowered the priority. 2. I think more explanation of the sorting would be helpful. Overall I like the way it is sorted. I support sorting by priority first but then I think we should describe how the items are sorted within a given priority. In other words, I think it would be helpful to explain what the second, third and fourth sorts are as applicable. I tried to figure it out but it wasn't readily obvious to me. Am I correct that the primary sort is on WP priority and the second sort is on WP Revised Score? Were there any sorts after that? If so what were they? Are there any sorts on color? In other words, at the third or lower sort levels, assuming all other prior sort parameters are equal, what is the sort order for color (e.g., green first, yellow 2nd, orange 3rd and red last)? It doesn't appear that there is a sort on color but if there is we should explain the order of the colors. 3. I thought we agreed on the last call that we should explain how the WP Revised Score was calculated. Did I miss that in the Executive Summary or on the spreadsheet itself? 4. Some of the spreadsheet headings seem self-explanatory but I think it would be helpful if we provided brief definitions for the last three. Also, I think we should change the "WP-Align w/ Strategic" column heading would be self-explanatory if we changed it to "WP-Align w/ Strategic Plan" I believe that the more self-explanatory our documents can be the better, especially for Councilors, OEC members or Board members who may be absent during any presentations that are given. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:14 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps Dear GNSO Review Working Party, Members of the GNSO Review Working Party who participated in last week's call made significant progress and invite any other members of the Working Party to provide feedback on its Report "Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations" by close of business on 24 February. This is in preparation for submitting the attached report to the GNSO Council for consideration at the 9 March meeting. We will schedule a tentative call from 16:00-17:00 UTC on 25 February to discuss the feedback from the Working Party, should it be needed. The attached document contains two worksheets (and is also available on the wiki): the first worksheet is the Executive Summary, the second worksheet sorts the recommendations based on the Working Party's evaluation of several criteria: * Ease or difficulty of implementation * Cost of implementation * Whether it is aligned with the strategic direction of the GNSO * Whether it impacts existing work or other work The Working Party categorized each of the recommendations in two parts. Part One addressed whether the group agreed with the recommendation of the independent examiner (13 recommendations), did not agree (3 recommendations), agreed with modifications (6 recommendations) or determined that work was already underway in the GNSO (14 recommendations). Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO. The spreadsheet is sorted by priority so you will see high priority recommendations first, medium priority recommendations in the second tier, and low priority or do not implement recommendations toward the bottom. Below is an updated timeline: [cid:image001.png at 01D16369.00F04FC0] I look forward to your feedback by close of business on 24 February. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 mobile: 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: 75780 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Sun Feb 21 18:19:07 2016 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:19:07 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps In-Reply-To: <42262594547b4fd1ae91f3ab7485ca74@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <42262594547b4fd1ae91f3ab7485ca74@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6CF1E2B9-0A91-4B72-A751-CA071ECCA19B@egyptig.org> Hi, Apologies for missing the last call. It somehow didn?t make it in to my calendar. I just listened to the recording, checked the changes in recommendations suggested and wanted to offer one comment regarding recommendations 35 and 36. If I recall correctly, both those recommendations had a ?do not implement? recommendation by the working party, despite being color-coded yellow for a reason. The rational, as I remember it, was that the working party members agreed with the intent of the recommendations (the GNSO doing what it can to empower as much diversity as possible in WG participation), however, the standards set by the independent examiner to measure against seemed too vague and difficult to define and implement. For example, in recommendation 35, the recommendation is to form a WG ?whose membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity of the Internet as a whole?. I?m not sure that the diversity of the Internet as a whole is something that will prove easy to work with. The language in recommendation 36 is a little more flexible adding ?as far as reasonably practicle?. Anyway, I?m not objecting to the changes made on these, but suggest that it may be helpful to add a note to our recommendation on these ? that the metrics used to measure diversity should be specified with more consideration to what can actually be defined and measured. This could also likely be of assistance in measuring the success (or lack of) of implementation of these recommendations. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr > On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Charla Shambley wrote: > > Dear GNSO Review Working Party, > > Members of the GNSO Review Working Party who participated in last week?s call made significant progress and invite any other members of the Working Party to provide feedback on its Report ?Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations? by close of business on 24 February. This is in preparation for submitting the attached report to the GNSO Council for consideration at the 9 March meeting. We will schedule a tentative call from 16:00-17:00 UTC on 25 February to discuss the feedback from the Working Party, should it be needed. > > The attached document contains two worksheets (and is also available on the wiki): the first worksheet is the Executive Summary, the second worksheet sorts the recommendations based on the Working Party?s evaluation of several criteria: > > ? Ease or difficulty of implementation > ? Cost of implementation > ? Whether it is aligned with the strategic direction of the GNSO > ? Whether it impacts existing work or other work > > The Working Party categorized each of the recommendations in two parts. Part One addressed whether the group agreed with the recommendation of the independent examiner (13 recommendations), did not agree (3 recommendations), agreed with modifications (6 recommendations) or determined that work was already underway in the GNSO (14 recommendations). Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO. > > The spreadsheet is sorted by priority so you will see high priority recommendations first, medium priority recommendations in the second tier, and low priority or do not implement recommendations toward the bottom. > > Below is an updated timeline: > > > I look forward to your feedback by close of business on 24 February. > > Regards, > > Charla > > Charla K. Shambley > Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager > ICANN > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > mobile: 310-745-1943 > > From cgomes at Verisign.com Sun Feb 21 21:04:46 2016 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:04:46 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps In-Reply-To: <6CF1E2B9-0A91-4B72-A751-CA071ECCA19B@egyptig.org> References: <42262594547b4fd1ae91f3ab7485ca74@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6CF1E2B9-0A91-4B72-A751-CA071ECCA19B@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40952B@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Amr's suggestion of adding a note (or notes) seems like a good idea to me. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 1:19 PM To: Charla Shambley Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps Hi, Apologies for missing the last call. It somehow didn?t make it in to my calendar. I just listened to the recording, checked the changes in recommendations suggested and wanted to offer one comment regarding recommendations 35 and 36. If I recall correctly, both those recommendations had a ?do not implement? recommendation by the working party, despite being color-coded yellow for a reason. The rational, as I remember it, was that the working party members agreed with the intent of the recommendations (the GNSO doing what it can to empower as much diversity as possible in WG participation), however, the standards set by the independent examiner to measure against seemed too vague and difficult to define and implement. For example, in recommendation 35, the recommendation is to form a WG ?whose membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity of the Internet as a whole?. I?m not sure that the diversity of the Internet as a whole is something that will prove easy to work with. The language in recommendation 36 is a little more flexible adding ?as far as reasonably practicle?. Anyway, I?m not objecting to the changes made on these, but suggest that it may be helpful to add a note to our recommendation on these ? that the metrics used to measure diversity should be specified with more consideration to what can actually be defined and measured. This could also likely be of assistance in measuring the success (or lack of) of implementation of these recommendations. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr > On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Charla Shambley wrote: > > Dear GNSO Review Working Party, > > Members of the GNSO Review Working Party who participated in last week?s call made significant progress and invite any other members of the Working Party to provide feedback on its Report ?Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations? by close of business on 24 February. This is in preparation for submitting the attached report to the GNSO Council for consideration at the 9 March meeting. We will schedule a tentative call from 16:00-17:00 UTC on 25 February to discuss the feedback from the Working Party, should it be needed. > > The attached document contains two worksheets (and is also available on the wiki): the first worksheet is the Executive Summary, the second worksheet sorts the recommendations based on the Working Party?s evaluation of several criteria: > > ? Ease or difficulty of implementation > ? Cost of implementation > ? Whether it is aligned with the strategic direction of the GNSO > ? Whether it impacts existing work or other work > > The Working Party categorized each of the recommendations in two parts. Part One addressed whether the group agreed with the recommendation of the independent examiner (13 recommendations), did not agree (3 recommendations), agreed with modifications (6 recommendations) or determined that work was already underway in the GNSO (14 recommendations). Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO. > > The spreadsheet is sorted by priority so you will see high priority recommendations first, medium priority recommendations in the second tier, and low priority or do not implement recommendations toward the bottom. > > Below is an updated timeline: > > > I look forward to your feedback by close of business on 24 February. > > Regards, > > Charla > > Charla K. Shambley > Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager > ICANN > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > mobile: 310-745-1943 > > From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Mon Feb 22 19:22:24 2016 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:22:24 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40952B@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <42262594547b4fd1ae91f3ab7485ca74@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6CF1E2B9-0A91-4B72-A751-CA071ECCA19B@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40952B@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <20660a60d99e4bd4b2dfe72ea0bcdfec@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Chuck and Amr, Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. This will be incorporated into the final version. At the last meeting, we discussed the value of the GNSO Review Working Party to suggest targets, indications or other guidance to specify what a good outcome would be for each recommendation identified for implementation. Amr, as you suggested, this would help with measuring effectiveness of the implementation in the future. There seemed to be general agreement that this would be a useful activity. This approach would be consistent with good practices and process improvements we are working on implementing for all reviews. Would you be willing to assist with this effort, and if so, would you be able to carve out some time in Marrakech to share your ideas with Charla and me? Thank you, Larisa -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 1:05 PM To: Amr Elsadr ; Charla Shambley Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps Amr's suggestion of adding a note (or notes) seems like a good idea to me. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 1:19 PM To: Charla Shambley Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps Hi, Apologies for missing the last call. It somehow didn?t make it in to my calendar. I just listened to the recording, checked the changes in recommendations suggested and wanted to offer one comment regarding recommendations 35 and 36. If I recall correctly, both those recommendations had a ?do not implement? recommendation by the working party, despite being color-coded yellow for a reason. The rational, as I remember it, was that the working party members agreed with the intent of the recommendations (the GNSO doing what it can to empower as much diversity as possible in WG participation), however, the standards set by the independent examiner to measure against seemed too vague and difficult to define and implement. For example, in recommendation 35, the recommendation is to form a WG ?whose membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity of the Internet as a whole?. I?m not sure that the diversity of the Internet as a whole is something that will prove easy to work with. The language in recommendation 36 is a little more flexible adding ?as far as reasonably practicle?. Anyway, I?m not objecting to the changes made on these, but suggest that it may be helpful to add a note to our recommendation on these ? that the metrics used to measure diversity should be specified with more consideration to what can actually be defined and measured. This could also likely be of assistance in measuring the success (or lack of) of implementation of these recommendations. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr > On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Charla Shambley wrote: > > Dear GNSO Review Working Party, > > Members of the GNSO Review Working Party who participated in last week?s call made significant progress and invite any other members of the Working Party to provide feedback on its Report ?Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations? by close of business on 24 February. This is in preparation for submitting the attached report to the GNSO Council for consideration at the 9 March meeting. We will schedule a tentative call from 16:00-17:00 UTC on 25 February to discuss the feedback from the Working Party, should it be needed. > > The attached document contains two worksheets (and is also available on the wiki): the first worksheet is the Executive Summary, the second worksheet sorts the recommendations based on the Working Party?s evaluation of several criteria: > > ? Ease or difficulty of implementation > ? Cost of implementation > ? Whether it is aligned with the strategic direction of the GNSO > ? Whether it impacts existing work or other work > > The Working Party categorized each of the recommendations in two parts. Part One addressed whether the group agreed with the recommendation of the independent examiner (13 recommendations), did not agree (3 recommendations), agreed with modifications (6 recommendations) or determined that work was already underway in the GNSO (14 recommendations). Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO. > > The spreadsheet is sorted by priority so you will see high priority recommendations first, medium priority recommendations in the second tier, and low priority or do not implement recommendations toward the bottom. > > Below is an updated timeline: > > > I look forward to your feedback by close of business on 24 February. > > Regards, > > Charla > > Charla K. Shambley > Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager > ICANN > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > mobile: 310-745-1943 > > From aelsadr at egyptig.org Mon Feb 22 19:50:18 2016 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 21:50:18 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps In-Reply-To: <20660a60d99e4bd4b2dfe72ea0bcdfec@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <42262594547b4fd1ae91f3ab7485ca74@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6CF1E2B9-0A91-4B72-A751-CA071ECCA19B@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40952B@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20660a60d99e4bd4b2dfe72ea0bcdfec@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <9A1FCF51-5B16-4FF3-B203-CEA2E67E739D@egyptig.org> Hi Larisa, Assuming I get my visa in time (still working on that) to make it to Marrakech, I?d be happy to make