[Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: FOR REVIEW: Revised Charter for Recommendation 22

Wed Feb 14 14:52:07 UTC 2018

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

You raise a very good question.  We haven’t had recommendations in the Working Group deliberations.  However, I think that staff would take them to be an action that doesn’t need further deliberations.  For the linking of the training to the GNSO website that could be done quite easily and presented to the Working Group to review.  As to the recommendation on the type of training, I think staff would take that as a goal, as opposed to a mandate, but perhaps that should be clearer in the language.

We wish you a Happy Chinese New Year and note your apologies for tomorrow’s call if you cannot join us.

Kind regards,

Julie

From: "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 4:49 AM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised Charter for Recommendation 22

Thanks very much Julie!

The annex doesn't show redlines (at least my version). Nevertheless the determination is clear to me. I wonder whether we've ever added recommendations to our determinations. If so it could mean that future action or decisions to take action are expected (by the council?). Or isn't it more like an action item for staff which doesn't need further deliberations?

I have to apologize most probably not attending the call tomorrow (I hope Jen can do this) since celebrating the Chinese New Year Festival that time.

恭喜發財!

Wolf-Ulrich

Am 13.02.2018 um 22:58 schrieb Julie Hedlund:

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,

Per Action Item 1 below, please see for your review the attached revised charter for Recommendation 22.  In particular, please see the revised text in redline in the Working Group Determination section of the document, and as follows (new text in red and brackets):

“The Working Group has reviewed the existing ICANN-provided training options in the context of a competency-based framework and has determined that these address the recommendation that there should be a competency-based framework to identify development needs and opportunities.  [The Working Group recommends that training options should focus on accessibility of training, and in particular real-time interaction through remote platforms. The Working Group also recommends that all of the training and learning materials are linked from the GNSO website and described in the context of the competency-based framework.]”

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 08 February 2018 at 13:00 UTC 

Action Items: 

Action Item 1 (revised implementation charter for recommendation 22): Staff will accept changes in the document and add text to the GNSO Review Working Group determination recommending accessibility of training, and in particular real-time interaction through remote platforms. Staff will also add language recommending that all of the trainings and learning materials are linked from the GNSO website and described in the context of the competency-based framework. Staff will send these proposed changes on the mailing list and invite feedback on proposed edits and for discussion on the 15 February call.

Action Item 2 (revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3): 1) Collect additional information about the potential budget reduction for the CROPP Program and reasons for this. Move CROPP to #1. 

Action Item 3 (revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3): Staff will connect with ICANN staff to understand links between regional outreach, stakeholder journey, and some of the other initiatives described in the implementation charter. In revised text, focus on the manifestation of the outreach in the regions rather than describing the program. 

Action Item 4 (revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3): Staff will get in touch with Secretariats of SG/Cs to get more information about how they do outreach and whether any metrics are available on these efforts. 

Action Item 5 (revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3): Add to metrics section, a metric that looks at engagement/level of activity/sustainability. 

Notes:

1. Review agenda/SOIs: No SOI Updates.

2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendation 34:

-- A call for consensus was opened 3 weeks ago. This was a longer consensus call due to meetings over the last few weeks. The consensus call will close later today. Staff will send an update once the deadline has passed. If there are no comments or objections, the implementation charter will be deemed to be approved by full consensus.

>From the chat: 

Kris Seeburn: Please put down a kind of attendance or metrics to see whether it is working

-- Staff clarified that individual working groups do informal assessments regarding attendance to ensure that rotation is serving the intended purpose.

Kris Seeburn: ok that sounds great......

Sara Bockey: Yes, and I've seen this happen :)

3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22:

-- During the last meeting, staff was asked to more clearly link the programs available to a competency-based framework. 

-- Text describing the framework has been added. Throughout text about individual programs, specific references linking program elements to the framework have also been added.

-- The text now includes additional references to existing programs and detailed explanations of these programs.

-- Question: The list of opportunities is a mix of online and face-to-face programs. Is this sufficiently clear in the text?  Answer: Some of these programs are exclusively online, whereas others are a combination of online and face-to-face. Of the online materials, some are static and others are more interactive.

