Thanks Julie, Rec 15: page 2, 2nd line, delete "the motion at" Nr. 3 as action item for staff? With respect to the implementation tracking tool I think important is a link to the related implementation charters. From these two documents tasks for the implementation team(s) plus timeline should be clear. Looking forward to talking to you later today. Wolf-Ulrich Am 29.03.2017 um 23:05 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
Please see below the notes and action items from the meeting on 15 March. Per the action items revised charters are attached with redlines to show changes from the previous versions. These have been loaded into the Adobe Connect room for discussion during tomorrow’s call: Thursday, 30 March at 1200 UTC. Please also see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows:
1. Review agenda
2. SOIs
3. Review revised draft charters based on actions from ICANN58
4. Recommendation implementation tracking tool
5. Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 13 April
6. AOB
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*Action Items/Discussion Notes 15 March*
*Action Items: *
*1.*Staff will update the recommendation charters based on the notes captured below.
*2.*On recommendations 16 & 18 staff will review the recommendations in the DMPM Final Report concerning Policy Impact Analysis.
*Discussion Notes:*
_Recommendation 8_
--Question: Does the WG become the IRT?
--Answer: It is not expected that the WG would become the IRT, but some continuity is very helpful. Example: Registrar Transfer Policy. It is not envisioned that all Working Group members will join an IRT. The Procedures call for other experts as well. One scenario: when more than 1 PDP is implemented the is an option to merge IRTs into one. GNSO Operating Procedures call for the formation of the IRT, but the WG will no longer exist.
_Recommendation 15:_
--Question: What was the original request for timeliness?
--Answer: Several years ago there was a project or an intent to address how to make PDPs go faster. What was the PDP Improvements Project Initiative. Staff can research how these efforts originated. The Expedited PDP assumed that certain work could be done, but does that satisfy this recommendation? Per the PDP intiative one of the changes is that Policy Staff include the draft charters in the Preliminary Issue Report. The wording of the recommendation may have been overtaken by time. Think about recommending a more formal process be undertaken for speeding up PDPs. Perhaps, periodically in PDPs to share ideas how it could be speeded up.
_Recommendation 14:_
Question: Should PDP WGs be encouraged to phase or "chunk" PDPs?
Answer: It depends on the PDP, the amount of work, the volunteer capacity. It should be encouraged when it works. Classic was the Registrar Transfer Policy, currently the RDS PDP broken into 3 phases. Should language be added to the PDP Manual to promote phasing?
KPI: How to reword? Staff will address that.
_Recommendations 16&18: _
--Question: Where is the Policy Impact Analysis included?
--Answer: Staff will look into whether a recommendation has been made and whether this has been address.
--Question: Does this relate specifically to the outcome of the recommendations and the DMPM.
--Answer: Staff will provide additional analysis.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
-- Am Steinringer Berg 19 53639 Königswinter Tel: 02244 873999 Fax: 02244 873955 Mob: 0151 1452 5867