[Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 27 July

Mon Aug 7 07:10:05 UTC 2017

All,

regarding Rec. 30 which we discussed at the last call I've reviewed a 
bit the historical context (Westlake report and WP priorization). The WP 
came already to the conclusion that the first part is done (...develop 
and implement a "policy" for the provision of administrative support...) but

  * that there is not a procedure for SGs and Cs to evaluate the
    effectiveness of the support provided.  GNSO action items: i)
    Identify and review the existing procedures for SGs and Cs to obtain
    administrative support; ii) evaluate the adequacy & effectiveness of
    the existing procedures including whether additional forms of
    support might be beneficial; iii) develop recommendations for
    improvements to the procedures and new types of support, if any.

I think it would be helpful to check this against the resources 
documents you've listed in the Rec. charter, Julie, and then come to a 
final conclusion.

Apologies that I'll miss the next call because of another job.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

Am 27.07.2017 um 20:46 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
>
> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>
> Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by 
> staff from the meeting on 27 July. /These high-level notes are 
> designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call 
> and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, 
> which are posted on the wiki at/: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2017.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> *Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 July*
>
> **
>
> *Action Items: *
>
> **
>
>  1. Charter for Recommendation 19: 1) incorporate references
>     (including new references identified by staff); 2) send the
>     charter out for review and then consensus call.
>  2. Charter for Recommendation 30: 1) Revise the charter based on the
>     WG discussion; 2) explore whether there already is a mechanism for
>     review and whether the provision of support is binding or whether
>     that should be a recommendation to the GNSO Council; 3) send a
>     revised version to the WG to review and discuss.
>  3. Meeting schedule: Move the meeting from 24 August back to 17
>     August to avoid the conflict with the GNSO Council meeting. 
>     Restart two-week rotation with the following meeting on 31 August.
>
> *Notes:*
>
> /1. Update on Consensus Call on Charter for Recommendation 13 – Ends 
> COB 27 July/
>
> -- Consensus call closes today (27 July) - in the absence of objection 
> today, staff will announce that full consensus has been reached on the 
> Charter for Recommendation 13
>
> /2. Continue discussion on Charter for Recommendation 19/
>
> -- Staff assumption is that existing guidance does exist for the GNSO 
> Council ensuring that a Working Group has been properly constituted, 
> has thoroughly fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due 
> process - to be reviewed and agreed upon by the WG member.
>
> -- WG Self-Assessment required in the WG Guidelines allows for WG 
> members involved in a PDP to provide their own assessment of the 
> efficacy of the process, with a goal for further improvement in future 
> work.
>
> -- WG guidelines sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 detail measures to ensure as 
> broad and balanced representation in WGs, as practically possible.
>
> -- Section 8 PDP Manual details mechanisms to be included in the 
> Charter including: Working Group Identification; Mission, Purpose and 
> Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization, and; Rules of 
> Engagement.
>
> -- Section 9 of PDP Manual provides guidance on use of GNSO WGs to 
> develop policy, due to presence of existing guidelines that require 
> due process.
>
> -- Section 12 of the PDP Manual provides guidance to the GNSO Council 
> on how to deliberate and decide on policy recommendations.
>
> -- Distinction between policy and how it is organized and managed by 
> the GNSO Council.  Question: Is there enough guidance for the 
> management of the PDP and the Working Groups?
>
> -- With respect to other models -- do we need stronger language to 
> ensure that the Working Group is the model for the PDP?
>
> -- There are other models for non-PDP work, and there also are 
> guidelines for an expedited PDP.  But the scope of this charter is 
> limited to this recommendation: the GNSO Council's role in making sure 
> the Working Groups are properly constituted.  So, the focus is on 
> Working Groups or other groups/models.
>
> -- Other models have been used for different projects, but not do 
> develop Consensus Policies (not to replace PDP WGs). Examples include 
> Working Parties, such as the precursor to this WG, and Drafting Teams.
>
> /3. Begin discussion on Charter for Recommendation 30/
>
> -- "GNSO Toolkit" and "Pilot Program" are two programs that exist to 
> provide administrative support to GNSO SGs/Cs.
>
> -- Pilot Program has been running since 2014, and is no longer 
> considered to be within a pilot phase.
>
> -- Charter includes links to an inventory of services currently being 
> provided.
>
> -- Question: If you look to 2014 was something being done when this 
> recommendation being established?
>
> -- Question: "develop and implement a policy" -- Is that covered 
> here?  Or is "policy" of a different level, as how to do provide the 
> admin support?
>
> -- GNSO policy recommendations are developed via PDP Working Groups 
> leading to changes and contractual obligations. Non-policy 
> recommendations are developed by other groups. There is nothing that 
> would prevent this GNSO Review Working Group from suggesting changes 
> to procedures, but not as a "policy".
>
> -- Not sure how the GNSO Review Working Party came to the wording of 
> this recommendation -- maybe not "policy" but perhaps agreement 
> between ICANN and the GNSO community about the provision of the 
> administrative support.
>
> -- It is in the remit of this WG to interpret the recommendation and 
> how it could be implemented -- perhaps instead of "policy" it could be 
> "guidelines" or "operating procedures" -- not a PDP.
>
> -- Acknowledge the development of the program over the last years and 
> ongoing development and accept that as the best way to provide the 
> support at the time being.
>
> -- In addition, there is the question of the review of the program, 
> which is perhaps not fulfilled.  Should tell the GNSO Council that it 
> is up to them to decide whether measures should be taken in order to 
> make the support more binding for both sides.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170807/e9699e10/attachment-0001.html>