[Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: GNSO Review WG Meeting 24 October

Tue Oct 25 23:24:08 UTC 2016

Hi Julie,

with regard to recommendation 33 about diversity, yes there is ongoing work
at CCWG with the diversity subgroup and I am the co-rapporteur there. we
are at the initial phase discussing diversity definition and collecting
information.

Best,

Rafik

2016-10-26 0:36 GMT+09:00 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>:

> Dear GNSO Review WG Members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting
> on 24 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.   In addition, please see the wiki home page for
> your reference at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/GNSO+Review+
> Working+Group+Home.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> *GNSO Review WG Meeting, 24 October 2016*: *Actions/Discussion Notes*
>
>
>
> *1. Vice Chair *
>
>
>
> Lawrence proposes Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Donna Austin seconds.
>
>
>
> *2. Discussion of Strawman Draft of GNSO Review Recommendations
> Implementation Plan*
>
>
>
> No new comments
>
>
>
> *3.  Discussion of Batching Approaches*
>
>
>
> *Action Item:*  Staff will incorporate revisions from the call, arrange
> the recommendations in batches, and fill in additional dependencies
> including between recommendations, resource requirements, and budget.
> Staff also will add a row for suggested actions by the WG for each
> recommendation.
>
>
>
> *Discussion Notes:*
>
>
>
> *Batching:*
>
> ·         First batch: Look first at work that is already being done.
> Identify some mechanism to have some accountability for that work.  For
> example, on recommendation 8, the work of the Policy & Implementation
> Working Group already completed a while back so it may just require the WG
> to confirm that the implementation of those recommendations met the
> objective of that GNSO review recommendation.
>
> ·         Second batch: Look at the recommendations that were prioritized
> as high.
>
> ·         Third batch: Recommendations that were medium or low.
>
>
>
> *Timeline:*
>
> First batch Jan-Dec 2017, Second batch Jun-May 2018, Third batch Oct-Sep
> 2018.   Note: The timeline will be refined once the WG looks at the batches
> and dependencies.  Likely to be much more overlap between first batch and
> second batches.  Timine will be more specific and deadlines for
> deliverables should be incorporated.
>
>
>
> *Discussion of Recommendations in Work Already Underway:*
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 8*: Implementation of the recommendations of the Policy &
> Implementation WG.  Required to form an implementation review team to
> address implementation related issues.
>
>
>
> ·         Action: GNSO Review WG should decide if this meets the
> requirements of recommendation 8.
>
> ·         Does the WG need to review to make sure that what has been done
> is fully implemented?  Could be a sub-working group for each batch.
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 15*: This is a project that was recently considered
> complete.  Share the project status that was given to the Council noting
> some items are being finalized.
>
>
>
> ·         Action: WG review whether the work meets the recommendation or
> whether further work needs to be undertaken.  Staff could put together all
> the efforts that relate to this recommendation, such as new procedures.
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 16*: PIA should be included as a standard part of any
> policy process.
>
>
>
> ·         See DMPM Final Report in process of being implemented.
>
> ·         PIA is part of the PDP Manual.
>
> ·         Guidance for measuring impact -- look to DMPM.
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 18*: Relates to Recommendation 16 and the DMPM Final
> Report.
>
>
>
> ·         Add recent experience to review some policies that have been
> implemented.
>
> ·         Look at whether there can be a standard approach and timeline
> for review.  May not be possible to have one size fits all.
>
> ·         The DMPM part provided a strawman to assist the community in
> identifying metrics that can be used to test policy effectiveness.
> However, it is at a high level, b/c each PDP is fairly unique and difficult
> to identify metrics.  Agree that it ties into Rec. 16 framework action item.
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 10*: Pilot already underway.
>
>
>
> ·         Action: Look at the outcome of the pilot.  Pilot was a
> combination of face-to-face time with our without a facilitator.  Very
> successful for the PDP WGs.  This is now a standard feature to recommend
> for PDP WGs to meet before or after ICANN meetings and a moderator could be
> involved.  Staff should come up with a list of guidelines or rules for
> these sessions.  This is work in progress and will go back to the Council
> for approval, but could pass through this WG.
>
> ·         Add dependency: Budget for moderator, but may not always be
> helpful -- case-by-case basis.  Develop criteria for when it would be
> helpful.  It is up to the WG to decide whether they need a moderator.
>
> ·         Add examples of where moderator may be helpful.  Include the
> evaluation document sent to the GNSO Council.  Example: ICANN had a
> professional facilitator (external to ICANN) for one F2F WG meeting and one
> ICANN facilitator (not a member of the WG but very familiar with ICANN and
> the subject matter) - the second experience received better reviews than
> the former. But again, it may very much depend on the specific
> circumstances of a WG - in certain cases, disagreement evolves around
> substance while in others it may be the result of process matters.
> Different experience / expertise may be needed, depending on the
> circumstances.
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 33*:
>
>
>
> ·         Are we tracking diversity?  It is captured in Statements of
> Interest, but not tallied.
>
> ·         SGs and Cs have specific requirements in their charters re:
> geographic diversity for Council members, but allows exceptions (such as
> contracted parties).  Look at what SGs and Cs are doing.
>
> ·         CCWG Accountability looking at diversity and what this means --
> WG could look at that work in addition to the GNSO work.
>
> ·         Depends on how we define diversity.  Need to be careful how we
> approach this.
>
> ·         Look at time zone management, outreach -- dependencies with
> other recommendations.  Extract and combine with related recommendations.
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 11*: Relates to recommendation 10.  Combine the two
> recommendations.
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 14*: WG can determine if this is continuing to happen.
> Note that nothing prevents PDP WG from doing this and PDP WG are already
> doing this (give examples).
>
>
>
> *3. Next steps/Meetings: *
>
>
>
> ·         Next meeting is a face-to-face meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad
> on 07 November at ICANN57.  The next call is 15 November.
>
> ·         Staff will incorporate changes and also arrange recommendations
> by batches and fill in dependencies and additional information.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-review-wg mailing list
> Gnso-review-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20161026/46098139/attachment-0001.html>