From marika.konings at icann.org Mon May 5 14:17:29 2014 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 07:17:29 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting Message-ID: Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the GNSO Review Committee meeting tomorrow as well as some related documents attached for your review. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda ? GNSO Review Committee Meeting ? 6 May 2014 ? Scope of Work for the committee ? Developing a self-review to run in tandem with the SIC Review ? Size & composition of the committee o Transparency o Brand Registry Group interest in the Review o Other group interests in the review ? Frequency of Meetings ? Webinar Preparation ? Next Steps -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DRAFT -GNSO Review Working Party 5 May.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 36551 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Webinar 7 May 14 rev.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 1463566 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Tue May 6 13:44:03 2014 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 13:44:03 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11afbefc44294c2b8221703067453e0d@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Hi everyone, Thank you so much for your time on the call today. In follow up to our discussion, I have briefly outlined the update we discussed providing to Council on Thursday, questions to pose to Council and our agreed upon time frame and next steps (attached). In the interest of time, if you could please let me know any changes or revisions to this summary prior to the meeting on Thursday, I would really appreciate it. Marika, if you don't mind sending out the request for a Doodle Poll, we can get our weekly meetings scheduled. I also have a bit of an overlap with another board meeting on Thursday so I may not be able to be on the entire call, but will plan to jump on to lead this discussion on the Review. I will have open Adobe Connect, but Marika, if you could email me when we are about 10 minutes out from the Review discussion, I would be most grateful. The internet does allow us to be in two places at once - doesn't it? :) Thanks again everyone for your time and I look forward to working with you! With kindest regards, Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual property law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 513.746.2801 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:17 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the GNSO Review Committee meeting tomorrow as well as some related documents attached for your review. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting - 6 May 2014 * Scope of Work for the committee * Developing a self-review to run in tandem with the SIC Review * Size & composition of the committee o Transparency o Brand Registry Group interest in the Review o Other group interests in the review * Frequency of Meetings * Webinar Preparation * Next Steps -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Update May 6 2014.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 210432 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Update May 6 2014.pdf URL: From avri at acm.org Tue May 6 14:13:39 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 10:13:39 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting In-Reply-To: <11afbefc44294c2b8221703067453e0d@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <11afbefc44294c2b8221703067453e0d@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <5368EE13.6020006@acm.org> Hi, Seems of to me. Minor comments. > Should each stakeholder group have at least one? which begs the question I did not ask. Is there a max. 3? > on whether or not a > self-review is needed, and if so, propose a framework for doing so. We probably should refer to it as supplemental self-review to avoid the confusion I had. thanks avri On 06-May-14 09:44, Jen Wolfe wrote: > Hi everyone, > > > > Thank you so much for your time on the call today. In follow up to our > discussion, I have briefly outlined the update we discussed providing to > Council on Thursday, questions to pose to Council and our agreed upon > time frame and next steps (attached). > > > > In the interest of time, if you could please let me know any changes or > revisions to this summary prior to the meeting on Thursday, I would > really appreciate it. > > > > Marika, if you don?t mind sending out the request for a Doodle Poll, we > can get our weekly meetings scheduled. I also have a bit of an overlap > with another board meeting on Thursday so I may not be able to be on the > entire call, but will plan to jump on to lead this discussion on the > Review. I will have open Adobe Connect, but Marika, if you could email > me when we are about 10 minutes out from the Review discussion, I would > be most grateful. The internet does allow us to be in two places at > once ? doesn?t it? J > > > > Thanks again everyone for your time and I look forward to working with you! > > > > With kindest regards, > > > > Jen > > > > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB* > > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm > > Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual > property law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 > > > > */513.746.2801/* > > */IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013/* > > *Follow Me:** **Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0* > * **Description: Description: > Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0* > * **Description: Description: > Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0* > > > *Follow My Blog * > > *_Domain Names Rewired > _* > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings > *Sent:* Monday, May 05, 2014 10:17 AM > *To:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting > > > > Dear All, > > > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the GNSO Review Committee > meeting tomorrow as well as some related documents attached for your review. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *Proposed Agenda ? GNSO Review Committee Meeting ? 6 May 2014* > > > > ? Scope of Work for the committee > > ? Developing a self-review to run in tandem with the SIC Review > > ? Size & composition of the committee > > o Transparency > > o Brand Registry Group interest in the Review > > o Other group interests in the review > > ? Frequency of Meetings > > ? Webinar Preparation > > ? Next Steps > > > > > From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Tue May 6 16:06:18 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:06:18 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting In-Reply-To: <11afbefc44294c2b8221703067453e0d@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <11afbefc44294c2b8221703067453e0d@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Jen, Thank you for the productive meeting and the outline. I propose several edits in the spirit of clarity and consistency of terminology. The SIC is planning a 360 review to be facilitated by an independent auditor. This will seek input from the community on a variety of topics. * I would use "360 Assessment" rather than "360 Review" and "examiner" rather than "auditor". * The independent examiner will not be facilitating the 360 Assessment - they will use the data collected via the 360 as one of the key data points for the review. * As one of the components of the overall GNSO Review, the 360 Assessment is envisioned as an online tool that will collect feedback from the GNSO community, other ICANN structures and community members, the Board and staff. The 360 Assessment