- Gnso-improvem-impl-sc - lists.icann.org

SCI role
by WUKnoben Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

All. the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role as intended from the Durban meeting. The “historical” information to be provided by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the understanding of where the SCI comes from. If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting on Sep 04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare some statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list. To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method – WG model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and cons would be helpful. The role itself – the SCI as an ongoing working institution – was not objected by the council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

FYI
by WUKnoben Aug. 19, 2013

Aug. 19, 2013

Look at gnso.icann.org/en/ where Jonathan made reference to the SCI role Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test
by Ken Bour Aug. 12, 2013

Aug. 12, 2013

SCI Members: As your guest consultant on this project, I would like to weigh-in on Mikey's inquiry. Given that we have made a lot of progress recently and the concepts, rationale, design, and questionnaire are fresh on our minds, I recommend that we move to the next phase as soon as practicable. I agree with Mikey's observation that there is an advantage to being "done" with the work plan before undertaking the assessment, but I hope that we do not have to postpone forward progress until October-November unless there is no other reasonable course of action available. If the "Thick WHOIS" WG is not quite ready, may I suggest that we identify another WG for testing that has recently closed? Perhaps Marika could offer a recommendation. It would take me just a few minutes to customize the letter and the questionnaire for another team. Regards, Ken Bour From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:56 AM To: Ron Andruff Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org; 'Ken Bour' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test thanks all, this looks great. here's a choice for you. i could either forward this *now* or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap up well before Argentina). the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner. the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan. i'm very much on the fence. either way would be fine with me. Avri, you're in that WG. i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here. mikey On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> wrote: Dear Mikey, As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling "Working Group Self-Assessment." Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. As the Chair of the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: <http://thickwhois.questionpro.com> http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members' experiences - not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the "Thick WHOIS" ICANN Wiki space (Link: <https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag> https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at <mailto:ken.bour@verizon.net> ken.bour(a)verizon.net. In particular, we are interested in learning: . Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? . Are the design and format straightforward? . Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? . Are the instructions clear? . Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? . Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? . Are there any important elements of the Working Group's operations that have been neglected? Thank you in advance for your WG's involvement in testing this assessment instrument. Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

6 7

FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 12, 2013

Aug. 12, 2013

Dear SCI members, As mentioned on our call yesterday, staff has drafted for your review a message to go from Ron as SCI Chair to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair, to seek further guidance on the next steps for the SCI Charter. Please respond by **COB Wednesday, 14 August** with any comments on the draft message. No comments will be understood as agreement with the email¹s contents. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------ Begin Draft Message --------------------------------------- Subject: GNSO Council Durban Wrap-Up Session and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter revisions at its Wrap-Up Session in Durban on Thursday 18 July. At its meeting yesterday, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from that session and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. Jeff Neuman also offered to provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At yesterday's meeting SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process based on feedback received from the Council. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible for the GNSO Council to consider for approval at its meeting in September. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Best regards, Ron Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI

5 6

Working Group Self-Assessment Test
by Ron Andruff Aug. 8, 2013

Aug. 8, 2013

Dear Mikey, As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling "Working Group Self-Assessment." Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. As the Chair of the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members' experiences - not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the "Thick WHOIS" ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour(a)verizon.net <mailto:ken.bour@verizon.net> . In particular, we are interested in learning: * Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? * Are the design and format straightforward? * Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? * Are the instructions clear? * Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? * Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? * Are there any important elements of the Working Group's operations that have been neglected? Thank you in advance for your WG's involvement in testing this assessment instrument. Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com>

2 1

Proposed Agenda for July Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 7, 2013

Aug. 7, 2013

Dear SCI members, Please see below the proposed agenda for the July meeting for your review. Please let us know if you have any changes. The July meeting will be scheduled when the doodle is closed. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda July 2013 SCI Meeting: 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 5. SCI charter revision (25 mins) 6. Working Group self assessment (10 mins) 7. AOB (5 mins)

4 6

RE: Recommendation to move the next SCI meeting date from Sept 3rd to Sept 10th
by Ron Andruff Aug. 7, 2013

Aug. 7, 2013

Dear Committee Members, As the American Labor Day holiday weekend takes place from Aug 31st to Sept. 2nd, and some members may be traveling on Sept. 3rd, I would like to recommend that we move the next meeting to Sept. 10th. I welcome your thoughts/comments on this recommendation within the coming week. If no one is against this recommendation, I will ask Julia and Julie to make note of this change of date for our next meeting and to circulate the new date accordingly. Best wishes to all for the rest of the summer! Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julia Charvolen Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 18:27 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 6 August 2013 Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Tuesday 3 September 2013 at 1900 UTC. Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 19:00UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130806-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130806-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/# <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct> aug (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Mikey O'Connor - ISPCP - Alternate Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Primary Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - Vice-Chair Edward Morris - NCUC- Primary Nuno Garcia - NCUC - Alternate Ken Bour - guest speaker Apologies: Jennifer Wolfe - NCA primary Amr Elsadr - NCUC Alternate James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Primary ICANN Staff: Marika Konings 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 6 August 2013: Marika Konings:Some WGs have been suffering from holiday fatigue Julie Hedlund:Please see the latest Self Assessment Survey at: http://www.questionpro.com/a/editSurvey.do?surveyID=3582146 Ken Bour:http://scitestwg.questionpro.com <http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/> Julia Charvolen:Please mute your microphones for the echo if you are not speaking Avri Doria:Needs to include NCSG,s not all NCSG are either in NCUC or npoc NC Marika Konings:I am watching ;-) Ken Bour:Thanks, Avri Avri Doria:Just did it.it its ready for wider testing. Ken Bour:I will drop off and start work on the memo. Ron A:Thank you, Ken! Mike O'Connor:James Bladel sends regrets for the call today Julia Charvolen:Thank you Mikey , noted! Marika Konings:The PDP Manual is part of the GNSO Operating Procedures Marika Konings:Like the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Marika Konings:They should be consistent - a lot of work went into those ;-) Marika Konings:@Avri - are you suggesting that supermajority would apply for any changes to the operating procedures? Avri Doria:Currently I think just majority its required for OP procedure changes. Avri Doria:So, buy a majority we could downgrade a superiority condition Marika Konings:yes, simple majority currently applies Marika Konings:@Avri - sorry I misunderstood you. It may be helpful to work your example out as a use case? That may help inform the WG deliberations. Marika Konings:SCI /Council deliberations I mean

2 1

Working Group Self-Assessment: Live Test
by Ken Bour Aug. 7, 2013

Aug. 7, 2013

SCI Members: As discussed on the conference call, below is a draft memo from Ron to Mikey requesting that he invite the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group (for which he is Chair) to help the SCI by testing the current version of the Working Group Self-Assessment questionnaire. Ken Bour Mikey: As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling "Working Group Self-Assessment." Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. As the Chair of the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. How to Provide Feedback to the SCI The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members' experiences - not itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the "Thick WHOIS" ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour(a)verizon.net. In particular, we are interested in learning: . Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? . Are the design and format straightforward? . Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? . Are the instructions clear? . Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? . Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? . Are there any important elements of the Working Group's operations that have been neglected? Thank you in advance for your WG's involvement in testing this assessment instrument. Ron Andruff Chair-SCI

2 1

MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 6 August 2013
by Julia Charvolen Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Tuesday 3 September 2013 at 1900 UTC. Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 19:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130806-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct>aug (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff – Commercial and Business Users Constituency – Primary – Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency – Alternate Mikey O’Connor – ISPCP – Alternate Anne Aikman-Scalese – IPC Primary Avri Doria – Non Commercial SG – Primary – Vice-Chair Edward Morris - NCUC– Primary Nuno Garcia – NCUC - Alternate Ken Bour – guest speaker Apologies: Jennifer Wolfe – NCA primary Amr Elsadr – NCUC Alternate James Bladel – Registrar Stakeholder Group – Primary ICANN Staff: Marika Konings 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 6 August 2013: Marika Konings:Some WGs have been suffering from holiday fatigue Julie Hedlund:Please see the latest Self Assessment Survey at: http://www.questionpro.com/a/editSurvey.do?surveyID=3582146 Ken Bour:http://scitestwg.questionpro.com<http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/> Julia Charvolen:Please mute your microphones for the echo if you are not speaking Avri Doria:Needs to include NCSG,s not all NCSG are either in NCUC or npoc NC Marika Konings:I am watching ;-) Ken Bour:Thanks, Avri Avri Doria:Just did it.it its ready for wider testing. Ken Bour:I will drop off and start work on the memo. Ron A:Thank you, Ken! Mike O'Connor:James Bladel sends regrets for the call today Julia Charvolen:Thank you Mikey , noted! Marika Konings:The PDP Manual is part of the GNSO Operating Procedures Marika Konings:Like the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Marika Konings:They should be consistent - a lot of work went into those ;-) Marika Konings:@Avri - are you suggesting that supermajority would apply for any changes to the operating procedures? Avri Doria:Currently I think just majority its required for OP procedure changes. Avri Doria:So, buy a majority we could downgrade a superiority condition Marika Konings:yes, simple majority currently applies Marika Konings:@Avri - sorry I misunderstood you. It may be helpful to work your example out as a use case? That may help inform the WG deliberations. Marika Konings:SCI /Council deliberations I mean

1 0

Actions from GNSO Council Wrap Up Session
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 5, 2013

Aug. 5, 2013

Dear SCI members, The GNSO Council discussed several issues relating to the SCI at its wrap up session on Thursday, 18 July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. See the transcript at: http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/transcript-gnso-wrap-up-18jul1 3-en.pdf. In particular, the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter, which resulted in the following actions: 1. The GNSO Council agreed that the SCI for now is to be a 'standing committee' and the charter should be amended accordingly if it is not clear from the current wording. 2. On decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions), the Council agreed to consider this issue further on the mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other with the mailing list (this will be reflected in the action items). Jeff was also asked to provide in writing his contribution with regard to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. I have attached for discussion during our call on Tuesday 06 August 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET) the version of the charter as it stood prior to the changes suggested by Mikey, since I think that version reflects the status of the SCI as a 'standing committee'. However, if this is not clear in the current version, we can discuss how to clarify it. In addition, I will share any discussions concerning the SCI decision-making process that may subsequently appear on the GNSO Council list. In addition, the Council has added two new issues for the SCI to consider: 1. Voting: The option of voting by email. 2. Procedural waiver: Whether a provision / waiver should be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures that in certain circumstances would specifically allow the GNSO Council to bypass its procedures (for example in the case of non-objection). If there were SCI members present during the wrap-up session please feel free to comment on, add to, or amend what I have reported above. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 3