[Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Fri May 4 20:23:36 UTC 2018
There's no doubt that the council should organize the review of the
strategic objectives. It is just a suggestion from a part of our team
that this may be done by the SCBO which reports back to the council -
provided that the council extends their mandate accordingly. From a
practical point of you an alternative option could be that the council
is every year looking for volunteers for the review who then feed back
to the council. A third option is an annual council discussion with MSSI
where both sides exchange views on how to keep their respective goals
aligned.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Am 04.05.2018 um 18:27 schrieb Sara Bockey:
>
> I agree… council is a better fit for this action.
>
> *sara bockey*
>
> *sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy^™ *
>
> *sbockey at godaddy.com <mailto: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: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, May 4, 2018 at 6:56 AM
> *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Cc: *Sara Bockey <sbockey at godaddy.com>, "gnso-review-wg at icann.org"
> <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final
> Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks Julie, indeed it should be reviewed by the full council and it
> takes ownership of that task. For timing, it can be possibly done
> after AGM as matter of strategical planning by the council.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2018, 2:10 PM Julie Hedlund
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for your comments. Do you have any suggestions for how the
> GNSO should address the review of ICANN’s Strategic Objectives if
> not under an expansion of the SCBO mandate? Should the GNSO
> create another body? Should it reviewed as the full Council? Is
> there another preferred method? Note that whether this is
> undertaken by some other method, or by an expansion of the SCBO,
> this recommendation will not be deemed implemented until that
> method or an SCBO charter expansion is implemented.
>
> Your thoughts are welcome.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> *From: *Rafik Dammak
> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:14 AM
> *To: *Julie Hedlund
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
> *Cc: *Sara Bockey
> <sbockey at godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>>,
> "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: *Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW:
> Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations
> 20 & 21
>
> 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<mailto: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<mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:59 PM
> *To: *Julie Hedlund
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>,
> "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: *[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 | **Go**Daddy^™ *
>
> *sbockey at godaddy.com*<mailto: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<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, May 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM
> *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] 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<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, April 26, 2018 at 2:02 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: 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<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
> 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/20180504/f200e733/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-review-wg
mailing list