[council] [Ext] Options to adjust timeline for specific and organisational reviews

Mon Jul 30 15:42:57 UTC 2018

I agree with Pam's observation.

Tony Harris

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
wrote:

> Hi Carlos, Donna
>
> Thank you for developing these comments.
>
> I tend to agree with Rafik re scope of this public comment.
>
> Re "The idea is to turn around the tortilla." -  Personally, I think
> SO/AC led self-review would make sense for the limited purpose of improving
> operational efficiency and effectiveness (as the example of the GNSO
> Council planning session on PDP 3.0). However, the goal of those
> organzational reviews mandated by ICANN By-laws is much broader,
> see excerpt below:
> *Section 4.4. PERIODIC REVIEW OF ICANN STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS*
>
> *(a) The Board shall cause a periodic review of the performance and
> operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting
> Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the
> Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee (as defined
> in Section 8.1) by an entity or entities independent of the organization
> under review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such
> criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i)
> whether that organization, council or committee has a continuing purpose in
> the ICANN structure, (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or
> operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness and (iii) whether that
> organization, council or committee is accountable to its constituencies,
> stakeholder groups, organizations and other stakeholders.*
> When determining 4.4.(a) (i) (ii) and (iii) above (purpose, structure and
> accountability of the SO/AC in question), it seems to me a self-review
> would not be appropriate as it would lack independence or impartiality.
> Maybe it can be a supplement to an external independent review but it
> should not be a substitute.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Pam
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sender:Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Sent at:2018 Jul 30 (Mon) 09:18
> To:Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
> Cc:"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" <carlosraulg at gmail.com>; Council GNSO <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject:Re: [council] [Ext] Options to adjust timeline for specific and
> organisational reviews
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Thanks for the response.
> I understand the intent with this role for SO/AC leaders. I cannot speak
> how it would work for other SO/AC but I guess we can elaborate more how it
> is expected to be done within GNSO? but maybe it is beyond the scope of
> this public comment which focused on timeline and planning issue and the
> question is more related to operating standards. no idea if that a new
> document will be put for community comment.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le lun. 30 juil. 2018 à 01:07, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <
> carlosraul at gutierrez.se> a écrit :
> Dear Rafik,
>
> Thanks for your quedtions/comments.
>
> ll organizational reviews start with the procurement by ICANN org of an
> "Independence" expert, which normally starts with a questionnaire to all
> parties, based in which the recommendations are developed.
>
> Then a very long discussion/implementation cycle starts. In the case of
> the GNSO 4 years. In the case of ALAC a protracted fight to disqualify all
> or most recommendations.
>
> The idea is to turn around the tortilla. Let the So/ACs leaderships think
> first about there bottlenecks and limitations. Let them choose the type of
> independent advice they need and write the specs. Then make better use of
> this external expertise, and instead of a protracted reoltuon of old
> conflicts, use them for a forward looking startegy.
>
> Just like the Council leadership has been doing in our case since the LA
> meeting.
>
> We have done in a few months much more progress that the GNSO Review in 4
> years!!!! It would be great if the resources of the organizational reviews
> could be used in this very efficient manner present GNSO council leadership
> has managed us through an invite project list and new arising issues.
>
> If the recommendation could be focused in that direction please feel free
> to edit as you wish. It should be a common effort.
>
> Have a nice Sunday or beginning of your week.
>
> Carlos
>
> On July 27, 2018 6:44:44 PM CST, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Hi Donna,
>
> thanks for the draft. I have some comments asking for clarifications:
> - "in terms of letting the independent expert (or  ̈coach ̈) to work in
> parallel with Working Party Team (or even the respective SO/AC Leadership)
> and collaborate towards a forward looking work strategy, instead of looking
> for and fixing past mistakes". I am not sure how this can work in practice
> or what can achieve. it is unclear to me what is the role of the
> independent expert in such context. can you please elaborate more?
> the deliverable of independent examiner of latest organizational reviews
> for the different SO/AC were of variable quality and scope.
> - I see that SO/AC leadership will be responsible for the organization
> review. but is it possible to know more what is the role description other
> than initiating and/or managing the budget? is the leadership will be
> tasked to set the terms for the reviews (as it was mentioned we don't have
> yet the operating standards yet). what is the relation vis-a-vis the
> working party?
> - for benchmarking, it is a good idea but I guess it will be only
> effective if all organizational reviews are done in a similar way which I
> don't think it is the case now. it will also need more work on metrics or
> criteria to be agreed on for testing against and benchmark.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le sam. 28 juil. 2018 à 01:18, Austin, Donna via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> a écrit :
>
> Thanks Julie, and thanks to the GNSO Review Working Group for their input.
>
>
>
> All the comment period closes on 31 July, so comments or concerns should
> be raised today if at all possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 27, 2018 6:39 AM
> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org
> *Cc:* Carlos Raul <carlosraulg at gmail.com>; Austin, Donna
> <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ext] Options to adjust timeline for specific and
> organisational reviews
>
>
>
> Dear GNSO Council members,
>
>
>
> Further to Donna’s message below, on behalf of the GNSO Review Working
> Group (WG) please see the attached revised version of the draft response.
> The comments from the WG appear at the bottom of page 3 and continue on the
> top of page 4.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> *From: *"Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>
> *Date: *Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 3:45 PM
> *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Cc: *Carlos Raul <carlosraulg at gmail.com>, Julie Hedlund <
> julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Options to adjust timeline for specific and
> organisational reviews
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
>
>
> On behalf of Carlos and I, please find attached for your consideration,
> our proposed draft response to ICANN’s Long-Term Options to Adjust the
> Timeline of Reviews that was posted for public comment until 31 July 2018.
>
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-long-term-timeline-2018-05-14-en
> [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_reviews-2Dlong-2Dterm-2Dtimeline-2D2018-2D05-2D14-2Den&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=WndtysIyhi_Eh-WkTzHsgfrB91JSBAg8XGbNppJSweo&s=haxmeO9jH5FoHzoCGn-1JdODnVmwt8yWxzPDnVuZv2Q&e=>
>
>
>
> Please note that I have also asked Julie Hedlund to share the proposed
> comments with the GNSO Review Team for consideration. As most of you know,
> the Review Team is finalizing what has been a 4+ years effort, and I
> believe it would be timely to be able to capture any comments they may wish
> to make regarding Organisational Reviews. The Review Team is meeting
> tomorrow and we hope to have comments back from them by Friday.
>
>
>
> With regard to the Short Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific
> Reviews, please consider the options available at the following link and
> respond to the list regarding preferences.
>
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/specific-
> reviews-short-term-timeline-fillable-form-06jun18-en.pdf [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_specific-2Dreviews-2Dshort-2Dterm-2Dtimeline-2Dfillable-2Dform-2D06jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=WndtysIyhi_Eh-WkTzHsgfrB91JSBAg8XGbNppJSweo&s=Yuk3c1yp-cMms72QgTigHTIWVSHueUU4gd0q3eKiHgc&e=>
>
>
>
> I suspect that it may not be possible for the Council to submit a comment
> on the Short-Term Options as I am already aware that the RySG will be
> supporting Option B, which is at odds with the views expressed by Ayden
> during out last Council call.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Donna
>
> *Donna Austin*
> *Neustar, Inc.*/Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions
> *Mobile:*+1 310 890 9655
> *donna.austin at team.neustar <donna.austin at team.neustar>* / *Website:*
> home.neustar [home.neustar]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.home.neustar_&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=WndtysIyhi_Eh-WkTzHsgfrB91JSBAg8XGbNppJSweo&s=poL08Sf6pF5_f54ctWgSyPD9OXw7jy0cZrn0M8wSJJI&e=>
>
>
>
> *Follow Neustar:*LinkedIn [linkedin.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_5349&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=WndtysIyhi_Eh-WkTzHsgfrB91JSBAg8XGbNppJSweo&s=Gds0ikOCHzXuB2JRYBCUEDtcotLrwKPGE8DYhUDQG_s&e=>
> */* Twitter [twitter.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_neustar&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=WndtysIyhi_Eh-WkTzHsgfrB91JSBAg8XGbNppJSweo&s=nPpIX33kiVoKLXP-rhqOgfsbXLSdwGfPoKxn9Pc5hoc&e=>
> Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary.
> ------------------------------
>
> The information contained in this email message is intended only for the
> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
> received this email message in error and any review, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
> delete the original message.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180730/3a50989b/attachment-0001.html>