Summary and analysis of public comments for GNSO Working Group Guidelines

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Disclaimer: This summary is not a full and complete recitation of the relevant 
comments received. It is an attempt to capture in broad terms the nature and 
scope of the comments. This summary has been prepared in an effort to highlight 
key elements of these submissions in an abbreviated format, not to replace 
them. Every effort has been made to avoid mischaracterizations and to present 
fairly the views provided. Any failure to do so is unintentional. The comments 
may be viewed in their entirety at 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/working-group-guidelines/

Summary and analysis of public comments for GNSO Working Group Guidelines

Comment period ended: 22 March 2010

Summary published: 24 March 2010

Prepared by: Marika Konings, Policy Director

I.              BACKGROUND

As part of the GNSO Improvements Process, which has as its objective to improve 
the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization 
(GNSO), a Working Group (WG) Work Team was tasked with developing a Working 
Group Model. This Working Group Model should become the focal point for policy 
development and enhance the policy development process by making it more 
inclusive and representative, and – ultimately – more effective and efficient.

To this end, the WG WT has developed the document that was posted for public 
comment, entitled ‘Working Group Guidelines’, which brings together two 
different elements of the Working Group process; on the one hand it addresses 
what should be considered in creating, purposing, funding, staffing, and 
instructing/guiding a WG to accomplish the desired outcome (the chartering 
process), and; secondly, what guidance should be provided to a WG on elements 
such as structuring, norms, tasking, reporting, and delivering the outcome(s) 
as chartered (the working group process).

II.             COMMENTS and CONTRIBUTIONS

Five (5) community submissions have been made to the public comment forum. The 
contributors are listed below in alphabetical order (with relevant initials 
noted in parentheses):

Chuck Gomes (CG)
GoDaddy.com by James Bladel (GD)
International Trademark Association Internet Committee by Claudio Di Gangi 
(INTA)
Mike O’Connor (MO)
Registry Stakeholder Group by David Maher (RySG)

III.           SUMMARY & ANALYSIS

As a general comment, CG, RySG and GD note that the use of the term ‘Chartering 
Organization’ throughout the document is confusing, and GD suggest that ‘all 
references to “Chartering Organization” be replaced with “GNSO Council” 
throughout the document, with an explanatory note that the working group may be 
formed and governed by other organizations within ICANN’. In addition, GD 
proposes to strengthen the recommendations by changing the title from ‘Working 
Group Guidelines’ to ‘Working Group Procedures’. Other general comments include 
providing further information on who is responsible for drafting a Working 
Group Charter (RySG) and changing ‘can’ to ‘may’ throughout the document (CG). 
MO recommends that the WT considers including a Working Group process flow, a 
Working Group context diagram and a guide for newcomers.

In addition to the above-mentioned general comments, all contributors have 
provided specific commentary and suggestions for improvement to the following 
sections of the document:

§  Section 1 General (INTA)
§  Section 1.3 Intended Audience (INTA)
§  Section 1.4 Revisions (INTA)
§  Section 2 Roles and Responsibilities (INTA)
§  Section 2.1 Introductions and Team Formation (MO)
§  Section 2.1.1. Announcement of a Working Group (INTA)
§  Section 2.1.2 Membership Applications (CG, GD, INTA, MO, RySG)
§  Section 2.1.3 Planning the First Meeting (INTA)
§  Section 2.1.4.1 Introductions (GD, INTA)
§  Section 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders (GD, INTA, MO)
§  Section 2.1.4.3 Items for Review (INTA)
§  Section 2.2. Team Member Roles and Responsibilities (GD, CG, MO, RySG)
§  Section 2.3 Use of Sub-Teams (GD)
§  Section 3.1 Participation (GD, INTA, MO)
§  Section 3.2 Representativeness (INTA)
§  Section 3.3 Process Integrity (GD)
§  Section 3.4 Process Integrity (GD, MO)
§  Section 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions (CG, GD, INTA, RySG)
§  Section 3.7 Appeal Process (CG)
§  Section 4 Logistics and Requirements (INTA)
§  Section 4.1 Session Planning (CG, GD, RySG)
§  Section 5 Products & Outputs (CG)
§  Section 6 Charter Guidelines (INTA)
§  Section 6.1.1 Announcement of a Working Group (INTA)
§  Section 6.1.2 Transparency and Openness (CG, INTA, RySG)
§  Section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance and Expectations of the Chair (CG, MO)
§  Section 6.1.4 Other Important Roles (INTA, MO)
§  Section 6.2 Working Group Charter Template (INTA)
§  Section 6.2.2.3 Deliverables and Timeframes (CG)
§  Section 6.2.3.3 Team Roles, Functions and Duties (MO)
§  Section 6.2.3.4 Statements of Interest and Disclosure of Interest (CG, INTA, 
RySG)

IV.           NEXT STEPS

The WG WT will review in detail all the comments received and determine if and 
how this document should be updated before being submitted to the Policy 
Process Steering Committee (PPSC) for its consideration.