May 2013 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 22 May 2013
by Julie Hedlund June 18, 2013

June 18, 2013

Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 22 May 2013. The change from today's meeting was the re-insertion of "Full Consensus" in the Decision Making Section. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in two weeks as per the Doodle. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

6 11

Actions: SCI Meeting 07 April 2013
by Julie Hedlund June 4, 2013

June 4, 2013

Dear SCI members, Please see below the actions from the SCI meeting on 07 April 2013 and provide any comments or questions to the list. Our next meeting is scheduled for 01 May 2013. A notice will be sent out separately. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes / Actions: 1. Working Group Survey: Julie will check with ICANN staff who are working with the consultants who are developing the ICANN GNSO training modules; Julie and J.Scott will work up a proposal to have the consultants draft a new survey based on the feedback received from Mikey. 2. Termination/Suspension of a PDP: Julie will prepare a redlined version of the PDP Manual and a motion for the SCI to consider to be submitted to the Council by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben once it is approved by the SCI. 3. Resubmitting a Motion: Under review this week by the ISP and NCUC Constituencies. 4. SCI Charter Revisions: Continue discussions at the next meeting; Julie and Marika provided transcript and background on the development of the original charter.

6 12

Action items from yesterday's meeting
by Marika Konings May 29, 2013

May 29, 2013

Dear All, Thank you for participating in yesterday's SCI meeting. Please note the action items below. With best regards, Marika Notes / Action Items SCI Meeting of 6 February 2013 * NCSG has appointed Stefania Milan as an alternate member to the SCI * Item 4. Council liaison - Ron to send letter to the GNSO Council to suggest two options: 1) SCI Chair or Vice-Chair to participate as an observer in GNSO Council meetings, 2) appoint a GNSO Council liaison * Item 5. Marika to propose edits to latest version of the language on termination and suspension for further consideration by the SCI. To be reviewed / discussed at the next meeting. * Item 6. J. Scott to update language as proposed in the chat (amend pt 2 to say "In the event no one candidate receives a clear majority, the GNSO Secretariat will conduct an election between the two candidates receiving the most votes via email ballot and tally the results afte one week.") (completed, please see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00635.html) * Item 7. Consider further forming a sub-team to consider possible changes to the charter at the next meeting. Staff to review why full consensus requirement was included in the charter. Move this item up on the next agenda.

7 17

REMINDER: Next SCI meeting - DOODLE POLL
by Julia Charvolen May 28, 2013

May 28, 2013

Dear SCI members, Reminder: Please complete the doodle poll today so that we can schedule regular call for this group Following what has been said in the last meeting, on Wednesday 22 May, please complete the Doodle poll in order to pick a day and time for both the next meeting and a recurring time slot for a monthly meeting. http://doodle.com/ac6g4knhxs3d35bv Best regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat

1 0

REMINDER: Next SCI meeting - DOODLE POLL
by Julia Charvolen May 27, 2013

May 27, 2013

Dear SCI members, Following what has been said in the last meeting, on Wednesday 22 May, please complete the Doodle poll in order to pick a day and time for both the next meeting and a recurring time slot for a monthly meeting. http://doodle.com/ac6g4knhxs3d35bv This Doodle poll will close on Tuesday 28 May. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat

1 0

WG Self-Assessments
by Ken Bour May 24, 2013

May 24, 2013

Dear SCI Members: I appreciated the opportunity to attend your teleconference this afternoon and to present an alternative approach to the "survey" you have been contemplating. As requested, this memo is a summary of the points I outlined for your consideration. Background As some of you may recall, I was the original drafter of the WG Guidelines and Charter Template and provided Staff support to the Working Group Work Team during its first year or so. One of the concepts we engineered into the framework was that Chartering Organizations would ask each WG to perform a self-assessment at the end of its life-cycle. The idea was to promote a critical examination of the processes/procedures such that the feedback could be incorporated into a continuous improvement of the WG Guidelines. After consulting with Julie Hedlund and Rob Hoggarth, I reviewed the current version of the WG Guidelines (ANNEX 1 of the GOP) and noticed that, indeed, vestiges of the self-assessment concept are still present in the document. In particular, please see the following sections: Section 5.0 Products & Outputs The products and outputs of a Working Group may be prescribed by the Charter such as a report, recommendations, guidelines, self-assessment or defined by the process under which the WG operates (e.g., Policy Development Process). . Self-Assessment Template (TBD) 6.2 Working Group Charter Template 6.2.4.4 Closure and Working Group Self-Assessment This section of the Charter should describe any instructions for WG final closure including any feedback and/or self-assessment that is requested by the Chartering organization. This section might also indicate if there is any specific format, template, or prescribed manner in which the feedback is to be provided. I have been away from this subject for more than a year, but it appears as though no Chartering Organization has yet asked a WG to generate a self-assessment. Perhaps one reason is that the original template work was never completed. One option that the SCI may wish to consider is to suspend the development of a one-time online survey and, instead, convert the questions (after some refinement) into a semi-permanent "WG Self-Assessment Template," which could be incorporated into the WG Guidelines (as was originally intended) and completed by all WGs (individually and/or collectively) as part of their closure process. I see several advantages to this approach: 1) Feedback would come from actual and recent WG participants (targeted audience). 2) The information collected should be fresh given that the group recently completed its work (salience). 3) If the self-assessment template is reviewed (Chair checklist item?) with team members the start of deliberations (revealing questions that will be asked at the end) and something occurs that uncovers a gap or error in the guidelines, the WG could note it for later inclusion in the self-assessment. 4) Unlike a static survey, incorporating a self-assessment instrument into each WG's process provides a dynamic catalyst for continuous improvement. 5) If the Chartering Organization (e.g., GNSO Council) determines, based upon feedback from one or more WG self-assessments, that the guidelines (or even the self-assessment template itself) need to be amended for any reason, it can direct Staff or another community team to address any deficiencies or issues uncovered. Thinking about this concept further and picking up on Mikey's comment about the learning objectives, my recommendation would be to broaden the self-assessment to ask not just about the WG Guidelines document, but the quality and effectiveness of other important success factors. If the SCI concurs, I would be willing to assemble an initial draft of a WG Self-Assessment Template that would attempt to assess the usefulness and effectiveness of: 1) Support Infrastructure . charter, procedures, tools/templates, and mechanics supporting the WG's operations; 2) WG Processes/Operations . leadership, norms, decision-making (consensus), and outputs. That sounds like a lot of content, but I believe any resulting template should be designed so that it is (a) simple/straightforward to complete (perhaps employing the ICANN Wiki capability?) and (b) respectful of respondents' time (length). I look forward to your comments via the SCI email list. Respectfully, Ken Bour

3 4

Proposed Agenda for June Meeting
by Julie Hedlund May 23, 2013

May 23, 2013

Dear SCI members, Please see below a proposed agenda for the meeting we are in the process of scheduling for June via a Doodle. This also is posted at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/June+2013+Meeting+--+TBD. Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda for SCI June Meeting 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Charter Revision drafting team (25 mins) 5. Re-submitting a motion (10 mins) 7. Working Group Self Assessment (15 mins) 8. AOB (5 mins)

1 0

Next SCI meeting - DOODLE POLL
by Julia Charvolen May 23, 2013

May 23, 2013

Dear SCI members, Following what has been said in yesterday's meeting, please complete the Doodle poll in order to pick a day and time for both the next meeting and a recurring time slot for a monthly meeting. http://doodle.com/ac6g4knhxs3d35bv This Doodle poll will close on Tuesday 28 May. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat

1 0

MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 22 May 2013
by Julia Charvolen May 22, 2013

May 22, 2013

Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held in two weeks (the week of 3rd June), time will be determined by the Doodle poll that will be sent to the list shortly. Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 at 20:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130522-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct>mar (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: James Bladel – Registrar Stakeholder Group – Primary Jennifer Standiford - Registrar Stakeholder Group – Alternate Ray Fassett – Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary Ronald Andruff – Commercial and Business Users Constituency – Primary – Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency – Alternate Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – ISPCP – Primary Mikey O’Connor – ISPCP – Alternate Avri Doria – Non Commercial SG – Primary – Vice-Chair Mary Wong – NCUC – Primary Jennifer Wolfe – NCA primary Ken Bour – guest speaker Apologies : Anne Aikman-Scalese – IPC Primary ICANN Staff: Julie Hedlund Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript 22 May 2013: Julia Charvolen:Angie Graves and Ray Fassett have joined the call Julia Charvolen:Mary Wong and Wolf Ulrich Knoben have joined the call Julia Charvolen:Jennifer Standiford joined the meeting Avri Doria:back Mary Wong:Actually, I wasn't on the Charter Redrafting Subcommittee. Jennifer Wolfe:I agree with Avri. I apologize I have to leave Adobe Connect, but will continue to be on my cell in my car. Julie Hedlund:Thanks Jennifer. Noted. Mary Wong:Me too. I'm particularly struck by the fact that we're not a WG and have a different function. Bladel:Are we inserting "Full Consensus" or removing it in favor of "Standard WG Rules" Mary Wong:@James, "full consensus as defined by the WG Rules". Julie Hedlund:I think Avri was suggesting substituting full consensus for the Standard WG Rules Avri Doria:no it was becasue we required fgull consensus. Avri Doria:exactly. Mike O'Connor:i think she's setting the bar higher Avri Doria:yes that is what i am sayon this group should only use full consensus. Mike O'Connor:full consensus per WG rules? Mike O'Connor:or unanymous? Avri Doria:yes, it used to be full consensus and that is what i think it should remian. Julia Charvolen:Please mute your line if you are not speaking Avri Doria:ful consensus == unanimity Mary Wong:@Mikey, yes, Full Consensus would have the same meaning as for a WG. Julie Hedlund:As defined in the WG standard methodology as: • Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.• Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. Julie Hedlund:Sorry -- I pasted it twice Bladel:Full Consensus = No Objections. Mike O'Connor:ah. thanks Avri Doria:exactly Bladel:Kinda how the GAC does business. Avri Doria:yes Mike O'Connor:what is our current standard of consensus? full consensus? Ron A:@ Mikey: Yes, full is our current standard Avri Doria:i do not approve of the way this meeting is being maniopulated Mike O'Connor:i agree with Avri on both counts -- full consensus, and follow the queue Ron A:We have only 8 minutes left in this part and I would like to have a broad discussion of all members Mike O'Connor:yikes. fell off the call Mike O'Connor:i'm with Avri. back in a minute Julia Charvolen:Mike do you wish the operator to dial out to you? Mike O'Connor:naw -- an elephant stepped on my phone. Julia Charvolen:Mike is back in Mike O'Connor:does the IPC have representation on the SCI right now? do we have to wait for that, before acting on anything? Bladel:Can I request that Staff re=send the two options & the 4 criteria? Ron A:IPC has 2 reps, but J Scott just resigned. Anne is at her son's grad. Mike O'Connor:thx Ron A:IPC had not yet taken their members' temp on this issue Mike O'Connor:a little closer to the mic should do the trick Ken Mary Wong:Agree with Mikey. Mike O'Connor:i'd wait a month -- so we can get Ken's stuff too Mike O'Connor:which way are we voting w/agree/disagree? Bladel:Mikey: Agree, going forward monthly, but lets' have one more "reboot" meeting. Avri Doria:prefer monthly Mike O'Connor:that's fine. Ken, can you get some of your stuff out in time for that meeting too? Bladel:close the charter, etc. but the SOP would be monthly after that. Avri Doria:had sound go out during the'vote' Mike O'Connor:your sound just dropped again Avri Avri Doria:never mind. Avri Doria:ok Julie Hedlund:The suggestion is two weeks and then to a monthly schedule. Avri Doria:thanks Bladel:bingo Avri Doria:cheers Mary Wong:Thx Ron, Julie, everyone! Mike O'Connor:hasty lumbago Bladel:Thanks. Angie Graves 2:Thank you Julie Hedlund:Thank you everyone! Wolf Knoben:Thank you

1 0

For Discussion: SCI Charter Draft Revision
by Julie Hedlund May 22, 2013

May 22, 2013

All, The SCI Charter Drafting Team (J.Scott, Angie, Avri, Wolf-Ulrich, and James) presents for discussion at tomorrow's SCI meeting at 1700 Beijing time the attached draft SCI Charter revision. This also is posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/07+April+2013 under the sub header "For Review." Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

3 5