Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Hi Sara, Thank you for these very helpful comments and the suggested revised text. I welcome WG members to comment on this suggestion. Kind regards, Julie From: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:59 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21 Hi Julie, Thank you for the reminder. Regarding Recommendation 20, the following stands out to me and I’m not sure is being appropriately addressed: “strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.” To me, “resources available for policy development” includes volunteers and not over burdening the few and creating burn out. While I like the direct of the solution, primarily expanding the scope of the Standing Committee “so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the planning of future GNSO activities is in alignment with these Strategic Objectives”, this highlighted part seems off balance. Perhaps rewording this to say: The scope of the Standing Committee could be expanded, so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the Strategic Objectives and proposed GNSO policy development activities are aligned with the GNSO resources. Just my 2 cents. I’ve read the Solution for Recommendation 20 three times now and it’s just nagging at me… perhaps I’m overthinking it. I’d be interested to know what others think. Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM To: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21 Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder to review the attached materials per the message below. 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, April 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM To: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21 Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 26 April, please review the attached final draft GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 20 & 21 in Word and PDF. As noted in the attached charter, these are the recommendations for implementation: Recommendation 20: That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN’s Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development. Recommendation 21: That the GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well- represented in the policy-making process. Working Group members are requested to respond to this review in two weeks, by COB Wednesday, 09 May. If no comments are received during the review period staff will accept the changes and circulate the final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items and Notes GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: Action Item 1: implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12: Staff will correct typos identified by Wolf-Ulrich (see meeting notes for details). Action Item 2: revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: Staff will circulate the revised text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call. Action Item 3: implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21: Staff will circulate the text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call. Action Item 4: GNSO Council Update: Staff will circulate to the WG early next week draft slides for the GNSO Council presentation in May. Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: -- This is a smaller group today. The call will proceed but no decisions will be made. -- No updates to SOIs. 2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12 (closing 26 April): -- The consensus call closes today. There have been no comments or objections so far. If this continues to be the cases, the charter will be deemed to be accepted by full consensus. -- Wolf-Ulrich identified small typos to correct (headline says “1,2,3” and should say “7&12.” Number 3 “Translation of Documents” under “Solutions” – typos in first and second lines: “translatin” should be “translating” and “transition” should be “translation.” 3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: -- Staff has completed changes suggested on the call two weeks ago (see redlined text). -- Staff suggests putting this text out for review by the group before completing a consensus call on this implementation charter. The WG can discuss any proposed changes raised on the mailing list during the call next week. 4. Continued discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21: -- Recommendation 20: The scope of the Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations could be the structure through which the GNSO provides feedback on the strategic plan. This would complement existing activities associated with analyzing the budget. -- In the last WG meeting, it was suggested that the WG would update the Council during the May Council Meeting. This proposal to expand the SCBO charter could be raised. The status of recommendations related to GDPR and Diversity (especially CCWG-Accountability recommendations on Diversity) could also be included in this discussion. -- Recommendation 21: There are a number of initiatives underway to collect data. This section outlines the existing data sources and describes how the GNSO Council and Working Groups already access this data. It is not anticipated that an additional formal mechanism is needed for the GNSO to receive information about the efforts. -- Staff suggests circulating this charter for additional feedback by the WG. -- Regarding Recommendation 20: Rafik made a comment during the last meeting asking whether the SCBO is the right place to complete this review. Wolf-Ulrich is fine with the proposed approach, but would like to give everyone an opportunity to review and provide input. -- An alternative would be for the Council to take on this review itself and possibly create an additional Standing Committee. This can be part of the discussion with the GNSO Council on the May GNSO Council call. 5. Discussion of the April Work Plan and proposed update to the GNSO Council on 24 May: -- An additional item to discuss with the GNSO Council – any items with budget implications will need to be considered by the GNSO Council. -- Staff has begun reviewing the CCWG-Accountability recommendations and cross referencing them with GNSO Review recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36. Staff will provide this analysis to the WG for the next WG meeting. -- The Board has not yet made a decision on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations. This must be taken into consideration in drafting implementation charters that reference CCWG-Accountability recommendations. If WG implementation charters are tied to implementation of CCWG-Accountability recommendations, the implementation will not be complete until Board approval. -- It is also possible that the WG can make recommendations that are complementary to, but not dependent on, the CCWG-Accountability recommendations. -- Chat from Marika Konings to All Participants: whether implementation is achieved for those recommendations may only be possible further in the future as Board consideration is still some time out? -- Staff will gather more information about implementation of steps by the ICANN Organization to address GDPR. Once additional information is available on the details of these measures, staff will update the appropriate implementation charters (26-29). -- Motions will potentially be needed for the GNSO Council to consider in the June meeting. 6. Next Meeting: 10 May 1300 UTC: -- In the next meeting, the WG should finalize the material it would like to present to Council. -- Staff will provide a draft update to the Council early next week for the WG to consider. The WG can review the slides and suggest changes in time for the document deadline for the May Council meeting. 7. AOB: None.
Hi Julie, as I expressed it before, I am concerned about the expansion of SCBO mandate and mission. it was designed to cover ICANN budget-related matters, in particular, is post-IANA stewardship transition context. managing PDP resources, planning or setting the objectives remains a council task and the council had a fair long discussion during its strategical meeting in last January on how to improve things on those fronts. Best, Rafik Le ven. 4 mai 2018 à 06:15, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi Sara,
Thank you for these very helpful comments and the suggested revised text. I welcome WG members to comment on this suggestion.
