[Gnso-review-wg] GNSO Council Votes to Approve the GNSO Review WG Implementation Final Report

[Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben]

Yes, thanks to Rafik for doing the presentation. And thanks to the team 
members and staff for this disciplined work. It was a pleasure to 
co-chair the group together with Jen.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich


Am 17.08.2018 um 00:03 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
>
> Dear Jen, Wolf-Ulrich, and Working Group members,
>
> Congratulations everyone!  Just a few minutes ago the GNSO Council 
> unanimously approved the motion to adopt the GNSO Review WG 
> Implementation Final Report. See the motions at: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+August+2018. 
> The next step is for the OEC to consider the report.  Per the motion 
> staff will send it to the OEC for consideration. If the OEC has any 
> questions we will decide whether to schedule a Working Group meeting 
> to discuss them.
>
> Thanks again for all your tremendous work and dedication!
>
> Thanks also Rafik for shepherding the motion and for presenting the 
> report at the meeting today!
>
> Best,
>
> Julie
>
> *From: *Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of 
> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, July 30, 2018 at 6:42 PM
> *To: *"gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>, Rafik 
> Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-review-wg] For Delivery to the GNSO Council
>
> Dear Rafik and GNSO Review Working Group members,
>
> Please see the attached Final Report, Motion, and slides for delivery 
> to the GNSO Council for its consideration and discussion at its 
> meeting on 16 August.
>
> Thanks again to everyone for all your hard work, and thank you Rafik 
> for delivering the report and materials to the GNSO Council!
>
> Best,
>
> Julie
>
> *From: *Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of 
> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, July 30, 2018 at 8:58 AM
> *To: *"gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised 
> Implementation Final Report/Motion/Slides
>
> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>
> Per the message below, this is a reminder to provide any feedback not 
> later than *_1800 UTC on Monday, 30 July_*.  The goal is to provide 
> the final versions for Rafik Dammak to send to the GNSO Council *_by 
> COB Monday, 30 July_*.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> *From: *Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of 
> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 2:05 PM
> *To: *"gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised Implementation Final 
> Report/Motion/Slides
>
> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>
> Per the action items below, please see the revised Implementation 
> Final Report and Motion in redlined and clean versions for your 
> review.  Please see also the draft slides for the presentation to the 
> GNSO Council on 16 August.
>
> Please provide any feedback not later than *_1800 UTC on Monday, 30 
> July_*.  The goal is to provide the final versions for Rafik Dammak to 
> send to the GNSO Council *_by COB Monday, 30 July_*.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> **
>
> *Action Items and Notes GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 
> 26 July 2018 at 13:00 UTC *
>
> *Action Items:*
>
> Action Item 1: Add text to timeline in Status Summary to reflect the 
> fact that the Council still needs to provide approval
>
> Action Item 2: On page 6, second paragraph, change the date of the 
> Board approval of the recommendations to June 2016 instead of June 2017.
>
> Action Item 3: Staff will fix formatting on the top of page of the report.
>
> Action Item 4: Staff will produce a slide outlining decisions for the 
> Council to make regarding next steps for this group.
>
> Action Item 5: In the draft motion, staff will update Resolved 4 with 
> "The GNSO Council shall decide to disband the WG after the Final 
> Report has been approved by the ICANN Board."
>
> *Notes: *
>
> 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates
>
> 2. Discussion: GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report:
>
> -- Wolf-Ulrich provided some edits to the report.
>
> -- New elements of the report have been added since the update.
>
> -- Much of the text of the report is the same.
>
> -- The recommendations on diversity were deemed to be implemented by 
> consensus, they now show as having been implemented in the report.
>
> -- Executive Summary - the last sentence has been updated to reflect 
> that all recommendations have been deemed to be implemented by consensus.
>
> -- The Status Summary has been updated to reflect the work completed.
>
> -- May be worth mentioning in the timeline the caveat that the Council 
> still needs to provide approval.
>
> -- Timeline diagram has been updated to reflect update regarding 
> diversity recommendations.
>
> -- Background has been updated with additional background from the 
> Implementation Plan.
>
> -- Implementation Details: Charter on recommendations relating to 
> diversity are now reflected in this section.
>
> -- No additions suggested from the group.
>
> 3. GNSO Council Motion for adoption of the GNSO2 Review Implementation 
> Final Report:
>
> -- There is time before the motion deadline of 06 August before the 
> August GNSO Council meeting.
>
> -- Wolf-Ulrich provided feedback about the resolved clauses and raised 
> a question about when the WG would be disbanded.
>
> -- Staff response: the WG will not likely disband until the OEC and 
> the Board accept the final report. This would allow the WG to address 
> any final questions for the OEC.
>
> -- The resolved clauses do not specifically state that the WG will be 
> disbanded. Can the text remain as it is, or is any additional text 
> required?
>
> -- No additional text is required, but there should be clarity about 
> when the group is disbanded. At that point in time, the Council can 
> officially provide notice that the group is disbanded. This point 
> should be covered when the Council discusses the motion.
>
> -- Agreement that OEC approval should trigger disbanding the group.
>
> From the chat:
>
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Maybe an additional Res 5: The GNSO Council shall 
> decide to disband the WG after the Final Report has been approved by 
> the ICANN Board.???
>
> -- Staff will circulate the motion and Rafik will send the motion to 
> Council by 30 July.
>
> -- This WG was also chartered to replace the SCI, so delivering the 
> report is not the only task for the WG. The task of replacing the SCI 
> still exists and is included in the Charter.
>
> -- The other item in the motion is to do a new call for volunteers for 
> that group, but this may be premature. If this group is not being 
