Re: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Follow-up: OEC questions

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I’m in agreement with Chuck’s comments and add the following re
  a.. Rec 4: The idea was that rewards could be taken into consideration but 
not in terms of cash (financial). Travel support is therefore seen as being 
non-financial. 
  b.. Rec 19: These kinds of confirmations are usually part of the “Wheras” of 
council resolutions. But re the diversity aspect the council should be asked.


Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Gomes, Chuck 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:34 AM
To: Charla Shambley ; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
Cc: Lars Hoffmann 
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Follow-up: OEC questions

I inserted what I think might be our responses below but I am fully open to my 
suggestions being edited or rejected.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Charla Shambley
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:13 PM
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Lars Hoffmann
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Follow-up: OEC questions

 

Dear GNSO Review Working Party –

 

I am re-sending this email on behalf of Lars and Larisa to ensure that the 
Working Party has adequate time to prepare responses to the Organizational 
Effectiveness Committee’s (OEC) questions noted below.

 

Please respond to the list no later than 23:59 UTC, 12 May, so that Staff can 
capture the consolidated responses in preparation for the OEC’s upcoming 
meeting this weekend.

 

Thank you in advance!

 

Regards,

 

Charla

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 4:23 PM
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Follow-up: OEC questions

 

Dear Jen and members of the GNSO Review Working Party,

 

I am writing on behalf of Larisa, following up on her earlier email (see 
below). As mentioned, the OEC has compiled questions for the Working Party, to 
which it seeks your answers so that the Committee’s meeting in Amsterdam next 
week can be as productive as possible. 

 

You may want to respond either in writing or verbally; I believe Jen will take 
part in the OEC’s deliberations via telephone conference next week. Please note 
that staff is of course available to assist you should you require additional 
support. Please do not hesitate to get in touch on- or off-list.

 

Very best wishes and a wonderful weekend

Larisa and Lars

 

 

Question from the OEC to the GNSO Review Working Party:

                

  a.. Please confirm that – following the GNSO Council's Recommendation - Rec 
21 should now be marked ‘yellow’ as it looks that there are modifications 
proposed by the GNSO Council and WP (in addition to it now being ‘low 
priority’).[Chuck Gomes] Confirm.
  a.. Rec 4 - Please explain the thinking/concern behind travel funding as a 
form of "financial reward".  [Chuck Gomes] I may not be the best one to respond 
to this so I encourage others to do so but here is what I think might apply: 
Some people may view receiving funding to attend meetings and travel around the 
world as a reward.
  a.. Rec 9 - Developing a needs assessment for WG leadership is good, but does 
this mean that an assessment of each WG leader's performance would not be done 
for each PDP WG?[Chuck Gomes] I don’t think that necessarily follows nor do I 
think that the recommendation precludes such performance reviews. 
  b.. Rec 10 - Please elaborate on "additional criteria" to be developed.  
Would it cover (for example) situations where facilitation would be required 
and where external/independent facilitators may add value in case internal 
facilitation fails?[Chuck Gomes] I don’t think that there was any intent to 
absolutely require facilitation in certain situations but rather to provide 
guidelines when it might be useful. 
  c.. Rec 19 - Does the GNSO Council currently issue a confirmation post-PDP 
that the WG has been properly constituted, has fulfilled the terms of its 
charter and has followed due process?  Would the GNSO Council consider adding 
the diversity of WG aspect of Rec 36 to its post-PDP confirmation as 
information for the the Board?[Chuck Gomes] I don’t believe this formally 
happens but I think it is assumed when the Council approves PDP 
recommendations.  This question probably should be asked of the Council as 
well. 
  d.. Rec 22 - Why is technical training not addressed?  Would 
guidance/reference be provided to new GNSO Council members who may be lacking 
technical experience/background to go to for training? [Chuck Gomes] I don’t 
believe there was any intent to exclude technical training.  If technical 
training is needed to improve policy development, it could be provided. 
  e.. Rec 23 - Please explain/elaborate on concern no. 2 in Working Party 
Comments and Rationale.[Chuck Gomes] Does the OEC think that all constituencies 
are equal in terms of mission clarity, member engagement and contributions to 
GNSO work?  That would be ideal but it probably isn’t real.  More importantly, 
constituencies vary in terms of how well they represent their communities and 
how they document their processes of involving their members.  Of the four 
rationales, this one may be the least important.
 

 

 

From: <owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "Larisa B. Gurnick" 
<larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday 6 May 2016 at 08:40
To: "gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>, Jen Wolfe 
<jwolfe@dotbrand360.agency>
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Consideration of GNSO Review Recommendations

 

Dear Jen and members of the GNSO Review Working Party,

 

The Board is getting ready to take action on the GNSO Review Recommendations 
along with the substantial analysis and feedback from all of you and others in 
the GNSO.  As you can see from the update below, the work of your group has 
been combined with feedback from the GNSO Council and other community members 
to provide the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with a full picture.  OEC 
members have some questions for the Working Party and staff will compile and 
circulate these questions within the next day.

 

Update on the Board’s consideration of the GNSO Review Recommendations

Following the GNSO Council’s adoption of the GNSO Review Working Party's 
recommendations (see James Bladel’s transmittal  letter to Rinalia Abdul Rahim, 
dated 27 April 2016), Staff has put together a Summary of GNSO Review 
Recommendations for OEC Consideration (attached). The purpose of this document 
is to provide the Committee with a complete overview of all pertinent 
information in connection with the GNSO Review Recommendations.  At their next 
meeting on 15 May, the Committee will discuss the GNSO Review recommendations  
with the objective of formulating the Committee’s recommendation to the Board.  
Jen Wolfe will be present to answer Committee’s questions and provide 
clarification on the work of the Working Party. 

 

The document contains the Recommendations of the Independent  Examiner, the 
feedback from the GNSO Review Working Party (including implementation 
priority), and a description of work already underway. In addition, community 
feedback and comments concerning implementation are summarized in Annex A. This 
feedback is the result of a webinar held on 12 April 2016 (transcript and 
recording) and of the GNSO Council call held on 14 April 2016 (transcript (p.21 
onwards) and recording (0:47:19 onwards)).

 

Next steps

1.       OEC Committee members are reviewing all the materials and staff is 
compiling their questions for the Working Party.  We will circulate these 
questions within the next day to give you sufficient time to develop responses. 
 As always, staff is available to assist you.

 

2.       Once the OEC has discussed this matter, the Committee will make a 
recommendation  to the ICANN Board for its consideration. Staff currently 
anticipates that the Board will be able to deliberate the GNSO Review 
Recommendations during its meeting in Helsinki. 

 

3.       Finally, with a view to the forthcoming implementation process, the 
GNSO Council requested ICANN policy staff to 'prepare a discussion paper that 
outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO 
Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board, taking into 
account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing 
mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable 
best practices and lessons learned from past reviews.’  The plan  will take  
into consideration the views of the Council as well as those by the OEC and the 
Board,  and address various elements essential for an effective and efficient 
implementation process.  These elements include:  prioritization of 
recommendations in line with GNSO and ICANN capacity; clear articulation of 
expected outcomes from implementation; and definition of means to measure 
effectiveness of implementation.

 

If you have any further questions or require clarifications, please do not 
hesitate to reach out at any time.  

Thank you for your enormous effort and contribution to making the GNSO Review 
an effective accountability mechanism.

 

All the best,

 

Larisa B. Gurnick

Senior Director, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives

Mobile: 1 310 383-8995

Skype: larisa.gurnick