October 2017 - Gnso-review-wg

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from GNSO Review WG call on Thursday, 19 October 2017 at 12:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3, AC Recording, attendance and AC Chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on Thursday, 19 October 2017 at 12:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-wg-19oct17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8athe6x2b5/<https://participate.icann.org/p8athe6x2b5/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ba32205baa7d5c6f…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/ Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/a5BEB Attendance Members: Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate) Jen Wolfe (RySG (Primary) Participants: Kris Seeburn (NCUC) On Audio Only: none Apologies: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Lori Schulman, Rafik Dammak ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Emily Barabas Marika Konings Berry Cobb Julie Bisland ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 October 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 19 October 2017 at 12:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Krishna Seeburn - Kris:hi julie Julie Bisland:Hello Kris! Hope you are well :) Krishna Seeburn - Kris:Yes am fine.....just tired with the many icann meetings... Krishna Seeburn - Kris:certainly in middle of the night.... Julie Bisland:I feel your pain :) hang in there Krishna Seeburn - Kris:well i try my best....and i have IEEE standards and ethics meetings and others areas and orgs i volunteer.....it feels like i spend more than the needed time volunteering Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i am pretty sure you have the same kind of pain..... Julie Bisland:yikes! sounds like you're doing your fare share plus some! Hope volunteering also brings some satisfaction :) you're time and efforts are certainly appreciated! Krishna Seeburn - Kris:we do it at least i do it for the betterment of others....who have no ideas of how things work in this world....somewhere in between you are right there is a bit of satisfaction but it becomes more satisfaction when things move to final implmementation Krishna Seeburn - Kris:hi Julie H Krishna Seeburn - Kris:Hi Marika.. Sara Bockey:I just woke up so I'll do whatever everyone wants Krishna Seeburn - Kris:let's just go ahead Sara Bockey:yes Krishna Seeburn - Kris:agreed Krishna Seeburn - Kris:how confident we will be done by sep 2018? Krishna Seeburn - Kris:perhaps the backgroundshould come in first.... Krishna Seeburn - Kris:sumarrised important points....but if you guys feel it the right way..then no issues Krishna Seeburn - Kris:the geonames may take longer .... Krishna Seeburn - Kris:might be interesting to just note and higlight that the geonames is not yet ready but would only start soon Krishna Seeburn - Kris:ok thanks for clarification Sara Bockey:Sounds good to me Krishna Seeburn - Kris:sounds good Marika Konings:Staff still has as an action item from the previous pilot for "Development of draft guidelines for the use and application for face-to-face facilitated PDP WG meetings for Council review and adoption" Marika Konings:Maybe there is no need for guidelines, but there may be a need for a process by which a WG could request facilitation as it is also a resource question. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:let it roll for now and we see how things pan out Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i think marika....is right....just a simple note process... Krishna Seeburn - Kris:exactly yes... Marika Konings:I am also checking whether something was done in relation to the outstanding staff action item re. guidelines. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:yep that would be good Krishna Seeburn - Kris:thanks Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i have no objection on that Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i agree with that cnstant review is : resources wouldhave to be alloted all the time... Krishna Seeburn - Kris:none.. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i understand Krishna Seeburn - Kris:good Krishna Seeburn - Kris:will give time for the review.... Krishna Seeburn - Kris:goood Krishna Seeburn - Kris:+1 to all Sara Bockey:thanks all Krishna Seeburn - Kris:bye....

1 0

CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 18 Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a Consensus Call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 18. As noted in the attached charter, this is the recommendation for implementation: “Recommendation 18: That the GNSO Council evaluate post implementation policy effectiveness on an ongoing basis (rather than periodically as stated in the current GNSO Operating Procedures); and that these evaluations are analyzed by the GNSO Council to monitor and improve the drafting and scope of future PDP Charters and facilitate the effectiveness of GNSO policy outcomes over time.” The charter reflects the revisions agreed to at the Working Group meeting on 19 October (see notes below). The revisions are reflected as redlined text in the attached revised charter. Staff is circulating the revised version of the charter for a three-week Consensus Call to end on Thursday, 09 November 2017. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 19 October Action Items: 1. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides: Staff will send finalized report and slides to Wolf-Ulrich along with a draft message to Council. Wolf-Ulrich will send these materials to Council by the deadline for motions and documents on 22 October. 2. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10/11: 1) Add that there is a process to follow for any request that requires resources. This process should be followed if a WG would like to use a facilitator that requires financial resources. 2) Add an update on the staff action to produce guidelines. 3) Send the revised version for a Consensus Call on 19 October for three weeks, ending on 09 November. 3. Revised Charter for Recommendation 18: Send the revised version for a Consensus Call on 19 October for three weeks, ending on 09 November. Notes: 1. SOIs: No updates. 2. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides: -- Slides will be used in GNSO Council update on 01 November. -- Slides include text on current status (on phase I, II, and III), timeline, and next steps. -- Will be important to note on current status that Phase I items have already been implemented. -- For changes in Phase II and III, changes to Operating Procedures will go out for public comment and then to Council for a vote. -- Phase II has begun with the review Recommendation 6, which has been combined with 33 and 36 relating to diversity), as well as Recommendations 26-29. -- Timeline: Work expected to be completed within the overall deadline or the original schedule. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: how confident we will be done by sep 2018? -- The WG is confident that it will remain within this timeframe, and will inform OEC and the GNSO Council if this changes. -- Example added to the slides following Wolf-Ulrich's recommendation (see slide 7 discussing Recommendation 8). -- Background is included at the end of the slides for reference. The presentation will only be 15 mins, so will not likely be covered in the presentation. -- Slides reflect order of information provided in the report. The background is included last because of the limited amount of time for the presentation. If we cover the background first, there may not be time to cover the new and most important information. -- Covering the new and important information first will keep the Council engaged. -- The goal is for Wolf-Ulrich to send slides and report to the Council either today or tomorrow. Sunday is the document deadline (22 Oct). -- Edits to the report reflect changes and feedback from last week, as well as updates to text on Recommendations 10,11, and 18. -- Brief discussion of current status is added upfront in the Executive Summary, followed by the more detailed status summary, timeline and next steps. -- Updated text included for recommendations 10, 11, 18. -- We will update this report with the implemented version of the Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11. -- Text under recommendation 18 on page 11 has been updated as well. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: perhaps the background should come in first.... Krishna Seeburn: summarised important points....but if you guys feel it the right way..then no issues. Krishna Seeburn: might be interesting to just note and highlight that the geonames is not yet ready but would only start soon?? -- Geo names is only discussed under Recommendations 10 and 11 as an example of a recently completed session that made use of a facilitator. It demonstrates that there is currently an effective means for WGs to secure the services of a facilitator when the WG determines that such assistance is needed. -- No questions on the report. Staff suggests accepting all changes. 3. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11: -- Recommendation 10 and 11 covers WGs' ability to request and use facilitation. -- From last week, staff was asked to check if WG Guidelines cover how to proceed if WG's have diverging views and whether there is guidance on when and how to engage a facilitator. -- Revised text includes example of geo names session at ICANN59 to demonstrate a WG successfully engaging a facilitator. -- definition of divergence and recommended method of determining level of consensus from WG Guidelines have been added to the Charter. This guidance speaks to the ways WGs can work through divergent views. -- It's up to this group to determine if additional guidelines are necessary. -- There was an action item. This WG discussed whether there should be guidelines. The discussion seemed to indicate that there is enough guidance for PDP WGs on whether and how to use facilitation and no additional guidance is needed. -- PDPs differ widely and may have different needs. >From the chat: Marika Konings: Staff still has as an action item from the previous pilot for "Development of draft guidelines for the use and application for face-to- face facilitated PDP WG meetings for Council review and adoption". Maybe there is no need for guidelines, but there may be a need for a process by which a WG could request facilitation as it is also a resource question. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: let it roll for now and we see how things pan out?? Marika Konings: I am also checking whether something was done in relation to the outstanding staff action item re. guidelines. -- In the current process, WGs go to staff with the request for facilitation, to be considered by management. -- In the current example, ICANN org management evaluated that the request was within available resources and budget and granted the request. -- Can also potentially add text to Working Group Determination: "within the current process for WGs to request staff and budgetary resources." -- This is ready to go out for consensus call. Suggested timeline - 9 November. 4. Revised Charter for Recommendation 18: -- Recommendation 18 was discussed a few months ago and was put on hold. Staff recommends moving in forward at this time. -- The staff analysis has been previously discussed. GDD and policy department have a role in reviewing policy implementation Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF). -- Staff reviewed CPIF - it appears to complete implementation of the recommendation, except for part of the recommendation that says that policy should be evaluated on a continuous basis. -- The WG has discussed the issue of periodic vs. continuous evaluation of policy post-implementation effectiveness. -- Level of medium-hard was assigned to this part of the recommendation noting that it may not be possible to do ongoing reviews. -- This WG agreed that this aspect of the recommendation does not seem feasible. -- This item was put on hold because of that element of the recommendation regarding ongoing evaluation. -- Expired Registry Recovery policy does not have an end date. We may not want to wait for the result, as it might send us past the deadline for review. -- Staff recommends editing Working Group Determination to say that the "ongoing" element of the recommendation is not feasible to implement. -- Appears to be general agreement with this approach -- This item will go out for a consensus call -- suggested end date is also 09 November. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn: I agree with that constant review is: resources would have to be allotted all the time... Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i have no objection on that Krishna Seeburn - Kris: none.. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i understand 5. Meeting schedule: Next meeting 16 November, return to bi-weekly schedule.

1 0

CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendations 10 & 11 Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a Consensus Call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11. As noted in the attached charter, these are the recommendations for implementation: “Recommendation 10: That the GNSO Council develop criteria for Working Groups to engage a professional facilitator/moderator in certain situations. Recommendation 11: That the face-to-face PDP Working Group pilot project be assessed when completed. If the results are beneficial, guidelines should be developed and support funding made available.” The charter reflects the revisions agreed to at the Working Group meeting on 19 October (see notes below). The revisions are reflected as redlined text in the attached revised charter. Staff is circulating the revised version of the charter for a three-week Consensus Call to end on Thursday, 09 November 2017. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 19 October Action Items: 1. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides: Staff will send finalized report and slides to Wolf-Ulrich along with a draft message to Council. Wolf-Ulrich will send these materials to Council by the deadline for motions and documents on 22 October. 2. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10/11: 1) Add that there is a process to follow for any request that requires resources. This process should be followed if a WG would like to use a facilitator that requires financial resources. 2) Add an update on the staff action to produce guidelines. 3) Send the revised version for a Consensus Call on 19 October for three weeks, ending on 09 November. 3. Revised Charter for Recommendation 18: Send the revised version for a Consensus Call on 19 October for three weeks, ending on 09 November. Notes: 1. SOIs: No updates. 2. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides: -- Slides will be used in GNSO Council update on 01 November. -- Slides include text on current status (on phase I, II, and III), timeline, and next steps. -- Will be important to note on current status that Phase I items have already been implemented. -- For changes in Phase II and III, changes to Operating Procedures will go out for public comment and then to Council for a vote. -- Phase II has begun with the review Recommendation 6, which has been combined with 33 and 36 relating to diversity), as well as Recommendations 26-29. -- Timeline: Work expected to be completed within the overall deadline or the original schedule. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: how confident we will be done by sep 2018? -- The WG is confident that it will remain within this timeframe, and will inform OEC and the GNSO Council if this changes. -- Example added to the slides following Wolf-Ulrich's recommendation (see slide 7 discussing Recommendation 8). -- Background is included at the end of the slides for reference. The presentation will only be 15 mins, so will not likely be covered in the presentation. -- Slides reflect order of information provided in the report. The background is included last because of the limited amount of time for the presentation. If we cover the background first, there may not be time to cover the new and most important information. -- Covering the new and important information first will keep the Council engaged. -- The goal is for Wolf-Ulrich to send slides and report to the Council either today or tomorrow. Sunday is the document deadline (22 Oct). -- Edits to the report reflect changes and feedback from last week, as well as updates to text on Recommendations 10,11, and 18. -- Brief discussion of current status is added upfront in the Executive Summary, followed by the more detailed status summary, timeline and next steps. -- Updated text included for recommendations 10, 11, 18. -- We will update this report with the implemented version of the Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11. -- Text under recommendation 18 on page 11 has been updated as well. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: perhaps the background should come in first.... Krishna Seeburn: summarised important points....but if you guys feel it the right way..then no issues. Krishna Seeburn: might be interesting to just note and highlight that the geonames is not yet ready but would only start soon?? -- Geo names is only discussed under Recommendations 10 and 11 as an example of a recently completed session that made use of a facilitator. It demonstrates that there is currently an effective means for WGs to secure the services of a facilitator when the WG determines that such assistance is needed. -- No questions on the report. Staff suggests accepting all changes. 3. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11: -- Recommendation 10 and 11 covers WGs' ability to request and use facilitation. -- From last week, staff was asked to check if WG Guidelines cover how to proceed if WG's have diverging views and whether there is guidance on when and how to engage a facilitator. -- Revised text includes example of geo names session at ICANN59 to demonstrate a WG successfully engaging a facilitator. -- definition of divergence and recommended method of determining level of consensus from WG Guidelines have been added to the Charter. This guidance speaks to the ways WGs can work through divergent views. -- It's up to this group to determine if additional guidelines are necessary. -- There was an action item. This WG discussed whether there should be guidelines. The discussion seemed to indicate that there is enough guidance for PDP WGs on whether and how to use facilitation and no additional guidance is needed. -- PDPs differ widely and may have different needs. >From the chat: Marika Konings: Staff still has as an action item from the previous pilot for "Development of draft guidelines for the use and application for face-to- face facilitated PDP WG meetings for Council review and adoption". Maybe there is no need for guidelines, but there may be a need for a process by which a WG could request facilitation as it is also a resource question. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: let it roll for now and we see how things pan out?? Marika Konings: I am also checking whether something was done in relation to the outstanding staff action item re. guidelines. -- In the current process, WGs go to staff with the request for facilitation, to be considered by management. -- In the current example, ICANN org management evaluated that the request was within available resources and budget and granted the request. -- Can also potentially add text to Working Group Determination: "within the current process for WGs to request staff and budgetary resources." -- This is ready to go out for consensus call. Suggested timeline - 9 November. 4. Revised Charter for Recommendation 18: -- Recommendation 18 was discussed a few months ago and was put on hold. Staff recommends moving in forward at this time. -- The staff analysis has been previously discussed. GDD and policy department have a role in reviewing policy implementation Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF). -- Staff reviewed CPIF - it appears to complete implementation of the recommendation, except for part of the recommendation that says that policy should be evaluated on a continuous basis. -- The WG has discussed the issue of periodic vs. continuous evaluation of policy post-implementation effectiveness. -- Level of medium-hard was assigned to this part of the recommendation noting that it may not be possible to do ongoing reviews. -- This WG agreed that this aspect of the recommendation does not seem feasible. -- This item was put on hold because of that element of the recommendation regarding ongoing evaluation. -- Expired Registry Recovery policy does not have an end date. We may not want to wait for the result, as it might send us past the deadline for review. -- Staff recommends editing Working Group Determination to say that the "ongoing" element of the recommendation is not feasible to implement. -- Appears to be general agreement with this approach -- This item will go out for a consensus call -- suggested end date is also 09 November. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn: I agree with that constant review is: resources would have to be allotted all the time... Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i have no objection on that Krishna Seeburn - Kris: none.. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i understand 5. Meeting schedule: Next meeting 16 November, return to bi-weekly schedule.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 19 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

Thanks so much Marilyn. We’ll note your apologies. Kind regards, Julie From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 11:37 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 19 October with deep apologies. I was double booked for the IGF NRI Working Call and had intended to join this group in progress. My IGF NRI call ran long and I have obligations there as a coordinator of an NRI. I will review the transcript immediately. Marilyn Cade BC Participant From: gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 11:12 AM To: gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 19 October Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 19 October. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2017. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 19 October Action Items: 1. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides: Staff will send finalized report and slides to Wolf-Ulrich along with a draft message to Council. Wolf-Ulrich will send these materials to Council by the deadline for motions and documents on 22 October. 2. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10/11: 1) Add that there is a process to follow for any request that requires resources. This process should be followed if a WG would like to use a facilitator that requires financial resources. 2) Add an update on the staff action to produce guidelines. 3) Send the revised version for a Consensus Call on 19 October for three weeks, ending on 09 November. 3. Revised Charter for Recommendation 18: Send the revised version for a Consensus Call on 19 October for three weeks, ending on 09 November. Notes: 1. SOIs: No updates. 2. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides: -- Slides will be used in GNSO Council update on 01 November. -- Slides include text on current status (on phase I, II, and III), timeline, and next steps. -- Will be important to note on current status that Phase I items have already been implemented. -- For changes in Phase II and III, changes to Operating Procedures will go out for public comment and then to Council for a vote. -- Phase II has begun with the review Recommendation 6, which has been combined with 33 and 36 relating to diversity), as well as Recommendations 26-29. -- Timeline: Work expected to be completed within the overall deadline or the original schedule. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: how confident we will be done by sep 2018? -- The WG is confident that it will remain within this timeframe, and will inform OEC and the GNSO Council if this changes. -- Example added to the slides following Wolf-Ulrich's recommendation (see slide 7 discussing Recommendation 8). -- Background is included at the end of the slides for reference. The presentation will only be 15 mins, so will not likely be covered in the presentation. -- Slides reflect order of information provided in the report. The background is included last because of the limited amount of time for the presentation. If we cover the background first, there may not be time to cover the new and most important information. -- Covering the new and important information first will keep the Council engaged. -- The goal is for Wolf-Ulrich to send slides and report to the Council either today or tomorrow. Sunday is the document deadline (22 Oct). -- Edits to the report reflect changes and feedback from last week, as well as updates to text on Recommendations 10,11, and 18. -- Brief discussion of current status is added upfront in the Executive Summary, followed by the more detailed status summary, timeline and next steps. -- Updated text included for recommendations 10, 11, 18. -- We will update this report with the implemented version of the Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11. -- Text under recommendation 18 on page 11 has been updated as well. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: perhaps the background should come in first.... Krishna Seeburn: summarised important points....but if you guys feel it the right way..then no issues. Krishna Seeburn: might be interesting to just note and highlight that the geonames is not yet ready but would only start soon?? -- Geo names is only discussed under Recommendations 10 and 11 as an example of a recently completed session that made use of a facilitator. It demonstrates that there is currently an effective means for WGs to secure the services of a facilitator when the WG determines that such assistance is needed. -- No questions on the report. Staff suggests accepting all changes. 3. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11: -- Recommendation 10 and 11 covers WGs' ability to request and use facilitation. -- From last week, staff was asked to check if WG Guidelines cover how to proceed if WG's have diverging views and whether there is guidance on when and how to engage a facilitator. -- Revised text includes example of geo names session at ICANN59 to demonstrate a WG successfully engaging a facilitator. -- definition of divergence and recommended method of determining level of consensus from WG Guidelines have been added to the Charter. This guidance speaks to the ways WGs can work through divergent views. -- It's up to this group to determine if additional guidelines are necessary. -- There was an action item. This WG discussed whether there should be guidelines. The discussion seemed to indicate that there is enough guidance for PDP WGs on whether and how to use facilitation and no additional guidance is needed. -- PDPs differ widely and may have different needs. >From the chat: Marika Konings: Staff still has as an action item from the previous pilot for "Development of draft guidelines for the use and application for face-to- face facilitated PDP WG meetings for Council review and adoption". Maybe there is no need for guidelines, but there may be a need for a process by which a WG could request facilitation as it is also a resource question. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: let it roll for now and we see how things pan out?? Marika Konings: I am also checking whether something was done in relation to the outstanding staff action item re. guidelines. -- In the current process, WGs go to staff with the request for facilitation, to be considered by management. -- In the current example, ICANN org management evaluated that the request was within available resources and budget and granted the request. -- Can also potentially add text to Working Group Determination: "within the current process for WGs to request staff and budgetary resources." -- This is ready to go out for consensus call. Suggested timeline - 9 November. 4. Revised Charter for Recommendation 18: -- Recommendation 18 was discussed a few months ago and was put on hold. Staff recommends moving in forward at this time. -- The staff analysis has been previously discussed. GDD and policy department have a role in reviewing policy implementation Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF). -- Staff reviewed CPIF - it appears to complete implementation of the recommendation, except for part of the recommendation that says that policy should be evaluated on a continuous basis. -- The WG has discussed the issue of periodic vs. continuous evaluation of policy post-implementation effectiveness. -- Level of medium-hard was assigned to this part of the recommendation noting that it may not be possible to do ongoing reviews. -- This WG agreed that this aspect of the recommendation does not seem feasible. -- This item was put on hold because of that element of the recommendation regarding ongoing evaluation. -- Expired Registry Recovery policy does not have an end date. We may not want to wait for the result, as it might send us past the deadline for review. -- Staff recommends editing Working Group Determination to say that the "ongoing" element of the recommendation is not feasible to implement. -- Appears to be general agreement with this approach -- This item will go out for a consensus call -- suggested end date is also 09 November. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn: I agree with that constant review is: resources would have to be allotted all the time... Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i have no objection on that Krishna Seeburn - Kris: none.. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i understand 5. Meeting schedule: Next meeting 16 November, return to bi-weekly schedule.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 19 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 19 October. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2017. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 19 October Action Items: 1. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides: Staff will send finalized report and slides to Wolf-Ulrich along with a draft message to Council. Wolf-Ulrich will send these materials to Council by the deadline for motions and documents on 22 October. 2. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10/11: 1) Add that there is a process to follow for any request that requires resources. This process should be followed if a WG would like to use a facilitator that requires financial resources. 2) Add an update on the staff action to produce guidelines. 3) Send the revised version for a Consensus Call on 19 October for three weeks, ending on 09 November. 3. Revised Charter for Recommendation 18: Send the revised version for a Consensus Call on 19 October for three weeks, ending on 09 November. Notes: 1. SOIs: No updates. 2. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides: -- Slides will be used in GNSO Council update on 01 November. -- Slides include text on current status (on phase I, II, and III), timeline, and next steps. -- Will be important to note on current status that Phase I items have already been implemented. -- For changes in Phase II and III, changes to Operating Procedures will go out for public comment and then to Council for a vote. -- Phase II has begun with the review Recommendation 6, which has been combined with 33 and 36 relating to diversity), as well as Recommendations 26-29. -- Timeline: Work expected to be completed within the overall deadline or the original schedule. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: how confident we will be done by sep 2018? -- The WG is confident that it will remain within this timeframe, and will inform OEC and the GNSO Council if this changes. -- Example added to the slides following Wolf-Ulrich's recommendation (see slide 7 discussing Recommendation 8). -- Background is included at the end of the slides for reference. The presentation will only be 15 mins, so will not likely be covered in the presentation. -- Slides reflect order of information provided in the report. The background is included last because of the limited amount of time for the presentation. If we cover the background first, there may not be time to cover the new and most important information. -- Covering the new and important information first will keep the Council engaged. -- The goal is for Wolf-Ulrich to send slides and report to the Council either today or tomorrow. Sunday is the document deadline (22 Oct). -- Edits to the report reflect changes and feedback from last week, as well as updates to text on Recommendations 10,11, and 18. -- Brief discussion of current status is added upfront in the Executive Summary, followed by the more detailed status summary, timeline and next steps. -- Updated text included for recommendations 10, 11, 18. -- We will update this report with the implemented version of the Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11. -- Text under recommendation 18 on page 11 has been updated as well. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: perhaps the background should come in first.... Krishna Seeburn: summarised important points....but if you guys feel it the right way..then no issues. Krishna Seeburn: might be interesting to just note and highlight that the geonames is not yet ready but would only start soon?? -- Geo names is only discussed under Recommendations 10 and 11 as an example of a recently completed session that made use of a facilitator. It demonstrates that there is currently an effective means for WGs to secure the services of a facilitator when the WG determines that such assistance is needed. -- No questions on the report. Staff suggests accepting all changes. 3. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11: -- Recommendation 10 and 11 covers WGs' ability to request and use facilitation. -- From last week, staff was asked to check if WG Guidelines cover how to proceed if WG's have diverging views and whether there is guidance on when and how to engage a facilitator. -- Revised text includes example of geo names session at ICANN59 to demonstrate a WG successfully engaging a facilitator. -- definition of divergence and recommended method of determining level of consensus from WG Guidelines have been added to the Charter. This guidance speaks to the ways WGs can work through divergent views. -- It's up to this group to determine if additional guidelines are necessary. -- There was an action item. This WG discussed whether there should be guidelines. The discussion seemed to indicate that there is enough guidance for PDP WGs on whether and how to use facilitation and no additional guidance is needed. -- PDPs differ widely and may have different needs. >From the chat: Marika Konings: Staff still has as an action item from the previous pilot for "Development of draft guidelines for the use and application for face-to- face facilitated PDP WG meetings for Council review and adoption". Maybe there is no need for guidelines, but there may be a need for a process by which a WG could request facilitation as it is also a resource question. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: let it roll for now and we see how things pan out?? Marika Konings: I am also checking whether something was done in relation to the outstanding staff action item re. guidelines. -- In the current process, WGs go to staff with the request for facilitation, to be considered by management. -- In the current example, ICANN org management evaluated that the request was within available resources and budget and granted the request. -- Can also potentially add text to Working Group Determination: "within the current process for WGs to request staff and budgetary resources." -- This is ready to go out for consensus call. Suggested timeline - 9 November. 4. Revised Charter for Recommendation 18: -- Recommendation 18 was discussed a few months ago and was put on hold. Staff recommends moving in forward at this time. -- The staff analysis has been previously discussed. GDD and policy department have a role in reviewing policy implementation Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF). -- Staff reviewed CPIF - it appears to complete implementation of the recommendation, except for part of the recommendation that says that policy should be evaluated on a continuous basis. -- The WG has discussed the issue of periodic vs. continuous evaluation of policy post-implementation effectiveness. -- Level of medium-hard was assigned to this part of the recommendation noting that it may not be possible to do ongoing reviews. -- This WG agreed that this aspect of the recommendation does not seem feasible. -- This item was put on hold because of that element of the recommendation regarding ongoing evaluation. -- Expired Registry Recovery policy does not have an end date. We may not want to wait for the result, as it might send us past the deadline for review. -- Staff recommends editing Working Group Determination to say that the "ongoing" element of the recommendation is not feasible to implement. -- Appears to be general agreement with this approach -- This item will go out for a consensus call -- suggested end date is also 09 November. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn: I agree with that constant review is: resources would have to be allotted all the time... Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i have no objection on that Krishna Seeburn - Kris: none.. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i understand 5. Meeting schedule: Next meeting 16 November, return to bi-weekly schedule.

1 0

Agenda and Materials for 19 October Meeting 12:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the agenda for the meeting on Thursday, 19 October at 12:00 UTC. Please also see the attached materials amended per the notes below from the meeting on 12 October. In addition, a revised charter for recommendation 18 is attached for consideration and discussion. Draft agenda: Review agenda SOIs Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides Revised Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11 Revised Charter for Recommendation 18 Meeting schedule AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 12 October Action Items: Draft Implementation Status Report: Move key points on status to the beginning of the Executive Summary; As the report will be provided in November, any recommendations finalized in October should be marked as completed; On the timeline, create a separate section in the Executive Summary and include a WG judgement that the work is expected to be completed within the original timeline, but if there are any issues that could adversely affect the timeline these will be brought to the attention of the OEC; Produce slides for the GNSO Council update. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Include pointers to relevant sections of the Working Group Guidelines that could address issues where there are strongly convergent opinions in a PDP WG; Provide suggested text for a WG determination. Notes: 1. SOIs: No updates 2. Draft Implementation Status Report for OEC/GNSO Council: Staff summary of the report: -- OEC has asked that this WG transmit final report to the OEC. The OEC will review over email. No formal presentation is needed. This report can form the basis of the update to the GNSO Council on 1 Nov at ICANN60. -- OEC support staff will clarify if the GNSO Council will need to make a formal approval of the report through a motion. It is likely that formal approval will not be needed. -- Question: How much time do we have to update the Council? Can we ask Council for any feedback or objections during this update? We are not expecting a big discussion or any major issues raised. Response: Draft schedule is not yet available, but likely no more than 15 mins. -- The wording in the original Board resolution approving the plan notes updates from the WG to the OEC, not from the Council, indicating that there is likely no official approval needed. Transparency is still a priority. -- Status summary: 9 out of 11 of the Phase 1 recommendations had already been implemented through previous work. -- OEC is asking for implementation status. With work underway, those approved as implemented have been implemented through previous work. The timeline antiicipated additional work would be needed, but this was not the case. -- The final two recommendations 10 and 11 may be able to be resolved later on this call. -- Phases 2 and 3: The Working Group has reviewed and discussed the implementation charters for the 5 Phase II Recommendations and 2 charters for recommendations moved from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Staff is combining recommendations 6, 33, (Phase 2) with 36 (Phase 3) as these all relate to diversity and thus are pending the recommendations from the Cross-Community Working Group Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team recommendations. The Working Group will begin discussion of Phase 3 recommendations in November 2017. -- Dependencies with WS 2 Diversity Sub Team are discussed explicitly because the OEC has expressed interest in this issue. -- Timelines for Phase 1, 2, and 3 are included in the report. -- The Phase 3 recommendations have been grouped by priority in the chart, reflecting priorities expressed by OEC staff. -- Dates have been adjusted to reflect progress. No end dates have been extended beyond final targets identified earlier. -- Draft slides for Council presentation will be available next week for WG review. -- Suggestion: Single chart in the presentation for all phases. >From the Chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: sounds good Lori Schulman: Sounds practical -- Comment: Consider changing "GNSO2 Review" on page 1 to "GNOS Review 2". Response - this is how the OEC refers to this report -- "GNSO2 Review" - This title was included in template provided by OEC staff. -- Main message of exec summary is in the last paragraph. Shift this to the beginning of the exec summary. Section 1: Recommendations Implemented To Date: -- We will send report after ICANN60. Can we adjust language that currently reads ". . . are expected to be completed in October 2017." -- First paragraph on 2nd page of exec summary: should we add a judgment from our group about the recent timeline? For example, that we are confident in our ability to keep with the timeline until the end of next year, or if there are any indications that would weaken this judgment. Staff response -- in addition to add a single graphic, staff would like to add timeline as another section of the executive summary with an intro paragraph stating that the WG is confident it will be able to meet the timeline. We can also say that if anything comes up that will impact the timeline that the WG will make the OEC aware. -- Recommendations Implemented to date - Phase 1 - Work already underway. Going through example of Recommendation 8. -- OEC asked for links to reports for each of the items. These are included in the green section at the bottom of each recommendation summary. Section 2: Upcoming Recommendations to be Completed: -- If we can resolve recommendations 10 and 11, we move these to Section 1. -- Phase 2: High Priority Items - each item in this section includes Proposed Implementation Steps -- Recs 6,33,26 - staff will work to complete the consolidation of these three items into a single charter. Dependencies are called out in the text. Based on WS2 SubTeam on Diversity timeline, we are anticipating addressing this one around June 2018. -- Recs 26-29 - work is underway. We discussed in 28 Sept meeting. We have some additional work on each of these recommendations to do. This will be updated in the report if progress is made on action items. -- Staff will send a revised version of the report today and leave open for comments into next week. -- Item to fix: Header on medium and low priority items (page 21) should say Phase 3, not Phase 2. -- Medium priority items are listed followed by low priority items. Groupings are consistent with grouping presented in implementation plan. -- Text comes directly from implementation plan for this section. -- Timing: We can give the report to the OEC as soon as we have reported to the GNSO Council (early November). Anything scheduled for completion in October should be marked as complete. -- Review of the report may not need to go through a consensus call. Suggestion to finalize by 19 Oct to make the document deadline for Council meeting at ICANN60. -- Feedback - This seems like an appropriate approach. Not sure if the OEC is diving into recommendations for the time being. But good to have the details available in case they need additional information. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i think we may need a more clearer discussion with oters on this because i seem to find that in many policies the work is stalling Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i suggest that that be on the agenda clearly stated 3. Charter Discussions: -- No updates to items 26-29. Next items will be Phase 3. Staff needs to look at how these items should be grouped. There are a couple of items on hold -- Recommendations 10-11 related to using a facilitator -- was on hold pending Geographic Names Session at ICANN59. Staff can provide an update. -- Pilot project is complete, survey was published, we have the results. -- The WG discussed whether there should be guidelines. Concern was raised that it would be difficult or inadvisable to mandate use of facilitation. Ad hoc funding is available and was most recently used for geographic names sessions at ICANN59. There is a report from the facilitator with recommendations. -- Suggestion: adjust charter to make use of these recommendations. Staff can provide a summary of the outcomes of the ICANN59 sessions, noting the specific reasons why a facilitator was brought in for this session. -- Potential text stating that that current system of selectively bringing in facilitators is working. -- Staff can proposed revised text and then the group can proceed with a consensus call. -- Where are we in terms of the relationship between the outcome of these facilitated sessions and the work product we are working on? In the end does it help us to cover what was expected in these recommendations? -- Is this an overall working concept for any facilitated meeting? Beyond the geographic names sessions, there are a lot of big challenging issues with polarized views in the major PDPs. Any recommendations related to facilitation should be something we should support. -- These recommendations would be relevant to any WG considering facilitation. Our evaluation is that groups can request facilitations during or outside of a meeting. Rec 11 refers to the Pilot Program. Staff is suggesting that we indicate, looking at the current status using the example of SubPro being able to get facilitation at ICANN59, demonstrates that WGs can get this assistance if they need it. We can recommend not using formal guidelines because needs vary, and that this recommendation has been met as there is already a process for meeting needs in the future. -- Perhaps the guidelines should be guidelines about when you should ask for facilitation, as opposed to guidelines about how to proceed if facilitation is requested. This will help ensure that WGs do request assistance when they need it. -- Mandated piece is out of scope of these recommendations. The recommendations are about making sure there is an opportunity for facilitation, not a requirement. -- What does staff need from the WG on this recommendation? -- Staff will incorporate a suggested WG determination and look at WG guidelines and look at whether there are guidelines about how to proceed if there are diverging views about whether facilitation is needed. -- We can also revisit Recommendation 18. If we do this, we will have completed all Phase 1 work, which can be reflected in the OEC Report. >From the Chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: thanks for the appraisal...i think it has it's weight and support the idea Krishna Seeburn - Kris: but i think a good briefing for the group onlist would be important Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i would like to know the impact from the objectives and real outputs 4. Meeting Schedule: Next meeting is in one week -- 19 October

2 6

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from GNSO Review WG call on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3, AC Recording, attendance and AC Chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-12oct17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9n0yx7t4bh/<https://participate.icann.org/p9n0yx7t4bh/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ba32205baa7d5c6f…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/ Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/k4VEB Attendance Members: Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate) Rafik Dammak (NCSG Primary) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary) Lori Schulman (IPC Primary) Participants: Kris Seeburn (NCUC) On Audio Only: Lawrence Olawale-Roberts (BC Primary) Apologies: Jennifer Wolfe ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Emily Barabas Berry Cobb Julie Bisland ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 October 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 14:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Krishna Seeburn - Kris:hi julie Julie Bisland:Hello Kris! :) Krishna Seeburn - Kris:julie...do you think a reminder is appropriate....? Julie Bisland:done :) Krishna Seeburn - Kris:just in case Krishna Seeburn - Kris:ok got mine :) Julie Bisland:there's a GNSO council call ending in a few minutes, so we should start seeing staff shortly. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:iknow Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i guess they will slowly connect Lori Schulman:we are slowly connecting. these weeks up to the next meeting are terrible. I have 2 conferences before Abu Dhabi starts.. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i think let's give a few minutes Krishna Seeburn - Kris:good for me Julie Bisland:Welcome Rafik! Rafik:hello all Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Hi Rafik again! Rafik:more ICANN call to end the day :) Krishna Seeburn - Kris:it makes sense and good approach Julie Bisland:Welcome Lawrence Olawale Roberts! Krishna Seeburn - Kris:sounds good Lori Schulman:Sounds practical Julie Hedlund:Great idea Wolf-Ulrich! Krishna Seeburn - Kris:yes.. works better Julie Hedlund:to Sept 2018 Krishna Seeburn - Kris:in a way saying we will not overlap ...yes makes aense.... Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:I'm then fine with the title Krishna Seeburn - Kris:or overshoot Krishna Seeburn - Kris:like your idea Julie Bisland:Note: Lawrence Olawale-Roberts joined on audio only. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:ok, Julie! Rafik:sorry I need to leave the call I will check the recordings and notes later. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i think we may need a more clearer discussion with oters on this because i seem to find that in many policies the work is stalling Rafik:@Wolf-Ulrich as liaison , we can work together for status update to council Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:thanks Rafik, and bye Rafik:bye all Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i suggest that that be on the agenda clearly stated Krishna Seeburn - Kris:for the 19th Krishna Seeburn - Kris:thanks for the appraisal...i think it has it's weight and support the idea Krishna Seeburn - Kris:but i think a good briefing for the group onlist would be important Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i would like t know the impact from the objectives and real outputs Krishna Seeburn - Kris:@lori...i think it makes sense Krishna Seeburn - Kris:it's worth it Sara Bockey:Apologies. I need to drop for another call. Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone!

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 12 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 12 October. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2017. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 12 October Action Items: Draft Implementation Status Report: Move key points on status to the beginning of the Executive Summary; As the report will be provided in November, any recommendations finalized in October should be marked as completed; On the timeline, create a separate section in the Executive Summary and include a WG judgement that the work is expected to be completed within the original timeline, but if there are any issues that could adversely affect the timeline these will be brought to the attention of the OEC; Produce slides for the GNSO Council update. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Include pointers to relevant sections of the Working Group Guidelines that could address issues where there are strongly convergent opinions in a PDP WG; Provide suggested text for a WG determination. Notes: 1. SOIs: No updates 2. Draft Implementation Status Report for OEC/GNSO Council: Staff summary of the report: -- OEC has asked that this WG transmit final report to the OEC. The OEC will review over email. No formal presentation is needed. This report can form the basis of the update to the GNSO Council on 1 Nov at ICANN60. -- OEC support staff will clarify if the GNSO Council will need to make a formal approval of the report through a motion. It is likely that formal approval will not be needed. -- Question: How much time do we have to update the Council? Can we ask Council for any feedback or objections during this update? We are not expecting a big discussion or any major issues raised. Response: Draft schedule is not yet available, but likely no more than 15 mins. -- The wording in the original Board resolution approving the plan notes updates from the WG to the OEC, not from the Council, indicating that there is likely no official approval needed. Transparency is still a priority. -- Status summary: 9 out of 11 of the Phase 1 recommendations had already been implemented through previous work. -- OEC is asking for implementation status. With work underway, those approved as implemented have been implemented through previous work. The timeline antiicipated additional work would be needed, but this was not the case. -- The final two recommendations 10 and 11 may be able to be resolved later on this call. -- Phases 2 and 3: The Working Group has reviewed and discussed the implementation charters for the 5 Phase II Recommendations and 2 charters for recommendations moved from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Staff is combining recommendations 6, 33, (Phase 2) with 36 (Phase 3) as these all relate to diversity and thus are pending the recommendations from the Cross-Community Working Group Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team recommendations. The Working Group will begin discussion of Phase 3 recommendations in November 2017. -- Dependencies with WS 2 Diversity Sub Team are discussed explicitly because the OEC has expressed interest in this issue. -- Timelines for Phase 1, 2, and 3 are included in the report. -- The Phase 3 recommendations have been grouped by priority in the chart, reflecting priorities expressed by OEC staff. -- Dates have been adjusted to reflect progress. No end dates have been extended beyond final targets identified earlier. -- Draft slides for Council presentation will be available next week for WG review. -- Suggestion: Single chart in the presentation for all phases. >From the Chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: sounds good Lori Schulman: Sounds practical -- Comment: Consider changing "GNSO2 Review" on page 1 to "GNOS Review 2". Response - this is how the OEC refers to this report -- "GNSO2 Review" - This title was included in template provided by OEC staff. -- Main message of exec summary is in the last paragraph. Shift this to the beginning of the exec summary. Section 1: Recommendations Implemented To Date: -- We will send report after ICANN60. Can we adjust language that currently reads ". . . are expected to be completed in October 2017." -- First paragraph on 2nd page of exec summary: should we add a judgment from our group about the recent timeline? For example, that we are confident in our ability to keep with the timeline until the end of next year, or if there are any indications that would weaken this judgment. Staff response -- in addition to add a single graphic, staff would like to add timeline as another section of the executive summary with an intro paragraph stating that the WG is confident it will be able to meet the timeline. We can also say that if anything comes up that will impact the timeline that the WG will make the OEC aware. -- Recommendations Implemented to date - Phase 1 - Work already underway. Going through example of Recommendation 8. -- OEC asked for links to reports for each of the items. These are included in the green section at the bottom of each recommendation summary. Section 2: Upcoming Recommendations to be Completed: -- If we can resolve recommendations 10 and 11, we move these to Section 1. -- Phase 2: High Priority Items - each item in this section includes Proposed Implementation Steps -- Recs 6,33,26 - staff will work to complete the consolidation of these three items into a single charter. Dependencies are called out in the text. Based on WS2 SubTeam on Diversity timeline, we are anticipating addressing this one around June 2018. -- Recs 26-29 - work is underway. We discussed in 28 Sept meeting. We have some additional work on each of these recommendations to do. This will be updated in the report if progress is made on action items. -- Staff will send a revised version of the report today and leave open for comments into next week. -- Item to fix: Header on medium and low priority items (page 21) should say Phase 3, not Phase 2. -- Medium priority items are listed followed by low priority items. Groupings are consistent with grouping presented in implementation plan. -- Text comes directly from implementation plan for this section. -- Timing: We can give the report to the OEC as soon as we have reported to the GNSO Council (early November). Anything scheduled for completion in October should be marked as complete. -- Review of the report may not need to go through a consensus call. Suggestion to finalize by 19 Oct to make the document deadline for Council meeting at ICANN60. -- Feedback - This seems like an appropriate approach. Not sure if the OEC is diving into recommendations for the time being. But good to have the details available in case they need additional information. >From the chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i think we may need a more clearer discussion with oters on this because i seem to find that in many policies the work is stalling Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i suggest that that be on the agenda clearly stated 3. Charter Discussions: -- No updates to items 26-29. Next items will be Phase 3. Staff needs to look at how these items should be grouped. There are a couple of items on hold -- Recommendations 10-11 related to using a facilitator -- was on hold pending Geographic Names Session at ICANN59. Staff can provide an update. -- Pilot project is complete, survey was published, we have the results. -- The WG discussed whether there should be guidelines. Concern was raised that it would be difficult or inadvisable to mandate use of facilitation. Ad hoc funding is available and was most recently used for geographic names sessions at ICANN59. There is a report from the facilitator with recommendations. -- Suggestion: adjust charter to make use of these recommendations. Staff can provide a summary of the outcomes of the ICANN59 sessions, noting the specific reasons why a facilitator was brought in for this session. -- Potential text stating that that current system of selectively bringing in facilitators is working. -- Staff can proposed revised text and then the group can proceed with a consensus call. -- Where are we in terms of the relationship between the outcome of these facilitated sessions and the work product we are working on? In the end does it help us to cover what was expected in these recommendations? -- Is this an overall working concept for any facilitated meeting? Beyond the geographic names sessions, there are a lot of big challenging issues with polarized views in the major PDPs. Any recommendations related to facilitation should be something we should support. -- These recommendations would be relevant to any WG considering facilitation. Our evaluation is that groups can request facilitations during or outside of a meeting. Rec 11 refers to the Pilot Program. Staff is suggesting that we indicate, looking at the current status using the example of SubPro being able to get facilitation at ICANN59, demonstrates that WGs can get this assistance if they need it. We can recommend not using formal guidelines because needs vary, and that this recommendation has been met as there is already a process for meeting needs in the future. -- Perhaps the guidelines should be guidelines about when you should ask for facilitation, as opposed to guidelines about how to proceed if facilitation is requested. This will help ensure that WGs do request assistance when they need it. -- Mandated piece is out of scope of these recommendations. The recommendations are about making sure there is an opportunity for facilitation, not a requirement. -- What does staff need from the WG on this recommendation? -- Staff will incorporate a suggested WG determination and look at WG guidelines and look at whether there are guidelines about how to proceed if there are diverging views about whether facilitation is needed. -- We can also revisit Recommendation 18. If we do this, we will have completed all Phase 1 work, which can be reflected in the OEC Report. >From the Chat: Krishna Seeburn - Kris: thanks for the appraisal...i think it has it's weight and support the idea Krishna Seeburn - Kris: but i think a good briefing for the group onlist would be important Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i would like to know the impact from the objectives and real outputs 4. Meeting Schedule: Next meeting is in one week -- 19 October

1 0

FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Draft Implementation Status Report for OEC/GNSO Council
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see the attached Draft Implementation Status Report for the OEC/GNSO Council in Word and PDF for your review and discussion on tomorrow’s call. Staff will walk through the report tomorrow and address any questions or comments you may have. Note that the format of the report is set by the OEC as it is their template for review implementation reports. Note also that all of the content has been extracted either from the charters of the implemented recommendations, or from the Implementation Plan for those recommendations that have not been implemented. In addition, the historical text in the Executive Summary is from the Implementation Plan and then there is a brief description of the status of implementation and the timelines. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

Agenda for GNSO Review WG Call on 12 October 2017
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see the draft agenda below and attached materials for the meeting on Thursday, 12 October at 1400 UTC (note two hours later than regular schedule to avoid conflict with the GNSO Council meeting). For the latest status see: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Cons…. Draft Agenda: Review agenda SOIs Draft Implementation Status Report for OEC/GNSO Council Meeting Schedule: Next meeting is in one week -- 19 October AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0