RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

["Ron Andruff" <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Larisa,

Dear all,

 

In absence of Chuck's or other member's comments (I expect that they may
come in later today and make my suggestion below mute), to help things along
I would suggest posing the question like this:

 

GNSO Working Groups became the primary policy development vehicle as the
result of the last GNSO Review. Working Groups are tasked by specific
Charter to address a specific policy issue.  At the conclusion of the
Working Group efforts, their results are returned to the GNSO Council to
[need the specific language as to the next step Council takes].  The Working
Group model that has been implemented in the last GNSO Review is effective
in accomplishing its purpose.

 

Again, I defer to Chuck on this because he is so deeply familiar with this
specific topic.

 

Thank you,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> www.lifedotsport.com 

 

From: Larisa B. Gurnick [mailto:larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 13:59
To: Ron Andruff; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Further clarification would be very much appreciated as Westlake is
finalizing the 360 Assessment in preparation for launch on Monday.

The purpose of the Working Groups was  based on the information posted on
the GNSO web site - http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/101/wg-operations.

 

Thanks,

Larisa

 

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:29 AM
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Thanks for this input, Larisa.  I will defer to Chuck and other members for
a better response to your proposed question, but the purpose of a WG is not:
"enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community" as I
understand it.

 

Chuck, your thoughts?

 

Kind regards,

 

RA 

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> www.lifedotsport.com 

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 14:17
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Chuck and Ron,

Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered by
Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review - review
and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO Review
Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to Westlake
Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for review.  

 

As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment, what
do you think about the following:

 

New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to accomplish
a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from throughout the
Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as the result of
the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its general purpose.

 

The question would have all the same answer options as other questions,
including a text box for additional feedback.

 

Thanks,

 

Larisa

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

I am fine with that Ron if it doesn't cause too much delay.

 

Chuck

 

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Dear Chuck and all,

 

Yes, but. .you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups
at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review
moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would be
prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and
perhaps another to flesh out the community's overall view of them.  Let's do
our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> www.lifedotsport.com 

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx]>  On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered
questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last
three open ended questions.

 

I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are
such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are
no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of trying
to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more
questions at this time.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Dear All,

The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback
received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here
<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3> .  Please provide your
final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by
August 1, 23:59 UTC.

 

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions
pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A
responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these
groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as
he/she would like.

 

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap
of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the
responder.

 

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing
and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of
acronyms, etc.

 

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful
and informative.

 

Larisa B. Gurnick

Director, Strategic Initiatives

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx> 

310 383-8995