- Gnso-review-dt - lists.icann.org

Attendance, AC Chat & Mp3 for GNSO Review WG call on 15 November 2016 at 14:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 15 Nov '16

15 Nov '16

Dear all, Please find attendance and mp3 along with AC chat below for the GNSO Review call held on Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 14:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-15nov16-en.mp3<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-15nov16-en.mp3[mailer.samanage.com]> Attendance: Amr Elsadr Avri Doria Heath Dixon Jen Wolfe Pascal Bekono Rafik Dammak Sara Bockey Apologies: Wolf Ulrich-Knoben Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Staff: Lars Hoffmann Marika Konings Julie Hedlund Michelle DeSmyter Thanks! Michelle AC Chat : Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group call on Tuesday, 15, November 2016 14:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Heath Dixon:Good morning. Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there, welcome!! Pascal Bekono:Good afternoon dear all Jen Wolfe:Hello everyone! Pascal Bekono:Hi Jen avri doria:it would be painful for me - until 0030 with my next call at 0400 Julie Hedlund:Thanks Avri -- noted! Heath Dixon:I have to walk my kids to the bus, so I need to drop at the top of the hour. Sorry. Julie Hedlund:Thanks Heath. Noted also. Julie Hedlund:All -- The redline in the document are some additional changes suggested by staff. Marika Konings:you may also want to include something in relation to regular reporting / updating to the GNSO Council? Marika Konings:every ICANN meeting? Marika Konings:it could be in the form of a status report that is provided to the GNSO Marika Konings:and if need be a discussion could be scheduled at an ICANN meeting Heath Dixon:I think that's a good timeframe. Heath Dixon:It should be at the GNSO on the agenda. Marika Konings:The idea would be to first get an overview of what exists to be able to then determine what is needed, also factoring in what the costs would be and how this are expected to be covered (priority may need to be given or cost-benefit analysis conducted). Marika Konings:a first step might be to review ongoing efforts in relation to the same subject to determine whether a separate WG is needed? Rafik:linking the creation of new WG to the outcome of diversity subgroup outcome? Marika Konings:is it my line or Avri sounds like an alien? Rafik:having hard time to hear... Julie Hedlund:@Avri: Your microphone is very distorted. Julie Hedlund:Could you type in the chat? Amr Elsadr:@Marika: Alien isn't what I would have gone for..., but not just your line. :) Sara Bockey:Very strange distortion Marika Konings:sounded like one of those voices you get in sci fi movies :-) Amr Elsadr:@Marika: Yup. :) Marika Konings:so not sure if that makes it an alien or the captain of the ship :-) avri doria:1. how do we define effectiveness. 2. we are not really doing this and i think that wee are wiggling out of actually doing it with the way this is being 'done' Marika Konings:@Avri - I think most PDP WGs are currently applying rotation to their regular meetings? avri doria:i.e. we alwasy favor europe and the Us in terms of timings. this is not fair and is not in keeping with the recommendation. Rafik:@Marika I think the risk is that "efectiveness" become self-fulfiling, starting with times unfriendly for folks in some timeoznes , then it will exclude them in facto and so only those in friendly timezones and so on avri doria:(and the fact that i am in Seoul at the moment does not prejudice my opinion :) Amr Elsadr:Good rewording on this recommendation. Marika Konings:@Rafik - agree and it is a real challenge as the different PDP WGs rotate dutifully but we definitely see less participation during the timezone that is less convenient for the majority. However, based on that input, the WG may be able to review / discuss what measures could be taken to counter that trend? avri doria:i lost audio. avri doria:will try to get it back. but now that Amr is there, and he is primary for NCSg, my being here matters less. Amr Elsadr:I'm actually not primary for the NCSG, Avri. Just a participant in this group, and checking in/observing since I haven't been attending calls. Heath Dixon:Agreed. Sara Bockey:can you scroll down so I can see the timeline better Heath Dixon:We can always finish early if we're making good progress. Sara Bockey:no...move it up Julie Hedlund:@Jen: Got it! Sara Bockey:I agree that more time is needed for the High Priority avri doria:rebooted, so am back. Marika Konings:the Board timeline for approval may extend beyond the New Year avri doria:apologies Amr and Rafik. it is Rafik that iis the NCSG primary. Julie Hedlund:@All: I will circulate the document today. Marika Konings:as the Board committee will look at it first before it goes to the Board Rafik:the schedule still up for motion ot gnso ? avri doria:who is making the motion, Rafik? avri doria:and Rafik can second if he wishes Julie Hedlund:Indeed! Rafik:thanks :) avri doria:bye and happy new year Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Julie Hedlund:Thank you everyone and happy holidays! Pascal Bekono:thanks, bye

1 0

Call for Volunteers Reminder: GNSO Review Working Group
by Julie Hedlund 06 Sep '16

06 Sep '16

Dear GNSO Review WP members, Many of you have already seen the announcement (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-27-en) for a Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Review Working Group. We are still taking volunteers, either as members (primary or alternate) from the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as participants, and as observers. Please see the current list of members, participants, and observers on the WG wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/WG+members+and+mailing+list. We very much encourage GNSO Review WP members to consider signing up for this Working Group. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

RE: GNSO Review: Update on Recommendations Discussions in Helsinki
by Charla Shambley 05 Aug '16

05 Aug '16

Dear GNSO Review Working Party - In response to Chuck's email below, I wanted to pass along a link to the Call for Volunteers announcement<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-27-en> that was posted last week. I encourage everyone to read it and apply to participate in this Working Group since it will be responsible for developing the implementation plan of the 34 recommendations recently adopted<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e> by the Board. For ease of reference, the announcement<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-27-en> is pasted below. Regards, Charla In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council adopted the Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf> [PDF, 565 KB] of the GNSO Review Working Group during its meeting on 21 July 2016. This Working Group is tasked to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Review recommendations<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-e…> [PDF, 407 KB] which were recently adopted<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e> by the ICANN Board. This is the Call for Volunteers to join this Working Group. Anyone interested in the GNSO Review and contributing to the development of the implementation plan and subsequent implementation is encouraged to volunteer. What This Working Group Will Do Per the GNSO Review Working Group Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf> [PDF, 565 KB] the GNSO Review Working Group will be responsible for developing an implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome for the GNSO Review recommendations adopted by the ICANN Board (thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep…> [PDF, 727 KB] of the Independent Examiner (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). This implementation plan is to be submitted for approval to the GNSO Council, followed by consideration by the ICANN Board. Following the approval of the implementation plan, the Working Group is also expected to execute and oversee the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations unless specified differently in the implementation plan. The GNSO Review Working Group will also be responsible for considering any new requests1<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-27-en#foot1> by the GNSO Council concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council, or a group chartered by the GNSO Council, as needing discussion. However, the first priority of the Working Group will be the development of an implementation plan and the subsequent implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations. Timeline and Deliverables The GNSO Review Working Group is expected to deliver the implementation plan to the GNSO Council for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting at ICANN57 at the latest in order to meet the Board set objective of 'an implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution'2<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-27-en#foot2> i.e., December 2016. How to Join Each GNSO Stakeholder Group and/or Constituency will identify one primary and one alternate member to serve on the GNSO Review Working Group. In addition to these appointed members, anyone interested will be able to join this working group as a participant or observer. Please note that participants are expected to attend conference calls and to actively participate in online discussions. They also must submit a Statement of Interest per Section 5.0 of the GNSO Operating Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-16feb16-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.31 MB]. Observers can follow the group's work on the mailing list but can neither send to the mailing list nor participate actively in the calls. Interested participants and observers are requested to complete the sign-up sheet<https://goo.gl/forms/TbmkrEXT2xlx6jGn1> by Friday, 19 August 2016. Next steps It is anticipated that the GNSO Review Working Group will convene online for the first time in the last week of August 2016. Following that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with the Working Group's work plan, which it is expected to develop as one of its first tasks. Further information and preparation For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are encouraged to review the following materials: 1. GNSO Review Recommendations<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-e…> [PDF, 407 KB] 2. Independent Examiner Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep…> [PDF, 727 KB] 3. Frequently Asked Questions<https://community.icann.org/x/UBCbAw> Background The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014. The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf [PDF, 1.99 MB]) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future. The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-e… [PDF, 407 KB]) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority). On 25 June, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council. The Board adopted thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations. Per the motion<https://community.icann.org/x/BAObAw> adopted on 21 July 2016, the GNSO Council adopted the Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf> [PDF, 565 KB] of the GNSO Review Working Group and directed staff to send a Call for Volunteers for the Working Group. 1<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-27-en#note1> For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the GNSO Review WG expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. See request template at:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/14713135/GNSO-SCI-Revie… [DOCX, 102 KB]. 2<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-27-en#note2> The Board resolution was adopted on 25 June 2016 From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 5:42 PM To: Charla Shambley <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>; 'gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org' <gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: GNSO Review: Update on Recommendations Discussions in Helsinki Thanks Charla. Understanding that it is up to the GNSO Council and not us, I think it would be helpful if several of us from the Working Party could be available to assist and/or participate in the implementation oversight group that the Council sets up. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:36 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org' Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review: Update on Recommendations Discussions in Helsinki Dear GNSO Review Working Party: ICANN56 proved to be quite successful with the ICANN Board approving the adoption of 34 out of the 36 GNSO Review recommendations at its meeting on 25 June 2016. You can read the full text of the Resolutions here: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e. The resolutions outline the next steps regarding the development of the Implementation Plan for the adopted recommendations. For ease of reference, the text from the Resolutions are below. In addition, the GNSO Council took action on 30 June 2016 during their Public Council Meeting about next steps for the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations. You can watch the full Adobe Connect session here<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p516y9dc9tv/> (or fast forward to 1:41 for the start of the approximately 9 minute discussion on the GNSO Review). Resolutions 2016.06.25.10 - 2016.06.25.15 (main agenda item 2.e.): Independent Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization Final Report and Recommendations Whereas, ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4.1<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#IV-4> calls on the ICANN Board to "cause a periodic review of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness." Whereas, the second independent review of the GNSO <https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org/gnso#gnso2-2014-2015> commenced in 2014. Whereas, the independent examiner that conducted the GNSO Review produced a Draft Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-draft-29may15-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.5 MB] that was published for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en> in May 2015. Whereas, the independent examiner produced a Final Report<https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep…> [PDF, 727 KB], containing thirty-six (36) recommendations in September 2015. Whereas, the GNSO Review Working Party serving as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board assessed the implementation feasibility of all 36 recommendations and suggested a prioritization of recommendations. Whereas, the GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations with a modification. Whereas, the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board concluded that the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations as adopted by the GNSO Council, ought to guide the implementation process of the 36 recommendations. Resolved (2016.06.25.10), the Board acknowledges the independent examiner's hard work and thanks them for producing a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve the GNSO's effectiveness, transparency, and accountability. Resolved (2016.06.25.11), the Board acknowledges the work and support of the GNSO Review Working Party during the review process, as well as its insightful Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis that was adopted<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201604> by the GNSO Council on 14 April 2016 and guided the OEC's recommendation to the Board. The Board thanks the GNSO Review Working Party for its efforts. Resolved (2016.06.25.12), the Board accepts the Final Report from the independent examiner. Resolved (2016.06.25.13), taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). Resolved (2016.06.25.14), the Board requests that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations. An implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution. Resolved (2016.06.25.15), the Board directs the GNSO Council to provide the Board with regular reporting on the implementation efforts. Rationale for Resolutions 2016.06.25.10 - 2016.06.25.15 To ensure ICANN's multistakeholder model remains transparent and accountable, and to improve its performance, ICANN organizes independent reviews of its supporting organizations and advisory committees as prescribed in Article IV Section 4.1<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#IV-4> of the ICANN Bylaws. The second GNSO Review started in 2014 and the independent examiner presented its Final Report in September 2015. The Board's action today is consistent with ICANN's commitment pursuant to section 9.1 of the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making reflect the public interest and that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders. The GNSO Review recommendations have the potential to advance ICANN's transparency and accountability objectives and have been considered carefully by the Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee as well as by the full Board. The Board resolution will have a positive impact on ICANN and especially the GNSO as it reinforces ICANN's and the GNSO's commitment to maintaining and improving its accountability, transparency and organizational effectiveness. Development of implementation steps for the Board-adopted GNSO Review recommendations is not expected to have a considerable budgetary impact on the organization. However, implementation work may necessitate certain expenditures (including staff support) and may require a significant commitment of volunteer time. Volunteer workload and ICANN resources will be considered during the implementation planning and prioritization. Why is the Board addressing the issue? This resolution completes the second review of the GNSO and is based on the Final Report of the independent examiner, Westlake Governance, as well as the GNSO Review Working Party's assessment of the recommendations as adopted by the GNSO Council. Following the assessment of all pertinent documents and community feedback by the Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee, the Board is now in a position to consider and act on the recommendations and instruct the GNSO to start the implementation process in due course. What is the proposal being considered? The proposal the Board is considering is the Final Report by the GNSO Review's independent examiner in combination with "GNSO Review Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations", adopted by the GNSO Council, and considered by the Organizational Effectiveness Committee. What significant materials did the Board review? The Board reviewed the independent examiner's GNSO Review Final Report<https://community.icann.org/x/lJNYAw> containing 36 recommendations; the Board also reviewed the "GNSO Review Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Assessment" as adopted by the GNSO Council, and it reviewed the considerations by the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with regard to both the Final Report and the Feasibility Assessment. Additionally, the Board considered the Report of Public Comments<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-gnso-review-dra…> [PDF, 1.58 KB] on the Independent Examiner's Initial Report as well as the overview of changes<https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Final+Report+of+Independent+Examine…> [PDF, 114 KB] that took place from the Initial to the Final Report as a result of this community feedback. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, or budget)? The work to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO organization may require additional resources beyond those included in the Board-approved FY17 Operating Plan and Budget, when adopted. This determination depends on the implementation planning and the definition of desired outcomes and prioritization. Additionally, implementation work should serve as an input into the next strategic planning cycle. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? This action is not expected to have a direct impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. Still, once the improvements are implemented future policy-development will become more transparent and accountable, which in turn might indirectly impact the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS in a positive way. Is public comment required prior to Board action? A Public Comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en> was opened following the publication of the Draft Report in May 2015. As this is a result of a Bylaw-mandated organizational review, public comment is not necessary prior to implementation. It is important to note that throughout the GNSO Review process there has been extensive discussion and exchange of ideas and information between the independent examiner, the GNSO Review Working Party, the GNSO community and the ICANN Board. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 mobile: 310-745-1943