> disbanded until OEC consideration of the report, it may be appropriate 
> to delete the clause about the call for volunteers.
>
> -- Instead of tweaking the motion, perhaps it is helpful to send a 
> note to Council with issues that might be discussed by the Council in 
> considering the motion.
>
> From the chat:
>
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Charter: The GNSO Review Working Group will also 
> be responsible for considering any new requests1 by theGNSO Council 
> concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures 
> and to Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by 
> the GNSO Council, or a group charteredby the GNSO Council, as needing 
> discussion. However, the first priority of the Working Group will be 
> the development of an implementation plan and the subsequent 
> implementation so any such1 For items that are submitted for review 
> 'on request', the GNSO Review WG expects to receive detailed input 
> from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. 
> See request template.~ 2 ~requests should be reviewed to determine 
> urgency and/or linkage with the GNSO review recommendations to 
> determine the appropriate timing for dealing with such requests.
>
> -- This charter is only for the current WG and the current task.
>
> -- This implies that the charter is going to be fully revised as many 
> of the current provisions are not relevant for future work.
>
> -- If you do a general call for volunteers for future work without 
> identifying specific tasks or needs, you may not be able to get 
> volunteers.
>
> -- Are there expected items for this group in the near future? If not, 
> it may be better to wait and then do a call for volunteers when the 
> need arises.
>
> -- Question: By call for volunteers, would this be an open call or a 
> request for SG/Cs to reconfirm members?
>
> -- It would be a call for SG/Cs to either reconfirm or put forward new 
> candidates and alternates.
>
> -- It may make sense to hold off on a call for volunteers. The PDP 3.0 
> discussion may result in proposed changes to WG guidelines section 
> 3.7. There might be some work coming in the next couple of months, at 
> which point a call for volunteers may be appropriate.
>
> -- Agreement that the charter should be revised, but it may not need 
> to be revised to consider any proposed changes to GNSO Operating 
> Procedures and WG Guidelines.
>
> -- Should the WG take on the task of proposing revisions to the 
> charter/make a recommendation about the path forward or should it be 
> left to Council to determine next steps?
>
> -- The report should be considered separate from consideration of 
> additional items. Therefore, replace existing resolved 4 with "The 
> GNSO Council shall decide to disband the WG after the Final Report has 
> been approved by the ICANN Board."
>
> -- The person introducing the motion should present the options for 
> next steps to the Council, including the option of having a new call 
> for volunteers.
>
> -- Staff could provide a slide covering these points to share with 
> Could along with the motion and the report for Council to consider. 
> The slide will include options for next steps for this WG.
>
> 4. Review Assessment re: Long Term Options paper to adjust timelines 
> of reviews.  Questions:
>
> a. How much time should there be between reviews? (The Options paper 
> suggests that the next one will start no later than June 2021); and
>
> b. What if, anything, could be done to make the process more efficient 
> and effective?
>
> -- The GNSO Council is preparing comments regarding timeline of 
> reviews and options to adjust timelines.
>
> -- Donna Austin is leading the effort of drafting comments. She is 
> interested in any feedback from this group based on its experience 
> with the GNSO Review.
>
> -- The section on organizations reviews talks about this WG.
>
> -- Are there are efficiency improvements that can be derived from the 
> experience of this WG.
>
> -- The next GNSO review is scheduled to begin in 2021 per the Bylaws.
>
> From the chat:
>
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: I thought the next GNSO review is going to start 
> 2019, 5 years after the last one.
>
> Julie Hedlund: @Wolf-Ulrich: That's a good point.  I'll check that 
> with Donna.
>
> -- Noting that there was a considerable amount of time taken by some 
> of the interim steps, might there be an opportunity for the evaluator 
> to work concurrently with the Working Party to improve efficiency.
>
> -- One of the issues of working in parallel is that there have been 
> problems with the work of the independent examiner in some reviews.
>
> -- The four year, 8 month cycle derived from our experience indicates 
> that there are possibilities to discuss, perhaps timelines could be 
> shortened. Perhaps the implementation could be undertaken by staff 
> with some checkpoints where the results can be discussed by Council.
>
> From the chat:
>
> Rafik Dammak: there is time to be allowed to see how implementation 
> work and that should be factored in the timeline
>
> Rafik Dammak: @Wolf some recommendations concerns SG/C directly, staff 
> cannot make implementation plan on that area
>
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: @Rafik: Agreed. So it could be distinguished 
> between different types of work; more staff related vs more community 
> related
>
> Pascal Bekono: Concerning the question “What if, anything, could be 
> done to make the process more efficient and effective?”. I would like 
> to know if there are mechanisms which have been used in the past, so a 
> similar efficient approach could be implemented
>
> Kris Seeburn: i think points to be noted and have in hindsight and we 
> see how things move..
>
> -- Is it possible to use ICANN meetings to have concentrated strategic 
> discussions to save time on the reviews?
>
> -- These could be discussed further on the GNSO level.
>
> -- A lot of time was spent in the beginning reorganizing and sorting 
> the recommendations. Some of that work could be done by the 
> independent examiner or by Staff.
>
> -- A lot of the work of this group has been 
> organizational/administrative. There may be a way to leverage 
> volunteer time more efficiently, the process could be streamlined, by 
> putting more of this work on the consultant of staff.
>
> -- Even if we have an independent examiner or consultant do the work, 
> we may find that the work is not in sync with what is happening in the 
> GNSO or the current situation. So we need the community involvement.
>
> -- It is helpful to examine if the Working Party is the right vehicle.
>
> -- Examining resource management is useful, but the impact of this 
> work is important and the community needs to be closely and directly 
> involved.
>
> 5. AOB:  Next meeting will be scheduled as needed.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180817/1fe43bc2/attachment-0001.html>