RE: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
Title: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
Thanks Patrick. It would be helpful to point Council
to the material that is available from the special open session that occurred in
Cairo (e.g., transcription, MP3, etc.). There was also some discussion
that occurred in the Council meeting on Wednesday in Cairo.
Chuck
The concerns Chuck refers to were raised partly during
the GNSO working sessions in Paris and also during the Cairo meeting. The gTLD
Registries also sent a letter to Peter Dengate Thrush that was posted on
ICANN?s Correspondence page: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/maher-to-dengate-thrush-21oct08.pdf.
I?ll
respond to Stephane and Chuck?s points by separate
email.
Patrick
On 1/26/09 7:14 AM, "Rosette, Kristina"
<krosette@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
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.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Monday,
January 26, 2009 10:08 AM
To: Patrick Jones
Cc:
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:
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