Subject: | [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Tuesday, 03 March 2015 20:00UTC |
---|---|
Date: | Tue, 3 Mar 2015 23:51:57 +0000 |
From: | Terri Agnew <[log in to unmask]> |
To: | [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> |
Dear
All,
Please
find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference
held on GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Tuesday, 03
March 200UTC at
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-03mar15-en.mp3
On
page:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar
The
recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on
the GNSO Master Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
Attendees:
Jennifer
Wolfe
Ron Andruff
David Maher
Edward
Morris
Jennifer
Standiford
Klaus Stoll
Amr Elsadr
Robin Gross
Rafik Dammak
James Gannon
Philip
Sheppard
Bill Drake
Stephanie
Perrin
Mike
Rodenbaugh
Rudi
Vansnick
Tapani Tarvainen
Sam
Lanfranco
Matthieu
Camus
Walid
Al-Saqaf
Ken Stubbs
Guest
speaker: Richard Westlake
Apologies:
Chuck Gomes
Osvaldo
Novoa
ICANN
Staff:
Mary Wong
Marika
Konings
Larisa Gurnick
Charla Shambley
Lars Hoffman
Glen de St Gery
Terri Agnew
** Please
let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri Agnew
Adobe
Chat transcript:
Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the
GNSO Review Working Party on the 03 March 2015
Philip:Hello
Jennifer Wolfe:Hello, Philip, and
hello everyone, thanks for joining!
Amr Elsadr - Observer:Hi all. Just to
note that the NCSG members listed as members of the WP on the
right-hand column of the screen is outdated.
Rudi Vansnick:sorry for being late
Terri Agnew:Welcome Rudi
Mary Wong:@Amr, thanks for the note
Amr Elsadr - Observer:@Mary: I'm not a
member anymore. Stephanie and Bill now are.
Mary Wong:Can we confirm which groups
(if any) the observers on this call are? We note several
participants who are not current Working Party members
representing the GNSO SG/Cs.
James Gannon (Silent Observer):James
Gannon NCUC/NCSG
Amr Elsadr - Observer/NCSG:Done.
Sorry.
Mary Wong:Thanks!
Mary Wong:They have been sent to the
list
Terri Agnew:Welcome Ron Andruff
Ron A:Apologies for my late arrival!
Greetings all,
Terri Agnew:Welcome Tapani Tarvainen
Tapani Tarvainen:Thanks, and also
aorry for being late. (NCUC/NCSG)
Marika Konings:For those that would
like to update their information (to include affiliation, or
observer status), please note you can do so by going to the
drop down menu in the attendee pod and select 'edit my info'.
Robin Gross
[observer-NCSG]:Unfortunately the faulty methodology used in
the study makes much of the study not very useful.
Terri Agnew:Welcome Sam Lanfranco
Klaus Stoll:I do not seem to have
received the comments from NCUC
Terri Agnew:@Philip, your mic is not
active
Mary Wong:@Klaus, that may be an issue
of server response/speed, so different WP members may receive
messages at different times. It was sent to the mailing list
by Glen.
Klaus Stoll:Thanks Mary
Terri Agnew:Welcome Matthieu Camus
Matthieu Camus:Thank you... sorry to
be late
Larisa Gurnick:Stephanie Perrin,
Phillip Sheppard and NCUC comments have been recieved in
response to the working text so far.
Matthieu Camus:Matthieu Camus,
Internet Society France
Larisa Gurnick:Please send your
comments to [log in to unmask]
Terri Agnew:Welcome Walid Al-Saqaf
Richard Westlake:I'm sorry I can't
reallly hear SP
Richard Westlake:Bettee!
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:As an
active participant for more than 11 years, I would have liked
to have been interviewed by Westlake (I did fill out the
survey).
Marika Konings:@Stephanie - from my
experience, we have actually come a long way since 5-6 years
ago where indeed many WGs had many of the same people
involved. We've seen quite a few new people step up,
including yourself, which I personally think is a really
positive development.
Amr Elsadr - Observer/NCSG:I still
need to get around to joining one. :)
Terri Agnew:Welcome Ken Stubbs
Marika Konings:@Amr - last time I
checked you were on quite a few ;-)
Bill Drake:I should add I talked to
people who started and gave up
Amr Elsadr - Observer/NCSG::)
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:who
decided who got interviewed?
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:where can
we see the terms of reference?
Larisa Gurnick:Please see https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Community+Engagement+Meetings
for a listing of extensive outreach and engagement activities
Bill Drake:I and a number of other
chairs were only interviewed after I complained about it on
the SOAC chairs list
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:I'd really
like to know who decided who was interviewed? We need an
answer to that question.
Mary Wong:@Robin, the wiki page has
the RFP: https://community.icann.org/x/aJLhAg
Edward Morris (observer/NCUC/GNSO
Council):We tried o get a good respomse, we failed, it is what
it is, is not an acceptable response.
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:where to
begin with all the inaccuracies?
Larisa Gurnick:@Robin - the working
party provided guidance to Westlake throughout the process re:
interview candidates
Stephanie Perrin:It is extremely
difficult to stream through the document quickly when juggling
the scree, the chat, and our own comments.
Mary Wong:To follow up on Larisa's
point, staff provided Westlake at their request with lists of
officers, past chairs, WG veterans etc.
Larisa Gurnick:@Stephanie - I emailed
a copy of the working text several minutes ago
Mary Wong:Staff did not select or
screen the interviewees, just to be clear.
Bill Drake:thanks Mary. But chairs
turned out not to be worthy
Ron A:Sorry I dropped right after I
finished my intervention. Dialing back in...
Marika Konings:@Bill - I believe all
chairs were invited early on, but not everyone caught the
email ;-)
Bill Drake:Marika, most chairs said
they were not
Bill Drake:we had a discussion of it
on the SOAC list
Klaus Stoll:How do we avoid that
perceived inaccuracies are in themself inaccurate
Bill Drake:actually I was told the
staff discouraged interviews
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:How did
Westlake decide who to approach for interview?
Bill Drake:Klaus, checking facts works
Mary Wong:To clarify, by "chairs" the
list included GNSO and WG chairs and vice-chairs as well as
SG/C/SO/AC.
Edward Morris (observer/NCUC/GNSO
Council):Even if the invitations were such that's snowballing
methodology and just is not acceptable for drawing larger
inferences in a bounded community like the GNSO.
Klaus Stoll:Bill, how about some facts
not just "I was told"
Bill Drake:I totally oppose the use of
"I was told" in such a report
Bill Drake:particularly when highly
selective
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:completely
agree, Bill.
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:The
decision to negative stereotype NCUC is not appropriate.
Marika Konings:@Mike - the Policy
& Implementation WG is not reviewing the PDP, but has
recommended a number of processes that may complement the
existing PDP
Mike Rodenbaugh:thx Marika, still
there should be some mention in this doc?
Marika Konings:I believe there are
references to that effort in the text
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:how were
the interviews divided - equally among all constituencies? I
wasn't interviewed.
Marika Konings:for example page 30
Mike Rodenbaugh:thx. Marika. Re
interviews. only one IPC member was interviewed. Seems like
at least 10 from NCUC were interviewed..
Mike Rodenbaugh:So we share Robin's
question
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:sounds
like questionable methodology, Mike, for making any
recommendations.
Bill Drake:I asked F2F in LA to be
interviewed and was told no time
Bill Drake:only after complaining on
the SOAC chair list did I eventually get one
Bill Drake:but this is a side issue
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:the other
issue is the choice to selectively handle comments about NCUC.
Terri Agnew:Laura Covington has joined
audio
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:I'm
(again) volunteering to be interviewed for this process. As a
participant for more than 11 years, I can add something
(ex-ncsg chair, ex-gnso-councilor, ex-ncuc chair).
Edward Morris (observer/NCUC/GNSO
Council):I'll volunteer to give Westlake questions on
statistical sampling. Apparently Richard missedcthat class at
Oxford.
Edward Morris (observer/NCUC/GNSO
Council):classes
Larisa Gurnick:@Richard - please
provide a list of people intervied. This will be included in
the report - I understand.
Mike Rodenbaugh:the list is already
there in the Annexes
Amr Elsadr - Observer/NCSG:These
questions could all be avoided if a description of how
informant selection could be included in the methodology
description.
Stephanie Perrin:THe list is there,
who are they? What stakeholder groups?
Mike Rodenbaugh:I agree that would be
helpful
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:Debra
Hughes was interviewed? She hasn't been in NCSG for several
years. Where did her name come from to be interviewed?
Philip:Quotes reflect concerns and
praise. They are the essence of good consultancy
Marika Konings:@Stephanie - I believe
that is information that still needs completing (note the
column 'role' which I presume will identify their affiliation)
Larisa Gurnick:@Richard - can you
please clarify what information you plan to include in the
"Role" column?
Stephanie Perrin:And when did they
arrive at ICANN? This is important, if you are looking at
attracting newcomers, and you are not actually talking to any
Marika Konings:@Robin - she was one of
the founders of NPOC which is one of the GNSO constituencies
Philip:Section 8i about
constituencies. They only exist in the CSG and NCSG
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:She left
NCSG years ago. Where was the suggestion from to interview
her (staff?)
Marika Konings:@Robin - I believe
there are other names that are no longer actively involved,
but may provided some historic perspectives that were of
interest to Westlake?
Mary Wong:And to clarify/repeat -
staff did not tell Westlake who to inteview and who not to.
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:we should
know WHO made the specific suggestions.
rafik:@Marika better to explain the
criteria that led to interviewes selection. for example I see
many board members inclucded, looking to understand thw
rationale
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:so
Westlake selectively decided which comments to publish, thanks
for the clarification, Richard.
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:I also
want to know if negative comments were made about other
SG/Constituencies or only about NCUC in Westlake's effort.
Marika Konings:@Rafik - that is a
question for Richard/Westlake to answer, but as I understand
it, it was a combination of suggestions that may have been
received from staff, community members as well as aiming to
get further input from those that responded to the 360
assessment.
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:why are so
many staff included as interviewees? that is not
appropriate. I'd like to see the results with those comments
deleted.
rafik:@Marika and that is why I am
looking for westlake answer :)
Marika Konings:@Rafik - I only saw Ray
as a board member on the list ?
Stephanie Perrin:Bill Graham is a
recent board member
rafik:@marika including former too
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:Why didn't
Westlake just go look at NCUC's webpage to see the diversity
of its EC, etc? Why wasn't a pursuit for facts used (only
perceptions)?
Marika Konings:@Rafik - some of the
former board members have served in other roles too, so their
perspectives may have been of interest in relation to those
other roles and not necessarily their former board position
;-)
Mary Wong:Again, to follow up on
Marika's point, the Board members listed as being interviewed
are either past or present members of the SIC - so some of
them would have been part of the prior restructuring
exericise.
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:The facts
are readily available on the web.
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:why not
use facts.
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:sounds
like Westlake is relying on an entirely "subjective"
determination. Why not also include objective facts?
Edward Morris (observer/NCUC/GNSO
Council):Will Westlake please comment on the statistical
validity of a survey of 27 people commenting on a group of 404
people?
Ron A:As I understand it, any person
in the community had the opportunity to bring their views
forward regarding any part of ICANN GNSO...
James Gannon (Silent Observer
NCUC/NCSG):It seems on a blind read of the situation that
there is major concern over the qualitiative and subjective
bias of the review compred to a fact based quantative review..
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:It is a
Fact that 27 different people have been on NCUC's EC for the
last 10 years. It is a verifiable fact that the NCUC EC
includes 1 rep from each geographic region. Not using these
facts seems questionable.
Edward Morris (observer/NCUC/GNSO
Council):I'll comment. The confidence interval of such a
sample is 18.23% making the data completely useless.
Philip:Comparing 27 to 404 in this
context is completely useless.
Edward Morris (observer/NCUC/GNSO
Council):Thanks Philip.
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:why did
westlake decide to ONLY go the subjective route?
Larisa Gurnick:@Robin - Westlake
methodology includes multiple data collection methods -
quantitative and qualitative.
Sam Lanfranco [NCSG-NPOC]:@Morris
Technically, the C.I . is 18.23% if there is confidence in a
sample being representative.
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:Larisa,
Richard just told us they decided to go the subjective route.
Otherwise, what objective facts were relied upon?
Edward Morris (observer/NCUC/GNSO
Council):@Sam. Good point. That number is the best case
scenerio for the survey!
Philip:A consultant's role is to
report comments received. lets not dismiss this please
Bill Drake:actually Philip I don't
agree, the role is to do research
Philip:Well maybe both
Edward Morris (observer/NCUC/GNSO
Council):@Philip. Comments received - I agree. I'm having a
problem with how they take faulty quant methodology, use that
to select "representative" comments...I guess I'm questioning
the 'representative' aspect. That's something we really don'y
know due to some very poor esearch design and methodology.
Stephanie Perrin:There is certainly an
obligation to rely on facts and filter for bias. No evidence
of how potential bias is filtered, in a fractious
multi-stakeholder community where it is required.
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:good
point, Stephanie. How was "bias" accounted for by Westlake?
Charla Shambley:You can view the 360
Assessment here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/360-assessment-21aug14-en.pdf
Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Charla, I have
been through all that data. I can bring it to my university
library and demonstrate the bias, but frankly I do not see
that as my job.
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:what
criteria does westlake use for its "professional selection" of
what to provide?
Philip:Between bias and truth is
perception.
Bill Drake:I understood the criteria
to be what they think is relevant
Robin Gross [observer-NCSG]:and what
do they think is relevant?
James Gannon (Silent Observer
NCUC/NCSG):@robin those criteria will be extremely important
for everyone to understand any subjective professional
selection reccomendations by westlake
Ron A:Do I understand this right:
Westlake is expecting comments on this draft - or a new one
coming out?
Robin Gross:On what evidence did
Westlake base its recommendation that additional
constituencies will increase participation?
Bill Drake:faith based
Stephanie Perrin:Totally agree with
Mike
Robin Gross:who is driving this bus
any way?
Bill Drake:totally agree Mike
James Gannon (Silent Observer
NCUC/NCSG):+1 Mike
Ron A:Agree - 20-30 days for community
review and response.
Robin Gross:The community should be
making this determination. Not staff.
Philip:Agree it is more important t
get this right than to get this done.
Robin Gross:Who is in charge? The
community? Staff? Westlake?
Philip:Us surely
Bill Drake:surely
Robin Gross:Then we set the dates.
Robin Gross:And we decide when our
report is ready for prime tme.
James Gannon (Observer
NCUC/NCSG):Surely the WG need to be given time to review
before the public comment period of the full and complete
report
Philip:Agree
Bill Drake:I'd like to comment on a
complete draft before it goes out the door for public comment
Robin Gross:Frankly, we are going to
need another entirely new report given the issues with this
one.
Bill Drake:"Quality trumps timelines"
is a good mantra
Robin Gross:And not exactly "bottom
up"
Edward Morris (observer/NCUC/GNSO
Council):Agreed Robin. The survey is methodologically troubled
it can not be fixed.
Bill Drake:Yes Stephanie it would be
good if it were understood why people volunteer their time
Philip:Agree completely with SP
Bill Drake:20 hours per week of pro
bono to get abused is not really a good deal
Robin Gross:Westlake works for us. We
need to remember that.
Ron A:@ Bill: you are referring to us,
right?! ;o)
Philip:In all ICANN hisory, this
report on ICANN's policy development body is the most
important.
Bill Drake:Ron you got skin in the
game!
Laura Covington:agree with Stephanie
and Mike R
Edward Morris (observer/NCUC/GNSO
Council):@Bill. Only 20?
Robin Gross:Right, Phillip, this is
enormously important. Why on earth rush it when the community
is uncomfortable with methodology?
Bill Drake:Civil society people are
crazy to try to work here. We are treated better in the UN.
Bill Drake:I mean that
Robin Gross:Let's fix this and get it
right.
Bill Drake:Human Rights Council
meeting now in Geneva. CS people really having productive
engagement, and not being crapped on for their efforts.
Stephanie Perrin:yes
Philip:Bye all. A very productive
meeting. New call with new drfat please.
Robin Gross:The community has spoken
on this, with a rare one voice.
Terri Agnew:@Klaus, I see your mic is
muted
Robin Gross:I hope these errors can be
fixed in the next draft.
Stephanie Perrin:Thanks for chairing a
difficult meeting!!
Ron A:Thanks all!
Bill Drake:thank you Jen, good
chairing :-)
James Gannon (Observer
NCUC/NCSG):Thanks all.
Rudi Vansnick:thanks
Robin Gross:Thanks, all. Bye!
Amr Elsadr - Observer/NCSG:Thanks all.
Bye.