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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

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 staff¹s 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 staff¹s 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
>> GNSO¹s 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 ICANN¹s 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 Council¹s 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
>>