Summary and analysis of public comments for GNSO Working Group Guidelines
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 22.214.171.124 Introductions (GD, INTA) § Section 126.96.36.199 Election of the WG Leaders (GD, INTA, MO) § Section 188.8.131.52 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 184.108.40.206 Deliverables and Timeframes (CG) § Section 220.127.116.11 Team Roles, Functions and Duties (MO) § Section 18.104.22.168 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.