questions will be developed based on criteria that will be used for the overall GNSO Review. The proposed scope for the GNSO Review Working Party includes it providing feedback on review criteria and the 360 Assessment. Thank you, Larisa Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 6:44 AM To: Marika Konings; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com) Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting Hi everyone, Thank you so much for your time on the call today. In follow up to our discussion, I have briefly outlined the update we discussed providing to Council on Thursday, questions to pose to Council and our agreed upon time frame and next steps (attached). In the interest of time, if you could please let me know any changes or revisions to this summary prior to the meeting on Thursday, I would really appreciate it. Marika, if you don't mind sending out the request for a Doodle Poll, we can get our weekly meetings scheduled. I also have a bit of an overlap with another board meeting on Thursday so I may not be able to be on the entire call, but will plan to jump on to lead this discussion on the Review. I will have open Adobe Connect, but Marika, if you could email me when we are about 10 minutes out from the Review discussion, I would be most grateful. The internet does allow us to be in two places at once - doesn't it? :) Thanks again everyone for your time and I look forward to working with you! With kindest regards, Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual property law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 513.746.2801 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 Follow Me: [cid:image001.png at 01CF690A.711896A0] [cid:image002.png at 01CF690A.711896A0] [cid:image003.png at 01CF690A.711896A0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:17 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the GNSO Review Committee meeting tomorrow as well as some related documents attached for your review. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting - 6 May 2014 * Scope of Work for the committee * Developing a self-review to run in tandem with the SIC Review * Size & composition of the committee o Transparency o Brand Registry Group interest in the Review o Other group interests in the review * Frequency of Meetings * Webinar Preparation * Next Steps -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Tue May 6 16:27:51 2014 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 16:27:51 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <11afbefc44294c2b8221703067453e0d@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Thanks Larisa and Avri for comments. I incorporated your comments and attach a revised version for reference. Of course, please let me know if you propose other revisions or additions. I look forward to the webinar tomorrow and discussion with the Council on Thursday. Thanks - have a great afternoon! jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual property law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 513.746.2801 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: Larisa B. Gurnick [mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:06 PM To: Jen Wolfe; Marika Konings; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com) Subject: RE: Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting Jen, Thank you for the productive meeting and the outline. I propose several edits in the spirit of clarity and consistency of terminology. The SIC is planning a 360 review to be facilitated by an independent auditor. This will seek input from the community on a variety of topics. * I would use "360 Assessment" rather than "360 Review" and "examiner" rather than "auditor". * The independent examiner will not be facilitating the 360 Assessment - they will use the data collected via the 360 as one of the key data points for the review. * As one of the components of the overall GNSO Review, the 360 Assessment is envisioned as an online tool that will collect feedback from the GNSO community, other ICANN structures and community members, the Board and staff. The 360 Assessment questions will be developed based on criteria that will be used for the overall GNSO Review. The proposed scope for the GNSO Review Working Party includes it providing feedback on review criteria and the 360 Assessment. Thank you, Larisa Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 6:44 AM To: Marika Konings; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com) Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting Hi everyone, Thank you so much for your time on the call today. In follow up to our discussion, I have briefly outlined the update we discussed providing to Council on Thursday, questions to pose to Council and our agreed upon time frame and next steps (attached). In the interest of time, if you could please let me know any changes or revisions to this summary prior to the meeting on Thursday, I would really appreciate it. Marika, if you don't mind sending out the request for a Doodle Poll, we can get our weekly meetings scheduled. I also have a bit of an overlap with another board meeting on Thursday so I may not be able to be on the entire call, but will plan to jump on to lead this discussion on the Review. I will have open Adobe Connect, but Marika, if you could email me when we are about 10 minutes out from the Review discussion, I would be most grateful. The internet does allow us to be in two places at once - doesn't it? :) Thanks again everyone for your time and I look forward to working with you! With kindest regards, Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual property law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 513.746.2801 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:17 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the GNSO Review Committee meeting tomorrow as well as some related documents attached for your review. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting - 6 May 2014 * Scope of Work for the committee * Developing a self-review to run in tandem with the SIC Review * Size & composition of the committee o Transparency o Brand Registry Group interest in the Review o Other group interests in the review * Frequency of Meetings * Webinar Preparation * Next Steps -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Update.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 76602 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Update.docx URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Tue May 6 16:32:32 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:32:32 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting Message-ID: Hi everybody, just a small suggestion ? if the term ?self review? causes confusion, how about the phrase ?self study?? That?s what graduate schools use to prepare themselves for the periodic review by their accreditation bodies (e.g. The American Bar Association for its accredited law schools). Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Jen Wolfe Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2014 at 12:27 PM To: "Larisa B. Gurnick" , Marika Konings , "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" Cc: "Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com)" Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting > Thanks Larisa and Avri for comments. I incorporated your comments and attach > a revised version for reference. Of course, please let me know if you propose > other revisions or additions. I look forward to the webinar tomorrow and > discussion with the Council on Thursday. Thanks ? have a great afternoon! > > > jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm > Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual property > law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 > > 513.746.2801 > IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 > Follow Me: > > Follow My Blog > Domain Names Rewired > 7> > > > From: Larisa B. Gurnick [mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org] > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:06 PM > To: Jen Wolfe; Marika Konings; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Cc: Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com) > Subject: RE: Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting > > Jen, > Thank you for the productive meeting and the outline. I propose several edits > in the spirit of clarity and consistency of terminology. > > The SIC is planning a 360 review to be facilitated by an independent auditor. > This will seek input from the community on a variety of topics. > > ? I would use ?360 Assessment? rather than ?360 Review? and ?examiner? > rather than ?auditor?. > > ? The independent examiner will not be facilitating the 360 Assessment > - they will use the data collected via the 360 as one of the key data points > for the review. > > ? As one of the components of the overall GNSO Review, the 360 > Assessment is envisioned as an online tool that will collect feedback from the > GNSO community, other ICANN structures and community members, the Board and > staff. The 360 Assessment questions will be developed based on criteria that > will be used for the overall GNSO Review. The proposed scope for the GNSO > Review Working Party includes it providing feedback on review criteria and > the 360 Assessment. > > > Thank you, > > Larisa > > Larisa B. Gurnick > Director, Strategic Initiatives > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > larisa.gurnick at icann.org > 310 383-8995 > > > > From:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On > Behalf Of Jen Wolfe > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 6:44 AM > To: Marika Konings; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Cc: Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com) > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting > > Hi everyone, > > Thank you so much for your time on the call today. In follow up to our > discussion, I have briefly outlined the update we discussed providing to > Council on Thursday, questions to pose to Council and our agreed upon time > frame and next steps (attached). > > In the interest of time, if you could please let me know any changes or > revisions to this summary prior to the meeting on Thursday, I would really > appreciate it. > > Marika, if you don?t mind sending out the request for a Doodle Poll, we can > get our weekly meetings scheduled. I also have a bit of an overlap with > another board meeting on Thursday so I may not be able to be on the entire > call, but will plan to jump on to lead this discussion on the Review. I will > have open Adobe Connect, but Marika, if you could email me when we are about > 10 minutes out from the Review discussion, I would be most grateful. The > internet does allow us to be in two places at once ? doesn?t it? J > > Thanks again everyone for your time and I look forward to working with you! > > With kindest regards, > > Jen > > > jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm > Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual property > law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 > > 513.746.2801 > IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 > Follow Me: > > Follow My Blog > Domain Names Rewired > 7> > > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Marika Konings > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:17 AM > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Proposed Agenda - GNSO Review Committee Meeting > > > Dear All, > > > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the GNSO Review Committee meeting > tomorrow as well as some related documents attached for your review. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > Proposed Agenda ? GNSO Review Committee Meeting ? 6 May 2014 > > > > ? Scope of Work for the committee > > ? Developing a self-review to run in tandem with the SIC Review > > ? Size & composition of the committee > > o Transparency > > o Brand Registry Group interest in the Review > > o Other group interests in the review > > ? Frequency of Meetings > > ? Webinar Preparation > > ? Next Steps > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5033 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Tue May 6 18:30:55 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:30:55 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review committee teleconference Tuesday 06th May 2014 1230 UTC Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review committee Group teleconference held on Tuesday 06 May 2014 at 1230 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-20140506-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Osvaldo Novoa Jennifer Wolfe Avri Doria Thomas Rickert ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Larisa Gurnick Mary Wong Rob Hoggarth Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Public archives of the mailing list can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat transcript: Marika Konings:Welcome to the GNSO Review Committee Meeting of 6 May 2014 Osvaldo Novoa:hello all Jennifer Wolfe:Good morning! Larisa Gurnick:Hello everyone! Thomas Rickert:Hi all! Avri Doria:working party sounds so ITU Avri Doria:is the self-review the 120 degees of the 360? Thomas Rickert:@avri: nice :-9 Marika Konings:Larisa - who has end responsibility for designing/signing off on the 360? Is that the SIC? Larisa Gurnick:360 being a component of the overall review, it would be the SIC that would oversee it. Avri Doria:But of Course SIC is overseeing it. They seem to have already decided on the methodogy and they seem to have already determined that there will be a self review. Thomas Rickert:+1, Jen! Avri Doria:Shouldn't there be at least 1 per SG on the WP Avri Doria:and perhaps 1 per C and RySG IG Avri Doria:they are neitgher a SG nor a C, so maybe aas observers. Thomas Rickert:I would extend the initation as you suggest, Jen. Avri Doria:... neither ... Thomas Rickert:invitation that is :-) Avri Doria:indeed i think is a question that sould go by the council. compostion of committeees are their thing. Avri Doria:weekly Avri Doria:we are already in May Thomas Rickert:avri +1 Thomas Rickert:Thanks, Jen! Thanks all! Osvaldo Novoa:Thank you ,b y -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Wed May 7 07:21:09 2014 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 00:21:09 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Please complete the doodle poll to find suitable time for weekly meeting Message-ID: Dear All, As discussed during our meeting yesterday, please complete the following doodle poll (http://doodle.com/7b6vghpn7a5huhsb) to find a suitable time for a weekly meeting of the GNSO Review Working Party between now and the ICANN meeting in London. Please fill the doodle poll in with the weekly aspect in mind ? should you not be able to make the proposed time / day only next week, you can note so in the comments section. Thanks, Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Thu May 8 16:41:16 2014 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 09:41:16 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Please complete the doodle poll to find suitable time for weekly meeting Message-ID: Reminder ? please complete by COB today if you have not done so yet. I'm planning to confirm the time / day tomorrow (for now it looks like Thursday's at 14.00 UTC). Thanks, Marika From: Marika Konings Date: Wednesday 7 May 2014 09:21 To: "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Please complete the doodle poll to find suitable time for weekly meeting Dear All, As discussed during our meeting yesterday, please complete the following doodle poll (http://doodle.com/7b6vghpn7a5huhsb) to find a suitable time for a weekly meeting of the GNSO Review Working Party between now and the ICANN meeting in London. Please fill the doodle poll in with the weekly aspect in mind ? should you not be able to make the proposed time / day only next week, you can note so in the comments section. Thanks, Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Wed May 14 18:58:17 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 11:58:17 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: REMINDER: With correct times" Meeting Invitation: Next meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Thursday 15th May 14:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, In preparation for the call tomorrow, please see the proposed agenda and related materials. We look forward to tomorrow's call. Larisa Proposed Agenda: * GNSO Review Working Party * Membership update * Organization, working methods, priorities based on Responsibilities and Scope of Work (see below) * Communication * Community wiki (see proposed framework below) * FAQs * Other * GNSO Review activities - update and timeline * AOB Responsibilities and Scope of Work proposed for the GNSO Review Working Party: 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC; 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment; 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage participation; Proposed Framework for GNSO Review Wiki: 1. Home/front page with high level explanation, announcements, upcoming events, overall timeline and link to FAQs 2. Purpose and background on GNSO Review - http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22apr14-en.htm * FAQs * GNSO Webinar Briefing (7 May 2014), link to Jonathan's video * September 2013 Board Resolution 3. GNSO Review Working Party * Members/representation * Meetings * Email archives 4. 360 Assessment 5. Independent Examiner * RFP - http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22apr14-en.htm * Board Appointment of Independent Examiner * Draft Report * Final Report 6. Implementation From: owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:06 AM To: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [ntfy-gnso-review-dt] REMINDER: With correct times" Meeting Invitation: Next meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Thursday 15th May 14:00 UTC Dear all, Following the results of the Doodle poll, the next meeting of the GNSO Review Working Party is scheduled for Thursday 15th May 2014 at 14:00 UTC. 07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET, +1 00:00 Sydney For other places: http://tinyurl.com/q7j8was Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnso-review/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ The dial-in details are below - please let me know if you require a dial-out. Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats gnso-secs at icann.org _________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: GNSO REVIEW For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Thank you, Nathalie Peregrine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review 2014 FAQs final.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 39764 bytes Desc: GNSO Review 2014 FAQs final.docx URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu May 15 16:11:08 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 09:11:08 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Thursday 15th May 2014 1400 UTC Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference held on Tuesday 15 May 2014 at 1230 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-20140515-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Stephane Van Gelder Jennifer Wolfe Avri Doria Volker Greimann Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa Thomas Rickert ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Larisa Gurnick Matt Ashtiani Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Public archives of the mailing list can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat transcript: Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Party of 15 May 2014 Jennifer Wolfe:Hello! Marika Konings:Hi Jen Matt Ashtiani:hi everyone! stephane van gelder:Hi all Larisa Gurnick:Hello everyone! Nathalie Peregrine:Avri Doria will be joining shortly Nathalie Peregrine:Avri has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:Volker Greimann has joined the call Marika Konings:Hi Volker - can you confirm that you are (one of) the representatives for the registrar SG? Volker Greimann:Hi marika, we have not yet selected our representatives formally. Marika Konings:OK, I'll leave it blank for now ;-) Avri Doria:yeah i do think we need at least one from each SG, and any observer should be cool. but like 1 per. Avri Doria:I did not hear, criteria on trnasparency of operations and membership? hop[e so. Avri Doria:agree, with all getting smae questions. let the person who answeres call it Nt relevant is they feel that it is the case. Avri Doria:i do that all the time on surveys. Avri Doria:just get exasperated and quit. Nathalie Peregrine:Thomas Rickert sends his apology for today's call Avri Doria:just did it yesterday on a poll i was taking for a group i work with. Marika Konings:Next GNSO Council meeting is actually on June 8 Marika Konings:It is always easier to cancel a meeting than add one later on ;-) stephane van gelder:I think an open session of this group is a good idea Marika Konings:Sorry for the confusion - it is indeed June 5! Matt Ashtiani:thanks, all! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu May 15 16:13:08 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 09:13:08 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] With correct meeting time MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Thursday 15th May 2014 1400 UTC Message-ID: ***with correct meeting time *** Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference held on Tuesday 15 May 2014 at 1400 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-20140515-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Stephane Van Gelder Jennifer Wolfe Avri Doria Volker Greimann Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa Thomas Rickert ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Larisa Gurnick Matt Ashtiani Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Public archives of the mailing list can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat transcript: Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Party of 15 May 2014 Jennifer Wolfe:Hello! Marika Konings:Hi Jen Matt Ashtiani:hi everyone! stephane van gelder:Hi all Larisa Gurnick:Hello everyone! Nathalie Peregrine:Avri Doria will be joining shortly Nathalie Peregrine:Avri has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:Volker Greimann has joined the call Marika Konings:Hi Volker - can you confirm that you are (one of) the representatives for the registrar SG? Volker Greimann:Hi marika, we have not yet selected our representatives formally. Marika Konings:OK, I'll leave it blank for now ;-) Avri Doria:yeah i do think we need at least one from each SG, and any observer should be cool. but like 1 per. Avri Doria:I did not hear, criteria on trnasparency of operations and membership? hop[e so. Avri Doria:agree, with all getting smae questions. let the person who answeres call it Nt relevant is they feel that it is the case. Avri Doria:i do that all the time on surveys. Avri Doria:just get exasperated and quit. Nathalie Peregrine:Thomas Rickert sends his apology for today's call Avri Doria:just did it yesterday on a poll i was taking for a group i work with. Marika Konings:Next GNSO Council meeting is actually on June 8 Marika Konings:It is always easier to cancel a meeting than add one later on ;-) stephane van gelder:I think an open session of this group is a good idea Marika Konings:Sorry for the confusion - it is indeed June 5! Matt Ashtiani:thanks, all! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matt.ashtiani at icann.org Tue May 20 20:45:22 2014 From: matt.ashtiani at icann.org (Matt Ashtiani) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 13:45:22 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Meeting summary and action items Message-ID: Dear All, Please note that the initial wiki workspace for the group is now up and running. I have also posted the summary minutes and action items from the last call on the relevant wiki space. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Tue May 20 22:09:30 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 18:09:30 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Meeting summary and action items In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <053f01cf7478$2e36baf0$8aa430d0$@dotsportllc.com> Matt, Thanks for this. I note that the MP3 and transcripts link for the May 22nd meeting are not 'live'. Can you check that? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Matt Ashtiani Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 16:45 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Meeting summary and action items Dear All, Please note that the initial wiki workspace for the group is now up and running. I have also posted the summary minutes and action items from the last call on the relevant wiki space. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matt.ashtiani at icann.org Tue May 20 22:39:59 2014 From: matt.ashtiani at icann.org (Matt Ashtiani) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 15:39:59 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Meeting summary and action items In-Reply-To: <053f01cf7478$2e36baf0$8aa430d0$@dotsportllc.com> References: <053f01cf7478$2e36baf0$8aa430d0$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: Hi Ron, Those links will go live following the actual meeting this Thursday, I do not have anything to post at this time. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA From: Ron Andruff > Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 3:09 PM To: Matt Ashtiani >, "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Meeting summary and action items Matt, Thanks for this. I note that the MP3 and transcripts link for the May 22nd meeting are not ?live?. Can you check that? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Matt Ashtiani Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 16:45 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Meeting summary and action items Dear All, Please note that the initial wiki workspace for the group is now up and running. I have also posted the summary minutes and action items from the last call on the relevant wiki space. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Tue May 20 23:00:49 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 19:00:49 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Meeting summary and action items In-Reply-To: References: <053f01cf7478$2e36baf0$8aa430d0$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <054c01cf747f$594b00f0$0be102d0$@dotsportllc.com> Sorry Matt! I'm living in the future, obviously.. My bad! Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Matt Ashtiani Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 18:40 To: Ron Andruff Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Meeting summary and action items Hi Ron, Those links will go live following the actual meeting this Thursday, I do not have anything to post at this time. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA From: Ron Andruff > Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 3:09 PM To: Matt Ashtiani >, "gnso-review-dt at icann.org " > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Meeting summary and action items Matt, Thanks for this. I note that the MP3 and transcripts link for the May 22nd meeting are not 'live'. Can you check that? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Matt Ashtiani Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 16:45 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Meeting summary and action items Dear All, Please note that the initial wiki workspace for the group is now up and running. I have also posted the summary minutes and action items from the last call on the relevant wiki space. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matt.ashtiani at icann.org Thu May 22 00:18:43 2014 From: matt.ashtiani at icann.org (Matt Ashtiani) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 17:18:43 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Agenda and documents for tomorrow's call Message-ID: Dear All, Please find attached a copy of the agenda for tomorrow?s GNSO Review Working Party call, as well as a document on the 360 Assessment which will be discussed. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 360 Introduction.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 96931 bytes Desc: 360 Introduction.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Agenda - 22 May 2014.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 43279 bytes Desc: Agenda - 22 May 2014.pdf URL: From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Thu May 22 08:10:36 2014 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 10:10:36 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Agenda and documents for tomorrow's call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27398A8E-E01D-4B45-BB1B-B964A26E6A79@isoc.be> Hi Matt, When is this call scheduled ? Did I mis the mail with the information ? Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick NPOC chair Policy Committee NPOC treasurer rudi.vansnick at npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 www.npoc.org Op 22-mei-2014, om 02:18 heeft Matt Ashtiani het volgende geschreven: > Dear All, > > Please find attached a copy of the agenda for tomorrow?s GNSO Review Working Party call, as well as a document on the 360 Assessment which will be discussed. > > Regards, > > Matt Ashtiani > Strategic Initiatives Manager > ICANN > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA > > > <360 Introduction.pdf> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Thu May 22 08:14:58 2014 From: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com (Jonathan Robinson) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 09:14:58 +0100 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Agenda and documents for tomorrow's call In-Reply-To: <27398A8E-E01D-4B45-BB1B-B964A26E6A79@isoc.be> References: <27398A8E-E01D-4B45-BB1B-B964A26E6A79@isoc.be> Message-ID: <052801cf7595$ec1bb750$c45325f0$@ipracon.com> I checked the wiki referenced in a previous mail and it seems to be 16:00 UTC. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rudi Vansnick Sent: 22 May 2014 09:11 To: Matt Ashtiani Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Agenda and documents for tomorrow's call Hi Matt, When is this call scheduled ? Did I mis the mail with the information ? Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick NPOC chair Policy Committee NPOC treasurer rudi.vansnick at npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 www.npoc.org Op 22-mei-2014, om 02:18 heeft Matt Ashtiani het volgende geschreven: Dear All, Please find attached a copy of the agenda for tomorrow's GNSO Review Working Party call, as well as a document on the 360 Assessment which will be discussed. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA <360 Introduction.pdf> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Thu May 22 08:17:50 2014 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 01:17:50 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Agenda and documents for tomorrow's call In-Reply-To: <052801cf7595$ec1bb750$c45325f0$@ipracon.com> References: <27398A8E-E01D-4B45-BB1B-B964A26E6A79@isoc.be> <052801cf7595$ec1bb750$c45325f0$@ipracon.com> Message-ID: Please note that the call is scheduled today for 14.00 UTC. Nathalie sent the call details earlier this week, but I will ask her to resend to make sure everyone has the information. Best regards, Marika From: Jonathan Robinson Date: Thursday 22 May 2014 10:14 To: 'Rudi Vansnick' , Matt Ashtiani Cc: "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Agenda and documents for tomorrow's call I checked the wiki referenced in a previous mail and it seems to be 16:00 UTC. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rudi Vansnick Sent: 22 May 2014 09:11 To: Matt Ashtiani Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Agenda and documents for tomorrow's call Hi Matt, When is this call scheduled ? Did I mis the mail with the information ? Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick NPOC chair Policy Committee NPOC treasurer rudi.vansnick at npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 www.npoc.org Op 22-mei-2014, om 02:18 heeft Matt Ashtiani het volgende geschreven: Dear All, Please find attached a copy of the agenda for tomorrow?s GNSO Review Working Party call, as well as a document on the 360 Assessment which will be discussed. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA <360 Introduction.pdf> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu May 22 08:25:58 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 01:25:58 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Agenda and documents for tomorrow's call In-Reply-To: <052801cf7595$ec1bb750$c45325f0$@ipracon.com> References: <27398A8E-E01D-4B45-BB1B-B964A26E6A79@isoc.be> <052801cf7595$ec1bb750$c45325f0$@ipracon.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Today's GNSO Review Working Party call is scheduled for 14:00 UTC, 16:00 CET. Kind regards Nathalie From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:15 AM To: 'Rudi Vansnick'; Matt Ashtiani Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Agenda and documents for tomorrow's call I checked the wiki referenced in a previous mail and it seems to be 16:00 UTC. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rudi Vansnick Sent: 22 May 2014 09:11 To: Matt Ashtiani Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Agenda and documents for tomorrow's call Hi Matt, When is this call scheduled ? Did I mis the mail with the information ? Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick NPOC chair Policy Committee NPOC treasurer rudi.vansnick at npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 www.npoc.org Op 22-mei-2014, om 02:18 heeft Matt Ashtiani het volgende geschreven: Dear All, Please find attached a copy of the agenda for tomorrow's GNSO Review Working Party call, as well as a document on the 360 Assessment which will be discussed. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA <360 Introduction.pdf> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Thu May 22 18:44:15 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 11:44:15 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Thursday 22nd May 2014 1400 UTC Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7m Type: application/pkcs7-mime Size: 56343 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matt.ashtiani at icann.org Fri May 23 18:22:17 2014 From: matt.ashtiani at icann.org (Matt Ashtiani) Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 11:22:17 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Summary minutes and action items Message-ID: Dear All, Please note that the summary minutes and action items from yesterday?s Working Party call are now posted on the wiki. The 360 Assessment Introduction has also been posted to the wiki. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Thu May 29 17:00:14 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 10:00:14 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Thursday 29th May 2014 1400 UTC Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7m Type: application/pkcs7-mime Size: 22147 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu May 29 19:42:13 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 19:42:13 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493668E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Here is one idea for improving the wording in the questions to deal with the concern that Ron expressed: instead of saying ?the governing or leadership body? or ?the GNSO/structural component? say ?applicable group?. In the introductory instructions it would also probably be helpful to say something like this: ?When the questions refer to ?applicable group?, they are referring to one of the following groups: GNSO overall, GNSO Council, GNSO SG or Constituency, or GNSO Working Group.? Question 24 seems unclear to me: ?How well did the GNSO/structural component?s key products/outputs meet your expectations?? First of all, I don?t think that ?products? is a very good term to use because GNSO groups don?t produce products in the traditional sense of the term. Also, using the past tense seems to imply a specific occurrence in the past and I think we are looking for a continuum of experience. Here is a suggestion for rewording: ?How well have the outputs of the applicable group met your expectations?? A similar change could be made in Question 25. I am not sure that Question 26 is going to yield very helpful information: ?In terms of quantity, has the GNSO/structural component completed a sufficient number of decisions and proposed policies?? It may be that there is more than one question being asked here. Here are some possible questions in place of the current one: ?Is the applicable group able to make decisions in a timely manner? Is the applicable group able to respond to requests for comments in a timely manner? Is the GNSO Council able to act on WG policy recommendations in a timely manner? Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, are working groups able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? (Note that some of my suggested questions would not apply to all groups so, if they are used, they would need to be presented differently.) I encourage everyone to freely critique my suggestions and/or add to them. Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Thu May 29 20:48:17 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 16:48:17 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493668E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493668E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <004b01cf7b7f$5337e9b0$f9a7bd10$@dotsportllc.com> Thanks for the constructive amendments/suggestions, Chuck. I concur with you on all that you have noted. Reading your comments on Q26 brought up a question in my mind: Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, is the applicable body able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? This type of question may provide insight into constituency/SO/AC capacity. As we all know ? certainly everyone on this list ? there is a relatively small core of volunteers, backed up by a distant ?support group?, if you will, and all of those people only have so much bandwidth. Bandwidth speaks to the issue of how many hands we have on deck as opposed to volunteer burnout, which we may be conflating to mean the same thing. A data point on this would separate those two issues and perhaps give us a better look at how the MSM really works. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 15:42 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Here is one idea for improving the wording in the questions to deal with the concern that Ron expressed: instead of saying ?the governing or leadership body? or ?the GNSO/structural component? say ?applicable group?. In the introductory instructions it would also probably be helpful to say something like this: ?When the questions refer to ?applicable group?, they are referring to one of the following groups: GNSO overall, GNSO Council, GNSO SG or Constituency, or GNSO Working Group.? Question 24 seems unclear to me: ?How well did the GNSO/structural component?s key products/outputs meet your expectations?? First of all, I don?t think that ?products? is a very good term to use because GNSO groups don?t produce products in the traditional sense of the term. Also, using the past tense seems to imply a specific occurrence in the past and I think we are looking for a continuum of experience. Here is a suggestion for rewording: ?How well have the outputs of the applicable group met your expectations?? A similar change could be made in Question 25. I am not sure that Question 26 is going to yield very helpful information: ?In terms of quantity, has the GNSO/structural component completed a sufficient number of decisions and proposed policies?? It may be that there is more than one question being asked here. Here are some possible questions in place of the current one: ?Is the applicable group able to make decisions in a timely manner? Is the applicable group able to respond to requests for comments in a timely manner? Is the GNSO Council able to act on WG policy recommendations in a timely manner? Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, are working groups able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? (Note that some of my suggested questions would not apply to all groups so, if they are used, they would need to be presented differently.) I encourage everyone to freely critique my suggestions and/or add to them. Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu May 29 21:14:04 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 21:14:04 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <004b01cf7b7f$5337e9b0$f9a7bd10$@dotsportllc.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493668E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <004b01cf7b7f$5337e9b0$f9a7bd10$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49366A10@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thanks for the feedback Ron. Do you think that another question should be added regarding bandwidth? Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the constructive amendments/suggestions, Chuck. I concur with you on all that you have noted. Reading your comments on Q26 brought up a question in my mind: Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, is the applicable body able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? This type of question may provide insight into constituency/SO/AC capacity. As we all know ? certainly everyone on this list ? there is a relatively small core of volunteers, backed up by a distant ?support group?, if you will, and all of those people only have so much bandwidth. Bandwidth speaks to the issue of how many hands we have on deck as opposed to volunteer burnout, which we may be conflating to mean the same thing. A data point on this would separate those two issues and perhaps give us a better look at how the MSM really works. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 15:42 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Here is one idea for improving the wording in the questions to deal with the concern that Ron expressed: instead of saying ?the governing or leadership body? or ?the GNSO/structural component? say ?applicable group?. In the introductory instructions it would also probably be helpful to say something like this: ?When the questions refer to ?applicable group?, they are referring to one of the following groups: GNSO overall, GNSO Council, GNSO SG or Constituency, or GNSO Working Group.? Question 24 seems unclear to me: ?How well did the GNSO/structural component?s key products/outputs meet your expectations?? First of all, I don?t think that ?products? is a very good term to use because GNSO groups don?t produce products in the traditional sense of the term. Also, using the past tense seems to imply a specific occurrence in the past and I think we are looking for a continuum of experience. Here is a suggestion for rewording: ?How well have the outputs of the applicable group met your expectations?? A similar change could be made in Question 25. I am not sure that Question 26 is going to yield very helpful information: ?In terms of quantity, has the GNSO/structural component completed a sufficient number of decisions and proposed policies?? It may be that there is more than one question being asked here. Here are some possible questions in place of the current one: ?Is the applicable group able to make decisions in a timely manner? Is the applicable group able to respond to requests for comments in a timely manner? Is the GNSO Council able to act on WG policy recommendations in a timely manner? Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, are working groups able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? (Note that some of my suggested questions would not apply to all groups so, if they are used, they would need to be presented differently.) I encourage everyone to freely critique my suggestions and/or add to them. Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Thu May 29 21:28:45 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:28:45 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49366A10@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493668E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <004b01cf7b7f$5337e9b0$f9a7bd10$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49366A10@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <007401cf7b84$fa3dd710$eeb98530$@dotsportllc.com> Yes, exactly. I personally think that, while ?burnout? is often discussed, the issue many constituencies/ACs/SOs face is more one of bandwidth than burnout. Could be wrong, but the survey will bear that out one way or the other if we frame the question right. That insight may assist the institution in developing a more paced approach to meet the community capabilities (and thus remove the issue of burnout?). When we aren?t trying to catch a drink from a fire hose, we might be a more capable and measured body vis-?-vis our determinations. RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 17:14 To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the feedback Ron. Do you think that another question should be added regarding bandwidth? Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the constructive amendments/suggestions, Chuck. I concur with you on all that you have noted. Reading your comments on Q26 brought up a question in my mind: Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, is the applicable body able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? This type of question may provide insight into constituency/SO/AC capacity. As we all know ? certainly everyone on this list ? there is a relatively small core of volunteers, backed up by a distant ?support group?, if you will, and all of those people only have so much bandwidth. Bandwidth speaks to the issue of how many hands we have on deck as opposed to volunteer burnout, which we may be conflating to mean the same thing. A data point on this would separate those two issues and perhaps give us a better look at how the MSM really works. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 15:42 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Here is one idea for improving the wording in the questions to deal with the concern that Ron expressed: instead of saying ?the governing or leadership body? or ?the GNSO/structural component? say ?applicable group?. In the introductory instructions it would also probably be helpful to say something like this: ?When the questions refer to ?applicable group?, they are referring to one of the following groups: GNSO overall, GNSO Council, GNSO SG or Constituency, or GNSO Working Group.? Question 24 seems unclear to me: ?How well did the GNSO/structural component?s key products/outputs meet your expectations?? First of all, I don?t think that ?products? is a very good term to use because GNSO groups don?t produce products in the traditional sense of the term. Also, using the past tense seems to imply a specific occurrence in the past and I think we are looking for a continuum of experience. Here is a suggestion for rewording: ?How well have the outputs of the applicable group met your expectations?? A similar change could be made in Question 25. I am not sure that Question 26 is going to yield very helpful information: ?In terms of quantity, has the GNSO/structural component completed a sufficient number of decisions and proposed policies?? It may be that there is more than one question being asked here. Here are some possible questions in place of the current one: ?Is the applicable group able to make decisions in a timely manner? Is the applicable group able to respond to requests for comments in a timely manner? Is the GNSO Council able to act on WG policy recommendations in a timely manner? Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, are working groups able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? (Note that some of my suggested questions would not apply to all groups so, if they are used, they would need to be presented differently.) I encourage everyone to freely critique my suggestions and/or add to them. Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu May 29 21:49:23 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 21:49:23 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <007401cf7b84$fa3dd710$eeb98530$@dotsportllc.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493668E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <004b01cf7b7f$5337e9b0$f9a7bd10$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49366A10@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <007401cf7b84$fa3dd710$eeb98530$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49366A8B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Makes sense to me Ron. Now it?s your turn to propose a question that could be added. Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:29 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Yes, exactly. I personally think that, while ?burnout? is often discussed, the issue many constituencies/ACs/SOs face is more one of bandwidth than burnout. Could be wrong, but the survey will bear that out one way or the other if we frame the question right. That insight may assist the institution in developing a more paced approach to meet the community capabilities (and thus remove the issue of burnout?). When we aren?t trying to catch a drink from a fire hose, we might be a more capable and measured body vis-?-vis our determinations. RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 17:14 To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the feedback Ron. Do you think that another question should be added regarding bandwidth? Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the constructive amendments/suggestions, Chuck. I concur with you on all that you have noted. Reading your comments on Q26 brought up a question in my mind: Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, is the applicable body able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? This type of question may provide insight into constituency/SO/AC capacity. As we all know ? certainly everyone on this list ? there is a relatively small core of volunteers, backed up by a distant ?support group?, if you will, and all of those people only have so much bandwidth. Bandwidth speaks to the issue of how many hands we have on deck as opposed to volunteer burnout, which we may be conflating to mean the same thing. A data point on this would separate those two issues and perhaps give us a better look at how the MSM really works. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 15:42 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Here is one idea for improving the wording in the questions to deal with the concern that Ron expressed: instead of saying ?the governing or leadership body? or ?the GNSO/structural component? say ?applicable group?. In the introductory instructions it would also probably be helpful to say something like this: ?When the questions refer to ?applicable group?, they are referring to one of the following groups: GNSO overall, GNSO Council, GNSO SG or Constituency, or GNSO Working Group.? Question 24 seems unclear to me: ?How well did the GNSO/structural component?s key products/outputs meet your expectations?? First of all, I don?t think that ?products? is a very good term to use because GNSO groups don?t produce products in the traditional sense of the term. Also, using the past tense seems to imply a specific occurrence in the past and I think we are looking for a continuum of experience. Here is a suggestion for rewording: ?How well have the outputs of the applicable group met your expectations?? A similar change could be made in Question 25. I am not sure that Question 26 is going to yield very helpful information: ?In terms of quantity, has the GNSO/structural component completed a sufficient number of decisions and proposed policies?? It may be that there is more than one question being asked here. Here are some possible questions in place of the current one: ?Is the applicable group able to make decisions in a timely manner? Is the applicable group able to respond to requests for comments in a timely manner? Is the GNSO Council able to act on WG policy recommendations in a timely manner? Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, are working groups able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? (Note that some of my suggested questions would not apply to all groups so, if they are used, they would need to be presented differently.) I encourage everyone to freely critique my suggestions and/or add to them. Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Sat May 31 00:11:11 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 17:11:11 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Summary minutes and action item (360 Assessment) Message-ID: Dear members of the GNSO Review Working Party, The summary minutes and action items from yesterday's Working Party call are now posted on the wiki. Please note the action item: The GNSO Review Working Party is to review the 360 Assessment and provide feedback on the language and scope of the questions by Wednesday 4-June-2014 23:59. Staff noted the exchange of feedback and suggestions from Ron and Chuck that took place after the meeting yesterday. Thank you for your participation and feedback. Best wishes, Larisa Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: