New subject: GNSO Standing Committee for Continuous Improvement – Ideas and Possible Approach

11 Jan 2021

      Many thanks, Philippe, Pam and Tatiana, for initiating this discussion
about the formation of a new standing committee.

I have some general reluctance based on the experience of the prior SCI, as
well as specific thoughts about the Action Decision Radar.

   - While the Action Decision Radar is admittedly frighteningly long, here
   are relatively few items on that list that fall squarely into the bucket of
   "improvements", as opposed to policy development. I can see only these:
      - Council to decide when to launch review of   Policy &
      Implementation recommendations review
      - Council to monitor for assignments related to the Evolution of
      Multi Stakeholder model (currently a watch-and-wait)
      - Council to monitor for ATRT3 implementation assignments; awaiting
      Board adoption of    ATRT3 recommendations (to be updated following Board
      adoption, but as yet this too is a watch-and-wait, and is related to
      another item on this list, which is planning/scoping the GNSO3 Review)
      - SSR2 Results to be reviewed
   - The first item on this list, a review of the SCI's recommendations of
   June 2015, must, in my view, be undertaken prior to any formation of a new
   Standing Committee on Improvements. This review should not be a 'kitchen
   sink' type review, but rather an identification of any SCI recommendations
   that remain unimplemented (and an analysis of why/whether timely and
   appropriate to implement now, etc) and an identification of those which
   were implemented but perhaps may not be working optimally or as expected.
   This group could also be tasked with *identifying* any other potential
   improvements. Like Wolf-Ulrich, my concern is that the rationale or
   justification for forming a new SCI-like body isn't yet made out. The
   numerous dot points on the SCCI Ideas and Possible Approach document
   <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HBCXMkLb7vFkWClgCpsr8WjYScz3UDh4/edit>
are
   not yet sufficiently tangible to justify forming a new group, in my opinion.
   - The Council in place at the time the SCI recommendations were approved
   in 2015 had difficulty bridging the gap between the SCI's recommendations
   and actual Council practice. Many members of the SCI had never served on
   Council and were not familiar with the workaday processes of how Council
   operates. While I am always in favour of efforts that have Councilors and
   broader GNSO community members working together, we need to ensure that we
   don't end up with a relatively inexperienced group that makes idealised
   recommendations for how Council can do its work better. I'm not suggesting
   that we do a post-mortem on the SCI 5 years after its closure, but simply
   that we as a community reflect carefully before launching any new
   initiative.
   - I prefer the idea of task forces on a particular topic to another SCI.
   This enables those with expertise on particular matters to selectively
   volunteer their time to relevant efforts, while a generally-themed SCI-like
   body may actually repel such subject matter experts. A small committee
   within the GNSO (not necessarily Council) could be set up to oversee this
   work. Unless there is a clear link to Council's remit under the Bylaws as
   manager of the PDP or to one of the narrow EC Responsibilities in which
   Council plays an administrative function, I do not see many of the tasks in
   the proposed remit of this new body as falling resolutely within Council's
   remit. I'll copy this final comment into the SCCI Ideas and Possible
   Approach document to ensure these views are captured there.

I think this is an opportunity for the Council and GNSO SG/C leaders to
work more closely together. One of the ways to make Council more efficient
and effective is to slough off those tasks which are GNSO-related but not
PDP- or EC-related to the GNSO community. The more Council takes on,
obviously the less well it can do everything it already has on its plate,
and in any event, the Bylaws do not envisage such an all-encumbered body as
the GNSO Council is becoming.

