[council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review

[Patrick Jones]

The concerns Chuck refers to were raised partly during the GNSO working sessions in Paris and also during the Cairo meeting. The gTLD Registries also sent a letter to Peter Dengate Thrush that was posted on ICANN's Correspondence page: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/maher-to-dengate-thrush-21oct08.pdf.

I'll respond to Stephane and Chuck's points by separate email.

Patrick


On 1/26/09 7:14 AM, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette at cov.com> wrote:

A number of us were not privy to the communications to staff regarding problems with the RSEP. Would either Staff or the RyC please share the examples provided?  Many thanks.



________________________________
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org  [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van  Gelder
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:08 AM
To: Patrick  Jones
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council]  Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review


Dear Patrick,

Although I am not as familiar  with the subject as Chuck undoubtedly is, I do tend to have to agree with his  concerns over seeing yet another review initiated if the process being  reviewed has already been identified as flawed.

I am also worried about  seeing staff decide a review is needed without being so directed by the Board  or by any action from the relevant SO Council, in this case the  GNSO.

Chuck mentions that staff was made aware of problems with RSEP  before and during the Cairo meeting. Could you explain why staff's reaction to  this was to feel an outside consultant need be hired and a full review process  initiated? Is it not feasible to try and address the problems that have been  brought to staff's attention first?

Thanks,

Stéphane Van  Gelder


Le 25/01/09 16:29, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes at verisign.com> a  écrit :


Patrick,

Please don't take my comments personally because as I stated  publicly in Cairo, I do not attribute my concerns to anything you did in  coordinating the RSEP.

Regular reviews of policy are a good practice, but in this case  it seems like overkill and a poor use of funds to hire a consultant to  evaluate the policy or the procedures.  In my opinion, Staff  implementation of the RSEP has already been identified as a problem and we  do not need a high priced consultant to point that out.  As stated in  your SoW, "The RSEP and its implementation were developed in  particular: To support a timely, efficient, and open process for the  evaluation of new registry services".  In 2008, we had at least three examples  where implementation of the RSEP was not timely, efficient or open.   All three examples were pointed out to ICANN Staff prior to Cairo and  in Cairo.  So again, we do not need a consultant to identify the  problem; it has already happened.

Those of us in the RyC believe that the RSEP procedures that  ICANN Staff should follow were clear, but obviously they were not clear  enough for ICANN Staff, otherwise we would not have seen the significant  delays that were experienced for three registry service proposals.   Therefore, maybe all we need to do is provide the clarity that ICANN  Staff seems to need.  That shouldn't be too difficult.  I think it  could be done in fairly short order by a small group of interested GNSO and  ICANN Staff with the opportunity for public comment.  It may not even  be necessary to amend the policy as long as the clarified procedures are  consistent with the policy as is, something that I sincerely believe is very  possible.

Chuck





________________________________
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org   [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]  On Behalf Of Patrick  Jones
Sent: Saturday, January  24, 2009 8:21 PM
To:  council at gnso.icann.org
Subject:  [council] Draft Statement of Work  for Funnel Review


Dear Council,

At the 20 November 2008 GNSO   Council meeting, ICANN staff alerted Council members that efforts  were  underway to initiate a review of the gTLD registry funnel  process - also known  as the Registry Services Evaluation Policy  (RSEP) - that was first implemented  in July 2006.

Staff  reminded Council members that the RSEP was  developed through the  GNSO's policy development process, and applies to all  gTLD  registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with   ICANN.

The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did  not call  for a periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of  the opinion that a  review is consistent with ICANN's continuing  efforts to evaluate and improve  policies and  procedures.

A draft statement of work regarding the   review has now been developed.  The document will be used to  identify and  retain a reviewer to evaluate the process as it has  worked to  date.

In view of the GNSO Council's critical  role in developing  the original RSEP, staff would like to give  Council members the opportunity to  review and comment on the draft  document. A copy of the draft SOW is attached.   Please feel  free to send any comments on the document directly to   me.

An announcement will be made when the SOW is  released and  subsequent announcements will be made when the reviewer  is selected and when  other milestones in the review process take  place.

Also, if you  are interested in being identified  as a possible contact for the review  process itself, please let me  know of your interest.  We hope to finalize  the SOW in late  February, so any comments should be submitted by 23 February  in  order to be incorporated.

Patrick


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090126/68ba9a27/attachment.html>