[gnso-review-dt] RE: Follow-up: OEC questions

Thu May 12 07:34:58 UTC 2016

I inserted what I think might be our responses below but I am fully open to my suggestions being edited or rejected.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:13 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Cc: Lars Hoffmann
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Follow-up: OEC questions

Dear GNSO Review Working Party –

I am re-sending this email on behalf of Lars and Larisa to ensure that the Working Party has adequate time to prepare responses to the Organizational Effectiveness Committee’s (OEC) questions noted below.

Please respond to the list no later than 23:59 UTC, 12 May, so that Staff can capture the consolidated responses in preparation for the OEC’s upcoming meeting this weekend.

Thank you in advance!

Regards,

Charla

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 Lars Hoffmann
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 4:23 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Follow-up: OEC questions

Dear Jen and members of the GNSO Review Working Party,

I am writing on behalf of Larisa, following up on her earlier email (see below). As mentioned, the OEC has compiled questions for the Working Party, to which it seeks your answers so that the Committee’s meeting in Amsterdam next week can be as productive as possible.

You may want to respond either in writing or verbally; I believe Jen will take part in the OEC’s deliberations via telephone conference next week. Please note that staff is of course available to assist you should you require additional support. Please do not hesitate to get in touch on- or off-list.

Very best wishes and a wonderful weekend
Larisa and Lars

Question from the OEC to the GNSO Review Working Party:

  *   Please confirm that – following the GNSO Council's Recommendation - Rec 21 should now be marked ‘yellow’ as it looks that there are modifications proposed by the GNSO Council and WP (in addition to it now being ‘low priority’).[Chuck Gomes]  Confirm.

  *   Rec 4 - Please explain the thinking/concern behind travel funding as a form of "financial reward".  [Chuck Gomes] I may not be the best one to respond to this so I encourage others to do so but here is what I think might apply: Some people may view receiving funding to attend meetings and travel around the world as a reward.

  *   Rec 9 - Developing a needs assessment for WG leadership is good, but does this mean that an assessment of each WG leader's performance would not be done for each PDP WG?[Chuck Gomes]  I don’t think that necessarily follows nor do I think that the recommendation precludes such performance reviews.
  *   Rec 10 - Please elaborate on "additional criteria" to be developed.  Would it cover (for example) situations where facilitation would be required and where external/independent facilitators may add value in case internal facilitation fails?[Chuck Gomes]  I don’t think that there was any intent to absolutely require facilitation in certain situations but rather to provide guidelines when it might be useful.
  *   Rec 19 - Does the GNSO Council currently issue a confirmation post-PDP that the WG has been properly constituted, has fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due process?  Would the GNSO Council consider adding the diversity of WG aspect of Rec 36 to its post-PDP confirmation as information for the the Board?[Chuck Gomes]  I don’t believe this formally happens but I think it is assumed when the Council approves PDP recommendations.  This question probably should be asked of the Council as well.
  *   Rec 22 - Why is technical training not addressed?  Would guidance/reference be provided to new GNSO Council members who may be lacking technical experience/background to go to for training? [Chuck Gomes]  I don’t believe there was any intent to exclude technical training.  If technical training is needed to improve policy development, it could be provided.
  *   Rec 23 - Please explain/elaborate on concern no. 2 in Working Party Comments and Rationale.[Chuck Gomes]  Does the OEC think that all constituencies are equal in terms of mission clarity, member engagement and contributions to GNSO work?  That would be ideal but it probably isn’t real.  More importantly, constituencies vary in terms of how well they represent their communities and how they document their processes of involving their members.  Of the four rationales, this one may be the least important.

From: <owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org>> on behalf of "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>>
Date: Friday 6 May 2016 at 08:40
To: "gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>" <gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>>, Jen Wolfe <jwolfe at dotbrand360.agency<mailto:jwolfe at dotbrand360.agency>>
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Consideration of GNSO Review Recommendations

Dear Jen and members of the GNSO Review Working Party,

The Board is getting ready to take action on the GNSO Review Recommendations along with the substantial analysis and feedback from all of you and others in the GNSO.  As you can see from the update below, the work of your group has been combined with feedback from the GNSO Council and other community members to provide the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with a full picture.  OEC members have some questions for the Working Party and staff will compile and circulate these questions within the next day.

Update on the Board’s consideration of the GNSO Review Recommendations
Following the GNSO Council’s adoption of the GNSO Review Working Party's recommendations (see James Bladel’s transmittal  letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-abdul-rahim-27apr16-en.pdf> to Rinalia Abdul Rahim, dated 27 April 2016), Staff has put together a Summary of GNSO Review Recommendations for OEC Consideration (attached). The purpose of this document is to provide the Committee with a complete overview of all pertinent information in connection with the GNSO Review Recommendations.  At their next meeting on 15 May, the Committee will discuss the GNSO Review recommendations  with the objective of formulating the Committee’s recommendation to the Board.  Jen Wolfe will be present to answer Committee’s questions and provide clarification on the work of the Working Party.

The document contains the Recommendations of the Independent  Examiner, the feedback from the GNSO Review Working Party (including implementation priority), and a description of work already underway. In addition, community feedback and comments concerning implementation are summarized in Annex A. This feedback is the result of a webinar held on 12 April 2016 (transcript<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-review-12apr16-en.pdf> and recording<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-12apr16-en.mp3>) and of the GNSO Council call held on 14 April 2016 (transcript<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-14apr16-en.pdf> (p.21 onwards) and recording<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-14apr16-en.mp3> (0:47:19 onwards)).

Next steps

1.       OEC Committee members are reviewing all the materials and staff is compiling their questions for the Working Party.  We will circulate these questions within the next day to give you sufficient time to develop responses.  As always, staff is available to assist you.

2.       Once the OEC has discussed this matter, the Committee will make a recommendation  to the ICANN Board for its consideration. Staff currently anticipates that the Board will be able to deliberate the GNSO Review Recommendations during its meeting in Helsinki.

3.       Finally, with a view to the forthcoming implementation process, the GNSO Council requested ICANN policy staff to 'prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board, taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews.’  The plan  will take  into consideration the views of the Council as well as those by the OEC and the Board,  and address various elements essential for an effective and efficient implementation process.  These elements include:  prioritization of recommendations in line with GNSO and ICANN capacity; clear articulation of expected outcomes from implementation; and definition of means to measure effectiveness of implementation.

If you have any further questions or require clarifications, please do not hesitate to reach out at any time.
Thank you for your enormous effort and contribution to making the GNSO Review an effective accountability mechanism.

All the best,

Larisa B. Gurnick
Senior Director, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives
Mobile: 1 310 383-8995
Skype: larisa.gurnick

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20160512/23ababbe/attachment.html>