some time to help with this in any way I can. I?ll keep you posted. Thanks. Amr > On Feb 22, 2016, at 9:22 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: > > Chuck and Amr, > Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. This will be incorporated into the final version. > > At the last meeting, we discussed the value of the GNSO Review Working Party to suggest targets, indications or other guidance to specify what a good outcome would be for each recommendation identified for implementation. Amr, as you suggested, this would help with measuring effectiveness of the implementation in the future. There seemed to be general agreement that this would be a useful activity. This approach would be consistent with good practices and process improvements we are working on implementing for all reviews. Would you be willing to assist with this effort, and if so, would you be able to carve out some time in Marrakech to share your ideas with Charla and me? > > Thank you, > Larisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 1:05 PM > To: Amr Elsadr ; Charla Shambley > Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps > > > Amr's suggestion of adding a note (or notes) seems like a good idea to me. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 1:19 PM > To: Charla Shambley > Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps > > > Hi, > > Apologies for missing the last call. It somehow didn?t make it in to my calendar. I just listened to the recording, checked the changes in recommendations suggested and wanted to offer one comment regarding recommendations 35 and 36. > > If I recall correctly, both those recommendations had a ?do not implement? recommendation by the working party, despite being color-coded yellow for a reason. The rational, as I remember it, was that the working party members agreed with the intent of the recommendations (the GNSO doing what it can to empower as much diversity as possible in WG participation), however, the standards set by the independent examiner to measure against seemed too vague and difficult to define and implement. > > For example, in recommendation 35, the recommendation is to form a WG ?whose membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity of the Internet as a whole?. I?m not sure that the diversity of the Internet as a whole is something that will prove easy to work with. The language in recommendation 36 is a little more flexible adding ?as far as reasonably practicle?. > > Anyway, I?m not objecting to the changes made on these, but suggest that it may be helpful to add a note to our recommendation on these ? that the metrics used to measure diversity should be specified with more consideration to what can actually be defined and measured. This could also likely be of assistance in measuring the success (or lack of) of implementation of these recommendations. > > Just a thought. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Charla Shambley wrote: >> >> Dear GNSO Review Working Party, >> >> Members of the GNSO Review Working Party who participated in last week?s call made significant progress and invite any other members of the Working Party to provide feedback on its Report ?Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations? by close of business on 24 February. This is in preparation for submitting the attached report to the GNSO Council for consideration at the 9 March meeting. We will schedule a tentative call from 16:00-17:00 UTC on 25 February to discuss the feedback from the Working Party, should it be needed. >> >> The attached document contains two worksheets (and is also available on the wiki): the first worksheet is the Executive Summary, the second worksheet sorts the recommendations based on the Working Party?s evaluation of several criteria: >> >> ? Ease or difficulty of implementation >> ? Cost of implementation >> ? Whether it is aligned with the strategic direction of the GNSO >> ? Whether it impacts existing work or other work >> >> The Working Party categorized each of the recommendations in two parts. Part One addressed whether the group agreed with the recommendation of the independent examiner (13 recommendations), did not agree (3 recommendations), agreed with modifications (6 recommendations) or determined that work was already underway in the GNSO (14 recommendations). Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO. >> >> The spreadsheet is sorted by priority so you will see high priority recommendations first, medium priority recommendations in the second tier, and low priority or do not implement recommendations toward the bottom. >> >> Below is an updated timeline: >> >> >> I look forward to your feedback by close of business on 24 February. >> >> Regards, >> >> Charla >> >> Charla K. Shambley >> Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager >> ICANN >> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >> Los Angeles, CA 90094 >> mobile: 310-745-1943 >> >> > > > From cgomes at Verisign.com Mon Feb 22 21:58:29 2016 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 21:58:29 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps In-Reply-To: <20660a60d99e4bd4b2dfe72ea0bcdfec@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <42262594547b4fd1ae91f3ab7485ca74@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6CF1E2B9-0A91-4B72-A751-CA071ECCA19B@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40952B@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20660a60d99e4bd4b2dfe72ea0bcdfec@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A40B881@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I am willing if we can find a time that works for the three of us. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Larisa B. Gurnick [mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 2:22 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Amr Elsadr Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Charla Shambley Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps Chuck and Amr, Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. This will be incorporated into the final version. At the last meeting, we discussed the value of the GNSO Review Working Party to suggest targets, indications or other guidance to specify what a good outcome would be for each recommendation identified for implementation. Amr, as you suggested, this would help with measuring effectiveness of the implementation in the future. There seemed to be general agreement that this would be a useful activity. This approach would be consistent with good practices and process improvements we are working on implementing for all reviews. Would you be willing to assist with this effort, and if so, would you be able to carve out some time in Marrakech to share your ideas with Charla and me? Thank you, Larisa -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 1:05 PM To: Amr Elsadr ; Charla Shambley Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps Amr's suggestion of adding a note (or notes) seems like a good idea to me. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 1:19 PM To: Charla Shambley Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps Hi, Apologies for missing the last call. It somehow didn?t make it in to my calendar. I just listened to the recording, checked the changes in recommendations suggested and wanted to offer one comment regarding recommendations 35 and 36. If I recall correctly, both those recommendations had a ?do not implement? recommendation by the working party, despite being color-coded yellow for a reason. The rational, as I remember it, was that the working party members agreed with the intent of the recommendations (the GNSO doing what it can to empower as much diversity as possible in WG participation), however, the standards set by the independent examiner to measure against seemed too vague and difficult to define and implement. For example, in recommendation 35, the recommendation is to form a WG ?whose membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity of the Internet as a whole?. I?m not sure that the diversity of the Internet as a whole is something that will prove easy to work with. The language in recommendation 36 is a little more flexible adding ?as far as reasonably practicle?. Anyway, I?m not objecting to the changes made on these, but suggest that it may be helpful to add a note to our recommendation on these ? that the metrics used to measure diversity should be specified with more consideration to what can actually be defined and measured. This could also likely be of assistance in measuring the success (or lack of) of implementation of these recommendations. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr > On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Charla Shambley wrote: > > Dear GNSO Review Working Party, > > Members of the GNSO Review Working Party who participated in last week?s call made significant progress and invite any other members of the Working Party to provide feedback on its Report ?Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations? by close of business on 24 February. This is in preparation for submitting the attached report to the GNSO Council for consideration at the 9 March meeting. We will schedule a tentative call from 16:00-17:00 UTC on 25 February to discuss the feedback from the Working Party, should it be needed. > > The attached document contains two worksheets (and is also available on the wiki): the first worksheet is the Executive Summary, the second worksheet sorts the recommendations based on the Working Party?s evaluation of several criteria: > > ? Ease or difficulty of implementation > ? Cost of implementation > ? Whether it is aligned with the strategic direction of the GNSO > ? Whether it impacts existing work or other work > > The Working Party categorized each of the recommendations in two parts. Part One addressed whether the group agreed with the recommendation of the independent examiner (13 recommendations), did not agree (3 recommendations), agreed with modifications (6 recommendations) or determined that work was already underway in the GNSO (14 recommendations). Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO. > > The spreadsheet is sorted by priority so you will see high priority recommendations first, medium priority recommendations in the second tier, and low priority or do not implement recommendations toward the bottom. > > Below is an updated timeline: > > > I look forward to your feedback by close of business on 24 February. > > Regards, > > Charla > > Charla K. Shambley > Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager > ICANN > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > mobile: 310-745-1943 > > From charla.shambley at icann.org Thu Feb 25 03:48:10 2016 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 03:48:10 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Final Prioritization of Recommendations Message-ID: Dear GNSO Review Working Party - Thank you to the Working Party for providing additional feedback on the prioritization of the recommendations. Attached is the final document incorporating feedback from Chuck and Amr. Since no additional feedback was received from other members of the Working Party, please consider the attached document as "final". This will be transmitted with a motion to the GNSO Council for consideration during the ICANN meeting in Marrakech. Please note that the call scheduled for 25 February @ 16:00-17:00 UTC will be cancelled. You will receive a cancellation notice shortly. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 mobile: 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Rec Feasibility Prioritization (FINAL).xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 45579 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Rec Feasibility Prioritization (FINAL).xlsx URL: