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

[Patrick Jones <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>]

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