Re: [Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WGMeeting on 01 March 2018
HI, The calculations makes sense. What i am wondering whether ICANN org can afford. Looking at the financials. Perhaps we add Financials permitting
On Mar 2, 2018, at 16:24, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>
<https://www.boxbe.com/overview> This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de) Add cleanup rule <https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Fkey%...> | More info <http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=37155819935&...> All,
I did a short analysis wrt to potential language interpretation and transscription costs (see attached). The calculation of meetings is taken from the GNSO calendar 2017 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2017 <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2017>). It is just WGs and WTs, no SG- or Constituency-specific meetings, no council meetings. Under the assumptions made an additional budget of around 100 k$ may be needed. Everybody can "play" with the input parameters in the Excel sheet. E.g. if a "big" WG like SubPro doesn't request interpretation it would significantly reduce the cost.
Maybe other scenarios are more realistic. We should discuss them.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Am 01.03.2018 um 16:58 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, <> Â
Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 01 March 2018. 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/2018 <https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2018>.
Â
Please note that the next meeting will occur on 29 March either at 1200 or 1300 UTC (time to be determined via separate message).
Â
Best regards,
Julie
Â
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Â
Â
Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 01 March 2018 at 13:00 UTC
Â
Action Items:
Â
Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22:
Action Item 1: Staff will update the organization of training materials on the GNSO website. Staff will update the WG Determination that take into account that there are already trainings that are accessible and include real-time interaction. The WG Determination will note that staff will update the website and will link to the updated GNSO webpage when it is ready. Â Staff will put the changes out for a 3-week Consensus Call.
Â
Implementation Charter for Recommendations 1, 2, & 3:
Action Item 2: Staff will add information about Council comment on CROP to the implementation charter once posted to public forum. Staff will also add text based on additional feedback that may be received on SG/C outreach.
Action Item 3: Staff will adjust the text of the "note" on page 4 to be more neutral regarding dues collected. Staff will also add text clarifying how dues are used within the BC with respect to voting.
Action Item 4: Staff will add text to the charter elaborating on the link between GSE activities and recruitment for PDP WGs.
Â
Implementation Charter for Recommendations 7 & 12:
Action Item 5: Update implementation charter title to "Language Translation and Transcription."
Action Item 6: Staff will add text about the translation of written material, including benefits, uses, and costs.
Action Item 7: Staff will add some possible scenarios outlining the costs if GNSO WGs began using translation on their calls.
Â
Update to the GNSO Council:
Action Item 8: Remove the target end date of June 2018 from the status update to the GNSO Council.
Â
Next Meeting:
Action Item 9: Staff will send a note to the list asking whether the next meeting on 29 March should take place at 12:00 UTC or 13:00 UTC (due to US change to Daylight Saving Time on 11 March 2018).
Â
Notes:
Â
1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates.
Â
2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendation 34:
Â
-- The consensus call ended on 8 February. No objections were raised to the text for this implementation charter.
-- This recommendation is seen as implemented. The work is complete on this recommendation.
Â
3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22:
Â
-- This charter has been updated based on previous discussions.
-- The change discussed on the call on the 8th was to make minor updates to the WG determination.
-- Two additional sentences have been added to the end of this section "The Working Group recommends that training options should focus on accessibility of training, and in particular real-time interaction through remote platforms. The Working Group also recommends that all of the training and learning materials are linked from the GNSO website and described in the context of the competency-based framework."
-- Earlier in the document, the trainings are organized into a framework. The recommendation states that information about the trainings should be organized following this framework on the GNSO website.
-- Question: The WGs mandate is to finalize the implementation. Should we simply make a recommendation or should the WG take additional steps to implement the work itself in collaboration with staff?
-- Response: Even if it says "recommend" this does not include a mandate, noting that many trainings have the recommended features. Staff can go ahead an updating the GNSO website as recommended by the WG.
-- Question: someone reading this recommendation may wonder if the recommendation will be followed. It is possible that the recommendation will be implemented or can only be implemented under certain circumstances.
-- The changes suggested in Action Item 1 will be circulated and go out for consensus call. The WG will aim to have the consensus call closed by the next WG meeting after ICANN61.
Â
4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3:
Â
-- During the last meeting, staff was asked to make additional edits.
-- Staff investigated the CROP program and updated text on this program based on status of the FY19 budget. The draft FY19 budget does not include funding for CROP.
Â
Chat excerpt:
Marika Konings: Note that this is also input that the Council is considering in relation to the FY19 budget (focus on KPIs and metrics for outreach programs)
Â
-- Staff added content about Global Stakeholder Engagement.
-- Staff investigated outreach conducted by SG/Cs and added text based on responses received.
-- Additional text was included on suggested metrics based on feedback from the WG.
-- Question: The note regarding BC and IPC dues may be confusing. The justification and rationales are not included. Could this text be worded in a more neutral manner. For example " There are Constituencies that collect dues . .."
-- Question: How is GSE linked to recruiting more participants to GNSO PDP WGs? Some community members are not clear about the link.
-- Response: Staff will add language about this link.
-- Feedback: The community onboarding program may be useful to include in this implementation charter.
-- Clarification: Membership dues allow members to reach decisions in the BC. While voting is not always used, when voting does take place, different members have a different number of votes based on the dues they pay.
Â
5. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12:
Â
-- Staff had an action item to update text regarding current language services and costs. This text has been updated.
Â
Chat excerpt:
Rafik Dammak: if I am not mistaking the budget for FY19 includes reduction on interpretation and translation service to be provided. captioning seems the more reasonable option for now
Â
-- The implementation charter includes possible approaches to using language services.
-- Question: is this charter only covering interpretation services or also document translation services?
-- Answer: because recommendation 7 is broad, the implementation charter should likely also include text about document translation.
-- Question: If it is up to the WGs to determine the extent to which they use translation, what will be the impact on the budget? Could we check to see how many times GNSO WGs met last year and calculate the potential costs of using these services if X% chose to use translation services?
Â
Chat excerpt:
Marika Konings: @Wolf-Ulrich - the costs of that would be substantial so it would be a question of priorities for the GNSO/Council.
Rafik Dammak: we used interpretation to french and spanish at ccwg diveristy subgroup in the last calls, few people used it...and we got people asking for it
Marika Konings: I recall that the CCWG-WS1 also 'demanded' interpretation for its calls, but a review of the numbers of users also showed that on many calls there were zero or just 1 or 2 people on one or more of the languages offered.
Marika Konings: maybe some more awareness of the costs involved may ensure that it is a more conscious decision when interpretation is asked (and used)
Rafik Dammak: interpretation for weinars make sense since the number of attendees is much higher
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: that's why we need a "solid" scenario, Marika
Marika Konings: @Rafik - but my personal view is that it should be demand driven, even for webinars.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: demand should be estimated by the WG
Marika Konings: @Wolf-Ulrich, but it is probably for the Council to oversee if/how resources are used, as this would add a significant cost which would need to be funded from something else noting the budget situation we are in?
Â
6. Discussion of the updated Work Plan:
Â
-- Anticipated for 29 March: Recommendations 22, 7, 12, 20, and 21 as well as revisiting recommendations 26-29 which have been on hold pending additional information about GDPR implementation.
-- In April, the WG will revisit recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36 which have been on hold pending work from the CCWG Accountability sub-group on diversity.
Â
Chat excerpt:
Rafik Dammak: diveristy final recommendations passed the first reading yesterday
Rafik Dammak: close to be approved
Â
-- The goal is for all recommendations to be implemented in June 2018. The WG will provide a Final Implementation Status Report to OEC and the GNSO Council.
-- Additional time may be needed for implementation of some of the outstanding items.
Â
7. Planning for Update to GNSO Council:
Â
-- Status report will be provided to the GNSO Council. This item is not currently on the GNSO Council agenda for ICANN61 but could be added under AOB.
-- Suggestion: Do not include the internal June 2018 target date in the Council update.
Â
8. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21 (time permitting):Â This item was not covered.
Â
9. Next Meeting: 29 March 1300 UTC: Staff will send a note to the list asking whether the next meeting should take place at 12:00 UTC or 13:00 UTC.
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg> <language cost scenario.xlsx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Many thanks Wolf-Ulrich for creating this very helpful calculation! It is a very good tool to help the Working Group in its discussions. Kind regards, Julie From: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 8:24 AM To: "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WGMeeting on 01 March 2018 HI, The calculations makes sense. What i am wondering whether ICANN org can afford. Looking at the financials. Perhaps we add Financials permitting On Mar 2, 2018, at 16:24, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> [boxbe.com] This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de) Add cleanup rule[boxbe.com] | More info[blog.boxbe.com] All, I did a short analysis wrt to potential language interpretation and transscription costs (see attached). The calculation of meetings is taken from the GNSO calendar 2017 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2017[gnso.icann.org]). It is just WGs and WTs, no SG- or Constituency-specific meetings, no council meetings. Under the assumptions made an additional budget of around 100 k$ may be needed. Everybody can "play" with the input parameters in the Excel sheet. E.g. if a "big" WG like SubPro doesn't request interpretation it would significantly reduce the cost. Maybe other scenarios are more realistic. We should discuss them. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 01.03.2018 um 16:58 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 01 March 2018. 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/2018[community.icann.org].  Please note that the next meeting will occur on 29 March either at 1200 or 1300 UTC (time to be determined via separate message).  Best regards, Julie  Julie Hedlund, Policy Director   Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 01 March 2018 at 13:00 UTC  Action Items:  Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22: Action Item 1: Staff will update the organization of training materials on the GNSO website. Staff will update the WG Determination that take into account that there are already trainings that are accessible and include real-time interaction. The WG Determination will note that staff will update the website and will link to the updated GNSO webpage when it is ready.  Staff will put the changes out for a 3-week Consensus Call.  Implementation Charter for Recommendations 1, 2, & 3: Action Item 2: Staff will add information about Council comment on CROP to the implementation charter once posted to public forum. Staff will also add text based on additional feedback that may be received on SG/C outreach. Action Item 3: Staff will adjust the text of the "note" on page 4 to be more neutral regarding dues collected. Staff will also add text clarifying how dues are used within the BC with respect to voting. Action Item 4: Staff will add text to the charter elaborating on the link between GSE activities and recruitment for PDP WGs.  Implementation Charter for Recommendations 7 & 12: Action Item 5: Update implementation charter title to "Language Translation and Transcription." Action Item 6: Staff will add text about the translation of written material, including benefits, uses, and costs. Action Item 7: Staff will add some possible scenarios outlining the costs if GNSO WGs began using translation on their calls.  Update to the GNSO Council: Action Item 8: Remove the target end date of June 2018 from the status update to the GNSO Council.  Next Meeting: Action Item 9: Staff will send a note to the list asking whether the next meeting on 29 March should take place at 12:00 UTC or 13:00 UTC (due to US change to Daylight Saving Time on 11 March 2018).  Notes:  1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates.  2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendation 34:  -- The consensus call ended on 8 February. No objections were raised to the text for this implementation charter. -- This recommendation is seen as implemented. The work is complete on this recommendation.  3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22:  -- This charter has been updated based on previous discussions. -- The change discussed on the call on the 8th was to make minor updates to the WG determination. -- Two additional sentences have been added to the end of this section "The Working Group recommends that training options should focus on accessibility of training, and in particular real-time interaction through remote platforms. The Working Group also recommends that all of the training and learning materials are linked from the GNSO website and described in the context of the competency-based framework." -- Earlier in the document, the trainings are organized into a framework. The recommendation states that information about the trainings should be organized following this framework on the GNSO website. -- Question: The WGs mandate is to finalize the implementation. Should we simply make a recommendation or should the WG take additional steps to implement the work itself in collaboration with staff? -- Response: Even if it says "recommend" this does not include a mandate, noting that many trainings have the recommended features. Staff can go ahead an updating the GNSO website as recommended by the WG. -- Question: someone reading this recommendation may wonder if the recommendation will be followed. It is possible that the recommendation will be implemented or can only be implemented under certain circumstances. -- The changes suggested in Action Item 1 will be circulated and go out for consensus call. The WG will aim to have the consensus call closed by the next WG meeting after ICANN61.  4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3:  -- During the last meeting, staff was asked to make additional edits. -- Staff investigated the CROP program and updated text on this program based on status of the FY19 budget. The draft FY19 budget does not include funding for CROP.  Chat excerpt: Marika Konings: Note that this is also input that the Council is considering in relation to the FY19 budget (focus on KPIs and metrics for outreach programs)  -- Staff added content about Global Stakeholder Engagement. -- Staff investigated outreach conducted by SG/Cs and added text based on responses received. -- Additional text was included on suggested metrics based on feedback from the WG. -- Question: The note regarding BC and IPC dues may be confusing. The justification and rationales are not included. Could this text be worded in a more neutral manner. For example " There are Constituencies that collect dues . .." -- Question: How is GSE linked to recruiting more participants to GNSO PDP WGs? Some community members are not clear about the link. -- Response: Staff will add language about this link. -- Feedback: The community onboarding program may be useful to include in this implementation charter. -- Clarification: Membership dues allow members to reach decisions in the BC. While voting is not always used, when voting does take place, different members have a different number of votes based on the dues they pay.  5. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12:  -- Staff had an action item to update text regarding current language services and costs. This text has been updated.  Chat excerpt: Rafik Dammak: if I am not mistaking the budget for FY19 includes reduction on interpretation and translation service to be provided. captioning seems the more reasonable option for now  -- The implementation charter includes possible approaches to using language services. -- Question: is this charter only covering interpretation services or also document translation services? -- Answer: because recommendation 7 is broad, the implementation charter should likely also include text about document translation. -- Question: If it is up to the WGs to determine the extent to which they use translation, what will be the impact on the budget? Could we check to see how many times GNSO WGs met last year and calculate the potential costs of using these services if X% chose to use translation services?  Chat excerpt: Marika Konings: @Wolf-Ulrich - the costs of that would be substantial so it would be a question of priorities for the GNSO/Council. Rafik Dammak: we used interpretation to french and spanish at ccwg diveristy subgroup in the last calls, few people used it...and we got people asking for it Marika Konings: I recall that the CCWG-WS1 also 'demanded' interpretation for its calls, but a review of the numbers of users also showed that on many calls there were zero or just 1 or 2 people on one or more of the languages offered. Marika Konings: maybe some more awareness of the costs involved may ensure that it is a more conscious decision when interpretation is asked (and used) Rafik Dammak: interpretation for weinars make sense since the number of attendees is much higher Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: that's why we need a "solid" scenario, Marika Marika Konings: @Rafik - but my personal view is that it should be demand driven, even for webinars. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: demand should be estimated by the WG Marika Konings: @Wolf-Ulrich, but it is probably for the Council to oversee if/how resources are used, as this would add a significant cost which would need to be funded from something else noting the budget situation we are in?  6. Discussion of the updated Work Plan:  -- Anticipated for 29 March: Recommendations 22, 7, 12, 20, and 21 as well as revisiting recommendations 26-29 which have been on hold pending additional information about GDPR implementation. -- In April, the WG will revisit recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36 which have been on hold pending work from the CCWG Accountability sub-group on diversity.  Chat excerpt: Rafik Dammak: diveristy final recommendations passed the first reading yesterday Rafik Dammak: close to be approved  -- The goal is for all recommendations to be implemented in June 2018. The WG will provide a Final Implementation Status Report to OEC and the GNSO Council. -- Additional time may be needed for implementation of some of the outstanding items.  7. Planning for Update to GNSO Council:  -- Status report will be provided to the GNSO Council. This item is not currently on the GNSO Council agenda for ICANN61 but could be added under AOB. -- Suggestion: Do not include the internal June 2018 target date in the Council update.  8. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21 (time permitting): This item was not covered.  9. Next Meeting: 29 March 1300 UTC: Staff will send a note to the list asking whether the next meeting should take place at 12:00 UTC or 13:00 UTC. _______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg <language cost scenario.xlsx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/[linkedin.com] "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
Thanks, Wolf-Ulrich, this definitely provides an indication of costs, but please note that other factors need to be considered such as additional phone lines, change of phone provider as Verizon cannot accommodate interpretation, longer WG meetings as interventions in other languages will need to be translated back to English as well as additional staff support to set up and arrange interpreted calls. Best regards, Marika From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 08:44 To: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com>, "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WGMeeting on 01 March 2018 Many thanks Wolf-Ulrich for creating this very helpful calculation! It is a very good tool to help the Working Group in its discussions. Kind regards, Julie From: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 8:24 AM To: "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WGMeeting on 01 March 2018 HI, The calculations makes sense. What i am wondering whether ICANN org can afford. Looking at the financials. Perhaps we add Financials permitting On Mar 2, 2018, at 16:24, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> [Boxbe][boxbe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.boxbe.com_overview&...> [http://www.boxbe.com/stfopen?tc_serial=37155819935&tc_rand=1838458403&utm_so...] This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>) Add cleanup rule[boxbe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.boxbe.com_popup-3Fu...> | More info[blog.boxbe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.boxbe.com_general_b...> All, I did a short analysis wrt to potential language interpretation and transscription costs (see attached). The calculation of meetings is taken from the GNSO calendar 2017 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2017[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar_2017&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=O4vAeoCVL1urtl9unYmEA1oeMDuDqzsI6rPUlSPFcKk&s=MFMBqRh6RukOSC3mfACMlnw--Eurvog07Tlvrk0HeS0&e=>). It is just WGs and WTs, no SG- or Constituency-specific meetings, no council meetings. Under the assumptions made an additional budget of around 100 k$ may be needed. Everybody can "play" with the input parameters in the Excel sheet. E.g. if a "big" WG like SubPro doesn't request interpretation it would significantly reduce the cost. Maybe other scenarios are more realistic. We should discuss them. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 01.03.2018 um 16:58 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 01 March 2018. 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/2018[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_GRWG_2018&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=O4vAeoCVL1urtl9unYmEA1oeMDuDqzsI6rPUlSPFcKk&s=21d2uEgknONlgurVCCbRKXLJOrT6Qt1yaKUsJvxsr0c&e=>.  Please note that the next meeting will occur on 29 March either at 1200 or 1300 UTC (time to be determined via separate message).  Best regards, Julie  Julie Hedlund, Policy Director   Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 01 March 2018 at 13:00 UTC  Action Items:  Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22: Action Item 1: Staff will update the organization of training materials on the GNSO website. Staff will update the WG Determination that take into account that there are already trainings that are accessible and include real-time interaction. The WG Determination will note that staff will update the website and will link to the updated GNSO webpage when it is ready.  Staff will put the changes out for a 3-week Consensus Call.  Implementation Charter for Recommendations 1, 2, & 3: Action Item 2: Staff will add information about Council comment on CROP to the implementation charter once posted to public forum. Staff will also add text based on additional feedback that may be received on SG/C outreach. Action Item 3: Staff will adjust the text of the "note" on page 4 to be more neutral regarding dues collected. Staff will also add text clarifying how dues are used within the BC with respect to voting. Action Item 4: Staff will add text to the charter elaborating on the link between GSE activities and recruitment for PDP WGs.  Implementation Charter for Recommendations 7 & 12: Action Item 5: Update implementation charter title to "Language Translation and Transcription." Action Item 6: Staff will add text about the translation of written material, including benefits, uses, and costs. Action Item 7: Staff will add some possible scenarios outlining the costs if GNSO WGs began using translation on their calls.  Update to the GNSO Council: Action Item 8: Remove the target end date of June 2018 from the status update to the GNSO Council.  Next Meeting: Action Item 9: Staff will send a note to the list asking whether the next meeting on 29 March should take place at 12:00 UTC or 13:00 UTC (due to US change to Daylight Saving Time on 11 March 2018).  Notes:  1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates.  2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendation 34:  -- The consensus call ended on 8 February. No objections were raised to the text for this implementation charter. -- This recommendation is seen as implemented. The work is complete on this recommendation.  3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22:  -- This charter has been updated based on previous discussions. -- The change discussed on the call on the 8th was to make minor updates to the WG determination. -- Two additional sentences have been added to the end of this section "The Working Group recommends that training options should focus on accessibility of training, and in particular real-time interaction through remote platforms. The Working Group also recommends that all of the training and learning materials are linked from the GNSO website and described in the context of the competency-based framework." -- Earlier in the document, the trainings are organized into a framework. The recommendation states that information about the trainings should be organized following this framework on the GNSO website. -- Question: The WGs mandate is to finalize the implementation. Should we simply make a recommendation or should the WG take additional steps to implement the work itself in collaboration with staff? -- Response: Even if it says "recommend" this does not include a mandate, noting that many trainings have the recommended features. Staff can go ahead an updating the GNSO website as recommended by the WG. -- Question: someone reading this recommendation may wonder if the recommendation will be followed. It is possible that the recommendation will be implemented or can only be implemented under certain circumstances. -- The changes suggested in Action Item 1 will be circulated and go out for consensus call. The WG will aim to have the consensus call closed by the next WG meeting after ICANN61.  4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3:  -- During the last meeting, staff was asked to make additional edits. -- Staff investigated the CROP program and updated text on this program based on status of the FY19 budget. The draft FY19 budget does not include funding for CROP.  Chat excerpt: Marika Konings: Note that this is also input that the Council is considering in relation to the FY19 budget (focus on KPIs and metrics for outreach programs)  -- Staff added content about Global Stakeholder Engagement. -- Staff investigated outreach conducted by SG/Cs and added text based on responses received. -- Additional text was included on suggested metrics based on feedback from the WG. -- Question: The note regarding BC and IPC dues may be confusing. The justification and rationales are not included. Could this text be worded in a more neutral manner. For example " There are Constituencies that collect dues . .." -- Question: How is GSE linked to recruiting more participants to GNSO PDP WGs? Some community members are not clear about the link. -- Response: Staff will add language about this link. -- Feedback: The community onboarding program may be useful to include in this implementation charter. -- Clarification: Membership dues allow members to reach decisions in the BC. While voting is not always used, when voting does take place, different members have a different number of votes based on the dues they pay.  5. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12:  -- Staff had an action item to update text regarding current language services and costs. This text has been updated.  Chat excerpt: Rafik Dammak: if I am not mistaking the budget for FY19 includes reduction on interpretation and translation service to be provided. captioning seems the more reasonable option for now  -- The implementation charter includes possible approaches to using language services. -- Question: is this charter only covering interpretation services or also document translation services? -- Answer: because recommendation 7 is broad, the implementation charter should likely also include text about document translation. -- Question: If it is up to the WGs to determine the extent to which they use translation, what will be the impact on the budget? Could we check to see how many times GNSO WGs met last year and calculate the potential costs of using these services if X% chose to use translation services?  Chat excerpt: Marika Konings: @Wolf-Ulrich - the costs of that would be substantial so it would be a question of priorities for the GNSO/Council. Rafik Dammak: we used interpretation to french and spanish at ccwg diveristy subgroup in the last calls, few people used it...and we got people asking for it Marika Konings: I recall that the CCWG-WS1 also 'demanded' interpretation for its calls, but a review of the numbers of users also showed that on many calls there were zero or just 1 or 2 people on one or more of the languages offered. Marika Konings: maybe some more awareness of the costs involved may ensure that it is a more conscious decision when interpretation is asked (and used) Rafik Dammak: interpretation for weinars make sense since the number of attendees is much higher Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: that's why we need a "solid" scenario, Marika Marika Konings: @Rafik - but my personal view is that it should be demand driven, even for webinars. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: demand should be estimated by the WG Marika Konings: @Wolf-Ulrich, but it is probably for the Council to oversee if/how resources are used, as this would add a significant cost which would need to be funded from something else noting the budget situation we are in?  6. Discussion of the updated Work Plan:  -- Anticipated for 29 March: Recommendations 22, 7, 12, 20, and 21 as well as revisiting recommendations 26-29 which have been on hold pending additional information about GDPR implementation. -- In April, the WG will revisit recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36 which have been on hold pending work from the CCWG Accountability sub-group on diversity.  Chat excerpt: Rafik Dammak: diveristy final recommendations passed the first reading yesterday Rafik Dammak: close to be approved  -- The goal is for all recommendations to be implemented in June 2018. The WG will provide a Final Implementation Status Report to OEC and the GNSO Council. -- Additional time may be needed for implementation of some of the outstanding items.  7. Planning for Update to GNSO Council:  -- Status report will be provided to the GNSO Council. This item is not currently on the GNSO Council agenda for ICANN61 but could be added under AOB. -- Suggestion: Do not include the internal June 2018 target date in the Council update.  8. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21 (time permitting): This item was not covered.  9. Next Meeting: 29 March 1300 UTC: Staff will send a note to the list asking whether the next meeting should take place at 12:00 UTC or 13:00 UTC. _______________________________________________ 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 <language cost scenario.xlsx>_______________________________________________ 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 Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> * www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_ksee...> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" [cid:2B3C052F-D6B4-4773-9116-D703ACE1C1A9]
Thanks Marika, Happy to see any more precise calculations! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Original-Nachricht----- Von: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WGMeeting on 01 March 2018 Datum: 02.03.2018, 16:10 Uhr An: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>
, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> >, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> > CC: gnso-review-wg@icann.org <gnso-review-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org> >
Thanks, Wolf-Ulrich, this definitely provides an indication of costs, but please note that other factors need to be considered such as additional phone lines, change of phone provider as Verizon cannot accommodate interpretation, longer WG meetings as interventions in other languages will need to be translated back to English as well as additional staff support to set up and arrange interpreted calls. Best regards, Marika From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 08:44 To: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com>, "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WGMeeting on 01 March 2018 Many thanks Wolf-Ulrich for creating this very helpful calculation! It is a very good tool to help the Working Group in its discussions. Kind regards, Julie From: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 8:24 AM To: "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WGMeeting on 01 March 2018 HI, The calculations makes sense. What i am wondering whether ICANN org can afford. Looking at the financials. Perhaps we add Financials permitting On Mar 2, 2018, at 16:24, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben < wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> > [Boxbe][boxbe.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.boxbe.com_overview&...> [http://www.boxbe.com/stfopen?tc_serial=37155819935&tc_rand=1838458403&utm_so...] This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! ( wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ) Add cleanup rule[boxbe.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.boxbe.com_popup-3Fu...> | More info[blog.boxbe.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.boxbe.com_general_b...> All, I did a short analysis wrt to potential language interpretation and transscription costs (see attached). The calculation of meetings is taken from the GNSO calendar 2017 ( https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2017[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> ). It is just WGs and WTs, no SG- or Constituency-specific meetings, no council meetings. Under the assumptions made an additional budget of around 100 k$ may be needed. Everybody can "play" with the input parameters in the Excel sheet. E.g. if a "big" WG like SubPro doesn't request interpretation it would significantly reduce the cost. Maybe other scenarios are more realistic. We should discuss them. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 01.03.2018 um 16:58 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 01 March 2018. 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/2018[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> .  Please note that the next meeting will occur on 29 March either at 1200 or 1300 UTC (time to be determined via separate message).  Best regards, Julie  Julie Hedlund, Policy Director   Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 01 March 2018 at 13:00 UTC  Action Items:  Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22: Action Item 1: Staff will update the organization of training materials on the GNSO website. Staff will update the WG Determination that take into account that there are already trainings that are accessible and include real-time interaction. The WG Determination will note that staff will update the website and will link to the updated GNSO webpage when it is ready.  Staff will put the changes out for a 3-week Consensus Call.  Implementation Charter for Recommendations 1, 2, & 3: Action Item 2: Staff will add information about Council comment on CROP to the implementation charter once posted to public forum. Staff will also add text based on additional feedback that may be received on SG/C outreach. Action Item 3: Staff will adjust the text of the "note" on page 4 to be more neutral regarding dues collected. Staff will also add text clarifying how dues are used within the BC with respect to voting. Action Item 4: Staff will add text to the charter elaborating on the link between GSE activities and recruitment for PDP WGs.  Implementation Charter for Recommendations 7 & 12: Action Item 5: Update implementation charter title to "Language Translation and Transcription." Action Item 6: Staff will add text about the translation of written material, including benefits, uses, and costs. Action Item 7: Staff will add some possible scenarios outlining the costs if GNSO WGs began using translation on their calls.  Update to the GNSO Council: Action Item 8: Remove the target end date of June 2018 from the status update to the GNSO Council.  Next Meeting: Action Item 9: Staff will send a note to the list asking whether the next meeting on 29 March should take place at 12:00 UTC or 13:00 UTC (due to US change to Daylight Saving Time on 11 March 2018).  Notes:  1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates.  2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendation 34:  -- The consensus call ended on 8 February. No objections were raised to the text for this implementation charter. -- This recommendation is seen as implemented. The work is complete on this recommendation.  3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22:  -- This charter has been updated based on previous discussions. -- The change discussed on the call on the 8th was to make minor updates to the WG determination. -- Two additional sentences have been added to the end of this section "The Working Group recommends that training options should focus on accessibility of training, and in particular real-time interaction through remote platforms. The Working Group also recommends that all of the training and learning materials are linked from the GNSO website and described in the context of the competency-based framework." -- Earlier in the document, the trainings are organized into a framework. The recommendation states that information about the trainings should be organized following this framework on the GNSO website. -- Question: The WGs mandate is to finalize the implementation. Should we simply make a recommendation or should the WG take additional steps to implement the work itself in collaboration with staff? -- Response: Even if it says "recommend" this does not include a mandate, noting that many trainings have the recommended features. Staff can go ahead an updating the GNSO website as recommended by the WG. -- Question: someone reading this recommendation may wonder if the recommendation will be followed. It is possible that the recommendation will be implemented or can only be implemented under certain circumstances. -- The changes suggested in Action Item 1 will be circulated and go out for consensus call. The WG will aim to have the consensus call closed by the next WG meeting after ICANN61.  4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3:  -- During the last meeting, staff was asked to make additional edits. -- Staff investigated the CROP program and updated text on this program based on status of the FY19 budget. The draft FY19 budget does not include funding for CROP.  Chat excerpt: Marika Konings: Note that this is also input that the Council is considering in relation to the FY19 budget (focus on KPIs and metrics for outreach programs)  -- Staff added content about Global Stakeholder Engagement. -- Staff investigated outreach conducted by SG/Cs and added text based on responses received. -- Additional text was included on suggested metrics based on feedback from the WG. -- Question: The note regarding BC and IPC dues may be confusing. The justification and rationales are not included. Could this text be worded in a more neutral manner. For example " There are Constituencies that collect dues . .." -- Question: How is GSE linked to recruiting more participants to GNSO PDP WGs? Some community members are not clear about the link. -- Response: Staff will add language about this link. -- Feedback: The community onboarding program may be useful to include in this implementation charter. -- Clarification: Membership dues allow members to reach decisions in the BC. While voting is not always used, when voting does take place, different members have a different number of votes based on the dues they pay.  5. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12:  -- Staff had an action item to update text regarding current language services and costs. This text has been updated.  Chat excerpt: Rafik Dammak: if I am not mistaking the budget for FY19 includes reduction on interpretation and translation service to be provided. captioning seems the more reasonable option for now  -- The implementation charter includes possible approaches to using language services. -- Question: is this charter only covering interpretation services or also document translation services? -- Answer: because recommendation 7 is broad, the implementation charter should likely also include text about document translation. -- Question: If it is up to the WGs to determine the extent to which they use translation, what will be the impact on the budget? Could we check to see how many times GNSO WGs met last year and calculate the potential costs of using these services if X% chose to use translation services?  Chat excerpt: Marika Konings: @Wolf-Ulrich - the costs of that would be substantial so it would be a question of priorities for the GNSO/Council. Rafik Dammak: we used interpretation to french and spanish at ccwg diveristy subgroup in the last calls, few people used it...and we got people asking for it Marika Konings: I recall that the CCWG-WS1 also 'demanded' interpretation for its calls, but a review of the numbers of users also showed that on many calls there were zero or just 1 or 2 people on one or more of the languages offered. Marika Konings: maybe some more awareness of the costs involved may ensure that it is a more conscious decision when interpretation is asked (and used) Rafik Dammak: interpretation for weinars make sense since the number of attendees is much higher Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: that's why we need a "solid" scenario, Marika Marika Konings: @Rafik - but my personal view is that it should be demand driven, even for webinars. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: demand should be estimated by the WG Marika Konings: @Wolf-Ulrich, but it is probably for the Council to oversee if/how resources are used, as this would add a significant cost which would need to be funded from something else noting the budget situation we are in?  6. Discussion of the updated Work Plan:  -- Anticipated for 29 March: Recommendations 22, 7, 12, 20, and 21 as well as revisiting recommendations 26-29 which have been on hold pending additional information about GDPR implementation. -- In April, the WG will revisit recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36 which have been on hold pending work from the CCWG Accountability sub-group on diversity.  Chat excerpt: Rafik Dammak: diveristy final recommendations passed the first reading yesterday Rafik Dammak: close to be approved  -- The goal is for all recommendations to be implemented in June 2018. The WG will provide a Final Implementation Status Report to OEC and the GNSO Council. -- Additional time may be needed for implementation of some of the outstanding items.  7. Planning for Update to GNSO Council:  -- Status report will be provided to the GNSO Council. This item is not currently on the GNSO Council agenda for ICANN61 but could be added under AOB. -- Suggestion: Do not include the internal June 2018 target date in the Council update.  8. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21 (time permitting): This item was not covered.  9. Next Meeting: 29 March 1300 UTC: Staff will send a note to the list asking whether the next meeting should take place at 12:00 UTC or 13:00 UTC. _______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg> <language cost scenario.xlsx>_______________________________________________ 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 Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> * www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/[linkedin.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_ksee...> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" [cid:2B3C052F-D6B4-4773-9116-D703ACE1C1A9]
participants (4)
-
Julie Hedlund -
Kris Seeburn -
Marika Konings -
wolf-ulrich.knoben＠t-online.de