Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Call on 25 May 1200 UTC
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the notes and action items from the meeting on 11 May. The charter is attached for recommendations 24/25 in Word and PDF. These have been loaded into the Adobe Connect room for discussion during tomorrow’s call: Thursday, 25 May at 1200 UTC. Please also see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows: Review agenda SOIs Reminder of Consensus Call for Recommendations 16 (responses due 29 May) Begin discussion of Charter for Recommendations 24/25 Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 08 June AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 11 May Action Items: Recommendation 16: Staff will 1) revise the charter to make sure that there is no relevant language/reference from the strategic plan that may be missing; 2) make noted editorial changes and check links; 3) append the PIA framework from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Initial Report Template for reference; 4) send the final revised charter to the Working Group for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Recommendation 18: Staff is creating a standalone charter for consideration and further discussion by the Working Group. Recommendation 33: 1) Representatives on this WG to have their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies answer the questionnaire, which also asks about informal practices that encourage diversity. Deadline is 01 June. This charter will be revisited following receipt of the Stakeholder Group and Constituency responses to the Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team questionnaire, due on 01 June. 2) Staff also will contact support staff for the SGs and Cs to make sure that all procedures have been compiled. Recommendations 24/25: Staff will create a charter for consideration on the next Working Group Call on 25 May at 1200 UTC. Overarching Questions: The Working Group requested that staff should collect and track questions raised by the Working Group that may either relate to several GNSO review recommendations, to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or to GNSO processes in general. Discussion Notes: 1. Discussion of Recommendation 16: -- Goal: Strategic plan -- seems incomplete; check it. -- Separated from recommendation #18 to be considered in a standalone charter. -- WG to determine to what extent the DMPM recommendations fulfil the requirements of this recommendation -- Staff evaluation is that this recommendation has indeed been covered by the recommendations of the GNSO DMPM WG final report (specifically recommendations 3, 6 and 7, which have contributed to the creation of a new GNSO WG charter template available via link in the GNSO WG Guidelines). -- Should we start to create our metrics to put to this list? Maybe it is valuable to have a discussion here -- whether these are the ones that could be valuable for the impact analysis? -- ICANN staff: if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. -- Up to the WG to discuss the PIA and the related metric that should be used for that. It is the WG that is guiding this and creating the metrics that should be used. -- Reference to the strawman -- are we expected to provide the guidelines for the working group to develop metrics? Depending on the context of the background of WG are there metrics applicable to every WG? -- There are points in the charter and suggestions for metrics -- general metrics can be subdivided. -- How can we as a volunteer community ask the right questions? Where is the expertise to help guide us? -- May be too early to address this question, but may come out of further work of this WG -- don't forget that there are maybe questions that have an impact on the results of all of this. -- This issue could be consider as an overarching question by the WG. Suggestion to keep these questions as for further work for this WG.
From the chat:
Berry Cobb: I'd just add that DMPM's attempt was more of a cultural change and to develop a generic framework. They did not want to be to prescriptive as each issue the GNSO deals with is different. Lori Schulman: I feel like we need a highly expert "metrics czar" Lori Schulman: It adds to my comment but doesn't really address it Lori Schulman: Understand Berry's point as each WG is independent but I think we can get so in the weeds that we may not know how to ask the right questions Berry Cobb: @Lori as a WG formulates it's recommendations, the metrics should also be defined as a part of the draft report. The public comments and other input can help to guide the WG as to whether they selected the right ones. Lori Schulman: Agree with Rafik about more and more tasks Amr Elsadr: Apologies for the bad audio. I was trying to say that, in response to Lori's concern, if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. Berry Cobb: +1 Amr renata aquino: +1 Marika Konings: @Lori - how can that be addressed here? Julie Hedlund: @Lori: This may be out of scope of this recommendation implementation, but may be addressed separately by this Working Group. Berry Cobb: That's the world of forecasting and it is still an imperfect science. Lori Schulman: I understand Marika's and Julie's concerns perhaps we can highlight this as an ancillary issue Marika Konings: @Berry - do we have a kind of FAQ on the DMPM recommendations? It may be helpful to have something like that to remind WG members of their obligations in this regard? Lori Schulman: Can we at least suggest to staff a running list of questions including the issues we discussed today? Berry Cobb: As noted in this charter, refer to this page and review the "Working Group Charter" and Initial Working Group Report" links they contain DOCX files that contain the metrics framework. https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures 2. Discussion of Recommendation 33: -- This recommendation may or may not require changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or GNSO SG/C charters/bylaws -- Staff performed a preliminary review of GNSO SG/C procedures for selecting GNSO Councilors. -- WS2 working on the first draft of the report [on diversity] and starting on recommendation, but issued questionnaire to SO/ACs asking about their diversity and current practices and procedures, also SGs and Cs. We can share that here. -- Suggestion that the WG could wait until we have the responses from the SGs and Cs. -- Get more guidance concerning the cultural diversity -- any agreed paper? Other constituencies may have the same problem to get a solid basis for getting answers to these questions.
From the chat:
Pascal Bekono: Maybe Rafik who is help us Pascal Bekono: Rafik is a rapporteur in ccwg renata aquino: +1 Rafik on sharing here the results Amr Elsadr: Note, from Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws: Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender.
Thanks Julie, see my comments inserted. Apologies again that I can't attend today's call. Wolf-Ulrich Am 24.05.2017 um 23:34 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
Please see below the notes and action items from the meeting on 11 May. The charter is attached for recommendations 24/25 in Word and PDF. These have been loaded into the Adobe Connect room for discussion during tomorrow’s call: Thursday, 25 May at 1200 UTC. Please also see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows:
1. Review agenda 2. SOIs 3. Reminder of Consensus Call for Recommendations 16 (responses due 29 May) 4. Begin discussion of Charter for Recommendations 24/25 5. Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 08 June 6. AOB
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*Action Items/Discussion Notes 11 May*
**
*Action Items: *
_Recommendation 16_: Staff will 1) revise the charter to make sure that there is no relevant language/reference from the strategic plan that may be missing; 2) make noted editorial changes and check links; 3) append the PIA framework from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Initial Report Template for reference; 4) send the final revised charter to the Working Group for a Consensus Call for two weeks.
_Recommendation 18_: Staff is creating a standalone charter for consideration and further discussion by the Working Group.
_Recommendation 33_: 1) Representatives on this WG to have their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies answer the questionnaire, which also asks about informal practices that encourage diversity. Deadline is 01 June. This charter will be revisited following receipt of the Stakeholder Group and Constituency responses to the Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team questionnaire, due on 01 June.
2) Staff also will contact support staff for the SGs and Cs to make sure that all procedures have been compiled.
_Recommendations 24/25_: Staff will create a charter for consideration on the next Working Group Call on 25 May at 1200 UTC.
_Overarching Questions_: The Working Group requested that staff should collect and track questions raised by the Working Group that may either relate to several GNSO review recommendations, to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or to GNSO processes in general.
*Discussion Notes: *
/1. Discussion of Recommendation 16:/
-- Goal: Strategic plan -- seems incomplete; check it.
-- Separated from recommendation #18 to be considered in a standalone charter.
-- WG to determine to what extent the DMPM recommendations fulfil the requirements of this recommendation
-- Staff evaluation is that this recommendation has indeed been covered by the recommendations of the GNSO DMPM WG final report (specifically recommendations 3, 6 and 7, which have contributed to the creation of a new GNSO WG charter template available via link in the GNSO WG Guidelines).
-- Should we start to create our metrics to put to this list? Maybe it is valuable to have a discussion here -- whether these are the ones that could be valuable for the impact analysis?
-- ICANN staff: if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN.
-- Up to the WG to discuss the PIA and the related metric that should be used for that. It is the WG that is guiding this and creating the metrics that should be used.
-- Reference to the strawman -- are we expected to provide the guidelines for the working group to develop metrics? Depending on the context of the background of WG are there metrics applicable to every WG?
-- There are points in the charter and suggestions for metrics -- general metrics can be subdivided.
-- How can we as a volunteer community ask the right questions? Where is the expertise to help guide us?
-- May be too early to address this question, but may come out of further work of this WG -- don't forget that there are maybe questions that have an impact on the results of all of this.
-- This issue could be consider as an overarching question by the WG. Suggestion to keep these questions as for further work for this WG.
From the chat:
Berry Cobb: I'd just add that DMPM's attempt was more of a cultural change and to develop a generic framework. They did not want to be to prescriptive as each issue the GNSO deals with is different.
Lori Schulman: I feel like we need a highly expert "metrics czar"
Lori Schulman: It adds to my comment but doesn't really address it
Lori Schulman: Understand Berry's point as each WG is independent but I think we can get so in the weeds that we may not know how to ask the right questions
Berry Cobb: @Lori as a WG formulates it's recommendations, the metrics should also be defined as a part of the draft report. The public comments and other input can help to guide the WG as to whether they selected the right ones.
Lori Schulman: Agree with Rafik about more and more tasks
Amr Elsadr: Apologies for the bad audio. I was trying to say that, in response to Lori's concern, if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN.
Berry Cobb: +1 Amr
renata aquino: +1
Marika Konings: @Lori - how can that be addressed here?
Julie Hedlund: @Lori: This may be out of scope of this recommendation implementation, but may be addressed separately by this Working Group.
Berry Cobb: That's the world of forecasting and it is still an imperfect science.
Lori Schulman: I understand Marika's and Julie's concerns perhaps we can highlight this as an ancillary issue
Marika Konings: @Berry - do we have a kind of FAQ on the DMPM recommendations? It may be helpful to have something like that to remind WG members of their obligations in this regard?
Lori Schulman: Can we at least suggest to staff a running list of questions including the issues we discussed today?
Berry Cobb: As noted in this charter, refer to this page and review the "Working Group Charter" and Initial Working Group Report" links they contain DOCX files that contain the metrics framework. https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures
/2. Discussion of Recommendation 33:/
-- This recommendation may or may not require changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or GNSO SG/C charters/bylaws
-- Staff performed a preliminary review of GNSO SG/C procedures for selecting GNSO Councilors.
-- WS2 working on the first draft of the report [on diversity] and starting on recommendation, but issued questionnaire to SO/ACs asking about their diversity and current practices and procedures, also SGs and Cs. We can share that here.
-- Suggestion that the WG could wait until we have the responses from the SGs and Cs.
-- Get more guidance concerning the cultural diversity -- any agreed paper? Other constituencies may have the same problem to get a solid basis for getting answers to these questions.
From the chat:
Pascal Bekono: Maybe Rafik who is help us
Pascal Bekono: Rafik is a rapporteur in ccwg
renata aquino: +1 Rafik on sharing here the results
Amr Elsadr: Note, from Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws: Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
Dear Wolf-Ulrich, Thank you very much for reviewing the charter. I’ve corrected the title and incorporated your comments in the attached document, which I will show in the Adobe Connect room for our discussion. We will note your apologies for the meeting. Kind regards, Julie From: <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 3:07 AM To: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-review-wg] Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Call on 25 May 1200 UTC Thanks Julie, see my comments inserted. Apologies again that I can't attend today's call. Wolf-Ulrich Am 24.05.2017 um 23:34 schrieb Julie Hedlund: Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the notes and action items from the meeting on 11 May. The charter is attached for recommendations 24/25 in Word and PDF. These have been loaded into the Adobe Connect room for discussion during tomorrow’s call: Thursday, 25 May at 1200 UTC. Please also see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows: Review agenda SOIs Reminder of Consensus Call for Recommendations 16 (responses due 29 May) Begin discussion of Charter for Recommendations 24/25 Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 08 June AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 11 May Action Items: Recommendation 16: Staff will 1) revise the charter to make sure that there is no relevant language/reference from the strategic plan that may be missing; 2) make noted editorial changes and check links; 3) append the PIA framework from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Initial Report Template for reference; 4) send the final revised charter to the Working Group for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Recommendation 18: Staff is creating a standalone charter for consideration and further discussion by the Working Group. Recommendation 33: 1) Representatives on this WG to have their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies answer the questionnaire, which also asks about informal practices that encourage diversity. Deadline is 01 June. This charter will be revisited following receipt of the Stakeholder Group and Constituency responses to the Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team questionnaire, due on 01 June. 2) Staff also will contact support staff for the SGs and Cs to make sure that all procedures have been compiled. Recommendations 24/25: Staff will create a charter for consideration on the next Working Group Call on 25 May at 1200 UTC. Overarching Questions: The Working Group requested that staff should collect and track questions raised by the Working Group that may either relate to several GNSO review recommendations, to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or to GNSO processes in general. Discussion Notes: 1. Discussion of Recommendation 16: -- Goal: Strategic plan -- seems incomplete; check it. -- Separated from recommendation #18 to be considered in a standalone charter. -- WG to determine to what extent the DMPM recommendations fulfil the requirements of this recommendation -- Staff evaluation is that this recommendation has indeed been covered by the recommendations of the GNSO DMPM WG final report (specifically recommendations 3, 6 and 7, which have contributed to the creation of a new GNSO WG charter template available via link in the GNSO WG Guidelines). -- Should we start to create our metrics to put to this list? Maybe it is valuable to have a discussion here -- whether these are the ones that could be valuable for the impact analysis? -- ICANN staff: if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. -- Up to the WG to discuss the PIA and the related metric that should be used for that. It is the WG that is guiding this and creating the metrics that should be used. -- Reference to the strawman -- are we expected to provide the guidelines for the working group to develop metrics? Depending on the context of the background of WG are there metrics applicable to every WG? -- There are points in the charter and suggestions for metrics -- general metrics can be subdivided. -- How can we as a volunteer community ask the right questions? Where is the expertise to help guide us? -- May be too early to address this question, but may come out of further work of this WG -- don't forget that there are maybe questions that have an impact on the results of all of this. -- This issue could be consider as an overarching question by the WG. Suggestion to keep these questions as for further work for this WG.
From the chat:
Berry Cobb: I'd just add that DMPM's attempt was more of a cultural change and to develop a generic framework. They did not want to be to prescriptive as each issue the GNSO deals with is different. Lori Schulman: I feel like we need a highly expert "metrics czar" Lori Schulman: It adds to my comment but doesn't really address it Lori Schulman: Understand Berry's point as each WG is independent but I think we can get so in the weeds that we may not know how to ask the right questions Berry Cobb: @Lori as a WG formulates it's recommendations, the metrics should also be defined as a part of the draft report. The public comments and other input can help to guide the WG as to whether they selected the right ones. Lori Schulman: Agree with Rafik about more and more tasks Amr Elsadr: Apologies for the bad audio. I was trying to say that, in response to Lori's concern, if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. Berry Cobb: +1 Amr renata aquino: +1 Marika Konings: @Lori - how can that be addressed here? Julie Hedlund: @Lori: This may be out of scope of this recommendation implementation, but may be addressed separately by this Working Group. Berry Cobb: That's the world of forecasting and it is still an imperfect science. Lori Schulman: I understand Marika's and Julie's concerns perhaps we can highlight this as an ancillary issue Marika Konings: @Berry - do we have a kind of FAQ on the DMPM recommendations? It may be helpful to have something like that to remind WG members of their obligations in this regard? Lori Schulman: Can we at least suggest to staff a running list of questions including the issues we discussed today? Berry Cobb: As noted in this charter, refer to this page and review the "Working Group Charter" and Initial Working Group Report" links they contain DOCX files that contain the metrics framework. https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures[gnso.icann.org] 2. Discussion of Recommendation 33: -- This recommendation may or may not require changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or GNSO SG/C charters/bylaws -- Staff performed a preliminary review of GNSO SG/C procedures for selecting GNSO Councilors. -- WS2 working on the first draft of the report [on diversity] and starting on recommendation, but issued questionnaire to SO/ACs asking about their diversity and current practices and procedures, also SGs and Cs. We can share that here. -- Suggestion that the WG could wait until we have the responses from the SGs and Cs. -- Get more guidance concerning the cultural diversity -- any agreed paper? Other constituencies may have the same problem to get a solid basis for getting answers to these questions.
From the chat:
Pascal Bekono: Maybe Rafik who is help us Pascal Bekono: Rafik is a rapporteur in ccwg renata aquino: +1 Rafik on sharing here the results Amr Elsadr: Note, from Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws: Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender. _______________________________________________ Gnso-review-wg mailing list Gnso-review-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg
participants (2)
-
Julie Hedlund -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben