[Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 29 March

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,

 

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 29 March at ICANN58.  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/2017-03-30+GNSO+Review+WG. 

 

Note that a Doodle poll will be held to confirm the timing of the next call that will be in two weeks on Thursday, 13 April.

 

Best regards,

Julie

 

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

 

Action Items/Discussion Notes 29 March

 

Action Items:

1.       Staff will send a Doodle Poll to confirm the timing of the next call that will be in two weeks on Thursday, 13 April.

2.       Recommendation 8: Include in the solution section a link to the IRT Principles.  Amend the KPIs that it is up to the future establishment of the WG to make them aware of the IRT requirements and principles.

3.       Recommendations 14 & 15: Combine recommendations 14 and 15 on timing and phasing and suggest possible language.

4.       Recommendations 16 & 18: Staff will provide context and background for Recommendation 18 and circulate them on the list.

 

Discussion Notes:

 

Review revised draft charters based on actions from ICANN 58:

 

Recommendation 8:

 

-- Staff perspective that implementation of GNSO Policy and Implementation WG recommendations addresses this recommendation from the GNSO Review.

-- General comment on recommendation charters regarding KPIs: Not clear what appropriate KPIs would be, if implementation measures are not measurable (example: if implementation involves changes in language to GNSO PDP Manual or GNSO WG Guidelines)

-- There was the requirement that the WG members should join the IRT.  Question: How is that incorporated in the solution?  Should we be more precise under #2?

-- KPIs: Up to the future establishment of the WG to make them aware and that could be enough.

 

>From the chat:

Marika Konings: The IRT Principles address composition so maybe it is worth referring to those as well?  This is what the IRT Principles say: "The call for IRT volunteers should at a minimum be sent to all members of thePDP working group that was responsible for developing the policy recommendations. The call for volunteers may need to reach beyond the working group members to ensure broad participation by parties directly impacted by the implementation and parties with specialized expertise needed for implementation. In some cases, additional outreach at the start or at a later stageof the IRT may be necessary to ensure that appropriate expertise is available and that directly affected parties are involved in the IRT."

 

Recommendation 15:

 

-- Makes sense to include it as part of the assessment process.

-- How to cycle that into future PDPs?

-- Every PDP is ideosyncratic.  Do we want to continue to have completely open PDPs?  Do we want size limitations?

-- Phasing could be a way to mitigate size.  Smaller groups addressing work simultaneously.

-- A plenary might be a good way to go.

 

>From the chat:

Marika Konings: Could that be part of the WG assessment? Ask a question on if/how the PDP could have moved faster?  And then those ideas could be shared / discussed?  @Julie - I think it is a link. The GOP refer to it, but do not dictate the questions as far as I am aware.

Amr Elsadr: One previous measure taken during a staff exercise for improving PDPs was including PDP WG charters in preliminary issues reports. This was meant to save time used to form charter drafting teams, draft the charters, submitting for public comments and having Council adopt them. This is now included in the process to accept issues report..

Lori Schulman: Does broad participation necessarily mean high numbers vs. having many interests represented?  Each PDP could be sized according to needs.  I think that idea of phasing.

Marika Konings: good point Lori - I guess the question is though how and who do you assess whether different interests are represented? would it be feasible to have each SG/C to appoint 3-4 reps representing those different interests? 

Amr Elsadr: @Lori: Public comment periods is one way to participate? Also during early PDP WG outreach to SOs/ACs?

Marika Konings: there may also be other models - it may be worth exploring similar organizations to see how they conduct similar activities?

 

Recommendations 16 & 18:

 

-- Question: Recommendation 18 points to policy effectiveness -- could have a wider frame than the PIA.  That the goals of the policy process have been achieved?  Or could the policy process be improved?

 

>From the chat:

Amr Elsadr: Does the WG also wish to address the distinction between periodic vs. ongoing post-implementation policy effectiveness evaluation?  Implementation of ongoing evaluations also need to be considered.

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Has "effectiveness" been defined in more detail in the report?

Amr Elsadr: @WUK: I don't believe it has. This would be dependent on how the DMPM recs are implemented?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20170330/50c07373/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20170330/50c07373/smime-0001.p7s>