Please participate in the doodle poll if you have not done so yet (http://doodle.com/p6k57qd5qgz4t5e5) - so far we only have one confirmed participant for next week's meeting. Also, any comments on the notes below or draft quick look mechanism flow chart (see attached) are still welcome. Best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 18 November 2014 16:17 To: "gac-gnso-cg@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg@icann.org>" <gac-gnso-cg@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] For your review & input - notes and doodle poll Dear All, Please find below the notes of today's GAC-GNSO Consultation Group meeting. You are encouraged to review the notes as well as the attached draft quick look mechanism flow chart (see page 2) and provide any comments, questions or input you may have. The next meeting will be scheduled for Tuesday 2 December at 14.00 UTC. In order to assess whether there will be sufficient members to participate in the upcoming meeting as well as subsequent meetings leading up to Singapore, please complete the following doodle poll to confirm your availability: http://doodle.com/p6k57qd5qgz4t5e5. Best regards, Marika Notes 18 November 2014: Quick look / triage mechanism discussion- Confirm agreed upon points: * Focus on early engagement (Issue Report phase), does not preclude engagement in later stages, but focus is currently on early engagement * Focus is on GAC input - individual government input is already an option and GAC input does not necessarily replace that option * Need for early indication from the GAC whether the topic is of interest and input will be provided / want to remain informed / not of specific interest - although indication could change over time * Need to prioritize and streamline input by the GAC * Timing of quick - look mechanism: is that something that can be done between ICANN meetings or does that require GAC F2F meeting? Consider building in safeguard option that in principle it could be managed through online communications, but in specific circumstances a request could be made for the quick look mechanism to be discussed / considered during a GAC F2F meeting * Flexibility on the GNSO side to accomodate GAC if it has indicated it wants to provide input but needs more time to provide such input. PDP provides a lot of flexibility as it mainly refers to minimum duration, not maximum - important however to set expectations and allow for advance notice to ensure planning by GNSO Council and/or PDP WG. * Duration / timing of quick look mechanism could be a potential discussion point for GAC based on a more detailed strawman, as well as wether certain elements require F2F time or not. * Triggers on GNSO side to trigger the need for input on the GNSO side e.g. anything related to national laws, anything related to previous GAC advice. May not always be possible for GNSO to make such a determination - Council may be to inform the GAC about the issues it is working on so that the GAC can make this determination. Council cannot decide for the GAC whether an issue deserves its attention or not. GAC support staff might also be able to play a role here. Other discussion points: * What information would need to be provided for the GAC to consider quick look mechanism? GNSO Issue Report Request form could serve as a starting point. Could additions to this template be considered such as, for example, are you aware of GAC advice on this issue? Possible question to GAC: what information would be needed. Quesiton to the GNSO: could additional fields be added to the GNSO Issue Report Request Form. Question 7 could possibly be expanded to identify public policy considerations which may facilitate identification of GAC work on a certain issue? * Also ensure input from GAC support staff during the development of the Issue Report stage to ensure that all relevant information is included relating to existing GAC views on the topic. * Ask template used by ccNSO for their triage commitee - outcomes of this process can be viewed here: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions.htm. * All encouraged to provide input on the draft quick look flow chart Singapore Planning * What does the group want to share with the GAC and GNSO in Singapore? * How to engage GNSO and GAC in conversations? Specific questions may assist in this effort. * Confirm next meetings on the list and conduct doodle poll to confirm that sufficient members are available to participate