[gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review Working Party Public Comment on the Review Schedule

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Very well written Jen.  Thanks for doing this.  I have no objections.

Here's a very minor edit:  Delete 'a' in the following in the last large 
paragraph: ". . . we expect a significant volunteer time to be invested into 
planning and implementing  needed improvements. "

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jen Wolfe
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 12:09 PM
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Public Comment on the 
Review Schedule

Hello GNSO Review Working Party,

I hope everyone had a safe trip back from Buenos Aires!  During our meeting 
last we discussed the importance of the GNSO Review Working Party providing a 
response to the Public 
Commen<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-aoc-org-reviews-process-2015-05-15-en>t
 on the Proposed Review Schedule and Process/Operational Improvements for AoC 
and Organizational Reviews. This public comment is due Thursday, July 2nd.  
Based upon our discussion, I have drafted  a public comment related to the 
timing issues we all agreed upon as problematic to the process.   I realize 
this is a very short turn-around time, but respectfully request any proposed 
changes or support in submitting the public comment.  I focused the public 
comment on the importance of allowing community members sufficient time to 
respond to the Review process, so hopefully it is non-controversial.

If I don't hear any objections, I will go ahead and submit this by the deadline 
on Thursday, July 2nd.    If you do have an objection to the comment, please 
let me know.  Of course, we certainly encourage all of your in your individual 
capacities to provide a comment if there are other concerns you would like to 
raise regarding the Review time frame and process.


DRAFT COMMENT:

On behalf of the GNSO Review Working Party, I appreciate the opportunity to 
submit this public comment regarding the schedule and process for Reviews 
mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments and the ICANN Bylaws.  The GNSO 
Review began approximately one year ago following the ICANN 50 meeting in 
London.   Since that time, the members of the GNSO Review Working Party have 
requested two extensions of time in order to allow for the necessary time to 
review, contemplate and provide thoughtful and meaningful feedback to ICANN 
staff and the independent examiner.

As a result of these extensions of time, we were able to provide important 
feedback into the scope of the questions asked in the 360 survey and to provide 
additional time for announcements and outreach during the ICANN 51 Los Angeles 
meeting to encourage more participation.  This allowed for more meaningful 
results from the community.  We also requested an extension of time to review 
the initial draft report provided by the independent examiner.  This extension 
gave members of the Working Party additional time to consider the voluminous 
information and track more than 120 comments to the report.  This feedback was 
documented and responses were provided by the independent examiner.

We believe this additional time allowed for a better outcome and end result.  
Accordingly, we urge you to consider allotting additional time for other 
Reviews and their respective Working Parties so that the time and consideration 
can be given to obtain quality results in the survey and interview process and 
quality feedback to the report produced by the independent examiner.

Additionally, we ask you to consider the impact of scheduled reviews on the 
volunteer workload. Qualified, experienced and knowledgeable community members 
willing to dedicate focused and significant effort are an essential component 
of this important accountability mechanism functioning effectively.  As the 
GNSO Review Working Party, our group of 20 volunteers has put in significant 
energy and time to help make the GNSO Review and recommendations useful and 
supportive of continuous improvement - 17 meetings and two rounds of nearly 120 
comments leading up to the Draft Report.   The broader community also 
contributed to the GNSO Review in important ways by offering their views and 
feedback - 178 people completed online surveys and 40 people participated in 
one on one interviews.  As we begin planning for the implementation phase, we 
expect a significant volunteer time to be invested into planning and 
implementing  needed improvements.  We fully support this approach to 
conducting future Organizational Reviews and urge you to ensure that adequate 
time and volunteer resources are available not just to conduct each Review, but 
as importantly, to contribute to a productive implementation of Review 
recommendations and applying lessons learned to future reviews.

I thank you for the opportunity to provide this public comment and share our 
experiences in the GNSO Review.

The GNSO Review Working Party


Thank you for your time and input!

Jen



jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB
Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348
IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014
What will you do with your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P
Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs  http://ow.ly/Eblgc
Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column  http://ow.ly/EbljP
Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM