November 2017 - Gnso-review-wg

Confirmation Requested: GNSO Review Working Group Members
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 16, 2017

Nov. 16, 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

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 16 November
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 16, 2017

Nov. 16, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 16 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 16 November Action Items: Send membership list to SG/Cs to see if there need to be updates to the primary or alternate members. Send email to the WG list about the timing of the meeting and inviting feedback about changing the schedule. Staff will revise and recirculate the implementation charter for recommendations 26-29 for further discussion in the next meeting. Notes: 1. Update from ICANN60: -- The report was accepted, and an update was provided during the GNSO Council session. The WG will provide additional updates if there are any changes to the timeline for the group. 2. Consensus call for Recommendations 10 and 11, and Recommendation 18: -- The call was extended for 3 weeks as it fell during the ICANN60 meeting. -- The call ended on 09 November. -- As no objections were raised the recommendations were deemed approved as implemented by full consensus. -- Staff sent an update with a link to those charters in the Report on the Progress of Implementation to the staff supporting the OEC. 3. Work Plan for Phases 2 and 3: -- This work plan is in line with the timeline presented to the GNSO Council, and might even be a bit aggressive in terms of goals. -- It provides targets for dates by which staff will draft charters for specific recommendations. -- Some dates may change due to dependences, in particular for items that are waiting on outcomes of the CCWG Accountability. -- WG members will review and come back to the list with comments. 4. Discussion of Revised Charter for Recommendations 26-29: -- This is the combined recommendations for 26-29 on stakeholder group and constituency membership and Statements of Interest. -- Staff tried to see if these issues were addresses for procedures already in place; redline language suggests changes to reflect this. -- Recommendation 26: Staff looked at language in Chapter 5. Staff suggested that "Committee" in the text could include "Executive Committee." It's already a requirement that relationships need to be called out. In the event of confidentiality, there are two other questions that address your interests or position - whether you are representing someone else or whether you have additional arrangements, benefits etc. -- The current procedures appear to encompass recommendation 26. -- Recommendation 27 is different than just SOIs, it refers to providing lists of members as well as links to SOIs. -- In attachment B, it states that here are lists of members available in a centrally located place -- gnso.icann.org. -- We are getting more people in Working Groups who are not members of constituencies or stakeholder groups and people just say they are part of NCUC. Maybe this recommendation could help to keep information about members in a central location to avoid these inconsistencies. -- The issue of maintaining the integrity of the list - that appears to be out of scope for this recommendation. There isn't anything in these recommendations that speaks to this issue. The SOI functionality will eventually migrate to the Global Enrollment Platform will allow for greater integration. Staff can add reference to this in the charter. -- There might also be potential changes to the SOI form, for example "Are you participating in a particular SG/C," which will force people to think a little more carefully about their affiliations. -- We may note the importance of having an enhanced SOI in which there is a clearer link between the affiliations stated in the profile and the corresponding groups. -- Regarding GDPR, should the group make a recommendation or is there a dependency on the overall work being done within ICANN regarding GDPR. -- This might need to be an overarching statement for each of these recommendations. The way lists are administered might be changed due to GDPR in ways we might not yet be able to anticipate. We