November 2017 - Gnso-review-wg

REMINDER: Confirmation Requested: GNSO Review Working Group Members
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 14, 2017

Dec. 14, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, It was noted during the meeting on 15 November that attendance has often been low at WG meetings and not all SGs and Cs have been represented. The WG noted that this could be a consequence of the timing of the meetings being inconvenient, but noted also that it would be helpful to confirm the primary and alternate members. Thus, per this action item from the meeting, “Send membership list to SG/Cs to see if there need to be updates to the primary or alternate members” please see below the list of members with the primary and alternate members identified, and also at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/WG+members+and+mailing+list. We ask all members to consult with their SG/Cs to confirm your primary and alternate members. We request that you do so at your earliest convenience, but ideally so that if there are changes we can be notified before the 14 December meeting. Sara Bockey, RrSG (primary) TBD, RrSG (alternate) Jennifer Wolfe, RySG (primary) Donna Austin, RySG (alternate) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, ISPCP (primary) Osvaldo Novoa, ISPCP (alternate) Rafik Dammak, NCSG (primary) Avri Doria, NCSG (alternate) Lori Schulman, IPC (primary) Victoria (Vicky) Sheckler, IPC (alternate) Lawrence Olawale-Roberts, BC (primary) TBD, BC (alternate) Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

4 6

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 30 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 30, 2017

Nov. 30, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 30 November. 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 30 November Action Items: Recommendations 26-29: Staff will place this charter implementation on hold pending updates related to GDPR, which will take effect in May 2018. Recommendation 4: Staff will change text to ICANN59 in July of 2017 (where it currently says ICANN60). Staff will add reference to recognition within the GNSO and internal efforts underway to develop recognition of volunteers throughout the year. Recommendation 34: Staff will add that there is ongoing assessment by WGs and periodic assessments of attendance by leadership. Staff also will add that when leadership teams and look at effectiveness it may be different for different working groups. Second goal may be to encourage participation from those who may not be participating from that time zone. Rotation, even if it loses attendance from other time zones may still be deemed valuable. It is a bit of a balancing act that the leadership are in the best position to evaluate. Recommendations 5, 9, 17: Staff will review language regarding confidentiality of names and will also revisit if text is clear regarding expectations about responses in the survey. Staff will revise recommendations if necessary. Staff will send out reminder to confirm primary and alternate members. (Done.) Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates. 2. Discussion of revised charter for recommendations 26-29: -- These recommendations have been discussed twice previously. -- Revisions reflect comments from the last call. -- The strategic alignment does still appear to be correct from a staff perspective. -- One issue raised - the GDPR will be enforced beginning May 2018. Staff added language indicating that the text of these recommendations may need to be revisited with GDPR implementation. -- Status of internal discussions around SOIs and compliance with GDPR and other privacy and data protection laws -- no specific proposal with respect to how we ask for SOIs and what goes into the SOIs. An update will be provided by ICANN staff within the next few months, if there will be changes to either element, staff will let the WG know. -- Stop gap interim solution - information that is displayed to a person signing up for a Working Group will be updated. It will explain the purpose, need for consent, and what is collected and published. -- When can we expect to need to revisit implementation of this recommendation? Is it enough to mention that there is a relationship between SOIs and GDPR and that additional work may be pending on this issue, or is the WG obliged to revisit the issue? -- Recommendation 26, 27: implemented already. Rec 28: Key clauses are already taken to be mandatory. Rec 29: While not currently feasible to include the number of years, upon change to the form, the form could include the requirement of a start date. -- Staff entered suggested language that these might need to be revisited. What may change is the content of the form. We don't know at this point. -- We are currently looking at a stop gap that will need a more permanent solution. Hopefully by the next WG call, the language that will be shown to prospective WG members will be available. -- This WG may want to look at what is and is not within scope for the WG. -- The way that recommendations are implemented may change with GDPR, this is something that may be worth flagging to the GNSO Council by this group and others. >From the chat: Marika Konings: One comment in relation to the SOI, following up on Mary's update, at some point it may also need to be considered whether SOIs need to be published publicly without any kind of access control (is that proportional to the purpose?). One could for example consider whether this information is only visible after logging into the wiki space, with clear information available how a log in can be obtained so it is still accessible, but there are some access requirements in place. -- Once the impact of GDPR impact is clear, we may want to pick up this charter again (perhaps after May 2018) and see if any updates are needed. -- changes to Operating Procedures are in scope for this WG if they are necessary. >From the chat: Mary Wong: Thanks for clarifying, Julie - that's what I meant about scope, in two respects: specific to the implementation of the current recommendations, and more broadly for the GNSO Operating Procedures. -- This charter will be marked as "on hold" on the wiki. 3. Discussion of implementation charter for recommendation 4: -- The programs that we currently have did not exist or were just getting started when these recommendations were developed. -- Two programs: ICANN Community Recognition Program, ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award >From the chat: Mary Wong: The Community Recognition program spans all officers who are stepping down from SO, AC, SG and Constituency leadership. -- This can be added to the text. -- The GNSO relies on Working Groups to do the main work of the GNSO. Noting that the more people you award the prize, the less valuable the prize, how can we cover more WG participants, leaders, and those who are doing the difficult work in the future? -- Staff is evolving the Community Recognition Program to recognize WG participants that may take place throughout the year. -- Between now and the next AGM, there will likely be ways to recognize WG volunteers. -- Some other forms of recognition exist, for example when a WG is closed, the Council passes a resolution thanking the WG for its work. 4. Discussion of implementation charter for recommendation 34: -- Is this recommendation only focused on effectiveness of the rotation or are there other points? -- The recommendation itself is limited in scope. It is only focused on rotation. -- If it is only focused on this point, may want to add a suggestion for periodic reminder to review rotation. -- Text in the scope statement comes from GNSO Review Working Party. There is no definition of effectiveness, but WGs are doing an assessment of effectiveness to see if rotation is working. -- Staff may want to add that there is ongoing assessment by WGs and periodic assessments of attendance by leadership. -- When leadership teams and look at effectiveness it may be different for different working groups. Second goal may be to encourage participation from those who may not be participating from that time zone. Rotation, even if it loses attendance from other time zones may still be deemed valuable. It is a bit of a balancing act that the leadership are in the best position to evaluate. >From the chat: Marika Konings: From a personal experience on the RDS WG, the out of bounds rotation definitely gets a lot less attendance than the 'normal' WG meeting, but the leadership is committed to keeping this rotation to accomodate participants from the Asia-Pacific timezone, regardless of lesser attendance. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i've noticed that marika.... i am on the RDS Mary Wong: +1 to Marika's observation from the RPM Working Group Mary Wong: As Emily is saying, we do, however, get grumbling from either American or European-based folks on rotations that are APAC-friendly, but that is simply a function of the fact that currently WG membership is dominated by volunteers from those regions. That may change in the future, 5. Discussion of implementation charter for recommendations 5, 9, and 17: -- For the survey, the name is required but it is kept confidential. This field is used to confirm that the individual is a Working Group member. >From the chat: Mary Wong: Yes, name is required to make sure the person responding is a WG member in fact. However, the information is kept confidential. Marika Konings: Summary information is published but not attributed as far as I recall -- May want to provide example answers in the survey. -- Staff will review language regarding confidentiality of names and will also revisit if text is clear regarding expectations about responses in the survey. Staff will revise recommendations if necessary.

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from GNSO Review WG call on Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 13:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 30, 2017

Nov. 30, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3, AC Recording, attendance and AC Chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 13:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-30nov17-en.mp3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailer.samanage.com_wf_…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6mwvy3nt8d/<https://participate.icann.org/p6mwvy3nt8d/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=da98784bd396b38e…> 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Attendance Members: Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate) Rafik Dammak (NCSG Primary) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary) Jennifer Wolfe (RySG Primary) Lawrence Owalale Roberts (BC Primary) Participants: Kris Seeburn (NCUC) On Audio Only: none Apologies: Jen Wolfe ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Emily Barabas Berry Cobb Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 30 November 2017 Nathalie Peregrine: Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group call on Thursday 30 November at 13:00 UTC Nathalie Peregrine: Agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Krishna Seeburn - Kris:got disconnected Nathalie Peregrine:Glad you're back :) Krishna Seeburn - Kris:hi all Krishna Seeburn - Kris:it can ge gated access and will need members acceptance Jen Wolfe:I am on hold to get on the call Nathalie Peregrine:I ll alert the operator Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Hi everybody Krishna Seeburn - Kris:hi Krishna Seeburn - Kris:you sould have a why as we well Krishna Seeburn - Kris:25th may 2018 Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i think we need to do something soonest Marika Konings:One comment in relation to the SOI, following up on Mary's update, at some point it may also need to be considered whether SOIs need to be published publicly without any kind of access control (is that proportional to the purpose?). One could for example consider whether this information is only visible after logging into the wiki space, with clear information available how a log in can be obtained so it is still accessible, but there are some access requirements in place. Nathalie Peregrine:Lawrence Owalale-Roberts has joined the audio bridge Jen Wolfe:I agree with Wolf Ulrich Krishna Seeburn - Kris:May 2018 will impact........ Krishna Seeburn - Kris:from gdpr Mary Wong:Thanks for clarifying, Julie - that's what I meant about scope, in two respects: specific to the implementation of the current recommendations, and more broadly for the GNSO Operating Procedures. Mary Wong:Thanks everyone for having me on the call; I will be sure to update you all as soon as we have more information, hopefully imminently. Emily Barabas:Is the document not displaying for anyone else? Or is it an issue on my end? Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i see it Marika Konings:I am seeing it Nathalie Peregrine:I see it Sara Bockey:i see it Nathalie Peregrine:please log out and back in quickly,iy should fix it Mary Wong:The Community Recognition program spans all officers who are stepping down from SO, AC, SG and Constituency leadership. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:that was done.... Mary Wong:That's why we had 49 at ICANN60 :) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:How about WG volunteers? Mary Wong:We will be starting this Award cycle, beginning with a call for nominations, soon. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i agree with you wolf...may be that should be something to consider Mary Wong:@Julie, I can answer Wolf-Ulrich. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:very true and is great actually Krishna Seeburn - Kris:it has helped Krishna Seeburn - Kris:perhaps one other thing we should also think of is that wearing out of volunteers Krishna Seeburn - Kris:do we have a way to ensure continuity for example Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:ok Julie! Marika Konings:From a personal experience on the RDS WG, the out of bounds rotation definitely gets a lot less attendance than the 'normal' WG meeting, but the leadership is committed to keeping this rotation to accomodate participants from the Asia-Pacific timezone, regardless of lesser attendance. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i've notcied that marika.... i am on the RDS Mary Wong:+1 to Marika's observation from the RPM Working Group Mary Wong:As Emily is saying, we do, however, get grumbling from either American or European-based folks on rotations that are APAC-friendly, but that is simply a function of the fact that currently WG membership is dominated by volunteers from those regions. That may change in the future, Marika Konings:In theory, everyone is always supportive of the idea of rotation, until they realise it means that they have to do a call at 4.00 am :-) rafik:sharing the pain Marika Konings:and of course, with all being volunteers and having day jobs, this is completely understandable Sara Bockey:I've noticed the same with rotation times for APAC. It also seems to draw more people from N Am & EU than APAC Marika Konings:@Sara - some are of the view that having 1 out of 4 calls in their timezone is not sufficient for them to effectively participate so some may just give up? Sara Bockey:I can see that...makes sense rafik:rotation worked well for ccwg. Sara Bockey:But that could be said for everyone when meetings rotate from morning/afternoon/evening Marika Konings:but CCWG ran on a pretty short timeline so maybe that made it easier for people to commit to rotation (and of course, high stakes outcome :-) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:@Marika: It happened twice to me due to travelling; but I realized it was the wrong day :-) Krishna Seeburn - Kris:why not bring them from 1to 5? 1 to 7 seems a bit unreasonable Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Is the survey anonymous? Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i do not think it is anonymous.... Sara Bockey:It may be that some are just more steadfast in attending during set hours due to work or family obligations. Emily Barabas:Yes, I believe it is. One moment. Will confirm. Emily Barabas:Apologies, I am wrong and Kris is right :) The name is required. Mary Wong:Yes, name is rquired to make sure the person responding is a WG member in fact. However, the information is kept confidential. Marika Konings:Summary information is published but not attributed as far as I recall Krishna Seeburn - Kris:it depends also on the surveys as well Marika Konings:Apologies, but I have to drop off for another call Sara Bockey:thanks all Mary Wong:Thanks everyone! Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:thanks bye Krishna Seeburn - Kris:thanks all

1 0

Agenda and Materials for 30 November Meeting 13:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the draft agenda for the meeting on Thursday, 30 November at 13:00 UTC. Please also see the attached materials. Draft agenda: Review agenda/SOIs Discussion of revised charter for recommendations 26-29 Discussion of implementation charter for recommendation 4 Discussion of implementation charter for recommendation 34 Discussion of implementation charter for recommendations 5, 9, and 17 (time permitting) Meeting schedule and participation – including reminders to SGs/Cs to confirm Primary & Alternate members AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Fwd: Re: [Ntfy-gnso-review-wg] GNSO Review Working Group Meeting
by Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 2017

Julie and others, I've seen the invitations on future meetings. The one scheduled on 01 Feb 2018 clashes with the NCPH meeting in LA. So it should be moved accordingly. Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

