[council] Fwd: [soac-chairs] [Ext] MSSI Support for SSR2-RT

Mon Feb 26 11:13:27 UTC 2018

Dear colleagues,

Please see below the response from Theresa Swineheart to the SO/AC Chairs'
request for additional support from ICANN org to SSR2-RT.

Best wishes,

Heather
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>
Date: Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [soac-chairs] [Ext] MSSI Support for SSR2-RT
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Cc: Goran Marby <goran.marby at icann.org>, Board SSR2 Caucus <
board-caucus-ssr2 at icann.org>, SOAC Chairs <soac-chairs at icann.org>, Khaled
Koubaa <Khaled.koubaa at board.icann.org>, "Larisa B. Gurnick" <
larisa.gurnick at icann.org>

Dear Alan,

Thank you for your letter regarding the SSR2 Review and your thoughtful
suggestions for how we might enhance certain processes in support of that
review. We recognize that review support is an important component of
project management discipline. As part of our continuous effort to review
and focus on project management enhancement, we have applied several
improved practices to other reviews since the SSR2 review was paused. Such
enhancements include among others:

   - Provision of templates for Terms of Reference
   <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64084100/RDS-WHOIS2%20-%20Terms%20of%20Reference.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1519054677000&api=v2>
    and Work Plan
   <https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/Work+Plan?preview=/64084086/79435660/RDS-WHOIS2%20Work%20Plan.pdf>
   .
   - Improved note-taking process
   <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/77529239/Plenary%20Call%20%2317%20Recap.docx?version=2&modificationDate=1518105457000&api=v2>,
   whereby MSSI staff provide a recap of action items and decisions at the end
   of each call, to ensure consensus on items discussed. A short summary of
   each agenda item is also provided.
   - Recording of anticipated completion dates to support increased
   accountability for response to review team requests. MSSI staff work with
   the appropriate subject matter experts (SME) at the time of the request to
   provide an anticipated completion date, to be recorded on the Tracking
   Tool <https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/Tracking+Tool> along with
   dates of all related activity. This process supports increased
   accountability regarding ICANN org response times to review team requests
   and will contribute to more meaningful measurements of responsiveness.

These enhancements are aligned also with the suggestions and we’ve received
positive feedback from the review team experiencing these enhancements.

We also understand the need for a better-defined escalation processes in
the event of critical issues resulting from review team request.  We would
like to invite discussion with the review team and the community on this to
gain further clarity on the proposal and determine how this could best be
applied efficiently and consistently across all reviews. Once determined,
these processes may also be captured in the operating standards.

We plan to incorporate these and additional improved practices across all
reviews to support effective and successful conduct of reviews in a
systematized and predictable manner.

We look forward to working with the SSR2 Review Team and the SO/AC Chairs
in this next phase of the SSR2 review.

Kind regards,

Theresa

*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
*Date: *Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 20:08
*To: *Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>
*Cc: *Khaled Koubaa <Khaled.koubaa at board.icann.org>, SOAC Chairs <
soac-chairs at icann.org>, Board-Caucus-SSR2 <board-caucus-ssr2 at icann.org>
*Subject: *[Ext] MSSI Support for SSR2-RT

Dear Theresa,

This letter is being sent on behalf of the SO/AC Chairs.

Based on discussions with the SSR2 Review Team (RT) at ICANN60, a
confidential survey conducted by the SO/AC Chairs of RT members, and
one-on-one discussions between RT members and their respective SO/AC
leaders, our understanding is that there are two areas where the RT
believes that they could benefit from enhanced MSSI support.

1.       *Better records of RT meetings, both face-to-face and
teleconferences*. Currently MSSI support provides a record of decisions
made by the RT and Action Items (for both RT members and MSSI staff). In
addition to these current efforts, the Review Team requests that high-level
notes of discussions be captured during the meetings, similar to the notes
that are taken by staff for many CCWG meeting discussions as well as for
GNSO PDPs, and comparable to the records of Board discussions that often
form a part of Board minutes. The SO/AC Chairs consider that this request
is reasonable.

2.       *Improved response to RT requests*. RT members have expressed a
concern that ICANN (via MSSI staff) has been slow in providing answers to
questions and further information. Clearly this is a subjective issue, both
in regard to how quickly responses should be provided and to what extent
requests are reasonable and able to be addressed within the expected
response time. Nevertheless, as it has been identified as a concern of RT
members and is potentially hindering the RT?s effectiveness, we believe
that this should be addressed. The SO/AC Chairs suggest the following:

a)      For all requests for information (which are already logged as MSSI
Action Items), MSSI to the extent practical should estimate expected
response time and track response time.

b)      When a response cannot meet expectations, the RT should be notified
with an amended expectation and explanation for the extended time needed.

c)       If the RT or RT leadership believes that the response or response
time in any given instance is unsatisfactory, this should be raised with
MSSI staff.

d)      If the question cannot be responded to or requires clarification,
or if ICANN org for some other reasons does not feel the request is
appropriate, MSSI must flag this as a ?critical issue? to be addressed.
Such ?critical issues? may also be raised by RT leadership, RT members,
MSSI or other ICANN staff in the event of a disagreement on resources or
information availability. To the extent possible, a rationale should be
clearly expressed to enable the RT to understand the situation.

e)      Any such ?critical issue? should be explicitly noted as an Action
Item. A small group consisting of the Board Liaison to the RT, one member
of MSSI staff and one from the RT leadership (or one that the RT leadership
appoints) will work to either ensure that adequate resources are made
available or RT expectations are reset at a more appropriate level or
whatever other action is appropriate to allow the issue be resolved.
Immediately when a ?critical issue? is raised, the OEC and SO/AC Chairs
should be notified, and both OEC and SO/AC Chairs should, if at least one
of the three persons in the subgroup so requests, help by having a
representative participate in the discussions.

f)       the process above should be considered for inclusion in the
Operating Standards.

We would appreciate your thoughts on these proposals.

Sent on behalf of:

Alan Greenberg, Chair, ALAC
Paul Wilson, Chair, ASO
Katrina Sataki, Chair, ccNSO
Manal Ismail, Chair, GAC
Heather Forrest, Chair, GNSO
Tripti Sinha, Co-Chair, RSSAC
Brad Verd, Co-Chair, RSSAC
Rod Rasmussen, Chair, SSAC

_______________________________________________
soac-chairs mailing list
soac-chairs at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-chairs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180226/c5c6939e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2059 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180226/c5c6939e/smime.p7s>