Kind regards,
Julie
*From: *Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:59 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Hi Julie,
Thank you for the reminder.
Regarding Recommendation 20, the following stands out to me and I’m not sure is being appropriately addressed:
“strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.”
To me, “resources available for policy development” includes volunteers and not over burdening the few and creating burn out.
While I like the direct of the solution, primarily expanding the scope of the Standing Committee “so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the planning of future GNSO activities is in alignment with these Strategic Objectives”, this highlighted part seems off balance. Perhaps rewording this to say:
The scope of the Standing Committee could be expanded, so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the Strategic Objectives and proposed GNSO policy development activities are aligned with the GNSO resources.
Just my 2 cents. I’ve read the Solution for Recommendation 20 three times now and it’s just nagging at me… perhaps I’m overthinking it. I’d be interested to know what others think.
Sara
*sara bockey*
*sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy™*
*sbockey@godaddy.com <sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616*
*skype: sbockey*
*This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.*
*From: *Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM *To: *"gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
This is a reminder to review the attached materials per the message below.
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, April 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM *To: *"gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
Per the action items and notes below from the call on 26 April, please review the attached final draft GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 20 & 21 in Word and PDF. As noted in the attached charter, these are the recommendations for implementation:
*Recommendation 20:* That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN’s Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.
*Recommendation 21:* That the GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well- represented in the policy-making process.
Working Group members are requested to respond to this review in* two weeks, by COB Wednesday, 09 May.* If no comments are received during the review period staff will accept the changes and circulate the final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*Action Items and Notes GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 13:00 UTC *
*Action Items:*
*Action Item 1: implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12*: Staff will correct typos identified by Wolf-Ulrich (see meeting notes for details).
*Action Item 2: revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3*: Staff will circulate the revised text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call.
*Action Item 3: implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21*: Staff will circulate the text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call.
*Action Item 4: GNSO Council Update*: Staff will circulate to the WG early next week draft slides for the GNSO Council presentation in May.
*Notes:*
1. Review agenda/SOIs:
-- This is a smaller group today. The call will proceed but no decisions will be made.
-- No updates to SOIs.
2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12 (closing 26 April):
-- The consensus call closes today. There have been no comments or objections so far. If this continues to be the cases, the charter will be deemed to be accepted by full consensus.
-- Wolf-Ulrich identified small typos to correct (headline says “1,2,3” and should say “7&12.” Number 3 “Translation of Documents” under “Solutions” – typos in first and second lines: “translatin” should be “translating” and “transition” should be “translation.”
3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3:
-- Staff has completed changes suggested on the call two weeks ago (see redlined text).
-- Staff suggests putting this text out for review by the group before completing a consensus call on this implementation charter. The WG can discuss any proposed changes raised on the mailing list during the call next week.
4. Continued discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21:
-- Recommendation 20: The scope of the Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations could be the structure through which the GNSO provides feedback on the strategic plan. This would complement existing activities associated with analyzing the budget.
-- In the last WG meeting, it was suggested that the WG would update the Council during the May Council Meeting. This proposal to expand the SCBO charter could be raised. The status of recommendations related to GDPR and Diversity (especially CCWG-Accountability recommendations on Diversity) could also be included in this discussion.
-- Recommendation 21: There are a number of initiatives underway to collect data. This section outlines the existing data sources and describes how the GNSO Council and Working Groups already access this data. It is not anticipated that an additional formal mechanism is needed for the GNSO to receive information about the efforts.
-- Staff suggests circulating this charter for additional feedback by the WG.
-- Regarding Recommendation 20: Rafik made a comment during the last meeting asking whether the SCBO is the right place to complete this review. Wolf-Ulrich is fine with the proposed approach, but would like to give everyone an opportunity to review and provide input.
-- An alternative would be for the Council to take on this review itself and possibly create an additional Standing Committee. This can be part of the discussion with the GNSO Council on the May GNSO Council call.
5. Discussion of the April Work Plan and proposed update to the GNSO Council on 24 May:
-- An additional item to discuss with the GNSO Council – any items with budget implications will need to be considered by the GNSO Council.
-- Staff has begun reviewing the CCWG-Accountability recommendations and cross referencing them with GNSO Review recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36. Staff will provide this analysis to the WG for the next WG meeting.
-- The Board has not yet made a decision on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations. This must be taken into consideration in drafting implementation charters that reference CCWG-Accountability recommendations. If WG implementation charters are tied to implementation of CCWG-Accountability recommendations, the implementation will not be complete until Board approval.
-- It is also possible that the WG can make recommendations that are complementary to, but not dependent on, the CCWG-Accountability recommendations.
-- Chat from Marika Konings to All Participants: whether implementation is achieved for those recommendations may only be possible further in the future as Board consideration is still some time out?
-- Staff will gather more information about implementation of steps by the ICANN Organization to address GDPR. Once additional information is available on the details of these measures, staff will update the appropriate implementation charters (26-29).
-- Motions will potentially be needed for the GNSO Council to consider in the June meeting.
6. Next Meeting: 10 May 1300 UTC:
-- In the next meeting, the WG should finalize the material it would like to present to Council.
-- Staff will provide a draft update to the Council early next week for the WG to consider. The WG can review the slides and suggest changes in time for the document deadline for the May Council meeting.
