Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project
Dear Councillors, I am hereby submitting the Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project for the GNSO Council Meeting on Wednesday,16 June 2021 at 10:30 UTC. Warm regards, Tatiana
Dear Tatiana, Thank you for submitting the motion, which has been posted on the corresponding wiki page here<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+June+2021>. Kind regards, Nathalie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Reply to: Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, 6 June 2021 at 17:36 To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project Dear Councillors, I am hereby submitting the Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project for the GNSO Council Meeting on Wednesday,16 June 2021 at 10:30 UTC. Warm regards, Tatiana
Dear Tatiana: Thank you for submitting this motion. While we have been less than timely in responding, the motion has catalysed significant discussion among the RySG regarding the Framework and the motion to undertake the Pilot portion of the program. With that in mind, I wish to: (1) second the motion (if that role is yet-to-be fulfilled); (2) propose an amendment for your consideration; (3) continue ‘discussion’ of the framework by indicating some of the issues that were raised during the RySG discussion of the motion. In short, the RySG supports the idea of the Pilot with a pause of the Council to consider next steps. The time necessary to spin up the Pilot and the pause at the end should provide an opportunity to discuss the issues raised below, and those raised by others. The proposed amendment would cure an admittedly small difference between the Framework, which is uncertain with respect to whom decides to continue with the Framework, and the motion, which explicitly puts that decision under the aegis of the Council. So the amendment is to the first resolution clause (a —> b): a. The GNSO Council initiates the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot as outlined in section 4 of this document <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210526/8995c911/GNSOFra...>; becomes b. The GNSO Council initiates the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot as outlined in section 4 of this document <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210526/8995c911/GNSOFra...> where step 4 of Section 4 is replaced with the third resolved clause below. This has the effect of replacing: a. The section in the Framework: “The pilot will consist of [a] decision on if/how to continue with Framework approach and addressing of remaining work items,” with, b. The third bullet in the motion: "Once the pilot completes, the Council, in close collaboration with SG/Cs as well as the Council Committee and Pilot Task Force, will review the functioning of the Framework and decide whether to continue with the other assignments as outlined in the updated proposal (see section 3), make modifications to the framework and continue with the other assignments, or, identify another path through which the assignments identified are to be addressed.” With the motion passing to maintain progress, the RySG plans to raise the issues below for discussion while the pilot is underway. We have a sense that others have issues to raise and, like the RySG, they are in the spirit tackling the GNSO work in an efficient and appropriately prioritized way. Our comments, somewhat bluntly stated but intended only as discussion starters: a. The composition of the Committee and Task Forces is overly prescriptive; we think: (i) the Task Forces should be given discretion to vary composition depending on the task; (ii) subject matter experts should be available how and when needed, (iii) the composition of the Committee should more closely represent apportionment in the current representation in the Council; (iv) the committee itself might vary in composition over time. b. The definition of consensus is vague and, depending on the composition of the Task Force or Committee, might result in decisions or proposed decisions contra to the Council representation model. In any case, the decision-making methodology (i.e., strive for full-consensus, but if you can’t….some alternate will be acceptable), replicates the problem we see with every PDP now. c. The framework suggests the formation of four Task Forces considering seven assignments, and four additional assignments for the Committee. It is understood that this will not happen in parallel, but still, we are left with the same problem: how many of these task forces can we form given the volunteer resources available? It seems that we have, in effect, created an additional committee to address the same set of problems, but with a prescriptive, one-size, fits-all approach. d. Most importantly, we, the Council, should identify and address those issues that are most important to the Council and our constituents. We should discuss whether it is the best approach to delegate that to a separate Committee. For example and to me, an existential issue for the Council is the recent performance of the PDP, where we just completed two five-year PDPs (where implementation has not started), and we are three years into the EPDP Phase I, which has not completed implementation work. If these efforts were completed in a more-appropriate fraction of the time, there would be more people available for other work. For others, the most important issues might be policy-related outcomes accruing from the ATRT or other reviews. I think this is good fodder for a Council discussion in lieu or in addition to the implementation of the Framework. I know I have left a lot unsaid but have already taken up enough of your time. I also raised issues without proposing solutions. These are things the Council might discuss together. Thanks for reading, I am free to discuss this at any time. Sincerely, Kurt
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tatiana Tropina via council <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project Date: June 6, 2021 at 8:30:39 AM PDT To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, gnso-SECS <gnso-secs@icann.org> Reply-To: Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>
Dear Councillors, I am hereby submitting the Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project for the GNSO Council Meeting on Wednesday,16 June 2021 at 10:30 UTC. Warm regards, Tatiana _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Kurt, thank you very much for seconding the motion. I accept your amendments as friendly amendments. The motion will be updated accordingly. Most of all, I want to thank you for starting this discussion! Warm regards, Tatiana On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 01:10, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Dear Tatiana:
Thank you for submitting this motion. While we have been less than timely in responding, the motion has catalysed significant discussion among the RySG regarding the Framework and the motion to undertake the Pilot portion of the program.
With that in mind, I wish to: (1) second the motion (if that role is yet-to-be fulfilled); (2) propose an amendment for your consideration; (3) continue ‘discussion’ of the framework by indicating some of the issues that were raised during the RySG discussion of the motion.
In short, the RySG supports the idea of the Pilot with a pause of the Council to consider next steps. The time necessary to spin up the Pilot and the pause at the end should provide an opportunity to discuss the issues raised below, and those raised by others.
The proposed amendment would cure an admittedly small difference between the Framework, which is uncertain with respect to whom decides to continue with the Framework, and the motion, which explicitly puts that decision under the aegis of the Council. So the amendment is to the first resolution clause (a —> b):
a. The GNSO Council initiates the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot as outlined in section 4 of this document <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210526/8995c911/GNSOFra...> ; *becomes*
b. The GNSO Council initiates the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot as outlined in section 4 of this document <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210526/8995c911/GNSOFra...> where step 4 of Section 4 is replaced with the third resolved clause below.
This has the effect of replacing:
a. The section in the Framework: “The pilot will consist of [a] decision on if/how to continue with Framework approach and addressing of remaining work items,” *with*,
b. The third bullet in the motion: "Once the pilot completes, the Council, in close collaboration with SG/Cs as well as the Council Committee and Pilot Task Force, will review the functioning of the Framework and decide whether to continue with the other assignments as outlined in the updated proposal (see section 3), make modifications to the framework and continue with the other assignments, or, identify another path through which the assignments identified are to be addressed.”
With the motion passing to maintain progress, the RySG plans to raise the issues below for discussion while the pilot is underway. We have a sense that others have issues to raise and, like the RySG, they are in the spirit tackling the GNSO work in an efficient and appropriately prioritized way. Our comments, somewhat bluntly stated but intended only as discussion starters:
a. The composition of the Committee and Task Forces is overly prescriptive; we think: (i) the Task Forces should be given discretion to vary composition depending on the task; (ii) subject matter experts should be available how and when needed, (iii) the composition of the Committee should more closely represent apportionment in the current representation in the Council; (iv) the committee itself might vary in composition over time.
b. The definition of consensus is vague and, depending on the composition of the Task Force or Committee, might result in decisions or proposed decisions contra to the Council representation model. In any case, the decision-making methodology (i.e., strive for full-consensus, but if you can’t….some alternate will be acceptable), replicates the problem we see with every PDP now.
c. The framework suggests the formation of four Task Forces considering seven assignments, and four additional assignments for the Committee. It is understood that this will not happen in parallel, but still, we are left with the same problem: how many of these task forces can we form given the volunteer resources available? It seems that we have, in effect, created an additional committee to address the same set of problems, but with a prescriptive, one-size, fits-all approach.
d. Most importantly, we, the Council, should identify and address those issues that are most important to the Council and our constituents. We should discuss whether it is the best approach to delegate that to a separate Committee.
For example and to me, an existential issue for the Council is the recent performance of the PDP, where we just completed two five-year PDPs (where implementation has not started), and we are three years into the EPDP Phase I, which has not completed implementation work. If these efforts were completed in a more-appropriate fraction of the time, there would be more people available for other work.
For others, the most important issues might be policy-related outcomes accruing from the ATRT or other reviews. I think this is good fodder for a Council discussion in lieu or in addition to the implementation of the Framework.
I know I have left a lot unsaid but have already taken up enough of your time. I also raised issues without proposing solutions. These are things the Council might discuss together.
Thanks for reading, I am free to discuss this at any time.
