[Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21

Fri May 4 13:31:16 UTC 2018

Hi

I would second those concerns
Budget committees should be operational not mission-setting.

Best,

Renata

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Julie,
>
> as I expressed it before, I am concerned about the expansion of SCBO mandate
> and mission. it was designed to cover ICANN budget-related matters, in
> particular, is post-IANA stewardship transition context. managing PDP
> resources, planning or setting the objectives remains a council task and the
> council had a fair long discussion during its strategical meeting in last
> January on how to improve things on those fronts.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le ven. 4 mai 2018 à 06:15, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> a écrit
> :
>>
>> Hi Sara,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for these very helpful comments and the suggested revised text.
>> I welcome WG members to comment on this suggestion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Julie
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Sara Bockey <sbockey at godaddy.com>
>> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:59 PM
>> 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] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft
>> Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Julie,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for the reminder.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding Recommendation 20, the following stands out to me and I’m not
>> sure is being appropriately addressed:
>>
>>
>>
>> “strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO
>> resources available for policy development.”
>>
>>
>>
>> To me, “resources available for policy development” includes volunteers
>> and not over burdening the few and creating burn out.
>>
>>
>>
>> While I like the direct of the solution, primarily expanding the scope of
>> the Standing Committee “so that it is also responsible for annually
>> reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the planning of
>> future GNSO activities is in alignment with these Strategic Objectives”,
>> this highlighted part seems off balance.  Perhaps rewording this to say:
>>
>>
>>
>> The scope of the Standing Committee could be expanded, so that it is also
>> responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring
>> that the Strategic Objectives and proposed GNSO policy development
>> activities are aligned with the GNSO resources.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just my 2 cents. I’ve read the Solution for Recommendation 20 three times
>> now and it’s just nagging at me… perhaps I’m overthinking it.  I’d be
>> interested to know what others think.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sara
>>
>>
>>
>> sara bockey
>>
>> sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™
>>
>> sbockey at godaddy.com  480-366-3616
>>
>> skype: sbockey
>>
>>
>>
>> This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by
>> the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If
>> you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender
>> and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its
>> attachments.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
>> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM
>> To: "gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation
>> Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a reminder to review the attached materials per the message below.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Julie
>>
>>
>>
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
>> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM
>> To: "gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter
>> for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>>
>>
>>
>> Per the action items and notes below from the call on 26 April, please
>> review the attached final draft GNSO Review Implementation Charter for
>> Recommendations 20 & 21 in Word and PDF.  As noted in the attached charter,
>> these are the recommendations for implementation:
>>
>>
>>
>> Recommendation 20: That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN’s
>> Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that
>> strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO
>> resources available for policy development.
>>
>> Recommendation 21: That the GNSO Council should regularly undertake or
>> commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast likely
>> requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well- represented
>> in the policy-making process.
>>
>>
>>
>> Working Group members are requested to respond to this review in two
>> weeks, by COB Wednesday, 09 May.  If no comments are received during the
>> review period staff will accept the changes and circulate the final version
>> of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Julie
>>
>>
>>
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Action Items and Notes GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 26
>> April 2018 at 13:00 UTC
>>
>>
>>
>> Action Items:
>>
>>
>>
>> Action Item 1: implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12: Staff
>> will correct typos identified by Wolf-Ulrich (see meeting notes for
>> details).
>>
>> Action Item 2: revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, &
>> 3: Staff will circulate the revised text of this implementation charter on
>> the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed
>> on the next call.
