RE: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

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