Thanks Ayden, your clarifications are much appreciated. Staff will update this accordingly. Best regards, Marika On 13 Jul 2018, at 15:24, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> wrote: re: Problem/Issue Escalation - there has been a small misunderstanding; I think this should remain the role of the GNSO Council Liaison, not the GNSO Council. In the Google Doc I appended "GNSO Council" before the word 'liaison' to distinguish between our liaison and the other SO/AC liaisons. But I do not suggest deleting the word 'liaison'. I hope this is clearer. Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 13 July 2018 2:46 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Staff has gone ahead and applied all changes as discussed during Wednesday’s DT meeting to the charter (see https://app.luminpdf.com/viewer/pYWFe2XKvPJc2u9uB/share?sk=b4c15252-e532-42d... [app.luminpdf.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__app.luminpdf.com_viewer...>). There were a couple of outstanding items that did not get specifically discussed but which were highlighted in the version of the charter that was circulated on Tuesday namely: * Recommended working methods: Any objections to the approach that staff has taken to reflect the input provided? * Rules of engagement – decision-making methodologies: Any objections to the proposed approach by staff (not editing this section further to not deviate from the GNSO WG Guidelines)? * Problem Issue Escalation: re. restriction participation in the case of serious disruption, Ayden has suggested to change the decision-making structure from Chair in consultation with the Council Liaison to Chair in consultation with the GNSO Council. This would be a deviation from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. Is there support for making this change, or should it remain as currently is (in line with what is in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines)? * Problem Issue Escalation: Comment from Donna: This section needs to acknowledge the Chair’s ability to take action against a member if they believe the member is not adhering to the Statement of Participation. The paragraph dealing with restricting participation in case of serious disruption has been updated (new language in bold) so it now reads ‘who seriously disrupts the Working Group or does not adhere to the statement of participation’? Is there any objection to this change? If you have any input on these items or any other parts of the charter, please share your feedback with the DT mailing list by COB today Friday 13 July. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.