Best wishes,

Heather

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:35 AM <wuknoben@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Dear Philippe and all,
I’ve checked the paper, and it causes some questions regarding the target
and the remit of the suggested SCCI which should cover GNSO “processes and
procedures”.
1. With the understanding that the Council including the related WGs
   is responsible for any kind of PDP and ICANN staff – together with the
   community – is responsible for the implementation the SCCI should not
   undertake any policy and policy implementation tasks like
- Implementation of WS2 recommendations that are not SG/C specific (if
   policy related)
   - Review of Policy & Implementation WG recommendations
1. By deducting the a.m. items from the SCCI to do list the remaining
   remit would still cover an extremely broad range of items which – as
   suggested – may only be covered by specialized sub-teams. In this case I’d
   like to ask for which purpose the SCCI is needed. Couldn’t the council
   themselves lay the ground for these sub-teams?
1. I support the idea of “continuous improvement” and see also the
   need to institutionalize it. But don’t overload it.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*Von:* Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
*Gesendet:* Sonntag, 3. Januar 2021 20:43
*An:* Fouquart <philippe.fouquart@orange.com>
*Cc:* GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>; Heather Forrest <
haforrestesq@gmail.com>; Selli, Claudia <claudia.selli@intl.att.com>;
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>; Bruna Martins dos
Santos <bruna.mrtns@gmail.com>; Raoul Plommer <plommer@gmail.com>;
Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix@gmail.com>;
aheineman@godaddy.com; Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou@verisign.com>;
chair@rysg.info; Sue Schuler <secretariat@rysg.info>; Zoe Bonython <
secretariat@icannregistrars.org>; Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org>;
gnso-chairs@icann.org
*Betreff:* Re: [council] GNSO Standing Committee for Continuous
Improvement – Ideas and Possible Approach
Thank you Chair.  I made a few comments.
Carlton
==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment &
Turnaround*
=============================
On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 8:39 AM <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> wrote:
Dear Councilors, SG/C Chairs,
As you may be aware, there are quite a number of projects on the Council’s
Action Decision Radar (see https://community.icann.org/x/14vzC) that deal
with improvements to GNSO processes and procedures. We heard from you
during the Strategic Planning Session about the importance of prioritizing
work as well as considering the resources available to conduct work as
efficiently as possible. To this end, the suggestion was made to explore
the possibility of creating a Standing Committee that would be tasked with
addressing projects or assignments that are mainly focused on improving
existing GNSO processes and procedures.
To further explore this possible approach, the Council leadership team has
worked with the staff support team on developing a high-level outline for
your review and input (see
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HBCXMkLb7vFkWClgCpsr8WjYScz3UDh4/edit).
Although the Standing Committee would be chartered by and operate under the
oversight of the GNSO Council, it is intended to be a GNSO effort which can
only be successful with the full support and participation of all SG and
Cs. We appreciate that it may be challenging to comment on this approach
without having all the details, but our hope is that by soliciting input at
this point in time, we would be able to develop a more detailed proposal as
a next step factoring in your suggestions and perspectives.
Some of the questions we hope you can focus on are:
·         Is this the right approach to benefit from synergies? If not,
how should all the projects listed be tackled instead?
·         How to ensure appropriate scoping of work? The idea is that the
standing committee would tackle topics that cut across the GNSO community
and/or would benefit from a cross-GNSO collaboration. A possible approach
could be that the charter provides an indication of the topics that are
expected to be tackled, but specific assignments are confirmed in the form
of a clear scoping document and work plan that is approved by the GNSO
Council, with input from SG/Cs via their respective Council members. Are
there other approaches that could be considered?
·         What should membership look like? How to ensure a balanced
composition which at the same time is nimble enough to work effectively?
How to introduce sufficient flexibility to allow for expert participation?
·         What decision-making methodology should be applied? Or is this
to be determined based on the assignment the Standing Committee is tasked
with?
·         Is it feasible to consider tackling some of the projects
identified in parallel through different sub-committees?
·         How should the work be prioritized if a Standing Committee is
created? Each of the possible projects identified could take a substantial
amount of time to address and resolve which means certain items could take
a while to get addressed.
Of course, there may be other topics you want to weigh in on.
We hope to receive your feedback *in advance of the next Council meeting*
which is scheduled for Thursday 21 January, either via your input on the
google doc (see
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HBCXMkLb7vFkWClgCpsr8WjYScz3UDh4/edit)
or in response to this email. As you will have seen, a number of the
possible projects for the Standing Committee are fairly high on the
Council’s Action Decision Radar so we hope to agree on an approach for
tackling these sooner rather than later.
Best regards and happy holidays,
Philippe Fouquart
Chair, GNSO
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
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.

Re: [council] GNSO Standing Committee for Continuous Improvement – Ideas and Possible Approach

Heather Forrest

Jeff Neuman

tags

participants (2)