[council] [gnso-chairs] REMINDER: For review - GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement

Tue Apr 13 16:54:38 UTC 2021

Dear SG/C leaders,

I’m coming back to you on this after our Council extraordinary meeting when this Framework for Continuous Improvement was reviewed. Re. point 2 below and how this can be improved, there was a clear perception that the framework can be further simplified and before we spent too much of our energy on process detail, we will try and come up with a few options for this and would like to hear what your think, so you should be expecting a doodle soon; hope you can make it.

It would also be helpful to hear your views on the topics that may be processed through this and I’m copypasting here those which are listed in the document. The bottom line being that if this framework is not fit for purpose, we noneltheess need to figure out a way to address these items (or drop out some of them).

Thanks,
Regards,
Philippe

·         Implementation of WS2 recommendations that are not SG/C specific;

·         Assignments related to the Evolution of the Multistakeholder Model;

·         Possible ATRT3 related assignments, including a possible future Continuous Improvement Program;

·         GNSO Review, if commenced;

·         Review of Policy & Implementation WG recommendations;

·         Further input on the Operational Design Phase, if applicable;

·         Review of PDP 3.0 improvements and additional improvements identified;

·         Empowered Community related assignments (that are of a procedural not substantive nature).

From: FOUQUART Philippe TGI/OLN
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 11:29 AM
To: 'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund at icann.org>; GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>; Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>; Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>; Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>; Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com>; aheineman at godaddy.com; Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou at verisign.com>; chair at rysg.info; Sue Schuler <secretariat at rysg.info>; Zoe Bonython <secretariat at icannregistrars.org>
Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [gnso-chairs] REMINDER: For review - GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement

Dear SG/C leaders,

This is a headsup on the discussion on the discussion item we will have during the next (Thursday) extraordinary Council meeting on the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement, and the specific questions reproduced here.

1.            With the details provided, does this framework approach make sense for dealing with some of the immediate priorities on the ADR as well as future projects that relate to structural, procedural and process improvements? If not, why not and what would be your proposed alternative?
2.            Are there any aspects of the framework that can be further enhanced? If so, please provide further details.
3.            Are there any assignments that are missing or should be modified?
4.            Does the grouping of assignments make sense or is there another way in which assignments should be organized?
ask people to weigh in on the questions that were posed in the email that went out

I now some of you have continued the discussion within your G/C, I’m certainly happy to arrange for a call after Council with you all if this helps.

If you would consider that some of the more controversial items planned under this framework would rather be kept aside for the time being, there’s also the option of initiating this with a limited scope through a pilot.

Thank you.
Regards,
Philippe

From: Gnso-chairs [mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund via Gnso-chairs
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:53 PM
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>; Selli, Claudia <claudia.selli at intl.att.com<mailto:claudia.selli at intl.att.com>>; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>>; Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com<mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>>; Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com<mailto:plommer at gmail.com>>; Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com<mailto:rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com>>; aheineman at godaddy.com<mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>; Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou at verisign.com<mailto:sdemetriou at verisign.com>>; chair at rysg.info<mailto:chair at rysg.info>; Sue Schuler <secretariat at rysg.info<mailto:secretariat at rysg.info>>; Zoe Bonython <secretariat at icannregistrars.org<mailto:secretariat at icannregistrars.org>>
Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>; gnso-chairs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-chairs] REMINDER: For review - GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement

Dear Councilors and SG/C Chairs,

Please see the message below.  As a reminder, we would like to request your input on the questions below by 15 March so that the Council may be able to take a decision on the path forward during the next Council meeting on 24 March.

As noted in Philippe’s email of 20 January (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-January/024395.html), the staff support team has worked with the Council leadership team on a more detailed proposal for a GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement that you will find attached to this email. The objective of the framework is to put in place an approach and structure that allows for the continuous scoping and execution of projects that are focused on GNSO structural, procedural and process improvements.

The document analyzes and proposes a number of specific assignments in relation to the different projects that pertain to the scope of this effort from the Action Decision Radar (ADR) (https://community.icann.org/x/14vzC). It also proposes a possible way of organizing these assignments into task forces of a thematic nature. The document does not opine on the priority order in which these are expected to be addressed.

Following your review of this document, we would like to request your input on the following:

1.      With the details provided, does this framework approach make sense for dealing with some of the immediate priorities on the ADR as well as future projects that relate to structural, procedural and process improvements? If not, why not and what would be your proposed alternative?

2.      Are there any aspects of the framework that can be further enhanced? If so, please provide further details.

3.      Are there any assignments that are missing or should be modified?

4.      Does the grouping of assignments make sense or is there another way in which assignments should be organized?

We look forward to receiving your feedback.

Kind regards,
Julie

From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund via council <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Reply-To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 3:18 PM
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>, "Selli, Claudia" <claudia.selli at intl.att.com<mailto:claudia.selli at intl.att.com>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>>, Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com<mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>>, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com<mailto:plommer at gmail.com>>, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com<mailto:rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com>>, "aheineman at godaddy.com<mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>" <aheineman at godaddy.com<mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>>, "Demetriou, Samantha" <sdemetriou at verisign.com<mailto:sdemetriou at verisign.com>>, "chair at rysg.info<mailto:chair at rysg.info>" <chair at rysg.info<mailto:chair at rysg.info>>, Sue Schuler <secretariat at rysg.info<mailto:secretariat at rysg.info>>, Zoe Bonython <secretariat at icannregistrars.org<mailto:secretariat at icannregistrars.org>>
Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>, "gnso-chairs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs at icann.org>" <gnso-chairs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs at icann.org>>
Subject: [council] For review - GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement

Dear Councilors and SG/C Chairs,

As noted in Philippe’s email of 20 January (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-January/024395.html), the staff support team has worked with the Council leadership team on a more detailed proposal for a GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement that you will find attached to this email. The objective of the framework is to put in place an approach and structure that allows for the continuous scoping and execution of projects that are focused on GNSO structural, procedural and process improvements.

The document analyzes and proposes a number of specific assignments in relation to the different projects that pertain to the scope of this effort from the Action Decision Radar (ADR) (https://community.icann.org/x/14vzC). It also proposes a possible way of organizing these assignments into task forces of a thematic nature. The document does not opine on the priority order in which these are expected to be addressed.

Following your review of this document, we would like to request your input on the following:

  1.  With the details provided, does this framework approach make sense for dealing with some of the immediate priorities on the ADR as well as future projects that relate to structural, procedural and process improvements? If not, why not and what would be your proposed alternative?

2.      Are there any aspects of the framework that can be further enhanced? If so, please provide further details.

3.      Are there any assignments that are missing or should be modified?

4.      Does the grouping of assignments make sense or is there another way in which assignments should be organized?

In order to move forward with consideration of the framework approach, and especially being able to tackle the different projects that are high on the ADR, we would like to request your input by 15 March so that the Council may be able to take a decision on the path forward during the next Council meeting on 24 March. If it is deemed helpful, the staff support team is also more than willing to set up a call to walk through the document and answer any questions you may have.

We look forward to receiving your feedback.

Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210413/d4fbd58c/attachment-0001.html>