>>
>> Action Item 3: implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21: Staff
>> will circulate the text of this implementation charter on the mailing list.
>> Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call.
>>
>> Action Item 4: GNSO Council Update: Staff will circulate to the WG early
>> next week draft slides for the GNSO Council presentation in May.
>>
>>
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Review agenda/SOIs:
>>
>>
>>
>> -- This is a smaller group today. The call will proceed but no decisions
>> will be made.
>>
>> -- No updates to SOIs.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for
>> recommendations 7 & 12 (closing 26 April):
>>
>>
>>
>> -- The consensus call closes today. There have been no comments or
>> objections so far. If this continues to be the cases, the charter will be
>> deemed to be accepted by full consensus.
>>
>> -- Wolf-Ulrich identified small typos to correct (headline says “1,2,3”
>> and should say “7&12.” Number 3 “Translation of Documents” under “Solutions”
>> – typos in first and second lines: “translatin” should be “translating” and
>> “transition” should be “translation.”
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1,
>> 2, & 3:
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Staff has completed changes suggested on the call two weeks ago (see
>> redlined text).
>>
>> -- Staff suggests putting this text out for review by the group before
>> completing a consensus call on this implementation charter. The WG can
>> discuss any proposed changes raised on the mailing list during the call next
>> week.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. Continued discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations
>> 20 and 21:
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Recommendation 20: The scope of the Standing Committee on ICANN’s
>> Budget and Operations could be the structure through which the GNSO provides
>> feedback on the strategic plan. This would complement existing activities
>> associated with analyzing the budget.
>>
>> -- In the last WG meeting, it was suggested that the WG would update the
>> Council during the May Council Meeting. This proposal to expand the SCBO
>> charter could be raised. The status of recommendations related to GDPR and
>> Diversity (especially CCWG-Accountability recommendations on Diversity)
>> could also be included in this discussion.
>>
>> -- Recommendation 21: There are a number of initiatives underway to
>> collect data. This section outlines the existing data sources and describes
>> how the GNSO Council and Working Groups already access this data. It is not
>> anticipated that an additional formal mechanism is needed for the GNSO to
>> receive information about the efforts.
>>
>> -- Staff suggests circulating this charter for additional feedback by the
>> WG.
>>
>> -- Regarding Recommendation 20: Rafik made a comment during the last
>> meeting asking whether the SCBO is the right place to complete this review.
>> Wolf-Ulrich is fine with the proposed approach, but would like to give
>> everyone an opportunity to review and provide input.
>>
>> -- An alternative would be for the Council to take on this review itself
>> and possibly create an additional Standing Committee. This can be part of
>> the discussion with the GNSO Council on the May GNSO Council call.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. Discussion of the April Work Plan and proposed update to the GNSO
>> Council on 24 May:
>>
>>
>>
>> -- An additional item to discuss with the GNSO Council – any items with
>> budget implications will need to be considered by the GNSO Council.
>>
>> -- Staff has begun reviewing the CCWG-Accountability recommendations and
>> cross referencing them with GNSO Review recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36.
>> Staff will provide this analysis to the WG for the next WG meeting.
>>
>> -- The Board has not yet made a decision on the CCWG-Accountability
>> recommendations. This must be taken into consideration in drafting
>> implementation charters that reference CCWG-Accountability recommendations.
>> If WG implementation charters are tied to implementation of
>> CCWG-Accountability recommendations, the implementation will not be complete
>> until Board approval.
>>
>> -- It is also possible that the WG can make recommendations that are
>> complementary to, but not dependent on, the CCWG-Accountability
>> recommendations.
>>
>> -- Chat from Marika Konings to All Participants: whether implementation is
>> achieved for those recommendations may only be possible further in the
>> future as Board consideration is still some time out?
>>
>> -- Staff will gather more information about implementation of steps by the
>> ICANN Organization to address GDPR. Once additional information is available
>> on the details of these measures, staff will update the appropriate
>> implementation charters (26-29).
>>
>> -- Motions will potentially be needed for the GNSO Council to consider in
>> the June meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> 6. Next Meeting: 10 May 1300 UTC:
>>
>>
>>
>> -- In the next meeting, the WG should finalize the material it would like
>> to present to Council.
>>
>> -- Staff will provide a draft update to the Council early next week for
>> the WG to consider. The WG can review the slides and suggest changes in time
>> for the document deadline for the May 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-review-wg mailing list
> Gnso-review-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg