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

Pam Little pam.little at alibaba-inc.com
Tue Jul 31 00:53:41 UTC 2018

Hi Donna, Carlos

I understand the need for us to take a more holistic look at these reviews and support most of the draft. 

However, the draft and the proposed framework (see Key drivers in the Annex) seems to only recongzie "Internal effectiveness" as the goal while, in fact, ccontinuing purpose in the ICANN structure and accountability are also part of the goal (which I firmly believe should be done by an independent body, not the SO/AC itself or its leadership).

Specific Reviews (SRs)
Organizational Reviews (ORs)
Policy development work

key drivers 
External accountability 
Internal effectiveness 
Market driven 
I attach some proposed language for your consideration but I would be happy to support the previous version as I realise we are pressed for time.

Kind regards,


Sender:Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>
Sent at:2018 Jul 31 (Tue) 02:33
To:Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris at gmail.com>; PAMELA LITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
Cc:Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>; council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
Subject:RE: [council] [Ext] Options to adjust timeline for specific and organisational reviews

Thanks Pam, Rafik and Tony for your input; and Carlos for your responses.

I’m not sure how to amend the Council comments in order to adequately address your respective concerns. We could acknowledge that our comments on the organizational review are out of scope, but we feel are worthy of inclusion given the paper suggests a ‘subsequent conversation’ is required to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the reviews.

I guess my thinking in working with Carlos to draft the comments is that staggering the timing of the organizational reviews may not really achieve too much, particularly by way of budget savings (which is the prime motivator for staggering the reviews), if the reviews still take four years to complete and changes only in place for maybe two years before the cycle starts again.


From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 8:43 AM
To: Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
Cc: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>; council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] [Ext] Options to adjust timeline for specific and organisational reviews
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:
(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,
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.
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.

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.
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 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]
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]
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.
Donna Austin
Neustar, Inc./Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions
Mobile:+1 310 890 9655
donna.austin at team.neustar / Website:home.neustar [home.neustar]

Follow Neustar:LinkedIn [linkedin.com] / Twitter [twitter.com]
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

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

 council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180731/75720b34/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20180725 GNSO Council draft long term review adjustments + Pam20180731.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 92568 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180731/75720b34/20180725GNSOCouncildraftlongtermreviewadjustmentsPam20180731-0001.docx>

More information about the council mailing list