[gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps

[Amr Elsadr]

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 <charla.shambley at icann.org> 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:
>  
> <image003.png>
> 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
>  
> <GNSO Review Rec Prioritization - 3Feb2016.xlsx>