[Gnso-sc-budget] [v. 0.5] Draft Report

[Marilyn Cade]

Thanks, Ayden.

I look forward to the next version. Thanks to you and ICANN staff for your hard work throughout the SCBO.


Overall, I think the report will be easy for the Councilors to review and provide their comments on.


Marilyn


________________________________
From: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 4:48 PM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] [v. 0.5] Draft Report

Hi Marilyn,

Thanks for this detailed input. I take your point (which Philippe shared earlier today too) about naming Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, and I’ll de-identify them in the next draft of our report. I will share a new draft on our list in the next few minutes, within which I have also sought to address your other friendly edits.

Best wishes,

Ayden

On 14 Sep 2018, at 19:22, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Comments from Marilyn Cade, BC B-Subject Matter Expert

First, thanks, Ayden, for the redrafting of the initial DRAFT report.

I had raised some earlier concerns, so let me address where I have a few remaining issues with the present DRAFT Report. for the most part, I do want to commend the work of both ICANN staff and Chair of the SCBO; however, there are a few remaining issues.

First, Chair, thanks very much for working with staff to correct the attendance report to be sure it is fully accurate.  By showing when each participant/member joined, this makes the percentages about participating more accurate.

This is an improvement overall in Attendance Logs that I hope will be naturally evolved to all other WGs/CCWG's, etc.

I have a couple of remaining concerns:


Overall comment, but specific to responses under 5) and 9):
I am not sure why this report is naming Constituencies or SGs. The usual approach is to note that one respondent or "some" respondents stated... etc. and then to include the detailed responses in the attachments. In the response under #5), first, the language was some respondents, but then it shifted to single out a respondent.  This needs to be fixed so that there is no biasing of the reader, who can first focus on the substance. They can read the full submissions in the attachment.

Response under 6)
I raised a concern about this in my earlier comments. There were only three comments received in the call for submissions and then I made additional comments/offered edits in the online review by the SCBO.  I would prefer that the response do what is expected -- that the response convey equally what all respondents submitted.

Comments from one commenting constituency indicates the importance of showing full respect to the SGs/Cs submitting comments in their own right.  During the first round of comments, I submitted further comments indicating concern about the language proposed, which merely lifts from comments submitted by one SG. There was no other support for assuming that  references to differing opinions and perspectives of various SGs and C "diminishes" the Council's comments on areas within their purview.  Yet the response still draws only from submission from one SG.

I submitted comments about the BC's concerns about this, and they were merely deleted without merging the view into the draft comments.

Proposed language for #6):  Strike the second sentence. Keep the first sentence.

Response under #9) I understand that the BC was the only constituency that submitted detailed comments, however, once again, it seems out of practice to "name" who submitted comments. It may even create a bias against proposed input by focusing on who submitted. This is the only response that quotes from a submission.  Further, a submission from another respondent was general in nature but did reference a concern with affecting/undermining/superseding the ability of the SGs/Cs to offer inputs in their own rights.  This would seem to me to indicate that two relevant comments were received.

Proposed language:

One Constituency did not support the GNSO Council taking such a role; their comments raised concerns about the GNSO Council analyzing or commenting on SG/C comments submitted directly into the ICANN Budget processes.  Concerns referenced included the issues of time demands for the Council and also disruption to the autonomy of the bottom up process of the SGs/Cs. Another constituency's more general comments supported this concern.  The comment recognized that GNSO elected councilors are obviously highly influential in their own communities and will reflect concerns about how the budget supports the GNSO policy work, and also acknowledged the Council's particular focus on budget issues that affect the work of the GNSO Council on Policy and the Council's role in the empowered community. Only two relevant comments were received regarding this question.
________________________________

________________________________




-----Original Message-----
From: Gnso-sc-budget [mailto:gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 11:05 AM
To: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org<mailto:gnso-sc-budget at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] [v. 0.5] Draft Report

Hi all,

Just a friendly reminder that the deadline for comments on our draft report is today at 19:00 UTC.

After this time, I will work to resolve any edits or comments that have been received (if any). If no further comments are received, the After Action Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council. Thanks.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

> On 12 Sep 2018, at 00:09, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please find attached the latest draft of our After Action Report.
>
> I have made a number of changes in track changes.
>
> These are not only stylistic edits, they are also edits to the substance of the report, so I ask that you please review it and advise if you have any concerns.
>
> Please can you advise by Friday 19:00 UTC if you have any concerns.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
> <gnso-SCBO-after-action-report-v0.5 - AFF.docx>


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20180914/2c0bc00d/attachment.html>