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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones
        Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:31 AM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; Stéphane Van Gelder
        Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
        
        
        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