7. AOB: None.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
Hi Rafik, Thanks for your comments. Do you have any suggestions for how the GNSO should address the review of ICANN’s Strategic Objectives if not under an expansion of the SCBO mandate? Should the GNSO create another body? Should it reviewed as the full Council? Is there another preferred method? Note that whether this is undertaken by some other method, or by an expansion of the SCBO, this recommendation will not be deemed implemented until that method or an SCBO charter expansion is implemented. Your thoughts are welcome. Kind regards, Julie From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:14 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21 Hi Julie, as I expressed it before, I am concerned about the expansion of SCBO mandate and mission. it was designed to cover ICANN budget-related matters, in particular, is post-IANA stewardship transition context. managing PDP resources, planning or setting the objectives remains a council task and the council had a fair long discussion during its strategical meeting in last January on how to improve things on those fronts. Best, Rafik Le ven. 4 mai 2018 à 06:15, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> a écrit : Hi Sara, Thank you for these very helpful comments and the suggested revised text. I welcome WG members to comment on this suggestion. Kind regards, Julie From: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:59 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21 Hi Julie, Thank you for the reminder. Regarding Recommendation 20, the following stands out to me and I’m not sure is being appropriately addressed: “strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.” To me, “resources available for policy development” includes volunteers and not over burdening the few and creating burn out. While I like the direct of the solution, primarily expanding the scope of the Standing Committee “so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the planning of future GNSO activities is in alignment with these Strategic Objectives”, this highlighted part seems off balance. Perhaps rewording this to say: The scope of the Standing Committee could be expanded, so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the Strategic Objectives and proposed GNSO policy development activities are aligned with the GNSO resources. Just my 2 cents. I’ve read the Solution for Recommendation 20 three times now and it’s just nagging at me… perhaps I’m overthinking it. I’d be interested to know what others think. Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM To: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21 Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder to review the attached materials per the message below. 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, April 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM To: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21 Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 26 April, please review the attached final draft GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 20 & 21 in Word and PDF. As noted in the attached charter, these are the recommendations for implementation: Recommendation 20: That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN’s Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development. Recommendation 21: That the GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well- represented in the policy-making process. Working Group members are requested to respond to this review in two weeks, by COB Wednesday, 09 May. If no comments are received during the review period staff will accept the changes and circulate the final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items and Notes GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: Action Item 1: implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12: Staff will correct typos identified by Wolf-Ulrich (see meeting notes for details). Action Item 2: revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: Staff will circulate the revised text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call. Action Item 3: implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21: Staff will circulate the text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call. Action Item 4: GNSO Council Update: Staff will circulate to the WG early next week draft slides for the GNSO Council presentation in May. Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: -- This is a smaller group today. The call will proceed but no decisions will be made. -- No updates to SOIs. 2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12 (closing 26 April): -- The consensus call closes today. There have been no comments or objections so far. If this continues to be the cases, the charter will be deemed to be accepted by full consensus. -- Wolf-Ulrich identified small typos to correct (headline says “1,2,3” and should say “7&12.” Number 3 “Translation of Documents” under “Solutions” – typos in first and second lines: “translatin” should be “translating” and “transition” should be “translation.” 3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: -- Staff has completed changes suggested on the call two weeks ago (see redlined text). -- Staff suggests putting this text out for review by the group before completing a consensus call on this implementation charter. The WG can discuss any proposed changes raised on the mailing list during the call next week. 4. Continued discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21: -- Recommendation 20: The scope of the Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations could be the structure through which the GNSO provides feedback on the strategic plan. This would complement existing activities associated with analyzing the budget. -- In the last WG meeting, it was suggested that the WG would update the Council during the May Council Meeting. This proposal to expand the SCBO charter could be raised. The status of recommendations related to GDPR and Diversity (especially CCWG-Accountability recommendations on Diversity) could also be included in this discussion. -- Recommendation 21: There are a number of initiatives underway to collect data. This section outlines the existing data sources and describes how the GNSO Council and Working Groups already access this data. It is not anticipated that an additional formal mechanism is needed for the GNSO to receive information about the efforts. -- Staff suggests circulating this charter for additional feedback by the WG. -- Regarding Recommendation 20: Rafik made a comment during the last meeting asking whether the SCBO is the right place to complete this review. Wolf-Ulrich is fine with the proposed approach, but would like to give everyone an opportunity to review and provide input. -- An alternative would be for the Council to take on this review itself and possibly create an additional Standing Committee. This can be part of the discussion with the GNSO Council on the May GNSO Council call. 5. Discussion of the April Work Plan and proposed update to the GNSO Council on 24 May: -- An additional item to discuss with the GNSO Council – any items with budget implications will need to be considered by the GNSO Council. -- Staff has begun reviewing the CCWG-Accountability recommendations and cross referencing them with GNSO Review recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36. Staff will provide this analysis to the WG for the next WG meeting. -- The Board has not yet made a decision on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations. This must be taken into consideration in drafting implementation charters that reference CCWG-Accountability recommendations. If WG implementation charters are tied to implementation of CCWG-Accountability recommendations, the implementation will not be complete until Board approval. -- It is also possible that the WG can make recommendations that are complementary to, but not dependent on, the CCWG-Accountability recommendations. -- Chat from Marika Konings to All Participants: whether implementation is achieved for those recommendations may only be possible further in the future as Board consideration is still some time out? -- Staff will gather more information about implementation of steps by the ICANN Organization to address GDPR. Once additional information is available on the details of these measures, staff will update the appropriate implementation charters (26-29). -- Motions will potentially be needed for the GNSO Council to consider in the June meeting. 6. Next Meeting: 10 May 1300 UTC: -- In the next meeting, the WG should finalize the material it would like to present to Council. -- Staff will provide a draft update to the Council early next week for the WG to consider. The WG can review the slides and suggest changes in time for the document deadline for the May Council meeting. 7. AOB: None. _______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
Hi, Thanks Julie, indeed it should be reviewed by the full council and it takes ownership of that task. For timing, it can be possibly done after AGM as matter of strategical planning by the council. Best, Rafik On Fri, May 4, 2018, 2:10 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Rafik,
Thanks for your comments. Do you have any suggestions for how the GNSO should address the review of ICANN’s Strategic Objectives if not under an expansion of the SCBO mandate? Should the GNSO create another body? Should it reviewed as the full Council? Is there another preferred method? Note that whether this is undertaken by some other method, or by an expansion of the SCBO, this recommendation will not be deemed implemented until that method or an SCBO charter expansion is implemented.
