[Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Recommendation 19 Revised Implementation Charter

Sat Jul 29 12:02:16 UTC 2017

Thank you Julie Hedlund,

Good Job !

2017-07-28 21:34 GMT+01:00 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>:

> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>
>
>
> Per the action items and notes below from the call on 27 July, please
> review the attached revised GNSO Review Implementation Charter for
> Recommendation 19 in Word and PDF with changes highlighted as redlines.
> Note that staff is suggesting an additional week for review as several
> additional references have been added following the discussion during the
> meeting on 27 July.
>
>
>
> As noted in the attached charter, this is the recommendation for
> implementation: “As strategic manager rather than a policy body the GNSO
> Council should continue to focus on ensuring that a Working Group has been
> properly constituted, has thoroughly fulfilled the terms of its charter and
> has followed due process.”
>
>
>
> Working Group members are requested to respond to this review in *one
> week, by COB Friday, 04 August.*  If no comments are received during the
> review period staff will accept the changes and circulate the final version
> of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call.
>
>
>
> 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/20170729/84cc2361/attachment.html>