RE: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
Title: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
A number of us were not privy to the communications to
staff regarding problems with the RSEP. Would either Staff or the RyC please
share the examples provided? Many thanks.
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