Your thoughts are welcome.
Kind regards,
Julie
*From: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:14 AM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" < gnso-review-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Hi Julie,
as I expressed it before, I am concerned about the expansion of SCBO mandate and mission. it was designed to cover ICANN budget-related matters, in particular, is post-IANA stewardship transition context. managing PDP resources, planning or setting the objectives remains a council task and the council had a fair long discussion during its strategical meeting in last January on how to improve things on those fronts.
Best,
Rafik
Le ven. 4 mai 2018 à 06:15, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi Sara,
Thank you for these very helpful comments and the suggested revised text. I welcome WG members to comment on this suggestion.
Kind regards,
Julie
*From: *Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:59 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Hi Julie,
Thank you for the reminder.
Regarding Recommendation 20, the following stands out to me and I’m not sure is being appropriately addressed:
“strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.”
To me, “resources available for policy development” includes volunteers and not over burdening the few and creating burn out.
While I like the direct of the solution, primarily expanding the scope of the Standing Committee “so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the planning of future GNSO activities is in alignment with these Strategic Objectives”, this highlighted part seems off balance. Perhaps rewording this to say:
The scope of the Standing Committee could be expanded, so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the Strategic Objectives and proposed GNSO policy development activities are aligned with the GNSO resources.
Just my 2 cents. I’ve read the Solution for Recommendation 20 three times now and it’s just nagging at me… perhaps I’m overthinking it. I’d be interested to know what others think.
Sara
*sara bockey*
*sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy™*
*sbockey@godaddy.com* <sbockey@godaddy.com>* 480-366-3616*
*skype: sbockey*
*This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.*
*From: *Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM *To: *"gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
This is a reminder to review the attached materials per the message below.
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, April 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM *To: *"gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
Per the action items and notes below from the call on 26 April, please review the attached final draft GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 20 & 21 in Word and PDF. As noted in the attached charter, these are the recommendations for implementation:
*Recommendation 20:* That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN’s Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.
*Recommendation 21:* That the GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well- represented in the policy-making process.
Working Group members are requested to respond to this review in* two weeks, by COB Wednesday, 09 May.* If no comments are received during the review period staff will accept the changes and circulate the final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*Action Items and Notes GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 13:00 UTC *
*Action Items:*
*Action Item 1: implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12*: Staff will correct typos identified by Wolf-Ulrich (see meeting notes for details).
*Action Item 2: revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3*: Staff will circulate the revised text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call.
*Action Item 3: implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21*: Staff will circulate the text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call.
*Action Item 4: GNSO Council Update*: Staff will circulate to the WG early next week draft slides for the GNSO Council presentation in May.
*Notes:*
1. Review agenda/SOIs:
-- This is a smaller group today. The call will proceed but no decisions will be made.
-- No updates to SOIs.
2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12 (closing 26 April):
-- The consensus call closes today. There have been no comments or objections so far. If this continues to be the cases, the charter will be deemed to be accepted by full consensus.
-- Wolf-Ulrich identified small typos to correct (headline says “1,2,3” and should say “7&12.” Number 3 “Translation of Documents” under “Solutions” – typos in first and second lines: “translatin” should be “translating” and “transition” should be “translation.”
3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3:
-- Staff has completed changes suggested on the call two weeks ago (see redlined text).
-- Staff suggests putting this text out for review by the group before completing a consensus call on this implementation charter. The WG can discuss any proposed changes raised on the mailing list during the call next week.
4. Continued discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21:
-- Recommendation 20: The scope of the Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations could be the structure through which the GNSO provides feedback on the strategic plan. This would complement existing activities associated with analyzing the budget.
-- In the last WG meeting, it was suggested that the WG would update the Council during the May Council Meeting. This proposal to expand the SCBO charter could be raised. The status of recommendations related to GDPR and Diversity (especially CCWG-Accountability recommendations on Diversity) could also be included in this discussion.
-- Recommendation 21: There are a number of initiatives underway to collect data. This section outlines the existing data sources and describes how the GNSO Council and Working Groups already access this data. It is not anticipated that an additional formal mechanism is needed for the GNSO to receive information about the efforts.
-- Staff suggests circulating this charter for additional feedback by the WG.