UPDATE: Feedback on Timing of GNSO Review Working Group Calls
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 27, 2017

Nov. 27, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, The feedback received suggested that Option 2 – 1300 UTC – is the preferred option. Thus, staff will send a meeting notice for the upcoming meeting on Thursday, 30 November for 1300 UTC, and for the subsequent bi-weekly meetings. Note that there will be no meeting the week between the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, as is customary. Thus, the meeting in December will be on Thursday, 14 December at 1300 UTC, but there will be no meeting on 28 December. Meetings will resume the first week in January, beginning on Thursday, 04 January at 1300 UTC. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 4:31 PM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER: Feedback on Timing of GNSO Review Working Group Calls Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. It was noted during the meeting on 15 November that attendance has often been low at WG meetings and not all SGs and Cs have been represented. The WG noted that this could be a consequence of the timing of the meetings being inconvenient. Thus, per this action item from the meeting, “Send email to the WG list about the timing of the meeting and inviting feedback about changing the schedule” staff notes that due to the switch from daylight savings time to standard time, the call on 16 November stayed at 1200 UTC, but this caused the call to fall an hour earlier for some time zones, such as at 0700 EST. We have the option to keep the calls at 1200 UTC, move them to 1300 UTC, or to hold a Doodle poll to find a new day and time for a call. Please provide feedback on these options below at your earliest convenience, but no later than Monday, 27 November to confirm the timing of the call on Thursday, 30 November. You may indicate your preference by placing an “x” mark in front of the preferred option: _____ Option 1: 1200 UTC on Thursdays bi-weekly _____ Option 2: 1300 UTC on Thursdays bi-weekly _____ Option 3: Hold a Doodle Poll If we don’t receive enough responses to make a conclusive determination on the timing we’ll use the time of 1200 UTC for the call on 30 November but follow up with a Doodle poll for subsequent meetings. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

REMINDER: Feedback on Timing of GNSO Review Working Group Calls
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 22, 2017

Nov. 22, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. It was noted during the meeting on 15 November that attendance has often been low at WG meetings and not all SGs and Cs have been represented. The WG noted that this could be a consequence of the timing of the meetings being inconvenient. Thus, per this action item from the meeting, “Send email to the WG list about the timing of the meeting and inviting feedback about changing the schedule” staff notes that due to the switch from daylight savings time to standard time, the call on 16 November stayed at 1200 UTC, but this caused the call to fall an hour earlier for some time zones, such as at 0700 EST. We have the option to keep the calls at 1200 UTC, move them to 1300 UTC, or to hold a Doodle poll to find a new day and time for a call. Please provide feedback on these options below at your earliest convenience, but no later than Monday, 27 November to confirm the timing of the call on Thursday, 30 November. You may indicate your preference by placing an “x” mark in front of the preferred option: _____ Option 1: 1200 UTC on Thursdays bi-weekly _____ Option 2: 1300 UTC on Thursdays bi-weekly _____ Option 3: Hold a Doodle Poll If we don’t receive enough responses to make a conclusive determination on the timing we’ll use the time of 1200 UTC for the call on 30 November but follow up with a Doodle poll for subsequent meetings. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Feedback on Timing of GNSO Review Working Group Calls
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 17, 2017

Nov. 17, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, It was noted during the meeting on 15 November that attendance has often been low at WG meetings and not all SGs and Cs have been represented. The WG noted that this could be a consequence of the timing of the meetings being inconvenient. Thus, per this action item from the meeting, “Send email to the WG list about the timing of the meeting and inviting feedback about changing the schedule” staff notes that due to the switch from daylight savings time to standard time, the call on 16 November stayed at 1200 UTC, but this caused the call to fall an hour earlier for some time zones, such as at 0700 EST. We have the option to keep the calls at 1200 UTC, move them to 1300 UTC, or to hold a Doodle poll to find a new day and time for a call. Please provide feedback on these options below at your earliest convenience, but no later than Monday, 27 November to confirm the timing of the call on Thursday, 30 November. You may indicate your preference by placing an “x” mark in front of the preferred option: _____ Option 1: 1200 UTC on Thursdays bi-weekly _____ Option 2: 1300 UTC on Thursdays bi-weekly _____ Option 3: Hold a Doodle Poll If we don’t receive enough responses to make a conclusive determination on the timing we’ll use the time of 1200 UTC for the call on 30 November but follow up with a Doodle poll for subsequent meetings. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

6 5

Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: Feedback on Timing of GNSO Review Working Group Calls
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 16, 2017

Nov. 16, 2017

Good idea Marilyn. Here they are: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Attendance+Log. They are maintained on the wiki. The attendance for today’s call will need to be recorded, but it also is available here: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2017-11-16+GNSO+Review+WG. Best, Julie From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 3:54 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Sara Bockey <sbockey(a)godaddy.com>, "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: Feedback on Timing of GNSO Review Working Group Calls julie, can you post attendance records? that might be helpful to analyze whether time zones are the challenge. From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:51 PM To: Sara Bockey; gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: Feedback on Timing of GNSO Review Working Group Calls Sara, Thanks for your quick and helpful response! Those are very good points and we’ll take them into consideration. Kind regards, Julie From: Sara Bockey <sbockey(a)godaddy.com> Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 3:48 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: Sara Bockey <sbockey(a)godaddy.com> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] Feedback on Timing of GNSO Review Working Group Calls Thanks, Julie. As I mentioned during the call, because AZ doesn’t observe DST, the time didn’t change for me, but it’s an early call nonetheless, 5am. With the time change, the call is now at 4am for the Pacific coast folks. Not sure how many members are west coast, but I can see that being painful. That said, 1200 or 1300 UTC would work for me. I’m not going to complain if I get a sleep in a bit ;-) sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 1:38 PM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] Feedback on Timing of GNSO Review Working Group Calls Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, It was noted during the meeting on 15 November that attendance has often been low at WG meetings and not all SGs and Cs have been represented. The WG noted that this could be a consequence of the timing of the meetings being inconvenient. Thus, per this action item from the meeting, “Send email to the WG list about the timing of the meeting and inviting feedback about changing the schedule” staff notes that due to the switch from daylight savings time to standard time, the call on 16 November stayed at 1200 UTC, but this caused the call to fall an hour earlier for some time zones, such as at 0700 EST. We have the option to keep the calls at 1200 UTC, move them to 1300 UTC, or to hold a Doodle poll to find a new day and time for a call. Please provide feedback on these options below at your earliest convenience, but no later than Monday, 27 November to confirm the timing of the call on Thursday, 30 November. You may indicate your preference by placing an “x” mark in front of the preferred option: __X___ Option 1: 1200 UTC on Thursdays bi-weekly __X___ Option 2: 1300 UTC on Thursdays bi-weekly _____ Option 3: Hold a Doodle Poll If we don’t receive enough responses to make a conclusive determination on the timing we’ll use the time of 1200 UTC for the call on 30 November but follow up with a Doodle poll for subsequent meetings. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-review-wg] [Ext] Re: Feedback on Timing of GNSO Review Working Group Calls
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 16, 2017

Nov. 16, 2017

Sara, Thanks for your quick and helpful response! Those are very good points and we’ll take them into consideration. Kind regards, Julie From: Sara Bockey <sbockey(a)godaddy.com> Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 3:48 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: Sara Bockey <sbockey(a)godaddy.com> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] Feedback on Timing of GNSO Review Working Group Calls Thanks, Julie. As I mentioned during the call, because AZ doesn’t observe DST, the time didn’t change for me, but it’s an early call nonetheless, 5am. With the time change, the call is now at 4am for the Pacific coast folks. Not sure how many members are west coast, but I can see that being painful. That said, 1200 or 1300 UTC would work for me. I’m not going to complain if I get a sleep in a bit ;-) sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. From: Gnso-review-wg <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 1:38 PM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] Feedback on Timing of GNSO Review Working Group Calls Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, It was noted during the meeting on 15 November that attendance has often been low at WG meetings and not all SGs and Cs have been represented. The WG noted that this could be a consequence of the timing of the meetings being inconvenient. Thus, per this action item from the meeting, “Send email to the WG list about the timing of the meeting and inviting feedback about changing the schedule” staff notes that due to the switch from daylight savings time to standard time, the call on 16 November stayed at 1200 UTC, but this caused the call to fall an hour earlier for some time zones, such as at 0700 EST. We have the option to keep the calls at 1200 UTC, move them to 1300 UTC, or to hold a Doodle poll to find a new day and time for a call. Please provide feedback on these options below at your earliest convenience, but no later than Monday, 27 November to confirm the timing of the call on Thursday, 30 November. You may indicate your preference by placing an “x” mark in front of the preferred option: __X___ Option 1: 1200 UTC on Thursdays bi-weekly __X___ Option 2: 1300 UTC on Thursdays bi-weekly _____ Option 3: Hold a Doodle Poll If we don’t receive enough responses to make a conclusive determination on the timing we’ll use the time of 1200 UTC for the call on 30 November but follow up with a Doodle poll for subsequent meetings. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0