might need to call this out before we get into the details of each recommendation. -- Do we need to make a note in specific parts of the charter where we deem it necessary? Perhaps staff could develop language that could be added where applicable. -- We might need to call it out in the research staff has done in the solutions section and then possibly again in the WG determination section. -- Staff can include in the charter the latest information on the platform, noting that it is subject to change. Not sure if FY19 is an accurate target date to include in the charter. -- Staff can see if Chris Gift's team could provide an update to this group about plans for the platform. -- Recommendation 28: Chapter 6.0 of the operating procedures is on SG/Cs. The recommendation says that key clauses should be made mandatory. Staff went back to see how these provisions were developed. Key clauses use the word "should" instead of "must" or “shall”. The intent was that these were supposed to be mandatory and these procedures should be followed. There wouldn't be changes to the clauses that would change the intent. -- Every time you try to come to a consensus about what is going to be done in an international environment, "shall" or "should" is common language. It is a kind of binding obligation. We can leave it that there is a common understanding among those working on this issue, including the GNSO and the Council, that it is a binding rule. -- This is consistent with staff recollection of the discussion. -- Other part of the recommendation - there should be sanctions for non-compliance. -- There are sanctions built into the text already. In Chapter 5, staff must check that SOIs are completed. There is a statement at the beginning of every WG meeting in which the chair asks about updates to SOIs. It is a standard part of WG Guidelines. -- The GNSO Secretariat can confirm that if a person doesn't have an SOI, they are taken off the member list until the SOI is completed. This is a working sanction that is being applied. -- Staff is not vetting the SOI, but checking that it is complete. -- Are there any cases in the past where sanctions were applied? -- It does occasionally happen that a new member hasn't posted an SOI and was prevented from participating until the SOI was posted. >From the chat: Marika Konings: An interesting suggestion was made during the public forum at ICANN60 to 'force' people to keep SOIs up to date - what if an SOI expires after x amount of time so that people have to review / update their SOI on a regular basis. Marika Konings: because that seems to be one of the main issues at the moment, that people forget to check / update their SOIs when changes occur Marika Konings: Similarly, with GDPR, additional consideration may need to be given with regards to how consent is requested and access to this info? Not sure whether this is in scope for the WG, but something that staff may need to look into? rafik: @Marika I have feeling that current platform is not optimal for SOI management. Marika Konings: @Rafik - yes, I think you are absolutely right. Staff has been pushing for a WG sign up tool which would also manage SOIs as the wiki is definitely not ideal. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: perhaps have a clear document which states any conflict of interest Lawrence Olawale-Roberts: Good points to note Marika Lawrence Olawale-Roberts: @Rafik is the suggested feature does not come as a standard it could be customised by the provider Krishna Seeburn - Kris: +1 rafik Krishna Seeburn - Kris: that is true Marika Konings: @Rafik - we have noticed the same issue. Maybe we could add a clarification to the SOI, basically explain for each field what info is expected to be filled out so that it is also clear that affiliation refers to membership, not whether you feel affiliated with a certain perspective. rafik: +1 Marika Konings: it may not require a change to the operating procedures it is just providing additional info to help people fill out the form Krishna Seeburn - Kris: +1 too Krishna Seeburn - Kris: with regards to gdpr we need to ensure that information presented follow the questions are well stated to release of information Marika Konings: staff can only check for completeness, not for accuracy...

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from GNSO Review WG call on Thursday, 16 November 2017 at 12:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 16, 2017

Nov. 16, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3, AC Recording, attendance and AC Chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on Thursday, 16 November 2017 at 12:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-16nov17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p97fhnxdixi/<https://participate.icann.org/p97fhnxdixi/?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) Lawrence Owalale-Roberts (BC Primary) Participants: Kris Seeburn (NCUC) Pascal Bekono (NCUC) On Audio Only: none Apologies: Jen Wolfe ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Emily Barabas Marika Konings Berry Cobb Maryam Bakoshi 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 16 November 2017 Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group call on Thursday 16 November at 12:00 UTC Krishna Seeburn - Kris:hi all...hope everyone is doing fine... Krishna Seeburn - Kris:thanks forthe update Sara Bockey:it stayed the same for me - 5am - AZ does observe DST :) Sara Bockey:oops....doesn't observe Marika Konings:We are trying to get hold of Julie - unfortunately she is the expert on this topic so it is difficult for other staff members to jump in :-( Berry Cobb:@Sara, I do miss that part of AZ. ;-) Krishna Seeburn - Kris:should not be a big issue Nathalie Peregrine:Rafik Dammak has joined the call rafik:thanks Wolf-Ulrich rafik:hi all Krishna Seeburn - Kris:no good....let's move Pascal Bekono:hi all Krishna Seeburn - Kris:suggest 1 week Lawrence Olawale-Roberts:hi all Marika Konings:An interesting suggestion was made during the public forum at ICANN60 to 'force' people to keep SOIs up to date - what if an SOI expires after x amount of time so that people have to review / update their SOI on a regular basis. Marika Konings:because that seems to be one of the main issues at the moment, that people forget to check / update their SOIs when changes occur Marika Konings:Similarly, with GDPR, additional consideration may need to be given with regards to how consent is requested and access to this info? Not sure whether this is in scope for the WG, but something that staff may need to look into? rafik:@Marika I have feeling that current platform is not optimal for SOI management Marika Konings:@Rafik - yes, I think you are absolutely right. Staff has been pushing for a WG sign up tool which would also manage SOIs as the wiki is definitely not ideal. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:perhaps have a clear document which states any conflict of interest Lawrence Olawale-Roberts:Good points to note Marika Lawrence Olawale-Roberts:@Rafik is the suggested feature does not come as a standard it could be customised by the provider Krishna Seeburn - Kris:+1 rafik Krishna Seeburn - Kris:that is true Marika Konings:@Rafik - we have noticed the same issue. Maybe we could add a clarification to the SOI, basically explain for each field what info is expected to be filled out so that it is also clear that affiliation refers to membership, not whether you feel affiliated with a certain perspective. rafik:+1 Marika Konings:it may not require a change to the operating procedures it is just providing additional info to help people fill out the form Krishna Seeburn - Kris:+1 too Lawrence Olawale-Roberts:I need a daily out please Krishna Seeburn - Kris:with regards to gdpr we need to ensure that information presented follow the questions are well stated to release of information Nathalie Peregrine:@Lawrence, the oeprator is trying to reach you on both numbers provided. Krishna Seeburn - Kris:perhaps a note requesting whether the legitimate person is willing to release their information rafik:@Julie is it possible to get update from Chris Gift about the new platform? he made presentation to diveristy subgroup a while ago Krishna Seeburn - Kris:should --- make more sense....culturallly it makes it clearer to others Marika Konings:staff can only check for completeness, not for accuracy... Nathalie Peregrine:Staff insist heavily on SOI's completeness, but we do not necessarily bar members without SOI from attending calls. Nathalie Peregrine:Only observers are barred and removed from calls. Marika Konings:I'm sorry, but I have to drop here. Bye all. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Bye Marika Krishna Seeburn - Kris:Well we had an issue at last ICANN meeting.....someone from the GAC changed SOI to reflect NCUC when that person was still and still continue to be Government Krishna Seeburn - Kris:perhaps we could apply something that says if there are changes in their SOI they should update it Krishna Seeburn - Kris:i support the idea as well Krishna Seeburn - Kris:thanks bye

1 0

Agenda and Materials for 16 November Meeting 12:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 16, 2017

Nov. 16, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the draft agenda for the meeting on Thursday, 16 November at 12:00 UTC. Please also see the attached materials: a suggested work plan for Phase 2 and 3 recommendations; a revision of the charter for recommendations 26-29 with suggestions from staff re: implementation (in redlined and clean versions) Draft agenda: Review agenda/SOIs Update from ICANN60 – Briefing to GNSO Council on 01 November Consensus Calls on Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11, and 18 – Ended 09 November Work Plan for Phase 2 and 3 Recommendations Discussion of revised charter for recommendations 26-29 Meeting schedule and participation (Reminders to SGs/Cs to confirm Primary & Alternate members?) AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

CLOSED - CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendations 10 & 11 Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 10, 2017

Nov. 10, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This Consensus Call below closed on 09 November and no objections were received. As there were no objections the implementation of Recommendations 10 and 11 is considered agreed by full consensus. See the latest status at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Cons…. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 10:49 AM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER - CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendations 10 & 11 Implementation Charter Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. 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

CLOSED-CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 18 Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 10, 2017

Nov. 10, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This Consensus Call below closed on 09 November and no objections were received. As there were no objections the implementation of Recommendation 18 is considered agreed by full consensus. See the latest status at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Cons…. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, November 6, 2017 at 11:58 AM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER: CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 18 Implementatio Charter Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. 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

REMINDER - CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendations 10 & 11 Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 8, 2017

Nov. 8, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. 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

REMINDER: CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 18 Implementatio Charter
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 6, 2017

Nov. 6, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. 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