-- Regarding Recommendation 20: Rafik made a comment during the last meeting asking whether the SCBO is the right place to complete this review. Wolf-Ulrich is fine with the proposed approach, but would like to give everyone an opportunity to review and provide input.
-- An alternative would be for the Council to take on this review itself and possibly create an additional Standing Committee. This can be part of the discussion with the GNSO Council on the May GNSO Council call.
5. Discussion of the April Work Plan and proposed update to the GNSO Council on 24 May:
-- An additional item to discuss with the GNSO Council – any items with budget implications will need to be considered by the GNSO Council.
-- Staff has begun reviewing the CCWG-Accountability recommendations and cross referencing them with GNSO Review recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36. Staff will provide this analysis to the WG for the next WG meeting.
-- The Board has not yet made a decision on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations. This must be taken into consideration in drafting implementation charters that reference CCWG-Accountability recommendations. If WG implementation charters are tied to implementation of CCWG-Accountability recommendations, the implementation will not be complete until Board approval.
-- It is also possible that the WG can make recommendations that are complementary to, but not dependent on, the CCWG-Accountability recommendations.
-- Chat from Marika Konings to All Participants: whether implementation is achieved for those recommendations may only be possible further in the future as Board consideration is still some time out?
-- Staff will gather more information about implementation of steps by the ICANN Organization to address GDPR. Once additional information is available on the details of these measures, staff will update the appropriate implementation charters (26-29).
-- Motions will potentially be needed for the GNSO Council to consider in the June meeting.
6. Next Meeting: 10 May 1300 UTC:
-- In the next meeting, the WG should finalize the material it would like to present to Council.
-- Staff will provide a draft update to the Council early next week for the WG to consider. The WG can review the slides and suggest changes in time for the document deadline for the May Council meeting.
7. AOB: None.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
I agree… council is a better fit for this action. sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 6:56 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21 Hi, Thanks Julie, indeed it should be reviewed by the full council and it takes ownership of that task. For timing, it can be possibly done after AGM as matter of strategical planning by the council. Best, Rafik On Fri, May 4, 2018, 2:10 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Rafik, Thanks for your comments. Do you have any suggestions for how the GNSO should address the review of ICANN’s Strategic Objectives if not under an expansion of the SCBO mandate? Should the GNSO create another body? Should it reviewed as the full Council? Is there another preferred method? Note that whether this is undertaken by some other method, or by an expansion of the SCBO, this recommendation will not be deemed implemented until that method or an SCBO charter expansion is implemented. Your thoughts are welcome. Kind regards, Julie From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:14 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21 Hi Julie, as I expressed it before, I am concerned about the expansion of SCBO mandate and mission. it was designed to cover ICANN budget-related matters, in particular, is post-IANA stewardship transition context. managing PDP resources, planning or setting the objectives remains a council task and the council had a fair long discussion during its strategical meeting in last January on how to improve things on those fronts. Best, Rafik Le ven. 4 mai 2018 à 06:15, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> a écrit : Hi Sara, Thank you for these very helpful comments and the suggested revised text. I welcome WG members to comment on this suggestion. Kind regards, Julie From: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:59 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21 Hi Julie, Thank you for the reminder. Regarding Recommendation 20, the following stands out to me and I’m not sure is being appropriately addressed: “strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.” To me, “resources available for policy development” includes volunteers and not over burdening the few and creating burn out. While I like the direct of the solution, primarily expanding the scope of the Standing Committee “so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the planning of future GNSO activities is in alignment with these Strategic Objectives”, this highlighted part seems off balance. Perhaps rewording this to say: The scope of the Standing Committee could be expanded, so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the Strategic Objectives and proposed GNSO policy development activities are aligned with the GNSO resources. Just my 2 cents. I’ve read the Solution for Recommendation 20 three times now and it’s just nagging at me… perhaps I’m overthinking it. I’d be interested to know what others think. Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM To: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21 Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder to review the attached materials per the message below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM To: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21 Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 26 April, please review the attached final draft GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 20 & 21 in Word and PDF. As noted in the attached charter, these are the recommendations for implementation: Recommendation 20: That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN’s Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development. Recommendation 21: That the GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well- represented in the policy-making process. Working Group members are requested to respond to this review in two weeks, by COB Wednesday, 09 May. If no comments are received during the review period staff will accept the changes and circulate the final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items and Notes GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: Action Item 1: implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12: Staff will correct typos identified by Wolf-Ulrich (see meeting notes for details). Action Item 2: revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: Staff will circulate the revised text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call. Action Item 3: implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21: Staff will circulate the text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call. Action Item 4: GNSO Council Update: Staff will circulate to the WG early next week draft slides for the GNSO Council presentation in May. Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: -- This is a smaller group today. The call will proceed but no decisions will be made. -- No updates to SOIs. 2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12 (closing 26 April): -- The consensus call closes today. There have been no comments or objections so far. If this continues to be the cases, the charter will be deemed to be accepted by full consensus. -- Wolf-Ulrich identified small typos to correct (headline says “1,2,3” and should say “7&12.” Number 3 “Translation of Documents” under “Solutions” – typos in first and second lines: “translatin” should be “translating” and “transition” should be “translation.” 