Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
Title: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
Dear Patrick,
Although I am not as familiar with the subject as Chuck undoubtedly is, I do tend to have to agree with his concerns over seeing yet another review initiated if the process being reviewed has already been identified as flawed.
I am also worried about seeing staff decide a review is needed without being so directed by the Board or by any action from the relevant SO Council, in this case the GNSO.
Chuck mentions that staff was made aware of problems with RSEP before and during the Cairo meeting. Could you explain why staff’s reaction to this was to feel an outside consultant need be hired and a full review process initiated? Is it not feasible to try and address the problems that have been brought to staff’s attention first?
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 25/01/09 16:29, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
Patrick,
Please don't take my comments personally because as I stated publicly in Cairo, I do not attribute my concerns to anything you did in coordinating the RSEP.
Regular reviews of policy are a good practice, but in this case it seems like overkill and a poor use of funds to hire a consultant to evaluate the policy or the procedures. In my opinion, Staff implementation of the RSEP has already been identified as a problem and we do not need a high priced consultant to point that out. As stated in your SoW, "The RSEP and its implementation were developed in particular: To support a timely, efficient, and open process for the evaluation of new registry services". In 2008, we had at least three examples where implementation of the RSEP was not timely, efficient or open. All three examples were pointed out to ICANN Staff prior to Cairo and in Cairo. So again, we do not need a consultant to identify the problem; it has already happened.
Those of us in the RyC believe that the RSEP procedures that ICANN Staff should follow were clear, but obviously they were not clear enough for ICANN Staff, otherwise we would not have seen the significant delays that were experienced for three registry service proposals. Therefore, maybe all we need to do is provide the clarity that ICANN Staff seems to need. That shouldn't be too difficult. I think it could be done in fairly short order by a small group of interested GNSO and ICANN Staff with the opportunity for public comment. It may not even be necessary to amend the policy as long as the clarified procedures are consistent with the policy as is, something that I sincerely believe is very possible.
Chuck
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:21 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
Dear Council,
At the 20 November 2008 GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff alerted Council members that efforts were underway to initiate a review of the gTLD registry funnel process – also known as the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) - that was first implemented in July 2006.
Staff reminded Council members that the RSEP was developed through the GNSO’s policy development process, and applies to all gTLD registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with ICANN.
The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did not call for a periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of the opinion that a review is consistent with ICANN’s continuing efforts to evaluate and improve policies and procedures.
A draft statement of work regarding the review has now been developed. The document will be used to identify and retain a reviewer to evaluate the process as it has worked to date.
In view of the GNSO Council’s critical role in developing the original RSEP, staff would like to give Council members the opportunity to review and comment on the draft document. A copy of the draft SOW is attached. Please feel free to send any comments on the document directly to me.
An announcement will be made when the SOW is released and subsequent announcements will be made when the reviewer is selected and when other milestones in the review process take place.
Also, if you are interested in being identified as a possible contact for the review process itself, please let me know of your interest. We hope to finalize the SOW in late February, so any comments should be submitted by 23 February in order to be incorporated.
Patrick