-- There is a difference between online and face-to-face programs. Face-to-face programs will reach fewer people. Is it clear that the ones that require in-person attendance require the participants to physically be present?

The only program that requires physical attendance is the ICANN Academy training. The majority of the training does not require attendance in-person. 

>From the chat:

Marika Konings: but there is the ability to track 'attendance' for GNSO Learn, no? So could it be made a requirement to take certain courses?

Marika Konings: not in person I mean, but that it has been taken

Kris Seeburn: maybe we could do face to face training plannings  - perhaps that will help the new members

Kris Seeburn: i understand ...but if you see the list of elected sometimes you find that many did not go through them....

Lori Schulman: If there is a requirement to take courses then are they all online?

Lori Schulman: The Face2Face Leadership program was very good.  I was sorry that more couldn't take it.  There were no phone leadership courses and I think that is a great idea.

-- There are newcomer and fellowship programs where community members are funded to travel to ICANN meetings. These will also include some training. These appear to have a somewhat different focus (newcomers vs. Council members and WG members).

-- The opportunity to get training should be as wide as possible to reach as many stakeholders as possible. Ideally, as many courses as possible should be available online. This could be a recommendation from the group. Tracking is also important to gather information about who has completed the courses and whether the materials have been helpful to participants. Is it possible to put text about these items in the determination?

-- Additional support for making materials available online. At the same time, materials that are passively consumed are less helpful. Adobe Connect sessions with live interaction are more interactive. The most well-rounded trainings have a little bit of everything: face-to-face, online static content, dynamic online interaction (such as through Adobe Connect).

>From the chat: 

Kris Seeburn: when comes to leadership it is a real challenge and also the understanding of consensus

Kris Seeburn: but i am in support with wolf ulrich

Marika Konings: Maybe providing information on all the training available in an integrated manner may already help?

Kris Seeburn: ALAC is doing that already

-- People may currently have trouble finding appropriate learning opportunities. It may be helpful to have a one-stop-shop with information about all of the different opportunities, who is eligible, who can apply/participate, and how participation takes place (online, in-person, etc). This may be able to help people to identify what is missing. 

-- See Action 1 reflecting next steps regarding Recommendation 22.

4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3:

-- On the last call, staff was asked to look at GNSO outreach efforts within SG/Cs and the GNSO generally, add text regarding recommendations on the use of metrics, and add text about reducing cost barriers to participation. Staff added text on these items. 

-- There is ongoing evaluation of the fellows program and ongoing oversight within the GNSO Council and SG/Cs. There is currently discussion underway regarding the fellowship program in the context of the FY19 Budget. 

-- With respect to metrics, staff added text recommending ways to use metrics to evaluate effectiveness (see 3: Suggested Metrics on page 3 of the implementation charter).

-- Question: CROPP appears to be missing from 1, but appears in 3. Should it be included in 1 because it is not only GNSO-related?  Answer: Yes, this should be moved.  

-- Question: How does the Regional Outreach Program fit into the other elements related to outreach? Answer: Additional information needs to be gathered on this front. There are local events, connections to institutions of higher learning, and other activities. 

-- Under Stakeholder Group and Constituency outreach, is it possible to provide additional information about the activities. Each SG/C has the information about outreach in different places. It can be difficult to find this on the different websites. Is there a way to improve this?

-- We should learn from the experience of SG/Cs regarding outreach.

-- Question from staff: regarding metrics, would it be helpful to get SG/C input? 

-- Suggestion: contact the secretariats of the SG/Cs about both metrics and outreach measures?

-- Suggestion: include not only in metrics on the number of new members but also try to track engagement of members. The real success would be having more active members, not just new members. 

>From the chat: 

Kris Seeburn: i would take constituencies and break into region as well

5. Status of the Work Plan: Update will be included in the call next week. 

6. Next Meeting: 15 February 1300 UTC (moved from 22 February due to conflict with GNSO Council meeting).

7. AOB: None.

_______________________________________________
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/20180214/1160efc5/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/20180214/1160efc5/smime-0001.p7s>