[gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call

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

Thanks Charla.

Chuck

From: Charla Shambley [mailto:charla.shambley@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 7:59 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Cc: Pamela Smith
Subject: RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call

Hi Chuck.  Thank you for your very detailed response to the recommendations.

To answer your question regarding the percentages, the Excel document indicates 
the answers with the highest response by working party members.  So, for 
example, Recommendation 3 indicates that 50% of respondents thought that "ease 
of implementation" would be hard; 8.3% thought that it would be easy, 33.3% 
responded with medium and 8.3% responded with no opinion.

Continuing with Recommendation 3, 66.7% thought that the "cost of 
implementation" would be high, while 16.7% thought it would be medium, 8.3% 
thought it would be low and 8.3% responded with no opinion.

Therefore, the chart reflects the highest response rate to a particular 
question.  While not scientific, it helped me "rank" the recommendations in 
order of agreement by the Working Party which allowed us to review the 
recommendations quickly during our working session in Dublin.  The backup data 
for each recommendation is listed under separate worksheets in the Excel 
document which may help further explain my note above.

I hope that this clarifies the percentages for you.

Charla

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 3:33 PM
To: Charla Shambley 
<charla.shambley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:charla.shambley@xxxxxxxxx>>; 
'gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx' 
<gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Pamela Smith <pamela.smith@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:pamela.smith@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: GNSO Review - Review of Remaining Recommendations & Schedule Call

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> 
[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@01D11BC1.6F3530D0]        Recommendations to be reviewed 
by Working Party
   [cid:image007.png@01D11BC1.6F3530D0]         Working Party suggests adoption 
of this recommendation
       [cid:image008.png@01D11BC1.6F3530D0]     Working Party is in agreement 
and flags that work is already underway
  [cid:image009.png@01D11BC1.6F3530D0]          Working Party agrees with 
intent and suggests modification to recommendation language
     [cid:image010.png@01D11BC1.6F3530D0]       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