[Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 01 March 2018

Fri Mar 2 12:24:24 UTC 2018

All,

I did a short analysis wrt to potential language interpretation and 
transscription costs (see attached). The calculation of meetings is 
taken from the GNSO calendar 2017 
(https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2017). It is just 
WGs and WTs, no SG- or Constituency-specific meetings, no council meetings.

Under the assumptions made an additional budget of around 100 k$ may be 
needed. Everybody can "play" with the input parameters in the Excel 
sheet. E.g. if a "big" WG like SubPro doesn't request interpretation it 
would significantly reduce the cost.

Maybe other scenarios are more realistic. We should discuss them.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

Am 01.03.2018 um 16:58 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
>
> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>
> Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by 
> staff from the meeting on 01 March 2018.  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/2018.
>
> Please note that the next meeting will occur on 29 March either at 
> 1200 or 1300 UTC (time to be determined via separate message).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> **
>
> *Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 
> 01 March 2018 at 13:00 UTC *
>
> *Action Items: *
>
> _Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22_:
>
> Action Item 1: Staff will update the organization of training 
> materials on the GNSO website. Staff will update the WG Determination 
> that take into account that there are already trainings that are 
> accessible and include real-time interaction. The WG Determination 
> will note that staff will update the website and will link to the 
> updated GNSO webpage when it is ready.  Staff will put the changes out 
> for a 3-week Consensus Call.
>
> _Implementation Charter for Recommendations 1, 2, & 3_:
>
> Action Item 2: Staff will add information about Council comment on 
> CROP to the implementation charter once posted to public forum. Staff 
> will also add text based on additional feedback that may be received 
> on SG/C outreach.
>
> Action Item 3: Staff will adjust the text of the "note" on page 4 to 
> be more neutral regarding dues collected. Staff will also add text 
> clarifying how dues are used within the BC with respect to voting.
>
> Action Item 4: Staff will add text to the charter elaborating on the 
> link between GSE activities and recruitment for PDP WGs.
>
> _Implementation Charter for Recommendations 7 & 12_:
>
> Action Item 5: Update implementation charter title to "Language 
> Translation and Transcription."
>
> Action Item 6: Staff will add text about the translation of written 
> material, including benefits, uses, and costs.
>
> Action Item 7: Staff will add some possible scenarios outlining the 
> costs if GNSO WGs began using translation on their calls.
>
> _Update to the GNSO Council_:
>
> Action Item 8: Remove the target end date of June 2018 from the status 
> update to the GNSO Council.
>
> _Next Meeting_:
>
> Action Item 9: Staff will send a note to the list asking whether the 
> next meeting on 29 March should take place at 12:00 UTC or 13:00 UTC 
> (due to US change to Daylight Saving Time on 11 March 2018).
>
> *Notes:*
>
> 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates.
>
> 2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for 
> recommendation 34:
>
> -- The consensus call ended on 8 February. No objections were raised 
> to the text for this implementation charter.
>
> -- This recommendation is seen as implemented. The work is complete on 
> this recommendation.
>
> 3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22:
>
> -- This charter has been updated based on previous discussions.
>
> -- The change discussed on the call on the 8th was to make minor 
> updates to the WG determination.
>
> -- Two additional sentences have been added to the end of this section 
> "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."
>
> -- Earlier in the document, the trainings are organized into a 
> framework. The recommendation states that information about the 
> trainings should be organized following this framework on the GNSO 
> website.
>
> -- Question: The WGs mandate is to finalize the implementation. Should 
> we simply make a recommendation or should the WG take additional steps 
> to implement the work itself in collaboration with staff?
>
> -- Response: Even if it says "recommend" this does not include a 
> mandate, noting that many trainings have the recommended features. 
> Staff can go ahead an updating the GNSO website as recommended by the WG.
>
> -- Question: someone reading this recommendation may wonder if the 
> recommendation will be followed. It is possible that the 
> recommendation will be implemented or can only be implemented under 
> certain circumstances.
>
> -- The changes suggested in Action Item 1 will be circulated and go 
> out for consensus call. The WG will aim to have the consensus call 
> closed by the next WG meeting after ICANN61.
>
> 4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for 
> recommendations 1, 2, & 3:
>
> -- During the last meeting, staff was asked to make additional edits.
>
> -- Staff investigated the CROP program and updated text on this 
> program based on status of the FY19 budget. The draft FY19 budget does 
> not include funding for CROP.
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> Marika Konings: Note that this is also input that the Council is 
> considering in relation to the FY19 budget (focus on KPIs and metrics 
> for outreach programs)
>
> -- Staff added content about Global Stakeholder Engagement.
>
> -- Staff investigated outreach conducted by SG/Cs and added text based 
> on responses received.
>
> -- Additional text was included on suggested metrics based on feedback 
> from the WG.
>
> -- Question: The note regarding BC and IPC dues may be confusing. The 
> justification and rationales are not included. Could this text be 
> worded in a more neutral manner. For example " There are 
> Constituencies that collect dues . .."
>
> -- Question: How is GSE linked to recruiting more participants to GNSO 
> PDP WGs? Some community members are not clear about the link.
>
> -- Response: Staff will add language about this link.
>
> -- Feedback: The community onboarding program may be useful to include 
> in this implementation charter.
>
> -- Clarification: Membership dues allow members to reach decisions in 
> the BC. While voting is not always used, when voting does take place, 
> different members have a different number of votes based on the dues 
> they pay.
>
> 5. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12:
>
> -- Staff had an action item to update text regarding current language 
> services and costs. This text has been updated.
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> Rafik Dammak: if I am not mistaking the budget for FY19 includes 
> reduction on interpretation and translation service to be provided. 
> captioning seems the more reasonable option for now
>
> -- The implementation charter includes possible approaches to using 
> language services.
>
> -- Question: is this charter only covering interpretation services or 
> also document translation services?
>
> -- Answer: because recommendation 7 is broad, the implementation 
> charter should likely also include text about document translation.
>
> -- Question: If it is up to the WGs to determine the extent to which 
> they use translation, what will be the impact on the budget? Could we 
> check to see how many times GNSO WGs met last year and calculate the 
> potential costs of using these services if X% chose to use translation 
> services?
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> Marika Konings: @Wolf-Ulrich - the costs of that would be substantial 
> so it would be a question of priorities for the GNSO/Council.
>
> Rafik Dammak: we used interpretation to french and spanish at ccwg 
> diveristy subgroup in the last calls, few people used  it...and we got 
> people asking for it
>
> Marika Konings: I recall that the CCWG-WS1 also 'demanded' 
> interpretation for its calls, but a review of the numbers of users 
> also showed that on many calls there were zero or just 1 or 2 people 
> on one or more of the languages offered.
>
> Marika Konings: maybe some more awareness of the costs involved may 
> ensure that it is a more conscious decision when interpretation is 
> asked (and used)
>
> Rafik Dammak: interpretation for weinars make sense since the number 
> of attendees is much higher
>
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: that's why we need a "solid" scenario, Marika
>
> Marika Konings: @Rafik - but my personal view is that it should be 
> demand driven, even for webinars.
>
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: demand should be estimated by the WG
>
> Marika Konings: @Wolf-Ulrich, but it is probably for the Council to 
> oversee if/how resources are used, as this would add a significant 
> cost which would need to be funded from something else noting the 
> budget situation we are in?
>
> 6. Discussion of the updated Work Plan:
>
> -- Anticipated for 29 March: Recommendations 22, 7, 12, 20, and 21 as 
> well as revisiting recommendations 26-29 which have been on hold 
> pending additional information about GDPR implementation.
>
> -- In April, the WG will revisit recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36 
> which have been on hold pending work from the CCWG Accountability 
> sub-group on diversity.
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> Rafik Dammak: diveristy final recommendations passed the first reading 
> yesterday
>
> Rafik Dammak: close to be approved
>
> -- The goal is for all recommendations to be implemented in June 2018. 
> The WG will provide a Final Implementation Status Report to OEC and 
> the GNSO Council.
>
> -- Additional time may be needed for implementation of some of the 
> outstanding items.
>
> 7. Planning for Update to GNSO Council:
>
> -- Status report will be provided to the GNSO Council. This item is 
> not currently on the GNSO Council agenda for ICANN61 but could be 
> added under AOB.
>
> -- Suggestion: Do not include the internal June 2018 target date in 
> the Council update.
>
> 8. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 
> 21 (time permitting):  This item was not covered.
>
> 9. Next Meeting: 29 March 1300 UTC: Staff will send a note to the list 
> asking whether the next meeting should take place at 12:00 UTC or 
> 13:00 UTC.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180302/9c05fb0d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: language cost scenario.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 11464 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20180302/9c05fb0d/languagecostscenario-0001.xlsx>