[Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WGMeeting on 01 March 2018
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Fri Mar 2 16:59:08 UTC 2018
Thanks Marika,
Happy to see any more precise calculations!
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Original-Nachricht-----
Von: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> >
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO
Review WGMeeting on 01 March 2018
Datum: 02.03.2018, 16:10 Uhr
An: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com> >,
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> >
CC: gnso-review-wg at icann.org <gnso-review-wg at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-review-wg at icann.org> >
Thanks, Wolf-Ulrich, this definitely provides an indication of costs, but
please note that other factors need to be considered such as additional
phone lines, change of phone provider as Verizon cannot accommodate
interpretation, longer WG meetings as interventions in other languages will
need to be translated back to English as well as additional staff support
to set up and arrange interpreted calls.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 08:44
To: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com>, "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben"
<wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Cc: "gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO
Review WGMeeting on 01 March 2018
Many thanks Wolf-Ulrich for creating this very helpful calculation! It is
a very good tool to help the Working Group in its discussions.
Kind regards,
Julie
From: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 8:24 AM
To: "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Cc: 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] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO
Review WGMeeting on 01 March 2018
HI,
The calculations makes sense. What i am wondering whether ICANN org can
afford. Looking at the financials. Perhaps we add Financials permitting
On Mar 2, 2018, at 16:24, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben <
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>
[Boxbe][boxbe.com]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.boxbe.com_overview&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=O4vAeoCVL1urtl9unYmEA1oeMDuDqzsI6rPUlSPFcKk&s=DHr2imtz30nDA8nI3BTrRWZMGBE8k3eAW0uKSLhRu5k&e=>
[http://www.boxbe.com/stfopen?tc_serial=37155819935&tc_rand=1838458403&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD&utm_content=001]
This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
) Add cleanup rule[boxbe.com]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.boxbe.com_popup-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.boxbe.com-252Fcleanup-253Fkey-253DNlAPQZ1xGiHWXUud11JRuiocIeC1cJYQtJBstdntev0-25253D-2526token-253DR-25252BlF72ZwHeWejBXwzp2MqA8m7dxHyZMVZzLuXmn4rPgA0R-25252BFTPscWVtUlJ9ljdR9cqqJ-25252FvEFumqaGzpbHT-25252F65usw2uHtgBjagYGuHplwjYsaxmTrXn2YQzSQHIVQmpkz1Gu8GzTQTNNT3KPjppAEYHbRbawaNRkC-26tc-5Fserial-3D37155819935-26tc-5Frand-3D1838458403-26utm-5Fsource-3Dstf-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DANNO-5FCLEANUP-5FADD-26utm-5Fcontent-3D001&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=O4vAeoCVL1urtl9unYmEA1oeMDuDqzsI6rPUlSPFcKk&s=FHx_DN_S18D_CTb46ME1P1snd-WqBlLLkY4XaEh4tds&e=>
| More info[blog.boxbe.com]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.boxbe.com_general_boxbe-2Dautomatic-2Dcleanup-3Ftc-5Fserial-3D37155819935-26tc-5Frand-3D1838458403-26utm-5Fsource-3Dstf-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DANNO-5FCLEANUP-5FADD-26utm-5Fcontent-3D001&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=O4vAeoCVL1urtl9unYmEA1oeMDuDqzsI6rPUlSPFcKk&s=3UkB2MiSaP6ABz3AwT14FDj8a_HnM6uCclmOytug-1w&e=>
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[gnso.icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar_2017&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=O4vAeoCVL1urtl9unYmEA1oeMDuDqzsI6rPUlSPFcKk&s=MFMBqRh6RukOSC3mfACMlnw--Eurvog07Tlvrk0HeS0&e=>
). 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,
Â
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[community.icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_GRWG_2018&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=O4vAeoCVL1urtl9unYmEA1oeMDuDqzsI6rPUlSPFcKk&s=21d2uEgknONlgurVCCbRKXLJOrT6Qt1yaKUsJvxsr0c&e=>
.
Â
Please note that the next meeting will occur on 29 March either at
1200 or 1300 UTC (time to be determined via separate message).
Â
Best regards,
Julie
Â
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Â
Â
Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday,
01 March 2018 at 13:00 UTC
Â
Action Items:
Â
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. Â Staff
will put the changes out for a 3-week Consensus Call.
Â
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.
Â
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.
Â
Update to the GNSO Council:
Action Item 8: Remove the target end date of June 2018 from the
status update to the GNSO Council.
Â
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).
Â
Notes:
Â
1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates.
Â
2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for
recommendation 34:
Â
-- 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.
Â
3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for
recommendation 22:
Â
-- 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.
Â
4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for
recommendations 1, 2, & 3:
Â
-- 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.
Â
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)
Â
-- 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.
Â
5. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 7 &
12:
Â
-- Staff had an action item to update text regarding current
language services and costs. This text has been updated.
Â
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
Â
-- 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?
Â
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?
Â
6. Discussion of the updated Work Plan:
Â
-- 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.
Â
Chat excerpt:
Rafik Dammak: diveristy final recommendations passed the first
reading yesterday
Rafik Dammak: close to be approved
Â
-- 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.
Â
7. Planning for Update to GNSO Council:
Â
-- 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.
Â
8. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20
and 21 (time permitting):Â This item was not covered.
Â
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 <mailto:Gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg>
<language cost
scenario.xlsx>_______________________________________________
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>
* www.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=O4vAeoCVL1urtl9unYmEA1oeMDuDqzsI6rPUlSPFcKk&s=W1eyPVnqutJ7uv8ETRvNlCPWCZkfNVRC4hHe8Qpl_jQ&e=>
"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
[cid:2B3C052F-D6B4-4773-9116-D703ACE1C1A9]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20180302/6f3da0a1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 51492 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20180302/6f3da0a1/image001-0001.gif>
More information about the Gnso-review-wg
mailing list