<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Thanks very much Julie!</p>
<p>The annex doesn't show redlines (at least my version).
Nevertheless the determination is clear to me. I wonder whether
we've ever added recommendations to our determinations. If so it
could mean that future action or decisions to take action are
expected (by the council?). Or isn't it more like an action item
for staff which doesn't need further deliberations?</p>
<p>I have to apologize most probably not attending the call tomorrow
(I hope Jen can do this) since celebrating the Chinese New Year
Festival that time.</p>
<p><font size="+1"><b>恭喜發財!</b></font><br>
</p>
Wolf-Ulrich<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.02.2018 um 22:58 schrieb Julie
Hedlund:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D82BA347-C0DD-4111-AABE-8FA1D756982C@icann.org">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailOriginalBody"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>Dear GNSO Review Working Group
members,</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Per Action Item 1 below, please
see for your review the attached revised charter for
Recommendation 22. In particular, please see the revised
text in redline in the Working Group Determination section
of the document, and as follows (new text in red and
brackets):</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>“The Working Group has reviewed
the existing ICANN-provided training options in the
context of a competency-based framework and has determined
that these address the recommendation that there should be
a competency-based framework to identify development needs
and opportunities. <span>[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.]</span>”</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Best regards,</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Julie</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Julie Hedlund, Policy
Director</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span> </span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span>Notes & Action Items
GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 08
February 2018 at 13:00 UTC </span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span>Action Items: </span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u><span>Action Item 1 (revised
implementation charter for recommendation 22):</span></u></span><span><span>
Staff will accept changes in the document and add text to
the GNSO Review Working Group determination recommending
accessibility of training, and in particular real-time
interaction through remote platforms. Staff will also add
language recommending that all of the trainings and
learning materials are linked from the GNSO website and
described in the context of the competency-based
framework. Staff will send these proposed changes on the
mailing list and invite feedback on proposed edits and for
discussion on the 15 February call.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u><span>Action Item 2 (revised
implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3</span></u></span><span><span>):
1) Collect additional information about the potential
budget reduction for the CROPP Program and reasons for
this. Move CROPP to #1. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u><span>Action Item 3 (revised
implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, &
3):</span></u></span><span><span> Staff will connect
with ICANN staff to understand links between regional
outreach, stakeholder journey, and some of the other
initiatives described in the implementation charter. In
revised text, focus on the manifestation of the outreach
in the regions rather than describing the program. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u><span>Action Item 4 (revised
implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3</span></u></span><span><span>):
Staff will get in touch with Secretariats of SG/Cs to get
more information about how they do outreach and whether
any metrics are available on these efforts. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u><span>Action Item 5 (revised
implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, &
3):</span></u></span><span><span> Add to metrics
section, a metric that looks at engagement/level of
activity/sustainability. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span>Notes:</span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>1. Review agenda/SOIs: No SOI
Updates.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>2. Status of Consensus Call for
revised implementation charter for recommendation 34:</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- A call for consensus was
opened 3 weeks ago. This was a longer consensus call due
to meetings over the last few weeks. The consensus call
will close later today. Staff will send an update once the
deadline has passed. If there are no comments or
objections, the implementation charter will be deemed to
be approved by full consensus.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>From the chat: </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Kris Seeburn: Please put down a
kind of attendance or metrics to see whether it is working</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- Staff clarified that
individual working groups do informal assessments
regarding attendance to ensure that rotation is serving
the intended purpose.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Kris Seeburn: ok that sounds
great......</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Sara Bockey: Yes, and I've seen
this happen :)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>3. Discussion of the revised
implementation charter for recommendation 22:</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- During the last meeting,
staff was asked to more clearly link the programs
available to a competency-based framework. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- Text describing the
framework has been added. Throughout text about individual
programs, specific references linking program elements to
the framework have also been added.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- The text now includes
additional references to existing programs and detailed
explanations of these programs.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- Question: The list of
opportunities is a mix of online and face-to-face
programs. Is this sufficiently clear in the text? Answer:
Some of these programs are exclusively online, whereas
others are a combination of online and face-to-face. Of
the online materials, some are static and others are more
interactive.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- There is a difference
between online and face-to-face programs. Face-to-face
programs will reach fewer people. Is it clear that the
