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

Tue Jul 31 20:12:46 UTC 2018

I too am OK with Pam's edits.

Tony

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <
carlosraul at gutierrez.se> wrote:

> 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, *c**continuing 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>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Donna
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org
>> <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:
>> *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
>> <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
>> 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/edafe468/attachment-0001.html>