[Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Implementation Final Report/Motion/Slides
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Mon Jul 30 20:57:01 UTC 2018
All,
I'm fine with the report and the motion. I think Rafik - in presenting
the motion - can very clearly cover the notes.
Thank you and best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Am 30.07.2018 um 21:49 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
>
> Thanks Kris! We’ve tried to capture those notes in the slides.
>
> Best,
>
> Julie
>
> *From: *Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, July 30, 2018 at 9:02 AM
> *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised
> Implementation Final Report/Motion/Slides
>
> I do not think much to add but ensure that wolf-ulrich’s concern is
> taken on board. The question being the charter and also disbanding of
> the group potentially and the different points for rafik to take on
> board to discuss. Be it as note for staff and review for GNSO and
> BOARD. I am just trying to remind so that we do not lose sight of the
> discussion.
>
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2018, at 16:53, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto:gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Julie
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
> *Date:*Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 2:05 PM
> *To:*"gnso-review-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-review-wg at icann.org>"
> <gnso-review-wg at icann.org <mailto: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 Working Group Implementation Final Report 30 July
> 2018 FINAL.pdf><GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report 26 July
> 2018-redline.docx><Motion – Adoption of GNSO Review Working Group
> Implementation Final Report DRAFT 26 July 2018.docx><Motion –
> Adoption of GNSO Review Working Group Implementation Final Report
> DRAFT 26 July 2018-redline.docx><GNSO2 Review Implementation Final
> Report 26 July
> 2018.docx><smime.p7s>_______________________________________________
> Gnso-review-wg mailing list
> Gnso-review-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg_______________________________________________
> Gnso-review-wg mailing list
> Gnso-review-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kris Seeburn
> seeburn.k at gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>
> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ [linkedin.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_kseeburn_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=qWE_HonAZQiNCRrJpJOSytjx3AqB4oAeU903Q7i5muk&s=hsYOSTYoi1vJAywTqVoIi3yvypf9oa7GiWOB-nPab_4&e=>
>
> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
>
> cid:2B3C052F-D6B4-4773-9116-D703ACE1C1A9
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180730/d2c17c6d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-review-wg
mailing list