ones that require in-person attendance require the
participants to physically be present?</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>The only program that requires
physical attendance is the ICANN Academy training. The
majority of the training does not require attendance
in-person. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>From the chat:</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Marika Konings: but there is
the ability to track 'attendance' for GNSO Learn, no? So
could it be made a requirement to take certain courses?</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Marika Konings: not in person I
mean, but that it has been taken</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Kris Seeburn: maybe we could do
face to face training plannings - perhaps that will help
the new members</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Kris Seeburn: i understand
...but if you see the list of elected sometimes you find
that many did not go through them....</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Lori Schulman: If there is a
requirement to take courses then are they all online?</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Lori Schulman: The Face2Face
Leadership program was very good. I was sorry that more
couldn't take it. There were no phone leadership courses
and I think that is a great idea.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- There are newcomer and
fellowship programs where community members are funded to
travel to ICANN meetings. These will also include some
training. These appear to have a somewhat different focus
(newcomers vs. Council members and WG members).</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- The opportunity to get
training should be as wide as possible to reach as many
stakeholders as possible. Ideally, as many courses as
possible should be available online. This could be a
recommendation from the group. Tracking is also important
to gather information about who has completed the courses
and whether the materials have been helpful to
participants. Is it possible to put text about these items
in the determination?</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- Additional support for
making materials available online. At the same time,
materials that are passively consumed are less helpful.
Adobe Connect sessions with live interaction are more
interactive. The most well-rounded trainings have a little
bit of everything: face-to-face, online static content,
dynamic online interaction (such as through Adobe
Connect).</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>From the chat: </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Kris Seeburn: when comes to
leadership it is a real challenge and also the
understanding of consensus</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Kris Seeburn: but i am in
support with wolf ulrich</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Marika Konings: Maybe providing
information on all the training available in an integrated
manner may already help?</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Kris Seeburn: ALAC is doing
that already</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- People may currently have
trouble finding appropriate learning opportunities. It may
be helpful to have a one-stop-shop with information about
all of the different opportunities, who is eligible, who
can apply/participate, and how participation takes place
(online, in-person, etc). This may be able to help people
to identify what is missing. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- See Action 1 reflecting next
steps regarding Recommendation 22.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>4. Discussion of the revised
implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3:</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- On the last call, staff was
asked to look at GNSO outreach efforts within SG/Cs and
the GNSO generally, add text regarding recommendations on
the use of metrics, and add text about reducing cost
barriers to participation. Staff added text on these
items. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- There is ongoing evaluation
of the fellows program and ongoing oversight within the
GNSO Council and SG/Cs. There is currently discussion
underway regarding the fellowship program in the context
of the FY19 Budget. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- With respect to metrics,
staff added text recommending ways to use metrics to
evaluate effectiveness (see 3: Suggested Metrics on page 3
of the implementation charter).</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- Question: CROPP appears to
be missing from 1, but appears in 3. Should it be included
in 1 because it is not only GNSO-related? Answer: Yes,
this should be moved. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- Question: How does the
Regional Outreach Program fit into the other elements
related to outreach? Answer: Additional information needs
to be gathered on this front. There are local events,
connections to institutions of higher learning, and other
activities. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- Under Stakeholder Group and
Constituency outreach, is it possible to provide
additional information about the activities. Each SG/C has
the information about outreach in different places. It can
be difficult to find this on the different websites. Is
there a way to improve this?</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- We should learn from the
experience of SG/Cs regarding outreach.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- Question from staff:
regarding metrics, would it be helpful to get SG/C input?
</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- Suggestion: contact the
secretariats of the SG/Cs about both metrics and outreach
measures?</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>-- Suggestion: include not only
in metrics on the number of new members but also try to
track engagement of members. The real success would be
having more active members, not just new members. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>From the chat: </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>Kris Seeburn: i would take
constituencies and break into region as well</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>5. Status of the Work Plan:
Update will be included in the call next week. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>6. Next Meeting: 15 February
1300 UTC (moved from 22 February due to conflict with GNSO
Council meeting).</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>7. AOB: None.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-review-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-review-wg@icann.org">Gnso-review-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>