[Gnso-review-wg] Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Call on 25 May 1200 UTC

Thu May 25 07:07:35 UTC 2017

Thanks Julie,

see my comments inserted.

Apologies again that I can't attend today's call.

Wolf-Ulrich

Am 24.05.2017 um 23:34 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
>
> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>
> Please see below the notes and action items from the meeting on 11 
> May.  The charter is attached for recommendations 24/25 in Word and 
> PDF.  These have been loaded into the Adobe Connect room for 
> discussion during tomorrow’s call: Thursday, 25 May at 1200 UTC.  
> Please also see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows:
>
>  1. Review agenda
>  2. SOIs
>  3. Reminder of Consensus Call for Recommendations 16 (responses due
>     29 May)
>  4. Begin discussion of Charter for Recommendations 24/25
>  5. Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 08 June
>  6. AOB
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> *Action Items/Discussion Notes 11 May*
>
> **
>
> *Action Items: *
>
> _Recommendation 16_: Staff will 1) revise the charter to make sure 
> that there is no relevant language/reference from the strategic plan 
> that may be missing; 2) make noted editorial changes and check links; 
> 3) append the PIA framework from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines 
> Initial Report Template for reference; 4) send the final revised 
> charter to the Working Group for a Consensus Call for two weeks.
>
> _Recommendation 18_: Staff is creating a standalone charter for 
> consideration and further discussion by the Working Group.
>
> _Recommendation 33_: 1) Representatives on this WG to have their 
> Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies answer the questionnaire, which 
> also asks about informal practices that encourage diversity.  Deadline 
> is 01 June. This charter will be revisited following receipt of the 
> Stakeholder Group and Constituency responses to the Work Stream 2 
> Diversity Sub Team questionnaire, due on 01 June.
>
> 2) Staff also will contact support staff for the SGs and Cs to make 
> sure that all procedures have been compiled.
>
> _Recommendations 24/25_: Staff will create a charter for consideration 
> on the next Working Group Call on 25 May at 1200 UTC.
>
> _Overarching Questions_: The Working Group requested that staff should 
> collect and track questions raised by the Working Group that may 
> either relate to several GNSO review recommendations, to the GNSO 
> Operating Procedures, or to GNSO processes in general.
>
> *Discussion Notes: *
>
> /1. Discussion of Recommendation 16:/
>
> -- Goal: Strategic plan -- seems incomplete; check it.
>
> -- Separated from recommendation #18 to be considered in a standalone 
> charter.
>
> -- WG to determine to what extent the DMPM recommendations fulfil the 
> requirements of this recommendation
>
> -- Staff evaluation is that this recommendation has indeed been 
> covered by the recommendations of the GNSO DMPM WG final report 
> (specifically recommendations 3, 6 and 7, which have contributed to 
> the creation of a new GNSO WG charter template available via link in 
> the GNSO WG Guidelines).
>
> -- Should we start to create our metrics to put to this list?  Maybe 
> it is valuable to have a discussion here -- whether these are the ones 
> that could be valuable for the impact analysis?
>
> -- ICANN staff: if metrics/data available are found to be practically 
> unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical 
> appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final 
> report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to 
> request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their 
> charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or 
> external to ICANN.
>
> -- Up to the WG to discuss the PIA and the related metric that should 
> be used for that.  It is the WG that is guiding this and creating the 
> metrics that should be used.
>
> -- Reference to the strawman -- are we expected to provide the 
> guidelines for the working group to develop metrics?  Depending on the 
> context of the background of WG are there metrics applicable to every WG?
>
> -- There are points in the charter and suggestions for metrics -- 
> general metrics can be subdivided.
>
> -- How can we as a volunteer community ask the right questions?  Where 
> is the expertise to help guide us?
>
> -- May be too early to address this question, but may come out of 
> further work of this WG -- don't forget that there are maybe questions 
> that have an impact on the results of all of this.
>
> -- This issue could be consider as an overarching question by the WG.  
> Suggestion to keep these questions as for further work for this WG.
>
> From the chat:
>
> Berry Cobb: I'd just add that DMPM's attempt was more of a cultural 
> change and to develop a generic framework.  They did not want to be to 
> prescriptive as each issue the GNSO deals with is different.
>
> Lori Schulman: I feel like we need a highly expert "metrics czar"
>
> Lori Schulman: It adds to my comment but doesn't really address it
>
> Lori Schulman: Understand Berry's point as each WG is independent but 
> I think we can get so in the weeds that we may not know how to ask the 
> right questions
>
> Berry Cobb: @Lori as a WG formulates it's recommendations, the metrics 
> should also be defined as a part of the draft report.  The public 
> comments and other input can help to guide the WG as to whether they 
> selected the right ones.
>
> Lori Schulman: Agree with Rafik about more and more tasks
>
> Amr Elsadr: Apologies for the bad audio. I was trying to say that, in 
> response to Lori's concern, if metrics/data available are found to be 
> practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to 
> critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM 
> WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO 
> WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving 
> their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or 
> external to ICANN.
>
> Berry Cobb: +1 Amr
>
> renata aquino: +1
>
> Marika Konings: @Lori - how can that be addressed here?
>
> Julie Hedlund: @Lori: This may be out of scope of this recommendation 
> implementation, but may be addressed separately by this Working Group.
>
> Berry Cobb: That's the world of forecasting and it is still an 
> imperfect science.
>
> Lori Schulman: I understand Marika's and Julie's concerns perhaps we 
> can highlight this as an ancillary issue
>
> Marika Konings: @Berry - do we have a kind of FAQ on the DMPM 
> recommendations? It may be helpful to have something like that to 
> remind WG members of their obligations in this regard?
>
> Lori Schulman: Can we at least suggest to staff a running list of 
> questions including the issues we discussed today?
>
> Berry Cobb: As noted in this charter, refer to this page and review 
> the "Working Group Charter" and Initial Working Group Report" links 
> they contain DOCX files that contain the metrics framework. 
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures
>
> /2. Discussion of Recommendation 33:/
>
> -- This recommendation may or may not require changes to the GNSO 
> Operating Procedures and/or GNSO SG/C charters/bylaws
>
> -- Staff performed a preliminary review of GNSO SG/C procedures for 
> selecting GNSO Councilors.
>
> -- WS2 working on the first draft of the report [on diversity] and 
> starting on recommendation, but issued questionnaire to SO/ACs asking 
> about their diversity and current practices and procedures, also SGs 
> and Cs.  We can share that here.
>
> -- Suggestion that the WG could wait until we have the responses from 
> the SGs and Cs.
>
> -- Get more guidance concerning the cultural diversity -- any agreed 
> paper?  Other constituencies may have the same problem to get a solid 
> basis for getting answers to these questions.
>
> From the chat:
>
> Pascal Bekono: Maybe Rafik who is help us
>
> Pascal Bekono: Rafik is a rapporteur in ccwg
>
> renata aquino: +1 Rafik on sharing here the results
>
> Amr Elsadr: Note, from Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws: Stakeholder 
> Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the 
> GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including 
> considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and 
> gender.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170525/5744101f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Review Implementation Charter Rec 24-25 v1 23 May 2017_Wuk comment.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 70555 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20170525/5744101f/GNSOReviewImplementationCharterRec24-25v123May2017_Wukcomment-0001.docx>