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

Carlos Raul Gutierrez carlosraul at gutierrez.se
Tue Jul 31 16:22:30 UTC 2018


Habemus comments!

On July 31, 2018 9:37:09 AM CST, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin at team.neustar> wrote:
>Thanks Pam, I am comfortable with your edits.
>
>From: Pam Little [mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 5:54 PM
>To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>; Carlos Raul Gutierrez
><carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
>Cc: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>; council
><council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>; Anthony Harris
><anthonyrharris at gmail.com>; Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [council] [Ext] Options to adjust timeline for specific
>and organisational reviews
>
>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,
>
>Pam
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sender:Austin, Donna
><Donna.Austin at team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>
>Sent at:2018 Jul 31 (Tue) 02:33
>To:Anthony Harris
><anthonyrharris at gmail.com<mailto:anthonyrharris at gmail.com>>; PAMELA
>LITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>>
>Cc:Council GNSO
><council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>; council
><council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto: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.
>
>Donna
>
>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<mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>>
>Cc: Council GNSO
><council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>; council
><council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>Sent at:2018 Jul 30 (Mon) 09:18
>To:Carlos Raul Gutierrez
><carlosraul at gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se>>
>Cc:"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez"
><carlosraulg at gmail.com<mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>>; Council GNSO
><council at gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>]
>Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 6:39 AM
>To: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>Cc: Carlos Raul <carlosraulg at gmail.com<mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>>;
>Austin, Donna
><Donna.Austin at team.neustar<mailto: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<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>
>Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 3:45 PM
>To: "council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>"
><council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>Cc: Carlos Raul <carlosraulg at gmail.com<mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>>,
>Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto: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.
>
>[http://static/5318390/images/blank.gif]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.
>
>[http://static/5318390/images/blank.gif]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<mailto:donna.austin at team.neustar> /
>Website:[http://static/5318390/images/blank.gif]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:[http://static/5318390/images/blank.gif]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=>
>/ [http://static/5318390/images/blank.gif] 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<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=Dcp1yyDFv9-pU15jMZKrKsglI9bJJoBUj0v4JK1RDWQ&s=Kr_kbAG3TeSo87MGU_h3sIfKlxEXEIIN14oRRhhuvGw&e=>
>
>--
>Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>council mailing list
>council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=Dcp1yyDFv9-pU15jMZKrKsglI9bJJoBUj0v4JK1RDWQ&s=Kr_kbAG3TeSo87MGU_h3sIfKlxEXEIIN14oRRhhuvGw&e=>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180731/4d81680f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the council mailing list