[PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Status Update of GNSO Review
Wendy Seltzer
wendy
Mon Dec 22 15:34:16 EET 2014
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/
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list