Sincerely,
Kurt
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Tatiana Tropina via council <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: **[council] Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project* *Date: *June 6, 2021 at 8:30:39 AM PDT *To: *GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, gnso-SECS < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>
Dear Councillors, I am hereby submitting the Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project for the GNSO Council Meeting on Wednesday,16 June 2021 at 10:30 UTC. Warm regards, Tatiana
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Tatiana and Kurt, Thank you both for your input. The motion text has been updated accordingly and can be found here<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+June+2021>. Kind regards, Nathalie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Reply to: Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 10:44 To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project Dear Kurt, thank you very much for seconding the motion. I accept your amendments as friendly amendments. The motion will be updated accordingly. Most of all, I want to thank you for starting this discussion! Warm regards, Tatiana On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 01:10, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Dear Tatiana: Thank you for submitting this motion. While we have been less than timely in responding, the motion has catalysed significant discussion among the RySG regarding the Framework and the motion to undertake the Pilot portion of the program. With that in mind, I wish to: (1) second the motion (if that role is yet-to-be fulfilled); (2) propose an amendment for your consideration; (3) continue ‘discussion’ of the framework by indicating some of the issues that were raised during the RySG discussion of the motion. In short, the RySG supports the idea of the Pilot with a pause of the Council to consider next steps. The time necessary to spin up the Pilot and the pause at the end should provide an opportunity to discuss the issues raised below, and those raised by others. The proposed amendment would cure an admittedly small difference between the Framework, which is uncertain with respect to whom decides to continue with the Framework, and the motion, which explicitly puts that decision under the aegis of the Council. So the amendment is to the first resolution clause (a —> b): a. The GNSO Council initiates the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot as outlined in section 4 of this document<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210526/8995c911/GNSOFra...>; becomes b. The GNSO Council initiates the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot as outlined in section 4 of this document<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210526/8995c911/GNSOFra...> where step 4 of Section 4 is replaced with the third resolved clause below. This has the effect of replacing: a. The section in the Framework: “The pilot will consist of [a] decision on if/how to continue with Framework approach and addressing of remaining work items,” with, b. The third bullet in the motion: "Once the pilot completes, the Council, in close collaboration with SG/Cs as well as the Council Committee and Pilot Task Force, will review the functioning of the Framework and decide whether to continue with the other assignments as outlined in the updated proposal (see section 3), make modifications to the framework and continue with the other assignments, or, identify another path through which the assignments identified are to be addressed.” With the motion passing to maintain progress, the RySG plans to raise the issues below for discussion while the pilot is underway. We have a sense that others have issues to raise and, like the RySG, they are in the spirit tackling the GNSO work in an efficient and appropriately prioritized way. Our comments, somewhat bluntly stated but intended only as discussion starters: a. The composition of the Committee and Task Forces is overly prescriptive; we think: (i) the Task Forces should be given discretion to vary composition depending on the task; (ii) subject matter experts should be available how and when needed, (iii) the composition of the Committee should more closely represent apportionment in the current representation in the Council; (iv) the committee itself might vary in composition over time. b. The definition of consensus is vague and, depending on the composition of the Task Force or Committee, might result in decisions or proposed decisions contra to the Council representation model. In any case, the decision-making methodology (i.e., strive for full-consensus, but if you can’t….some alternate will be acceptable), replicates the problem we see with every PDP now. c. The framework suggests the formation of four Task Forces considering seven assignments, and four additional assignments for the Committee. It is understood that this will not happen in parallel, but still, we are left with the same problem: how many of these task forces can we form given the volunteer resources available? It seems that we have, in effect, created an additional committee to address the same set of problems, but with a prescriptive, one-size, fits-all approach. d. Most importantly, we, the Council, should identify and address those issues that are most important to the Council and our constituents. We should discuss whether it is the best approach to delegate that to a separate Committee. For example and to me, an existential issue for the Council is the recent performance of the PDP, where we just completed two five-year PDPs (where implementation has not started), and we are three years into the EPDP Phase I, which has not completed implementation work. If these efforts were completed in a more-appropriate fraction of the time, there would be more people available for other work. For others, the most important issues might be policy-related outcomes accruing from the ATRT or other reviews. I think this is good fodder for a Council discussion in lieu or in addition to the implementation of the Framework. I know I have left a lot unsaid but have already taken up enough of your time. I also raised issues without proposing solutions. These are things the Council might discuss together. Thanks for reading, I am free to discuss this at any time. Sincerely, Kurt Begin forwarded message: From: Tatiana Tropina via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project Date: June 6, 2021 at 8:30:39 AM PDT To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, gnso-SECS <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Reply-To: Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>> Dear Councillors, I am hereby submitting the Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project for the GNSO Council Meeting on Wednesday,16 June 2021 at 10:30 UTC. Warm regards, Tatiana _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (3)
-
Kurt Pritz -
Nathalie Peregrine -
Tatiana Tropina