Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This Consensus Call below closed on 08 February 2018 and no objections were received. As there were no objections the implementation of Recommendation 34 is considered agreed by full consensus. See the latest status at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Conse.... Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 5:23 PM To: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER - CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 34 Implementation Charter Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items below, this is a Consensus Call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 34. As noted in the attached charter, this is the recommendation for implementation: “That PDP Working Groups rotate the start time of their meetings in order not to disadvantage people who wish to participate from anywhere in the world.” The charter reflects the revisions agreed to at the Working Group meeting on 18 January (see notes below). Staff is circulating the revised version of the charter for a three-week Consensus Call to end on Thursday, 08 February 2018. If there are no objections the recommendation will be deemed to have been implemented by Full Consensus. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34: Staff will send the implementation charter out for 3-week consensus call. Consensus calls are typically two weeks, but the deadline will be extended due to community meetings taking place the week of 29 January. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22: Staff will clarify in the charter text the connection between the recommendation and the implementation of that framework through the existing training. This revision will be sent out by one week before the 8 February meeting, giving members time to review the text in advance of the meeting. The WG will aim to finalize this charter on the next call. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: 1) Staff will correct title on this charter document and change it to "GNSO Outreach and Working Group Participation." 2) Staff will research Stakeholder Group and Constituency (SG/C) activities related to outreach, evaluation mechanisms and metrics these existing programs have in place, the Stakeholder Journey project, and evaluation underway on the Fellowship program. Staff may also consider adding text linking the outreach taking place at the SG/C level with participation in Working Groups and other initiatives within the GNSO. 4) Staff will add suggestions for methods to gather additional metrics, and points to aid discussion on the sufficiency of current programs, as well as how to address cost barriers. Staff will circulate edits one week in advance of the 8 February meeting to give members time to review before the meeting. Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates. 2. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34: -- Text added to final paragraph before Working Group Determination clarifying that there is no mandate or rule regarding meeting rotation, and the decision about whether to rotate is left to the Working Group. The Working Group Determination also includes new text clarifying that the Working Group does not believe that it is necessary to create a mandate or rule regarding meeting rotation. -- Issue raised - underwhelming participation in the discussion about the charters. Do members need to make further efforts to engage the community in discussion about these charters? Maybe by extending the deadline, we can socialize the revisions more extensively. -- Response: A lot of this material has already been vetted and we are currently in the implementation phase. This may be why we are not getting a lot of feedback at this point. It does not hurt to socialize further, but some community members may feel that additional vetting is not necessary. -- Time has passed since the recommendations came out. A number of process improvements have already taken place since the Review came out. We want to give the community time to review our work, but we have a small dedicated core of volunteers who are actively engaged. Perhaps it makes sense to move more quickly with this smaller group given this background. 3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22: -- New content: Background was added clarifying the term "competency-based framework" drawing on explanations from the assessment report of the GNSO Review Working Party and the Final Report of the Independent Examiner. -- Question: This background means that there are two parts of skills to be developed - 1. procedural skills (PDP process, manual); 2. technical knowledge related to the specific work that the particular group is doing (as opposed to general technical knowledge). Is the additional text regarding general technical training responding to the element regarding technical training? -- Staff response: The intent of the technical modules discussed in the text is to provide information to the GNSO community regarding DNS infrastructure.
From the chat:
Lori Schulman: yes, I was confused too. Technical training could also means using ICANN's technology to enable the work. Sara Bockey: Could technical training also be for staff - to have a better understanding of Ry / Rr techincal issues -- ICANN Learn contains training materials on ICANN's technology to enable the work. -- Staff receives training to have a better understanding of Ry/Rr technical issues -- Thinking about how this is going to be implemented - we have been asked to provide a framework. What does this mean? It is simply a list of resources or is it a broader framework? Looking at the list of technical materials listed in the charter, are we implying that we should be providing training on the items listed in the charter? -- If we decide that framework means a conceptual way of approaching the problem, how do we go about doing that? Would it be a curriculum? Is this group in a position to develop such a framework? -- We could develop a list of topics that would be useful to cover in general and/or for specific working teams. We could share this with the Council to consider and implement as needed on a case-by-case basis. -- There is a lot of material available, but there may be a lack of a conceptual frame or a clear path for an individual to develop the knowledge they need to be successful in a role, such as on the Council or in a Working Group. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a clearer connection between the training that is available and the needs for specific roles.
From the chat:
Sara Bockey: I think ICANN topics are complex and the history related to issues too deep to really be effectively addressed in brief classes. Perhaps something that does a deeper dive over a longer period of time, like a semester say, would be helpful. I've done a good bit of this training with varying degrees of feeling like I took something away from it -- If we leave the charter as it is, we should be clear what is going to happen with this. The items on the list are already institutionalized. Is the connection between a request for some training and the implementation that is already done included in the charter? If so, our work on this charter may be done. -- Perhaps what is missing is a clearer connection to the implementation of the recommendations. 4. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: -- This charter does not appear to be one that is already implemented. It appears that there would be additional steps to take if the WG agrees to follow the recommended approach to the charter. -- The first recommendation is on the development and monitoring of metrics. Staff found a number of programs related to this recommendation, but it is not clear that there is a set of metrics that the GNSO is using to evaluate these programs. -- For recommendation 2, the group may determine that existing programs are sufficient. -- For recommendation 3, staff is working with Language Services to determine costs associated with recommendations 7 and 12. This might be a way to reduce/remove cost barriers to participation. Staff may be able to identify existing measures to reduce cost barriers, such as free or low-cost telecommunication services. -- Staff will circulate edits one week in advance of the 8 February meeting to give members time to review before the meeting.
From the chat:
Marika Konings: the WG may need to define what current cost barriers are as policy development is largely done through online means (which do cost time and effort, but no other costs as there are usually free dial in numbers or otherwise dial outs provided) -- In the solution section, Current Outreach Strategies and Pilot Programs are listed. Marika Konings: Challenge is that many of these programs do not have a specific GNSO focus or criteria. Marika Konings: what may be missing from the list is SG/C specific outreach programs? Marika Konings: I guess that would fall under other activities? Marika Konings: but it may be worth getting more details on those as these are presumbably specifically focused on GNSO Lori Schulman: I like the idea of outreach. Agree with Marika. Sara Bockey: I've never heard of the stakeholder journey project. Is there a link to that? Pascal Bekono: Good point Marika Marika Konings: I believe there are also discussions on conducting a community wide review of the fellowship program -- Items to be discussed in the solutions section: Metrics to develop and monitor to evaluate ongoing effectiveness of current outreach strategies and pilot programs; Whether to develop and fund more targeted programs, beyond those already offered; How to best reduce or remove cost barriers to volunteer participation on WGs and policy development. -- In addition to gathering information about metrics for evaluating individual programs, it may be helpful to discuss if it would be helpful to have a more holistic evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs. -- Outreach appears to be done on the SG/C level within the GNSO. Each has a distinct target audience. Perhaps this could be summarized in the charter text. Remaining question - how do we evaluate success? It might be helpful to provide context about the relationship between outreach at the SG/C level and participation in Working Groups. -- Question - what does the Working Group think would be helpful to use in terms of metrics?
From the chat:
Sara Bockey: I'm not sure re metrics. what exactly are the metrics looking at? Pascal Bekono: Metrics can be done through a survey ? -- The group will gather some additional information and then circle back to discuss further. -- For recommendation 2, the group may determine that existing programs are sufficient. -- For recommendation 3, staff is working with Language Services to determine costs associated with recommendations 7 and 12. This might be a way to reduce/remove cost barriers to participation. Staff may be able to identify existing measures to reduce cost barriers, such as free or low cost telecommunication services. 5. Next Meeting: 08 February 1300 UTC.