Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 27 July
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 July. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2017. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 July Action Items: Charter for Recommendation 19: 1) incorporate references (including new references identified by staff); 2) send the charter out for review and then consensus call. Charter for Recommendation 30: 1) Revise the charter based on the WG discussion; 2) explore whether there already is a mechanism for review and whether the provision of support is binding or whether that should be a recommendation to the GNSO Council; 3) send a revised version to the WG to review and discuss. Meeting schedule: Move the meeting from 24 August back to 17 August to avoid the conflict with the GNSO Council meeting. Restart two-week rotation with the following meeting on 31 August. Notes: 1. Update on Consensus Call on Charter for Recommendation 13 – Ends COB 27 July -- Consensus call closes today (27 July) - in the absence of objection today, staff will announce that full consensus has been reached on the Charter for Recommendation 13 2. Continue discussion on Charter for Recommendation 19 -- Staff assumption is that existing guidance does exist for the GNSO Council ensuring that a Working Group has been properly constituted, has thoroughly fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due process - to be reviewed and agreed upon by the WG member. -- WG Self-Assessment required in the WG Guidelines allows for WG members involved in a PDP to provide their own assessment of the efficacy of the process, with a goal for further improvement in future work. -- WG guidelines sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 detail measures to ensure as broad and balanced representation in WGs, as practically possible. -- Section 8 PDP Manual details mechanisms to be included in the Charter including: Working Group Identification; Mission, Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization, and; Rules of Engagement. -- Section 9 of PDP Manual provides guidance on use of GNSO WGs to develop policy, due to presence of existing guidelines that require due process. -- Section 12 of the PDP Manual provides guidance to the GNSO Council on how to deliberate and decide on policy recommendations. -- Distinction between policy and how it is organized and managed by the GNSO Council. Question: Is there enough guidance for the management of the PDP and the Working Groups? -- With respect to other models -- do we need stronger language to ensure that the Working Group is the model for the PDP? -- There are other models for non-PDP work, and there also are guidelines for an expedited PDP. But the scope of this charter is limited to this recommendation: the GNSO Council's role in making sure the Working Groups are properly constituted. So, the focus is on Working Groups or other groups/models. -- Other models have been used for different projects, but not do develop Consensus Policies (not to replace PDP WGs). Examples include Working Parties, such as the precursor to this WG, and Drafting Teams. 3. Begin discussion on Charter for Recommendation 30 -- "GNSO Toolkit" and "Pilot Program" are two programs that exist to provide administrative support to GNSO SGs/Cs. -- Pilot Program has been running since 2014, and is no longer considered to be within a pilot phase. -- Charter includes links to an inventory of services currently being provided. -- Question: If you look to 2014 was something being done when this recommendation being established? -- Question: "develop and implement a policy" -- Is that covered here? Or is "policy" of a different level, as how to do provide the admin support? -- GNSO policy recommendations are developed via PDP Working Groups leading to changes and contractual obligations. Non-policy recommendations are developed by other groups. There is nothing that would prevent this GNSO Review Working Group from suggesting changes to procedures, but not as a "policy". -- Not sure how the GNSO Review Working Party came to the wording of this recommendation -- maybe not "policy" but perhaps agreement between ICANN and the GNSO community about the provision of the administrative support. -- It is in the remit of this WG to interpret the recommendation and how it could be implemented -- perhaps instead of "policy" it could be "guidelines" or "operating procedures" -- not a PDP. -- Acknowledge the development of the program over the last years and ongoing development and accept that as the best way to provide the support at the time being. -- In addition, there is the question of the review of the program, which is perhaps not fulfilled. Should tell the GNSO Council that it is up to them to decide whether measures should be taken in order to make the support more binding for both sides.
All, regarding Rec. 30 which we discussed at the last call I've reviewed a bit the historical context (Westlake report and WP priorization). The WP came already to the conclusion that the first part is done (...develop and implement a "policy" for the provision of administrative support...) but * that there is not a procedure for SGs and Cs to evaluate the effectiveness of the support provided. GNSO action items: i) Identify and review the existing procedures for SGs and Cs to obtain administrative support; ii) evaluate the adequacy & effectiveness of the existing procedures including whether additional forms of support might be beneficial; iii) develop recommendations for improvements to the procedures and new types of support, if any. I think it would be helpful to check this against the resources documents you've listed in the Rec. charter, Julie, and then come to a final conclusion. Apologies that I'll miss the next call because of another job. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 27.07.2017 um 20:46 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 July. /These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at/: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2017.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 July*
**
*Action Items: *
**
1. Charter for Recommendation 19: 1) incorporate references (including new references identified by staff); 2) send the charter out for review and then consensus call. 2. Charter for Recommendation 30: 1) Revise the charter based on the WG discussion; 2) explore whether there already is a mechanism for review and whether the provision of support is binding or whether that should be a recommendation to the GNSO Council; 3) send a revised version to the WG to review and discuss. 3. Meeting schedule: Move the meeting from 24 August back to 17 August to avoid the conflict with the GNSO Council meeting. Restart two-week rotation with the following meeting on 31 August.
*Notes:*
/1. Update on Consensus Call on Charter for Recommendation 13 – Ends COB 27 July/
-- Consensus call closes today (27 July) - in the absence of objection today, staff will announce that full consensus has been reached on the Charter for Recommendation 13
/2. Continue discussion on Charter for Recommendation 19/
-- Staff assumption is that existing guidance does exist for the GNSO Council ensuring that a Working Group has been properly constituted, has thoroughly fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due process - to be reviewed and agreed upon by the WG member.
-- WG Self-Assessment required in the WG Guidelines allows for WG members involved in a PDP to provide their own assessment of the efficacy of the process, with a goal for further improvement in future work.
-- WG guidelines sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 detail measures to ensure as broad and balanced representation in WGs, as practically possible.
-- Section 8 PDP Manual details mechanisms to be included in the Charter including: Working Group Identification; Mission, Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization, and; Rules of Engagement.
-- Section 9 of PDP Manual provides guidance on use of GNSO WGs to develop policy, due to presence of existing guidelines that require due process.
-- Section 12 of the PDP Manual provides guidance to the GNSO Council on how to deliberate and decide on policy recommendations.
-- Distinction between policy and how it is organized and managed by the GNSO Council. Question: Is there enough guidance for the management of the PDP and the Working Groups?
-- With respect to other models -- do we need stronger language to ensure that the Working Group is the model for the PDP?
-- There are other models for non-PDP work, and there also are guidelines for an expedited PDP. But the scope of this charter is limited to this recommendation: the GNSO Council's role in making sure the Working Groups are properly constituted. So, the focus is on Working Groups or other groups/models.
-- Other models have been used for different projects, but not do develop Consensus Policies (not to replace PDP WGs). Examples include Working Parties, such as the precursor to this WG, and Drafting Teams.
/3. Begin discussion on Charter for Recommendation 30/
-- "GNSO Toolkit" and "Pilot Program" are two programs that exist to provide administrative support to GNSO SGs/Cs.
-- Pilot Program has been running since 2014, and is no longer considered to be within a pilot phase.
-- Charter includes links to an inventory of services currently being provided.
-- Question: If you look to 2014 was something being done when this recommendation being established?
-- Question: "develop and implement a policy" -- Is that covered here? Or is "policy" of a different level, as how to do provide the admin support?
-- GNSO policy recommendations are developed via PDP Working Groups leading to changes and contractual obligations. Non-policy recommendations are developed by other groups. There is nothing that would prevent this GNSO Review Working Group from suggesting changes to procedures, but not as a "policy".
-- Not sure how the GNSO Review Working Party came to the wording of this recommendation -- maybe not "policy" but perhaps agreement between ICANN and the GNSO community about the provision of the administrative support.
-- It is in the remit of this WG to interpret the recommendation and how it could be implemented -- perhaps instead of "policy" it could be "guidelines" or "operating procedures" -- not a PDP.
-- Acknowledge the development of the program over the last years and ongoing development and accept that as the best way to provide the support at the time being.
-- In addition, there is the question of the review of the program, which is perhaps not fulfilled. Should tell the GNSO Council that it is up to them to decide whether measures should be taken in order to make the support more binding for both sides.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
Dear Wolf-Ulrich, Thank you very much for this helpful suggestion. I’ll check the resource documents and also consult internally with staff that are managing the support functions. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 3:10 AM To: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 27 July All, regarding Rec. 30 which we discussed at the last call I've reviewed a bit the historical context (Westlake report and WP priorization). The WP came already to the conclusion that the first part is done (...develop and implement a "policy" for the provision of administrative support...) but that there is not a procedure for SGs and Cs to evaluate the effectiveness of the support provided. GNSO action items: i) Identify and review the existing procedures for SGs and Cs to obtain administrative support; ii) evaluate the adequacy & effectiveness of the existing procedures including whether additional forms of support might be beneficial; iii) develop recommendations for improvements to the procedures and new types of support, if any. I think it would be helpful to check this against the resources documents you've listed in the Rec. charter, Julie, and then come to a final conclusion. Apologies that I'll miss the next call because of another job. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 27.07.2017 um 20:46 schrieb Julie Hedlund: Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 July. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2017[community.icann.org]. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 July Action Items: Charter for Recommendation 19: 1) incorporate references (including new references identified by staff); 2) send the charter out for review and then consensus call. Charter for Recommendation 30: 1) Revise the charter based on the WG discussion; 2) explore whether there already is a mechanism for review and whether the provision of support is binding or whether that should be a recommendation to the GNSO Council; 3) send a revised version to the WG to review and discuss. Meeting schedule: Move the meeting from 24 August back to 17 August to avoid the conflict with the GNSO Council meeting. Restart two-week rotation with the following meeting on 31 August. Notes: 1. Update on Consensus Call on Charter for Recommendation 13 – Ends COB 27 July -- Consensus call closes today (27 July) - in the absence of objection today, staff will announce that full consensus has been reached on the Charter for Recommendation 13 2. Continue discussion on Charter for Recommendation 19 -- Staff assumption is that existing guidance does exist for the GNSO Council ensuring that a Working Group has been properly constituted, has thoroughly fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due process - to be reviewed and agreed upon by the WG member. -- WG Self-Assessment required in the WG Guidelines allows for WG members involved in a PDP to provide their own assessment of the efficacy of the process, with a goal for further improvement in future work. -- WG guidelines sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 detail measures to ensure as broad and balanced representation in WGs, as practically possible. -- Section 8 PDP Manual details mechanisms to be included in the Charter including: Working Group Identification; Mission, Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization, and; Rules of Engagement. -- Section 9 of PDP Manual provides guidance on use of GNSO WGs to develop policy, due to presence of existing guidelines that require due process. -- Section 12 of the PDP Manual provides guidance to the GNSO Council on how to deliberate and decide on policy recommendations. -- Distinction between policy and how it is organized and managed by the GNSO Council. Question: Is there enough guidance for the management of the PDP and the Working Groups? -- With respect to other models -- do we need stronger language to ensure that the Working Group is the model for the PDP? -- There are other models for non-PDP work, and there also are guidelines for an expedited PDP. But the scope of this charter is limited to this recommendation: the GNSO Council's role in making sure the Working Groups are properly constituted. So, the focus is on Working Groups or other groups/models. -- Other models have been used for different projects, but not do develop Consensus Policies (not to replace PDP WGs). Examples include Working Parties, such as the precursor to this WG, and Drafting Teams. 3. Begin discussion on Charter for Recommendation 30 -- "GNSO Toolkit" and "Pilot Program" are two programs that exist to provide administrative support to GNSO SGs/Cs. -- Pilot Program has been running since 2014, and is no longer considered to be within a pilot phase. -- Charter includes links to an inventory of services currently being provided. -- Question: If you look to 2014 was something being done when this recommendation being established? -- Question: "develop and implement a policy" -- Is that covered here? Or is "policy" of a different level, as how to do provide the admin support? -- GNSO policy recommendations are developed via PDP Working Groups leading to changes and contractual obligations. Non-policy recommendations are developed by other groups. There is nothing that would prevent this GNSO Review Working Group from suggesting changes to procedures, but not as a "policy". -- Not sure how the GNSO Review Working Party came to the wording of this recommendation -- maybe not "policy" but perhaps agreement between ICANN and the GNSO community about the provision of the administrative support. -- It is in the remit of this WG to interpret the recommendation and how it could be implemented -- perhaps instead of "policy" it could be "guidelines" or "operating procedures" -- not a PDP. -- Acknowledge the development of the program over the last years and ongoing development and accept that as the best way to provide the support at the time being. -- In addition, there is the question of the review of the program, which is perhaps not fulfilled. Should tell the GNSO Council that it is up to them to decide whether measures should be taken in order to make the support more binding for both sides. _______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
participants (2)
-
Julie Hedlund -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben