[EC-NCSG] [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Status Update of GNSO Review
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak
Mon Dec 22 15:44:53 EET 2014
Hi Wendy,
it seems the case, we got longer version with Westlake input :)
Rafik
2014-12-22 22:34 GMT+09:00 Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>:
> I can't help wanting to see a diff between the version the Working Party
> gets and that circulated to the whole GNSO and public...
>
> --Wendy
>
> On 12/22/2014 08:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > some updates from the GNSO review working party.
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> > Date: 2014-12-16 1:44 GMT+09:00
> > Subject: FW: Status Update of GNSO Review
> > To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <
> > gnso-secretariat at gnso.icann.org>, "Jen Wolfe (jwolfe at wolfedomain.com)" <
> > jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *O**n behalf of:* Jen Wolfe
> > *Sent:* lundi 15 d?cembre 2014 17:17
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear GNSO Council and GNSO leadership,
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope everyone is having a great holiday season! I?d like to update you
> > on the progress of the review and provide you with the revised schedule.
> >
> >
> >
> > Westlake team will deliver the Working Text and staff will organize the
> > wiki space to capture the feedback and views from the GNSO Review Working
> > Party on *2 January 2015*. The GNSO Review Working Party will have
> until *30
> > January* to provide consolidated comments on the Working Text back to
> > Westlake. This will ensure sufficient time to review the Working Text,
> > without interfering with everyone?s holiday. Two special meetings of
> the
> > GNSO Review Working Party will be scheduled in January. It will be very
> > important to have full participation from the Working Party, representing
> > the various stakeholder and constituency groups, to actively participate
> in
> > providing feedback. Once Westlake has received feedback from the Working
> > Party, they will prepare the draft report to be released.
> >
> >
> >
> > Providing comments on the Working Text allows the GNSO Review Working
> Party
> > to offer feedback before it is publicly released and ensure any real or
> > perceived inaccuracies are addressed, as well as begin to capture issues
> > for further discussion as the Review process moves forward. Westlake
> will
> > then draft their report which will be posted for Public Comment at the
> end
> > of February, for the GNSO as a whole, along with the rest of the ICANN
> > community to provide feedback.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please see the schedule below for further details. Key dates are also
> > available on the GNSO Review wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/OJLhAg
> >.
> >
> >
> >
> > For your reference, I am forwarding an email from Richard Westlake, which
> > provides a brief overview of the status of the 360 Assessment survey,
> > interviews conducted and overall review methodology.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you have any questions or would like clarification on any issue
> related
> > to the Review, please don?t hesitate to reach out to me directly and I
> will
> > be happy to respond as quickly as possible to ensure any concerns are
> > addressed prior to the release of the report. I am happy to be available
> > during upcoming Council meetings to answer questions and will look
> forward
> > to a more detailed briefing with Council in Singapore.
> >
> >
> >
> > Wishing you all a joyous holiday season and New Year!
> >
> >
> >
> > Jen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *GNSO Review: Important Dates*
> >
> > Working text for the GNSO Review Working Party and Staff for
> clarification
> > and comments (distributed and posted on the wiki)
> >
> > 2 January 2015
> >
> > GNSO Review Working Party working session #1 ? Westlake Briefing
> >
> > 16 January 201518:00 UTC
> >
> > GNSO Review Working Party working session #2 ? discussion, Q&A
> >
> > 22 January 18:00 UTC
> >
> > Consolidated comments on Working Text due to Westlake from GNSO Review
> > Working Party and Staff
> >
> > 30 January
> >
> > Updates and discussions during ICANN52
> >
> > 8-12 February; public session date TBD
> >
> > Draft Report delivered by Westlake
> >
> > 20 February
> >
> > Draft Report posted for public comment
> >
> > 27 February
> >
> > Public Comment period (42 days)
> >
> > 27 February ? 10 April
> >
> > Final Report
> >
> > 30 April (tentative, depending on volume and nature of public comments)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Update from Richard Westlake*
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Jen and Larisa,
> >
> >
> >
> > Following recent questions about Westlake?s review methods and individual
> > interviews, I should like to highlight some points to reiterate why we
> > consider that we have collected extensive, diverse, balanced and
> > fact-based sets of data. We have and will continue to apply our
> > professional expertise and independent perspective to ensure a
> high-quality
> > useful final report, and we note that many of our observations and
> > recommendations will be a matter of informed subject judgment in
> addition
> > to, and based largely on, our research findings.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. The GNSO Review Methodology formulated by the Structural
> > Improvement Committee and used as the basis for the Request for Proposal,
> > Westlake's response, and the Terms of Reference/Scope of Work consisted
> of
> > three data collection mechanisms:
> >
> >
> >
> > a. 360 Assessment designed to collect feedback from GNSO, other
> > SOs/ACs, Board and Staff (quantitative and qualitative) ? our primary and
> > critical component. In addition (and outside the scope originally
> > envisaged), following feedback and advice, we added the Supplementary
> > Working Group 360 Assessment, to provide a greater depth of information
> on
> > the WGs;
> >
> > b. Review of documents and records;
> >
> > c. Limited interviews to fill in the gaps.
> >
> > (As you know, the GNSO Review Working Party has provided substantive
> > feedback and guidance on the review methodology, including extensive
> input
> > into the formulation of the 360 Assessment and Supplementary WG 360.)
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. We and ICANN staff carried out extensive outreach and engagement
> > efforts between July and October, to encourage participation in the 360
> > Assessment, including two extensions to allow ample time for people to
> > respond ? see chart below. These efforts resulted in 178 completed
> > responses from a broad and diverse group of people by the time the 360
> > closed at the end of ICANN51.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. From the start, Westlake advocated for the interview component
> to
> > be given more weight (both in our original response to the RfP
> > and subsequently). This led to a modification in the original plans to
> > enable our team to attend ICANN51, where we spoke to many people and
> > attended many of the SG/C meetings, providing us with a first-hand view
> of
> > GNSO proceedings. We contacted an extensive list of relevant people -
> > including some, but not all, SG/C chairs - before the LA meeting.
> > We successfully conducted interviews, in person and subsequently over the
> > phone, with about 27 individuals to date and likely to total about 30.
> > Several people we contacted failed even to respond, despite several
> > attempts and others have been unable to make time to speak to us.
> > Since LA, we have again tried to contact several people with only limited
> > response. Although we are at a very late stage, we still aim to speak to
> a
> > few more people.
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. Our team has reviewed extensive documents relating to the
> > implementation of earlier review recommendations, along with other
> > documentation, and has analysed records detailing the work of the GNSO.
> >
> >
> >
> > 5. The data our team has gathered from these channels has been
> > extensive and in our view sufficiently broad and diverse to support our
> > observations, leading to findings and recommendations that we shall
> include
> > in our Draft Report. As a further opportunity for feedback, before we
> > finalise our report, there will be additional opportunities for the GNSO
> > and others to offer their views:
> >
> >
> >
> > a. The GNSO Review Working Party will review our Working Text and
> > engage in a dialogue to clarify, expand and correct information, as
> > appropriate. We will be particularly interested in this group?s feedback
> > on the usefulness and practicality of our draft recommendations.
> >
> > b. An overview will be presented in a session at ICANN52 in
> February,
> > with another opportunity to provide feedback.
> >
> > c. The formal Public Comment Period will open in February and the
> > feedback will be considered as we prepare our Final Report.
> >
> > d. We will continue to work closely with the GNSO Review Working
> Party
> > through the balance of the Review.
> >
> >
> >
> > I trust that this information covers your questions about our methodology
> > and any remaining concerns about our interviews.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please contact me again if you need any additional information.
> >
> >
> >
> > Have a good weekend!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > Richard G A Westlake
> > *Westlake Governance*
> >
> >
> >
> > *GNSO Review Statistics*
> >
> > *360 Assessment:*
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Main survey
> >
> > 152 completed responses
> >
> >
> >
> > (250 started)
> >
> > -- Supplementary survey (WG)
> >
> > 26 completed responses
> >
> >
> >
> > (50 started)
> >
> > *Total*
> >
> > *178 completed responses*
> >
> >
> >
> > *60% completion rate*
> >
> > *Interviews:*
> >
> > *27 to date, likely total 30+*
> >
> > *(Plus several other shorter informal discussions, mainly in LA)*
> >
> > *GNSO Review Working Party meetings:*
> >
> > *13*
> >
> > *Engagement:*
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Announcements page views
> >
> > *1,709*
> >
> > -- Blog page views
> >
> > *2,957*
> >
> > *Outreach:*
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Webinars
> >
> > *3*
> >
> > -- Update presentations
> >
> > *14*
> >
> > -- Blogs
> >
> > *2*
> >
> > -- Videos
> >
> > *2*
> >
> > -- FAQ Brochures and Post cards distributed at ICANN51
> >
> > *3,000*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB*
> >
> > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
> >
> > *513.746.2801*
> >
> > *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014*
> >
> > What will you do with your Dot Brand? : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P
> >
> > Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc
> >
> > Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column http://ow.ly/EbljP
> >
> > Linked In Group: gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20141222/55e32401/attachment.html>
More information about the NCSG-EC
mailing list