<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call
- To: Charla Shambley <charla.shambley@xxxxxxxxx>, "'gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" <gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 23:33:04 +0000
I finally reviewed the recommendations that came out of Dublin. My feedback is
provided below.
Chuck
First I have a question. What do the percents mean? In some cases it seems
obvious but in others not at all.
WORKING PARTY SUGGESTS ADOPTION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION
* I have no objection to the recommendations that were put into this
category.
WORKING PARTY IS IN AGREEMENT AND FLAGS THAT WORK IS ALREADY UNDERWAY
* It seems to me that it would be helpful if we said more about some,
if not all, of these. I think more may be needed instead of simply saying 'work
is already underway'. I provide my personal suggestions for possible Working
Party responses and GNSO action items where appropriate. Also, I think a more
applicable title for this category would be something like this: "Working Party
is in agreement but notes that work is already underway and/or needs follow-on
action."
* Rec.8 (That WGs should have an explicit role in responding to
implementation issues related to policy they have developed.)
o My suggested Working Party Response: "The already approved Policy &
Implementation WG recommendations cover this."
o Ongoing GNSO action item: Ensure it happens in all future policy
implementation efforts.
* Rec.11 (That the face-to-face PDP WG pilot project be assessed when
completed. If the results are beneficial, guidelines should be developed and
support funding made available.)
o The Working Party Response seems fine to me: "Has been done for two years.
Need to evaluate."
o GNSO action items: i) Develop guidelines; ii) encourage support funding in
the ICANN budget.
* Rec.15 (That the GNSO continues current PDP Improvements Project
initiatives to address timeliness of the PDP.)
o The Working Party Response seems fine to me: "Already being done."
o Ongoing GNSO action item: Ensure that efforts to improve the timeliness of
PDPs continue.
* Rec.16 (That a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a
standard part of any policy process.)
o The Working Party Response seems fine to me: "Already in the PDP manual. "
o GNSO action items: i) Develop an analytical framework for assessing policy
impacts; ii) determine what should be measured and corresponding metrics.
* Rec.18 (That the GNSO Council evaluate post implementation policy
effectiveness on an ongoing basis (rather than periodically as stated in the
current GNSO Operating Procedures); and that these evaluations are analysed by
the GNSO Council to monitor and improve the drafting and scope of future PDP
Charters and facilitate the effectiveness of GNSO policy outcomes over time.)
o Proposed Working Party Response: "The Working Party supports this
recommendation."
o GNSO action items: i) Change the PDP Guidelines to make post-implementation
policy effectiveness evaluation an ongoing rather than a periodic process and
to include an assessment period at the start of the implementation process; ii)
develop guidelines for how implementation of policies should be evaluated.
* Rec.24 (That the GNSO Council and SGs and Cs adhere to the published
process for applications for new Constituencies. That the ICANN Board in
assessing an application satisfy itself that all parties have followed the
published process, subject to which the default outcome is that a new
Constituency is admitted. That all applications for new Constituencies,
including historic applications, be published on the ICANN website with full
transparency of decision-making.)
o Proposed Working Party Response: "Some in the Working Party believe this is
already being done; some disagree. If it is being done, it should be easier to
find. If it is not being done, it should be done at the beginning of the
process. Regardless, the Working Party believes that this recommendation will
require some due diligence on the part of the GNSO."
o GNSO action items; i) Determine whether new Constituency application
processes are clearly posted and easily accessible; ii) determine what steps
are taken to ensure compliance with those processes and whether those steps are
adequate; iii) determine if all Constituency applications, including historic
ones, are publicly posted along with full transparency of the decision-making
process; iv) determine whether or not there is a presumption that a new
Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met and if such a
presumption is appropriate; v) determine what process the Board uses to
evaluate new Constituency applications and whether they are ensuring process
compliance; vi) make recommendations for any modifications to the process, if
any.
* Rec.25 (That the GNSO Council commission the development of, and
implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing to establish a
new Constituency.)
o Proposed modified Working Party Response: "The Working Party believes that
guidance already exists and that assistance is already made available but
suggests that the effectiveness and ease of finding the guidance and obtaining
assistance be evaluated to see if improvements may be in order."
o GNSO action items: i) Evaluate the effectiveness and accessibility of
guidance for new Constituency applications; ii) recommend improvements to the
guidance and the available assistance as appropriate.
* Rec.30 (That the GNSO develop and implement a policy for the
provision of administrative support for SGs and Cs; and that SGs and Cs
annually review and evaluate the effectiveness of administrative support they
receive.)
o Proposed modified response: "The Working Party believes that there is
already a procedure for providing some forms of administrative support to SGs
and Cs but that there is not a procedure for SGs and Cs to evaluate the
effectiveness of the support provided."
o GNSO action items: i) Identify and review the existing procedures for SGs
and Cs to obtain administrative support; ii) evaluate the adequacy &
effectiveness of the existing procedures including whether additional forms of
support might be beneficial; iii) develop recommendations for improvements to
the procedures and new types of support, if any.
* Rec.31 (That the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement
in the GNSO Policy Development Process continue its two work streams as
priority projects. As a part of its work it should consider how the GAC could
appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP
as a means of providing timely input.)
o Proposed Working Party response: "The Working Party encourages the ongoing
work of the Consultation Group and suggests that it consider whether 'the GAC
could appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO
PDP as a means of providing timely input.'"
o GNSO action item: Send a letter to the GAC expressing appreciation for the
work of the Consultation Group, encourage continuation of the group and ask
whether it might be worthwhile for the GAC to consider appointing 'a
non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means
of providing timely input.' (An alternative approach here may be to first test
this with the GNSO GAC liaison.)
WORKING PARTY AGREES WITH INTENT AND SUGGESTS MODIFICATION TO RECOMMENDATION
LANGUAGE
* Rec.20 (That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN's
Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that
strikes a balance between ICANN's Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources
available for policy development.)
o I am fine with the proposed Working Party response: "Modify rec - input
from GNSO should go into the Strategic Planning process."
* Rec.35 (That the GNSO Council establish a WG, whose membership
specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity of
the Internet as a whole, to recommend to Council ways to reduce barriers to
participation in the GNSO by non- English speakers and those with limited
command of English.)
o I think the proposed Working Party response (Agree with the intent, but not
the WG approach.) needs explanation. What is wrong with the WG approach? What
would be an alternative way of fulfilling the intent of this recommendation?
DO NOT IMPLEMENT
* I support the recommendation to not implement recommendations 23 & 32.
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Charla Shambley
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 1:37 PM
To: 'gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Cc: Pamela Smith
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations &
Schedule Call
Dear GNSO Review Working Party,
For those of you that attended ICANN54, I hope you enjoyed your time in Dublin
and had an uneventful trip home.
During our working session in Dublin, the Working Party made significant
progress towards reviewing the feasibility and implementability of the 36
recommendations in the Final Report. Attached is an Excel document
categorizing the recommendations based on the Working Party's assessment of the
recommendations during their working session. A color-coded legend is provided
as follows:
[cid:image006.png@01D11B10.094A3560] Recommendations to be reviewed
by Working Party
[cid:image007.png@01D11B10.094A3560] Working Party suggests adoption
of this recommendation
[cid:image008.png@01D11B10.094A3560] Working Party is in agreement
and flags that work is already underway
[cid:image009.png@01D11B10.094A3560] Working Party agrees with
intent and suggests modification to recommendation language
[cid:image010.png@01D11B10.094A3560] Do not implement
Of the 36 recommendations, 9 still need to be reviewed by the Working Party
(see the recommendations under the blue heading in the Excel document -
specifically recommendations 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 36). It was
proposed that we schedule a call some time mid-November to review these
remaining recommendations. Please click on the doodle poll
link<http://doodle.com/poll/cqhei4x9b3wnwmsb> to provide your availability for
an upcoming call.
Thank you and I look forward to your doodle poll results.
Charla
Charla K. Shambley
Strategic Initiatives Program Manager
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
310-745-1943
![PNG image](pngZtgkHkeK6a.png)
![PNG image](pngVFJla6RW13.png)
![PNG image](pngFDcfrqZWI1.png)
![PNG image](png8V9TEA6ADm.png)
![PNG image](pngpXKoiy5gWW.png)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|