1 0

Please Respond: GNSO Review Working Party Meeting
by Lars Hoffmann 05 Aug '16

05 Aug '16

Dear all, As previously indicated, it might be useful to schedule a call between the At-Large and the GNSO Working Party to exchange experience from their respective work and potentially pass on some advice from the completed GNSO WP to the on-going WP if/where appropriate. A proposed agenda (TBD) could look something like this: 1. Welcome and Introduction 2. Experience with the Online Survey (GNSO Working Party + Staff) 3. GNSO Review a look back, what worked what did not (GNSO Working Party + Staff) 4. Open Questions (At-Large Working Party) 5. AOB Because members of both groups are spread between the US west coast and the Australian south coast, I have created a doodle for a few time slots next week. Please note, not all times will be convenient for all but your flexibility for this one-off call will be much appreciated. http://doodle.com/poll/3w9kdwvdek3qwzun The doodle will close this Friday COB that we can arrange phone lines, adobe rooms, and interpretation. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars http://doodle.com/poll/3w9kdwvdek3qwzun

1 1

GNSO Review: Update on Recommendations Discussions in Helsinki
by Charla Shambley 02 Jul '16

02 Jul '16

Dear GNSO Review Working Party: ICANN56 proved to be quite successful with the ICANN Board approving the adoption of 34 out of the 36 GNSO Review recommendations at its meeting on 25 June 2016. You can read the full text of the Resolutions here: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e. The resolutions outline the next steps regarding the development of the Implementation Plan for the adopted recommendations. For ease of reference, the text from the Resolutions are below. In addition, the GNSO Council took action on 30 June 2016 during their Public Council Meeting about next steps for the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations. You can watch the full Adobe Connect session here<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p516y9dc9tv/> (or fast forward to 1:41 for the start of the approximately 9 minute discussion on the GNSO Review). Resolutions 2016.06.25.10 - 2016.06.25.15 (main agenda item 2.e.): Independent Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization Final Report and Recommendations Whereas, ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4.1<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#IV-4> calls on the ICANN Board to "cause a periodic review of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness." Whereas, the second independent review of the GNSO <https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org/gnso#gnso2-2014-2015> commenced in 2014. Whereas, the independent examiner that conducted the GNSO Review produced a Draft Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-draft-29may15-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.5 MB] that was published for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en> in May 2015. Whereas, the independent examiner produced a Final Report<https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep…> [PDF, 727 KB], containing thirty-six (36) recommendations in September 2015. Whereas, the GNSO Review Working Party serving as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board assessed the implementation feasibility of all 36 recommendations and suggested a prioritization of recommendations. Whereas, the GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations with a modification. Whereas, the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board concluded that the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations as adopted by the GNSO Council, ought to guide the implementation process of the 36 recommendations. Resolved (2016.06.25.10), the Board acknowledges the independent examiner's hard work and thanks them for producing a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve the GNSO's effectiveness, transparency, and accountability. Resolved (2016.06.25.11), the Board acknowledges the work and support of the GNSO Review Working Party during the review process, as well as its insightful Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis that was adopted<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201604> by the GNSO Council on 14 April 2016 and guided the OEC's recommendation to the Board. The Board thanks the GNSO Review Working Party for its efforts. Resolved (2016.06.25.12), the Board accepts the Final Report from the independent examiner. Resolved (2016.06.25.13), taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). Resolved (2016.06.25.14), the Board requests that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations. An implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution. Resolved (2016.06.25.15), the Board directs the GNSO Council to provide the Board with regular reporting on the implementation efforts. Rationale for Resolutions 2016.06.25.10 - 2016.06.25.15 To ensure ICANN's multistakeholder model remains transparent and accountable, and to improve its performance, ICANN organizes independent reviews of its supporting organizations and advisory committees as prescribed in Article IV Section 4.1<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#IV-4> of the ICANN Bylaws. The second GNSO Review started in 2014 and the independent examiner presented its Final Report in September 2015. The Board's action today is consistent with ICANN's commitment pursuant to section 9.1 of the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making reflect the public interest and that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders. The GNSO Review recommendations have the potential to advance ICANN's transparency and accountability objectives and have been considered carefully by the Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee as well as by the full Board. The Board resolution will have a positive impact on ICANN and especially the GNSO as it reinforces ICANN's and the GNSO's commitment to maintaining and improving its accountability, transparency and organizational effectiveness. Development of implementation steps for the Board-adopted GNSO Review recommendations is not expected to have a considerable budgetary impact on the organization. However, implementation work may necessitate certain expenditures (including staff support) and may require a significant commitment of volunteer time. Volunteer workload and ICANN resources will be considered during the implementation planning and prioritization. Why is the Board addressing the issue? This resolution completes the second review of the GNSO and is based on the Final Report of the independent examiner, Westlake Governance, as well as the GNSO Review Working Party's assessment of the recommendations as adopted by the GNSO Council. Following the assessment of all pertinent documents and community feedback by the Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee, the Board is now in a position to consider and act on the recommendations and instruct the GNSO to start the implementation process in due course. What is the proposal being considered? The proposal the Board is considering is the Final Report by the GNSO Review's independent examiner in combination with "GNSO Review Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations", adopted by the GNSO Council, and considered by the Organizational Effectiveness Committee. What significant materials did the Board review? The Board reviewed the independent examiner's GNSO Review Final Report<https://community.icann.org/x/lJNYAw> containing 36 recommendations; the Board also reviewed the "GNSO Review Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Assessment" as adopted by the GNSO Council, and it reviewed the considerations by the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with regard to both the Final Report and the Feasibility Assessment. Additionally, the Board considered the Report of Public Comments<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-gnso-review-dra…> [PDF, 1.58 KB] on the Independent Examiner's Initial Report as well as the overview of changes<https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Final+Report+of+Independent+Examine…> [PDF, 114 KB] that took place from the Initial to the Final Report as a result of this community feedback. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, or budget)? The work to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO organization may require additional resources beyond those included in the Board-approved FY17 Operating Plan and Budget, when adopted. This determination depends on the implementation planning and the definition of desired outcomes and prioritization. Additionally, implementation work should serve as an input into the next strategic planning cycle. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? This action is not expected to have a direct impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. Still, once the improvements are implemented future policy-development will become more transparent and accountable, which in turn might indirectly impact the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS in a positive way. Is public comment required prior to Board action? A Public Comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en> was opened following the publication of the Draft Report in May 2015. As this is a result of a Bylaw-mandated organizational review, public comment is not necessary prior to implementation. It is important to note that throughout the GNSO Review process there has been extensive discussion and exchange of ideas and information between the independent examiner, the GNSO Review Working Party, the GNSO community and the ICANN Board. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 mobile: 310-745-1943

2 1

Follow-up: OEC questions
by Lars Hoffmann 15 May '16

15 May '16

Dear Jen and members of the GNSO Review Working Party, I am writing on behalf of Larisa, following up on her earlier email (see below). As mentioned, the OEC has compiled questions for the Working Party, to which it seeks your answers so that the Committee’s meeting in Amsterdam next week can be as productive as possible. You may want to respond either in writing or verbally; I believe Jen will take part in the OEC’s deliberations via telephone conference next week. Please note that staff is of course available to assist you should you require additional support. Please do not hesitate to get in touch on- or off-list. Very best wishes and a wonderful weekend Larisa and Lars Question from the OEC to the GNSO Review Working Party: Please confirm that – following the GNSO Council's Recommendation - Rec 21 should now be marked ‘yellow’ as it looks that there are modifications proposed by the GNSO Council and WP (in addition to it now being ‘low priority’). Rec 4 - Please explain the thinking/concern behind travel funding as a form of "financial reward". Rec 9 - Developing a needs assessment for WG leadership is good, but does this mean that an assessment of each WG leader's performance would not be done for each PDP WG? Rec 10 - Please elaborate on "additional criteria" to be developed. Would it cover (for example) situations where facilitation would be required and where external/independent facilitators may add value in case internal facilitation fails? Rec 19 - Does the GNSO Council currently issue a confirmation post-PDP that the WG has been properly constituted, has fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due process? Would the GNSO Council consider adding the diversity of WG aspect of Rec 36 to its post-PDP confirmation as information for the the Board? Rec 22 - Why is technical training not addressed? Would guidance/reference be provided to new GNSO Council members who may be lacking technical experience/background to go to for training? Rec 23 - Please explain/elaborate on concern no. 2 in Working Party Comments and Rationale. From: <owner-gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 6 May 2016 at 08:40 To: "gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org>, Jen Wolfe <jwolfe(a)dotbrand360.agency> Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Consideration of GNSO Review Recommendations Dear Jen and members of the GNSO Review Working Party, The Board is getting ready to take action on the GNSO Review Recommendations along with the substantial analysis and feedback from all of you and others in the GNSO. As you can see from the update below, the work of your group has been combined with feedback from the GNSO Council and other community members to provide the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with a full picture. OEC members have some questions for the Working Party and staff will compile and circulate these questions within the next day. Update on the Board’s consideration of the GNSO Review Recommendations Following the GNSO Council’s adoption of the GNSO Review Working Party's recommendations (see James Bladel’s transmittal letter to Rinalia Abdul Rahim, dated 27 April 2016), Staff has put together a Summary of GNSO Review Recommendations for OEC Consideration (attached). The purpose of this document is to provide the Committee with a complete overview of all pertinent information in connection with the GNSO Review Recommendations. At their next meeting on 15 May, the Committee will discuss the GNSO Review recommendations with the objective of formulating the Committee’s recommendation to the Board. Jen Wolfe will be present to answer Committee’s questions and provide clarification on the work of the Working Party. The document contains the Recommendations of the Independent Examiner, the feedback from the GNSO Review Working Party (including implementation priority), and a description of work already underway. In addition, community feedback and comments concerning implementation are summarized in Annex A. This feedback is the result of a webinar held on 12 April 2016 (transcript and recording) and of the GNSO Council call held on 14 April 2016 (transcript (p.21 onwards) and recording (0:47:19 onwards)). Next steps 1. OEC Committee members are reviewing all the materials and staff is compiling their questions for the Working Party. We will circulate these questions within the next day to give you sufficient time to develop responses. As always, staff is available to assist you. 2. Once the OEC has discussed this matter, the Committee will make a recommendation to the ICANN Board for its consideration. Staff currently anticipates that the Board will be able to deliberate the GNSO Review Recommendations during its meeting in Helsinki. 3. Finally, with a view to the forthcoming implementation process, the GNSO Council requested ICANN policy staff to 'prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board, taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews.’ The plan will take into consideration the views of the Council as well as those by the OEC and the Board, and address various elements essential for an effective and efficient implementation process. These elements include: prioritization of recommendations in line with GNSO and ICANN capacity; clear articulation of expected outcomes from implementation; and definition of means to measure effectiveness of implementation. If you have any further questions or require clarifications, please do not hesitate to reach out at any time. Thank you for your enormous effort and contribution to making the GNSO Review an effective accountability mechanism. All the best, Larisa B. Gurnick Senior Director, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Mobile: 1 310 383-8995 Skype: larisa.gurnick

4 6

Consideration of GNSO Review Recommendations
by Larisa B. Gurnick 06 May '16

06 May '16

Dear Jen and members of the GNSO Review Working Party, The Board is getting ready to take action on the GNSO Review Recommendations along with the substantial analysis and feedback from all of you and others in the GNSO. As you can see from the update below, the work of your group has been combined with feedback from the GNSO Council and other community members to provide the Organizational Effectiveness Committee with a full picture. OEC members have some questions for the Working Party and staff will compile and circulate these questions within the next day. Update on the Board's consideration of the GNSO Review Recommendations Following the GNSO Council's adoption of the GNSO Review Working Party's recommendations (see James Bladel's transmittal letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-abdul-rahim-27apr16-en.pdf> to Rinalia Abdul Rahim, dated 27 April 2016), Staff has put together a Summary of GNSO Review Recommendations for OEC Consideration (attached). The purpose of this document is to provide the Committee with a complete overview of all pertinent information in connection with the GNSO Review Recommendations. At their next meeting on 15 May, the Committee will discuss the GNSO Review recommendations with the objective of formulating the Committee's recommendation to the Board. Jen Wolfe will be present to answer Committee's questions and provide clarification on the work of the Working Party. The document contains the Recommendations of the Independent Examiner, the feedback from the GNSO Review Working Party (including implementation priority), and a description of work already underway. In addition, community feedback and comments concerning implementation are summarized in Annex A. This feedback is the result of a webinar held on 12 April 2016 (transcript<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-review-12apr16-en.pdf> and recording<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-12apr16-en.mp3>) and of the GNSO Council call held on 14 April 2016 (transcript<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-14apr16-en.pdf> (p.21 onwards) and recording<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-14apr16-en.mp3> (0:47:19 onwards)). Next steps 1. OEC Committee members are reviewing all the materials and staff is compiling their questions for the Working Party. We will circulate these questions within the next day to give you sufficient time to develop responses. As always, staff is available to assist you. 2. Once the OEC has discussed this matter, the Committee will make a recommendation to the ICANN Board for its consideration. Staff currently anticipates that the Board will be able to deliberate the GNSO Review Recommendations during its meeting in Helsinki. 3. Finally, with a view to the forthcoming implementation process, the GNSO Council requested ICANN policy staff to 'prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board, taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews.' The plan will take into consideration the views of the Council as well as those by the OEC and the Board, and address various elements essential for an effective and efficient implementation process. These elements include: prioritization of recommendations in line with GNSO and ICANN capacity; clear articulation of expected outcomes from implementation; and definition of means to measure effectiveness of implementation. If you have any further questions or require clarifications, please do not hesitate to reach out at any time. Thank you for your enormous effort and contribution to making the GNSO Review an effective accountability mechanism. All the best, Larisa B. Gurnick Senior Director, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Mobile: 1 310 383-8995 Skype: larisa.gurnick

2 1

TR: [Effectiveness-comm] GNSO Review Working Party Analysis transmittal letter
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

FYI De : Rinalia Abdulrahim Envoyé : jeudi 28 avril 2016 19:00 Thank you, Glen. The OEC will discuss this matter at its next meeting in May. The Committee will consider the Recommendations of the Independent Examiner and factor the GNSO Review Working Party Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of the Recommendations by the Independent Examiner together with the feedback from the GNSO Council. Jen Wolfe will be invited to participate in the meeting to address questions from the Committee and to provide clarification. I will get back to the GNSO Council on next steps after the meeting. Best regards, Rinalia Rinalia Abdul Rahim Member, ICANN Board of Directors Chair, Organizational Effectiveness Committee On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:43 PM, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Rinalia, Please find the attached correspondence from James Bladel, GNSO Council chair, regarding the feasibility and prioritization analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations. The letter has been posted to GNSO Correspondence: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-abdul-rahim-27apr16-en.pdf The GNSO Review Working Party Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations by Independent Examiner has been posted to: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-e… Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org <Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - FINAL 27 April 2016.pdf> <GNSO Review Rec Feasibility Prioritization (FINAL)MK.pdf> _______________________________________________ Effectiveness-comm mailing list Effectiveness-comm(a)icann.org<mailto:Effectiveness-comm@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/effectiveness-comm

2 1

TR: GNSO Review Working Party Analysis transmittal letter
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

FYI De : gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> Envoyé : jeudi 28 avril 2016 16:44 Dear Rinalia, Please find the attached correspondence from James Bladel, GNSO Council chair, regarding the feasibility and prioritization analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations. The letter has been posted to GNSO Correspondence: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-abdul-rahim-27apr16-en.pdf The GNSO Review Working Party Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations by Independent Examiner has been posted to: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-e… Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

**updated attendance list/ Attendance list and mp3 GNSO Review WP 12 April 2016 at 17:30 UTC
by Terri Agnew 14 Apr '16

14 Apr '16

Dear all, Please see revised attached attendance list. Kind regards, Terri From: owner-gnso-secs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:41 PM To: gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-secs] Attendance list and mp3 GNSO Review WP 12 April 2016 at 17:30 UTC Dear all, Please find attendance attached along with the slides. The mp3, Adobe Connect recording and AC chat are listed below for the GNSO Review Working Party call that briefed the Council and other interested members of the SG/Cs on final recommendations issued by the independent examiner as the result of the independent review of the GNSO held on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 at 17:30 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-12apr16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> Adobe Connect recording: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3ilqfh733i/<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3ilqfh733i/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=50bf586afd7a611…> Thank you, Terri AC Chat : Terri Agnew:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Party call that will brief the Council and other interested members of the SG/Cs on final recommendations issued by the independent examiner as the result of the independent review of the GNSO held on Tuesday, 12 April 2016. Amr Elsadr:Hi all. Waiting for a dial-out. Rudi Vansnick:hi everyone Jennifer Gore:Hello Rinalia Abdul Rahim:Hello everyone. Just listening and observing today. Susan Payne:hi i'm a bit late joining. who is speaking please is it Larisa? Amr Elsadr:Yes. That's Larisa. Susan Payne:thanks Philip Corwin:Hello all. Have been on audio line since the start. Amr Elsadr:Maybe noteworthy that the working party reviewed the recommendations against the rationale for each recommendation in Westlake's final report. Denise Michel:sorry. audio problems Denise Michel:yes Terri Agnew:@Denise, I have sent you a private AC chat Denise Michel:i'm on phone now Rudi Vansnick:it would also absorb a lot of resources to handle such analysis Rudi Vansnick:needs to be looked at cross-community wise Donna Austin, Neustar:There is a considerable amount of data being collected to inform the CCT-RT that could serve as a baseline for future collection. I'm not sure this is a GNSO task to collect, but perhaps should have access to such information when considering new policy efforts etc. Rudi Vansnick:what priority should it get ? Amr Elsadr:@WUK: Would be happy to help, if you like. Chuck Gomes:@ Denise: It would be helpful if you sent your suggestion regarding rewording. Denise Michel:@ sure Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:which email list we should use? Denise Michel:@ chuck - sure will send Marika Konings:@Jenn - no concerns, but as the motion was seconded by Amr, he would need to sign off on it as well (although technically it doesn't change the motion, but the document referenced in the motion) Amr Elsadr:When rewording rec#21, might be worthwhile to check if what folks are looking for haven't already been covered here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/dmpm-final-09oct15-en.pdf Amr Elsadr:@Denise: I believe the NCSG actually makes it a point to not ask for the age or gender of its members. Rudi Vansnick:it certainly is ;-) Larisa Gurnick:Rec #6 touches on diversity Rudi Vansnick:age is important Amr Elsadr:Some may not appreciate being asked to identify with pre-set options on gender. Marika Konings:It is not collected as part of the SOI either - not sure if it would create any privacy concerns? Marika Konings:although the secretariat does collect information on location / timezone to faciliate scheduling of calls Mary Wong:Especially as SOIs are publicly available and published. PAUL MCGRADY - IPC:+1 Amr Amr Elsadr:FYI: The summary of comment for Westlake at ICANN 53 prepped by staff can be found here: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00002.html Chuck Gomes:Please size table so priorities show. Amr Elsadr:Also difficult to determine what the diversity of the Internet as a whole is. :) Larisa Gurnick:@Denise - Working Party and staff are discussing what a desired outcome would be and what data points are needed. That aspect would make the recommendation implementation feasible and useful Johan (Julf) Helsingius - GNSO NCPH NCA:And is this something for GNSO, or the board? Chuck Gomes:@ Denise: Would you recommend making this a red? Amr Elsadr:Are there any thoughts on the alternative language to this recommendation suggested by the working party? Amr Elsadr:But as Denise says, a WG may not be the best option right now. PAUL MCGRADY - IPC:How would the data be stored? Under what privacy policy? Why would we put together a WG that reflects the current users of the Internet if the goal is to increase involvement from those not currently using it? What is the actual relationship between GNSO participation and access to use of the Internet? Amr Elsadr:@Paul: :) Susan Payne:@Amr I think the revised language is preferable to the original recommendation. But agree with Denise about concerns on setting another WG Amr Elsadr:@Susan: Same here. PAUL MCGRADY - IPC:For example, this call is in English. Susan Payne:yep - and at a time that is not terribly user-friendly for those in Asia PAUL MCGRADY - IPC:@Susan,, +1 We can collect personal data all day, but if the systems in place discourage diverse participation, all we did was collect data and publish it in English... Philip Corwin:I share Paul's concern. While we should strive for WGs to be diverse, I wouldn't want to see years of work rejected by Board based on something other than the quality of the report and recommendations. Denise Michel:I have to drop-off. Thanks Jen, Larisa and everyone for an informative call Larisa Gurnick:Thanks for participating, Denise PAUL MCGRADY - IPC:Shouldn't this one be Priority High? Susan Payne:@Paul - I would say this is high priority. Feedback to the review was that this isn't being done wasn't it PAUL MCGRADY - IPC:Thanks! Amr Elsadr:@Paul: regarding priority, also, this is largely being done, and not too many applications for new consituencies. Marika Konings:For the record, the GAC has considered this on various occassions but always responded that no one is able to represent the GAC, apart from the Chair, but I guess it doesn't hurt to ask again ;-) Donna Austin, Neustar:@Marikia, I doubt that the GAC will ever move away from the premise that no-one is able to represent the GAC, but perhaps they could come to understand that providing a Liaison does not mean representing or advocating positions. I think the use of 'non-binding, non-voting liaison' is important. Amr Elsadr:Due process here means pretty much the PDP manual/WG Guidelines/bylaws etc. PAUL MCGRADY - IPC:@Chuck. Thanks for the clarity. Amr Elsadr:@Paul: From the Westlake study, there seemed to be some concern that the Council acts as a legislative sort of body instead of a process manager. Amr Elsadr:..., which as far as I can tell, is not the case. Marika Konings:Thanks, Donna - the Consultation Group did touch upon that point, but there still seemed to be a lot of sensitivity in relation to the concept. However, we have definitely seen an increase in individual GAC members participating in PDP WG efforts and the other mechanisms that have been developed by the CG are also intended to facilitate early engagement and participation in the process. PAUL MCGRADY - IPC:Same questions for Recommendation 6 - what privacy policy, where will the data be stored, etc? Marika Konings:but as said, it never hurts to ask again :-) Amr Elsadr:A lot of this data is publicly archived, along with WG call attendance stats and others. PAUL MCGRADY - IPC:How was this done in the last GNSO review? Working group? Or was it done at the Council level? (Too long ago for me to remember) PAUL MCGRADY - IPC:Sorry for not knowing. The PPSAI pushed out most of my extra brain cells. James Bladel:I recall several "steering committees" to implement the recommendations. Marika Konings:and work teams Mary Wong:Yes, there was a group that also formed work teams James Bladel:@Chuck - How do you mean? Relay the comments from the work party to the Council? James Bladel:Beyond the report itself, and the motion, I don't know that other materials are being presented on Thursday's call. Chuck Gomes:@ James: No, i mean relay the comments from this call to the Council. James Bladel:Ok, sorry for misunderstanding. Will ask that we distribute these slides and the chat transcripts to the Council list. Chuck Gomes:In addition, I suggest that the specific recommendations made regarding priorities and categories be mentioned. James Bladel:Ok. That might require a friendly amendment to Wofl-Ulrich's mostion. Chuck Gomes:10 minutes; good luck. Terri Agnew:Slides, transcript and AC recording will be sent to council James Bladel:Thank you, Terri. Philip Corwin:No questions from me right now. Very useful briefing. Rinalia Abdul Rahim:Excellent discussion. Thank you! PAUL MCGRADY - IPC:Great call! Thanks! Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. James Bladel:Thanks, Jen & Larissa. Johan (Julf) Helsingius - GNSO NCPH NCA:Thanks!

1 0