[Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER: Actions/Discussion Notes: GNSO Review WG Meeting 18 October

Mon Oct 24 15:03:12 UTC 2016

Hi Jen,

Thanks so much for reviewing the document and suggesting an approach for the batches.  

With respect to the deadline, it is my sense that the WG must present an implementation plan for all recommendations.  However, as I think this can be a high-level plan it may be that some details can be worked out during the implementation of the various phases.  Staff can help to develop as much detail as possible for the implementation plan for each phase of the recommendations.  My thought was that staff could work over the next two weeks and present a more detailed plan for all recommendations/phases for the WG to consider and discuss at its meeting in Hyderabad.  Staff could then finalize the plan based on the input from the WG for a final discussion at a meeting on Tuesday, 15 November.  There could be a consensus call following that meeting with the goal to have the final plan sent to the GNSO Council by the document and motion deadline of 21 November for the GNSO Council meeting on 01 December.  This is, of course, a very tight schedule, but staff are committed to trying to help the WG meet the deadline.  Note also that while the GNSO Council has a second meeting in December on 15 December, it is still probably best if possible to submit the plan for consideration on 01 December in case the Council decides to defer the motion of approval until the following meeting.

I hope that this is helpful and I know other staff may have suggestions.  In any case, we can discuss the next steps during the call tomorrow morning.

Thanks again,

Julie

From: Jen Wolfe <jwolfe at dotbrand360.agency>
Date: Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:46 AM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER: Actions/Discussion Notes: GNSO Review WG Meeting 18 October

Thank, Julie, for recirculating this information and the reminder for the call tomorrow.  I look forward to continuing our discussion to move the implementation plan forward.  I had the opportunity to review the straw man draft in more detail and provide below a few of my comments, particularly related to how we “batch” the recommendations into a three phased approach.  

I will look forward to hearing from all members of the working group.  I encourage you to respond on the email list if you are unable to attend the meeting tomorrow so that we can incorporate your comments into the discussion as we strive to complete this plan in the next month.

After reviewing the structure to the document, I suggest that we work on batching the recommendations as follows:

·         Phase One:  Work Already Underway.  We could then create sub-groups as recommended (i.e. PDP Improvements color coded Blue, Membership color coded Brown and Working Groups color coded magenta.  

o   This would allow us to address the “low hanging fruit” because much of this work is already underway.

·         Phase Two:  Recommendations Noted as High Priority.  Again, we could create sub-groups as above.  

o   This would allow us to secondarily address those priorities the Working Party, Council and the OEC have all recognized as priority work.  

·         Phase Three:  Recommendations Noted as Medium/Low Priority, using the same sub group categories as above.

o   This would allow us to place as the final phase those recommendations that were deemed a medium or lower priority.

Once we have this batching completed, we can then move into completing dependencies and implementation plans by batch as organized and structured in the strawman draft.

Given our short time frame, I have a question to staff.  If we were able to complete the batching of the recommendations  and complete the Phase One specific implementation recommendations by our target deadline, would we be able to then tackle Phase Two and Three batches as part of our ongoing work?  

I will look forward to the call tomorrow so that we can discuss the batching of the recommendations and overall structure to the document and, ideally, move into the implementation plans for recommendations.  

With kind regards,

Jen

jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB

Dot Brand 360 – DotBrand360.Agency

Founder & CEO

O: 513.746.2800 x 1 or C: 513.238.4348

IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 

From: gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 11:13 AM
To: gnso-review-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER: Actions/Discussion Notes: GNSO Review WG Meeting 18 October

Dear GNSO Review WG Members,

This is a reminder of the following action items from the last meeting in preparation for our meeting on Tuesday, 25 October at 1300 UTC.

Action Items:

WG members will consider volunteering for the Vice-Chair role (see attached criteria) with a decision to be made at the next meeting.
WG members will review the attached Strawman Draft GNSO Review Recommendation Implementation and provide comments for further discussion at the next meeting.

The referenced documents are attached.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

From: <gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:38 PM
To: "gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: GNSO Review WG Meeting 18 October

Dear GNSO Review WG Members,

Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 October.  These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the recording or the transcript.  The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2016-10-06+GNSO+Review+Working+Group[community.icann.org].   In addition, please see the wiki home page for your reference at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/GNSO+Review+Working+Group+Home[community.icann.org].

Also, the Strawman Draft GNSO Review Recommendation Implementation Plan is attached in Word and PDF, and on the wiki, for your review per the action item below.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

GNSO Review WG Meeting, 18 October 2016: Actions/Discussion Notes

Action Items:

1.      WG members will consider volunteering for the Vice-Chair role (see attached criteria) with a decision to be made at the next meeting.

2.      WG members will review the attached Strawman Draft GNSO Review Recommendation Implementation and provide comments for further discussion at the next meeting.

1.  Vice Chair volunteers:

Still seeking volunteers. Staff will recirculate document outlining skills and requirements of Chair(s) document (see attached).

2. Review of Strawman Draft of GNSO Review Recommendations Implementation Plan

Staff walked through the overview of the document and then focused on Section 3. Prioritization and Dependencies.  Staff noted that the strawman draft plan is just a suggested approach based on the outline discussion on the last call.  The suggestions in the strawman are to assist the WG in its discussions.  The prioritization is taken from that provided by the GNSO Review Working Party.  The categories are suggested based on the content of the recommendations, but WG members can suggested other approaches.  Once the prioritization and categories are agreed to by the WG staff can assist in suggesting the order of the work, such as perhaps proceeding first or maybe simultaneously with work already underway.  Also, staff can assist with suggestions of how to group recommendations in projects by category and priority for the recommendation charters (see Annex I).

WG responses:

·         I think the groups appear to make sense.  It is a balance between what are the priorities -- how to prioritize the work.  We have some that are high priority.  How do we work through them?  Do some have absolute timelines that have to be agreed to?

·         I think I am also in support of the way it has been broken into categories.  Is it possible to look at the ones everyone agreed to?  So we know where the action is supposed to sit?

3. Next Steps

WG members should review the document and provide comments for further discussion at the next meeting.

4.  Next meetings/Deadlines:

Tuesday, 25 October at 1300 UTC for 60 minutes

Monday, 07 November at 1730 UTC/1100 IST for 75 minutes.  For remote access see: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cw4/gnso-review-working-group[icann572016.sched.org] and Adobe Connect at: https://participate.icann.org/hyd57-MR104.

Tuesday, 15 November at 1300 UTC (note time change in US to 1 hour earlier) for 60 minutes

Implementation Plan is due to the GNSO Council for consideration in December:

·         Document and motion deadline for 01 December GNSO Council meeting is 21 November

·         Document and motion deadline for 15 December GNSO Council meeting is 05 December

The GNSO Council must send the Implementation Plan to the ICANN Board of Directors by 31 December 2016.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20161024/a5636802/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2627 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20161024/a5636802/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20161024/a5636802/smime-0001.p7s>