Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Larisa,

Assuming I get my visa in time (still working on that) to make it to Marrakech, 
I’d be happy to make some time to help with this in any way I can.

I’ll keep you posted.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 9:22 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick <larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> 
> Chuck and Amr,
> Thank  you for your feedback and suggestions.  This will be incorporated into 
> the final version.
> 
> At the last meeting, we discussed the value of the GNSO Review Working Party 
> to suggest  targets, indications or other guidance to specify what a good 
> outcome would be for each recommendation identified for implementation.  Amr, 
> as you suggested, this would help with measuring effectiveness of the 
> implementation in the future.  There seemed to be general agreement that this 
> would be a useful activity.  This approach would be consistent with good 
> practices and process improvements we are working on implementing for all 
> reviews.  Would you be willing to assist with this effort, and if so, would 
> you be able to carve out some time in Marrakech to share your ideas with 
> Charla and me?
> 
> Thank you,
> Larisa  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 1:05 PM
> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Charla Shambley 
> <charla.shambley@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps
> 
> 
> Amr's suggestion of adding a note (or notes) seems like a good idea to me.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
> On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 1:19 PM
> To: Charla Shambley
> Cc: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Apologies for missing the last call. It somehow didn’t make it in to my 
> calendar. I just listened to the recording, checked the changes in 
> recommendations suggested and wanted to offer one comment regarding 
> recommendations 35 and 36.
> 
> If I recall correctly, both those recommendations had a “do not implement” 
> recommendation by the working party, despite being color-coded yellow for a 
> reason. The rational, as I remember it, was that the working party members 
> agreed with the intent of the recommendations (the GNSO doing what it can to 
> empower as much diversity as possible in WG participation), however, the 
> standards set by the independent examiner to measure against seemed too vague 
> and difficult to define and implement.
> 
> For example, in recommendation 35, the recommendation is to form a WG “whose 
> membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age 
> diversity of the Internet as a whole”. I’m not sure that the diversity of the 
> Internet as a whole is something that will prove easy to work with. The 
> language in recommendation 36 is a little more flexible adding “as far as 
> reasonably practicle”.
> 
> Anyway, I’m not objecting to the changes made on these, but suggest that it 
> may be helpful to add a note to our recommendation on these — that the 
> metrics used to measure diversity should be specified with more consideration 
> to what can actually be defined and measured. This could also likely be of 
> assistance in measuring the success (or lack of) of implementation of these 
> recommendations.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr 
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Charla Shambley <charla.shambley@xxxxxxxxx> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear GNSO Review Working Party,
>> 
>> Members of the GNSO Review Working Party who participated in last week’s 
>> call made significant progress and invite any other members of the Working 
>> Party to provide feedback on its Report “Feasibility Assessment and 
>> Prioritization of Recommendations” by close of business on 24 February.   
>> This is in preparation for submitting the attached report to the GNSO 
>> Council for consideration at the 9 March meeting.  We will schedule a 
>> tentative call from 16:00-17:00 UTC on 25 February to discuss the feedback 
>> from the Working Party, should it be needed.
>> 
>> The attached document contains two worksheets (and is also available on the 
>> wiki): the first worksheet is the Executive Summary, the second worksheet 
>> sorts the recommendations based on the Working Party’s evaluation of several 
>> criteria:
>> 
>> ·         Ease or difficulty of implementation
>> ·         Cost of implementation
>> ·         Whether it is aligned with the strategic direction of the GNSO
>> ·         Whether it impacts existing work or other work
>> 
>> The Working Party categorized each of the recommendations in two parts.  
>> Part One addressed whether the group agreed with the recommendation of the 
>> independent examiner (13 recommendations), did not agree (3 
>> recommendations), agreed with modifications (6 recommendations) or 
>> determined that work was already underway in the GNSO (14 recommendations).  
>> Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of 
>> the impact it could have on the GNSO.
>> 
>> The spreadsheet is sorted by priority so you will see high priority 
>> recommendations first, medium priority recommendations in the second tier, 
>> and low priority or do not implement recommendations toward the bottom.
>> 
>> Below is an updated timeline:
>> 
>> <image003.png>
>> I look forward to your feedback by close of business on 24 February.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Charla
>> 
>> Charla K. Shambley
>> Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager 
>> ICANN
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>> Los Angeles, CA  90094
>> mobile: 310-745-1943
>> 
>> <GNSO Review Rec Prioritization - 3Feb2016.xlsx>
> 
> 
>