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

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck

These are excellent questions and I think they'd be very helpful.

Of course you've just made the entire thing longer :) But hey ..

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 11:19 PM
To: Ron Andruff; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Thanks for getting this started Ron.  I am concerned about such a broad 
question because I am afraid that we will get answers all over the place 
depending on the different levels of experience people have had.  What about a 
few specific questions like the following, which could following the first two 
introductory sentences from Ron.  I don't think the third one is needed.


a.       Are any interested stakeholders prevented from participating in WGs?  
If so, why?

b.      How would you rate the leadership of WGs?

c.       How would you rate the staff support for WGs?

d.      How would you rate the level of understanding about the complexities of 
a bottom-up multistakeholder process by each of the following groups?

                                 i.            Board members

                               ii.            ICANN Executives & Senior Managers

                              iii.            Community members outside of the 
GNSO

                             iv.            GNSO participants who have never 
participated in a WG

                               v.            GNSO participants who have 
participated in at least one WG

A common complaint is that WGs take too long to complete their task.

a.       Do you agree with this assessment?

b.      If so, what would you recommend to speed up the process?  (Choose as 
many as desired; note that the ideas listed are just a sampling of possible 
ideas.)

                                 i.            Meet more frequently

                               ii.            Divide policy development topics 
into smaller, more manageable subtopics

                              iii.            Reduce the amount of public 
comment time

                             iv.            Increase the voting threshold for 
initiating a WG

                               v.            Restrict the number of 
participants in a WG from each interest group

                             vi.            Make it a prerequisite that 
impacted parties regularly and constructively participate in the WG if they 
want to oppose WG recommendations at the end of the process

                            vii.            Hold more in-person WG meetings

                          viii.            Subsidize participation for needy 
individuals and groups

                             ix.            Other: (provide text box)

Of course, I welcome critique of these suggested questions.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 2:52 PM
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

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

From: Larisa B. Gurnick 
[mailto:larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 13:59
To: Ron Andruff; '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

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