3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: -- Staff has completed changes suggested on the call two weeks ago (see redlined text). -- Staff suggests putting this text out for review by the group before completing a consensus call on this implementation charter. The WG can discuss any proposed changes raised on the mailing list during the call next week. 4. Continued discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21: -- Recommendation 20: The scope of the Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations could be the structure through which the GNSO provides feedback on the strategic plan. This would complement existing activities associated with analyzing the budget. -- In the last WG meeting, it was suggested that the WG would update the Council during the May Council Meeting. This proposal to expand the SCBO charter could be raised. The status of recommendations related to GDPR and Diversity (especially CCWG-Accountability recommendations on Diversity) could also be included in this discussion. -- Recommendation 21: There are a number of initiatives underway to collect data. This section outlines the existing data sources and describes how the GNSO Council and Working Groups already access this data. It is not anticipated that an additional formal mechanism is needed for the GNSO to receive information about the efforts. -- Staff suggests circulating this charter for additional feedback by the WG. -- Regarding Recommendation 20: Rafik made a comment during the last meeting asking whether the SCBO is the right place to complete this review. Wolf-Ulrich is fine with the proposed approach, but would like to give everyone an opportunity to review and provide input. -- An alternative would be for the Council to take on this review itself and possibly create an additional Standing Committee. This can be part of the discussion with the GNSO Council on the May GNSO Council call. 5. Discussion of the April Work Plan and proposed update to the GNSO Council on 24 May: -- An additional item to discuss with the GNSO Council – any items with budget implications will need to be considered by the GNSO Council. -- Staff has begun reviewing the CCWG-Accountability recommendations and cross referencing them with GNSO Review recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36. Staff will provide this analysis to the WG for the next WG meeting. -- The Board has not yet made a decision on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations. This must be taken into consideration in drafting implementation charters that reference CCWG-Accountability recommendations. If WG implementation charters are tied to implementation of CCWG-Accountability recommendations, the implementation will not be complete until Board approval. -- It is also possible that the WG can make recommendations that are complementary to, but not dependent on, the CCWG-Accountability recommendations. -- Chat from Marika Konings to All Participants: whether implementation is achieved for those recommendations may only be possible further in the future as Board consideration is still some time out? -- Staff will gather more information about implementation of steps by the ICANN Organization to address GDPR. Once additional information is available on the details of these measures, staff will update the appropriate implementation charters (26-29). -- Motions will potentially be needed for the GNSO Council to consider in the June meeting. 6. Next Meeting: 10 May 1300 UTC: -- In the next meeting, the WG should finalize the material it would like to present to Council. -- Staff will provide a draft update to the Council early next week for the WG to consider. The WG can review the slides and suggest changes in time for the document deadline for the May Council meeting. 7. AOB: None. _______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-review-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
There's no doubt that the council should organize the review of the strategic objectives. It is just a suggestion from a part of our team that this may be done by the SCBO which reports back to the council - provided that the council extends their mandate accordingly. From a practical point of you an alternative option could be that the council is every year looking for volunteers for the review who then feed back to the council. A third option is an annual council discussion with MSSI where both sides exchange views on how to keep their respective goals aligned. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 04.05.2018 um 18:27 schrieb Sara Bockey:
I agree… council is a better fit for this action.
*sara bockey*
*sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy^™ *
*sbockey@godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> 480-366-3616*
*skype: sbockey*
//
/This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments./
*From: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, May 4, 2018 at 6:56 AM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Hi,
Thanks Julie, indeed it should be reviewed by the full council and it takes ownership of that task. For timing, it can be possibly done after AGM as matter of strategical planning by the council.
Best,
Rafik
On Fri, May 4, 2018, 2:10 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Rafik,
Thanks for your comments. Do you have any suggestions for how the GNSO should address the review of ICANN’s Strategic Objectives if not under an expansion of the SCBO mandate? Should the GNSO create another body? Should it reviewed as the full Council? Is there another preferred method? Note that whether this is undertaken by some other method, or by an expansion of the SCBO, this recommendation will not be deemed implemented until that method or an SCBO charter expansion is implemented.
Your thoughts are welcome.
Kind regards,
Julie
*From: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> *Date: *Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:14 AM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> *Cc: *Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Hi Julie,
as I expressed it before, I am concerned about the expansion of SCBO mandate and mission. it was designed to cover ICANN budget-related matters, in particular, is post-IANA stewardship transition context. managing PDP resources, planning or setting the objectives remains a council task and the council had a fair long discussion during its strategical meeting in last January on how to improve things on those fronts.
Best,
Rafik
Le ven. 4 mai 2018 à 06:15, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> a écrit :
Hi Sara,
Thank you for these very helpful comments and the suggested revised text. I welcome WG members to comment on this suggestion.
Kind regards,
Julie
*From: *Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>> *Date: *Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:59 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Hi Julie,
Thank you for the reminder.
Regarding Recommendation 20, the following stands out to me and I’m not sure is being appropriately addressed:
“strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.”
To me, “resources available for policy development” includes volunteers and not over burdening the few and creating burn out.
While I like the direct of the solution, primarily expanding the scope of the Standing Committee “so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the planning of future GNSO activities is in alignment with these Strategic Objectives”, this highlighted part seems off balance. Perhaps rewording this to say:
The scope of the Standing Committee could be expanded, so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the Strategic Objectives and proposed GNSO policy development activities are aligned with the GNSO resources.
Just my 2 cents. I’ve read the Solution for Recommendation 20 three times now and it’s just nagging at me… perhaps I’m overthinking it. I’d be interested to know what others think.
