Page History
...
| Comment # | Working Text Reference | Working Text Page # | Comment Provided By | Comment - Working Party Members Provide Feedback Here |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 40-41 | Stephanie Perrin | The concept of a trained, independent facilitator to lead working groups is an interesting one. However, my experience with the EWG in 2012-13 did not lead me to think that this route is necessarily going to be more fruitful than training the community in leading process, and in respecting diversity and difference of opinion. It is my observation, after two years participating at ICANN, that it would be very appropriate for ICANN to take a serious look at the human resources issues underlying the operation of a successful multi-stakeholder community. The vantage points, economic conditions, and motivations of the stakeholders, and therefore the actual workers on PDPs, are so vastly different that it is a tribute to leadership and to the staff that anything actually gets done at all. However, if ICANN is serious about addressing diversity, language, and gender issues…it needs to look at HR practices (and I mean the behavior, ethics, and deportment of volunteers). They are the ones allegedly doing the work…without minimizing the massive contribution of staff, they must remain the ones doing the work, or this will not be a multi-stakeholder model. | |
| 2 | 42 | Stephanie Perrin | I do not agree with the recommendation on Page 42, to use a paid facilitator when there are conflicting views. The EWG was tasked to solve a very difficult issue, and while I liked the facilitator very much, I think he exemplified how very difficult it is to bring external individuals in to chair such arcane discussions….in fact, he did not chair the meetings, nor did he understand the final report or the dissent. If you wish to try it, do a pilot, and a very thorough evaluation. The contractor should report to the PDP, not to staff. Start with something that is not too complex. | |
| 3 | 46 | Stephanie Perrin | Again, my experience comes from government, in a regulatory environment, or with international standards bodies. The threshold that I had to meet with my team, in assessing and taking into account or dispensing with comments appears to be higher than the one at ICANN. Nobody should go to the work of creating thoughtful comments if they are not going to be taken into account in a serious manner. I think a lot more work needs to be done in this area. | |
| 4 | 50 | Stephanie Perrin | I appreciated the quote cited about the fact that very little impact assessment on end users is done. I have recommended repeatedly that ICANN needs to do the equivalent of a regulatory impact assessment or RIA on end users and stakeholders who are not necessarily represented in the ICANN community, or who are represented in a global sense by civil society (NCSG and ALAC). This would require independent assessment, which I don’t believe has been done. | |
| 5 | 52 | Stephanie Perrin | Re the lack of a strategic plan….yes, I find it a bit odd too, but it speaks to the somewhat ad hoc manner in which ICANN has developed. | |
| 6 | 6.1 BGC WG Recommendations | 32 | Chuck Gomes | New edits and comments from Chuck Gomes as of 13 March are highlighted below. It would be really helpful if an introductory paragraph to Section 6 was added prior to Section 6.1 so that readers have some context prior to reading 6.1 and other sections. |
| 7 | (6.2 Major accomplishments and milestones) Public Comment timeframes include: (i) a required open period of no less than 30 days on a PDP Working Group's Initial Report; and (ii) a minimum of 21 days for any non-required Public Comment periods the PDP WG might choose to initiate at its discretion. | 33 | Chuck Gomes | Note this has just recently changed; a note to that effect should be added. |
| 8 | (BGC WG Recommendation 5) We note that under the current GNSO Operating Procedures, the evaluations should occur following a request from the WG’s Chartering Organization. | 35 | Chuck Gomes | I think that a good recommendation would be to require all WGs to do a self-assessment at the end of their work and not only do it if the chartering organization requests it. You essentially do that later in the report and may want to reference that here. |
| 9 | (6.4.1 Observations | 43 | Chuck Gomes | As everyone probably knows, WGs aren’t formed until after a PDP is initiated so this would not be possible. |
| 10 | (6.4.1 Analysis, Chunking/Breaking PDP into smaller discrete PDPs) October 2012 | 44 | Chuck Gomes | Did this really start before PDP C finished? |
| 11 | (6.4.1 Intensity of PDP WG meetings) we consider increasing the length of individual WG meetings is likely to increase efficiency and shorten the overall process | 46 | Chuck Gomes | In the P&I WG meetings we tried having two hour meetings every two weeks and discovered that we lost some continuity when there was two weeks in between meetings. At the same time it was difficult for many WG members to commit two hours every week. So we ended up doing weekly one hour meetings. That seemed to serve us well in this particular WG. |
| 12 | (6.4.1 Explore flexibility in relation to public comment forum duration) | 46 | Chuck Gomes | Another factor that would be good to explore regarding the effectiveness of public comment periods is the design of the public comment process. Taking a page from the CWG IANA internal survey, the P&I WG used a survey for soliciting public comments. Unfortunately the public comment period is still underway so it is not yet possible to measure the effectiveness. But it might be worthwhile to mention this approach and recommend it be carefully evaluated. |
| 13 | (6.4.3 Analysis) formal Policy Development Plan | 51 | Chuck Gomes | Use of this term is not a good idea because the GNSO does have a formal PDP but I don’t think that is what you mean here. |