Sara
*sara bockey*
*sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy^™ *
*sbockey@godaddy.com*<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>*480-366-3616*
*skype: sbockey*
//
/This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments./
*From: *Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> *Date: *Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM *To: *"gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
This is a reminder to review the attached materials per the message below.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*From: *Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> *Date: *Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM *To: *"gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
Per the action items and notes below from the call on 26 April, please review the attached final draft GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 20 & 21 in Word and PDF. As noted in the attached charter, these are the recommendations for implementation:
_Recommendation 20:_That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN’s Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.
_Recommendation 21:_That the GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well- represented in the policy-making process.
Working Group members are requested to respond to this review in*/two weeks, by COB Wednesday, 09 May./* If no comments are received during the review period staff will accept the changes and circulate the final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
**
*Action Items and Notes GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 13:00 UTC *
*Action Items:*
_Action Item 1: implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12_: Staff will correct typos identified by Wolf-Ulrich (see meeting notes for details).
_Action Item 2: revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3_: Staff will circulate the revised text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call.
_Action Item 3: implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21_: Staff will circulate the text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call.
_Action Item 4: GNSO Council Update_: Staff will circulate to the WG early next week draft slides for the GNSO Council presentation in May.
*Notes:*
1. Review agenda/SOIs:
-- This is a smaller group today. The call will proceed but no decisions will be made.
-- No updates to SOIs.
2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12 (closing 26 April):
-- The consensus call closes today. There have been no comments or objections so far. If this continues to be the cases, the charter will be deemed to be accepted by full consensus.
-- Wolf-Ulrich identified small typos to correct (headline says “1,2,3” and should say “7&12.” Number 3 “Translation of Documents” under “Solutions” – typos in first and second lines: “translatin” should be “translating” and “transition” should be “translation.”
3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3:
-- Staff has completed changes suggested on the call two weeks ago (see redlined text).
-- Staff suggests putting this text out for review by the group before completing a consensus call on this implementation charter. The WG can discuss any proposed changes raised on the mailing list during the call next week.
4. Continued discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21:
-- Recommendation 20: The scope of the Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations could be the structure through which the GNSO provides feedback on the strategic plan. This would complement existing activities associated with analyzing the budget.
-- In the last WG meeting, it was suggested that the WG would update the Council during the May Council Meeting. This proposal to expand the SCBO charter could be raised. The status of recommendations related to GDPR and Diversity (especially CCWG-Accountability recommendations on Diversity) could also be included in this discussion.
-- Recommendation 21: There are a number of initiatives underway to collect data. This section outlines the existing data sources and describes how the GNSO Council and Working Groups already access this data. It is not anticipated that an additional formal mechanism is needed for the GNSO to receive information about the efforts.
-- Staff suggests circulating this charter for additional feedback by the WG.
-- Regarding Recommendation 20: Rafik made a comment during the last meeting asking whether the SCBO is the right place to complete this review. Wolf-Ulrich is fine with the proposed approach, but would like to give everyone an opportunity to review and provide input.
-- An alternative would be for the Council to take on this review itself and possibly create an additional Standing Committee. This can be part of the discussion with the GNSO Council on the May GNSO Council call.
5. Discussion of the April Work Plan and proposed update to the GNSO Council on 24 May:
-- An additional item to discuss with the GNSO Council – any items with budget implications will need to be considered by the GNSO Council.
-- Staff has begun reviewing the CCWG-Accountability recommendations and cross referencing them with GNSO Review recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36. Staff will provide this analysis to the WG for the next WG meeting.
-- The Board has not yet made a decision on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations. This must be taken into consideration in drafting implementation charters that reference CCWG-Accountability recommendations. If WG implementation charters are tied to implementation of CCWG-Accountability recommendations, the implementation will not be complete until Board approval.
-- It is also possible that the WG can make recommendations that are complementary to, but not dependent on, the CCWG-Accountability recommendations.
-- Chat from Marika Konings to All Participants: whether implementation is achieved for those recommendations may only be possible further in the future as Board consideration is still some time out?
-- Staff will gather more information about implementation of steps by the ICANN Organization to address GDPR. Once additional information is available on the details of these measures, staff will update the appropriate implementation charters (26-29).
-- Motions will potentially be needed for the GNSO Council to consider in the June meeting.
6. Next Meeting: 10 May 1300 UTC:
-- In the next meeting, the WG should finalize the material it would like to present to Council.
-- Staff will provide a draft update to the Council early next week for the WG to consider. The WG can review the slides and suggest changes in time for the document deadline for the May Council meeting.
7. AOB: None.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-review-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
Hi I would second those concerns Budget committees should be operational not mission-setting. Best, Renata On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Julie,
as I expressed it before, I am concerned about the expansion of SCBO mandate and mission. it was designed to cover ICANN budget-related matters, in particular, is post-IANA stewardship transition context. managing PDP resources, planning or setting the objectives remains a council task and the council had a fair long discussion during its strategical meeting in last January on how to improve things on those fronts.
Best,
Rafik
Le ven. 4 mai 2018 à 06:15, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi Sara,
Thank you for these very helpful comments and the suggested revised text. I welcome WG members to comment on this suggestion.
Kind regards,
Julie
From: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:59 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Hi Julie,
Thank you for the reminder.
Regarding Recommendation 20, the following stands out to me and I’m not sure is being appropriately addressed:
“strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.”
To me, “resources available for policy development” includes volunteers and not over burdening the few and creating burn out.
While I like the direct of the solution, primarily expanding the scope of the Standing Committee “so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the planning of future GNSO activities is in alignment with these Strategic Objectives”, this highlighted part seems off balance. Perhaps rewording this to say:
The scope of the Standing Committee could be expanded, so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the Strategic Objectives and proposed GNSO policy development activities are aligned with the GNSO resources.
Just my 2 cents. I’ve read the Solution for Recommendation 20 three times now and it’s just nagging at me… perhaps I’m overthinking it. I’d be interested to know what others think.
Sara
sara bockey
sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™
sbockey@godaddy.com 480-366-3616
skype: sbockey
This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.
From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:49 AM To: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
This is a reminder to review the attached materials per the message below.
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, April 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM To: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Implementation Charter for GNSO Review Recommendations 20 & 21
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
Per the action items and notes below from the call on 26 April, please review the attached final draft GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 20 & 21 in Word and PDF. As noted in the attached charter, these are the recommendations for implementation:
Recommendation 20: That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN’s Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.
Recommendation 21: That the GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well- represented in the policy-making process.
Working Group members are requested to respond to this review in two weeks, by COB Wednesday, 09 May. If no comments are received during the review period staff will accept the changes and circulate the final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Action Items and Notes GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 13:00 UTC
Action Items:
Action Item 1: implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12: Staff will correct typos identified by Wolf-Ulrich (see meeting notes for details).
Action Item 2: revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: Staff will circulate the revised text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call.
Action Item 3: implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21: Staff will circulate the text of this implementation charter on the mailing list. Any feedback raised on the mailing list will be discussed on the next call.
Action Item 4: GNSO Council Update: Staff will circulate to the WG early next week draft slides for the GNSO Council presentation in May.
Notes:
1. Review agenda/SOIs:
-- This is a smaller group today. The call will proceed but no decisions will be made.
-- No updates to SOIs.
2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12 (closing 26 April):
-- The consensus call closes today. There have been no comments or objections so far. If this continues to be the cases, the charter will be deemed to be accepted by full consensus.
-- Wolf-Ulrich identified small typos to correct (headline says “1,2,3” and should say “7&12.” Number 3 “Translation of Documents” under “Solutions” – typos in first and second lines: “translatin” should be “translating” and “transition” should be “translation.”
3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3:
-- Staff has completed changes suggested on the call two weeks ago (see redlined text).
-- Staff suggests putting this text out for review by the group before completing a consensus call on this implementation charter. The WG can discuss any proposed changes raised on the mailing list during the call next week.
4. Continued discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21:
-- Recommendation 20: The scope of the Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations could be the structure through which the GNSO provides feedback on the strategic plan. This would complement existing activities associated with analyzing the budget.
-- In the last WG meeting, it was suggested that the WG would update the Council during the May Council Meeting. This proposal to expand the SCBO charter could be raised. The status of recommendations related to GDPR and Diversity (especially CCWG-Accountability recommendations on Diversity) could also be included in this discussion.
-- Recommendation 21: There are a number of initiatives underway to collect data. This section outlines the existing data sources and describes how the GNSO Council and Working Groups already access this data. It is not anticipated that an additional formal mechanism is needed for the GNSO to receive information about the efforts.
-- Staff suggests circulating this charter for additional feedback by the WG.
-- Regarding Recommendation 20: Rafik made a comment during the last meeting asking whether the SCBO is the right place to complete this review. Wolf-Ulrich is fine with the proposed approach, but would like to give everyone an opportunity to review and provide input.
-- An alternative would be for the Council to take on this review itself and possibly create an additional Standing Committee. This can be part of the discussion with the GNSO Council on the May GNSO Council call.
5. Discussion of the April Work Plan and proposed update to the GNSO Council on 24 May:
-- An additional item to discuss with the GNSO Council – any items with budget implications will need to be considered by the GNSO Council.
-- Staff has begun reviewing the CCWG-Accountability recommendations and cross referencing them with GNSO Review recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36. Staff will provide this analysis to the WG for the next WG meeting.
-- The Board has not yet made a decision on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations. This must be taken into consideration in drafting implementation charters that reference CCWG-Accountability recommendations. If WG implementation charters are tied to implementation of CCWG-Accountability recommendations, the implementation will not be complete until Board approval.
-- It is also possible that the WG can make recommendations that are complementary to, but not dependent on, the CCWG-Accountability recommendations.
-- Chat from Marika Konings to All Participants: whether implementation is achieved for those recommendations may only be possible further in the future as Board consideration is still some time out?
-- Staff will gather more information about implementation of steps by the ICANN Organization to address GDPR. Once additional information is available on the details of these measures, staff will update the appropriate implementation charters (26-29).
-- Motions will potentially be needed for the GNSO Council to consider in the June meeting.
6. Next Meeting: 10 May 1300 UTC:
-- In the next meeting, the WG should finalize the material it would like to present to Council.
-- Staff will provide a draft update to the Council early next week for the WG to consider. The WG can review the slides and suggest changes in time for the document deadline for the May Council meeting.
7. AOB: None.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
participants (5)
-
Julie Hedlund -
Rafik Dammak -
Renata Aquino Ribeiro -
Sara Bockey -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben