May 2017 - Gnso-review-wg - lists.icann.org

CLOSED-CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 16 GNSO Review Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This Consensus Call closed on 29 May and no objections were received. As there were no objections the implementation of Recommendation 16 is considered agreed by full consensus. 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: Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 10:51 AM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER-CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 16 GNSO Review Implementation Charter Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 11 May, this is a consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 16. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below. Per the action items, staff included in the charter text the excerpt of the framework for the Policy Impact Assessment from the template for the Working Group Initial Report. In addition, staff included as an appendix the “Hints and Tips” page concerning metrics. Staff also made some minor editorial changes. The last version of the charter, with changes noted above, is attached for your review. As noted in the attached charter, Recommendation 16 states, “That a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a standard part of any policy process.” After discussing this recommendation at length during multiple meetings the WG determined that the recommendation had been implemented as stated in the charter based on activities that have already occurred. Working Group members are requested to respond to this consensus call by COB Monday, 29 May. For a list of Working Group members and the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies represented see:https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/WG+members+and+mailing+list. Please note that if no objections are raised, we will take that to mean there is approval of the charter as written. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Background on Decision-Making from the Working Group Charter: Per the Working Group Charter at https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Charter?preview=/61610405/61610404… the WG conducts decision-making via consensus. Specifically, the Charter states: “In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the GNSO Review Working Group shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call, they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies appointed Members of the Working Group. The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: 1. Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. 2. Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” The Charter further states: “In the case of recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, only recommendations that have achieved full consensus of the WG shall be forwarded to the GNSO Council. All other recommendations shall be forwarded if they achieve either consensus or full consensus of the WG.” In the case of this consensus call, as the implementation does not result in any new recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, the recommendation will be decided via consensus, although if there are no objections it may be that the decision will be full consensus. Action Items/Discussion Notes 11 May Action Items: Recommendation 16: Staff will 1) revise the charter to make sure that there is no relevant language/reference from the strategic plan that may be missing; 2) make noted editorial changes and check links; 3) append the PIA framework from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Initial Report Template for reference; 4) send the final revised charter to the Working Group for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Recommendation 18: Staff is creating a standalone charter for consideration and further discussion by the Working Group. Recommendation 33: 1) Representatives on this WG to have their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies answer the questionnaire, which also asks about informal practices that encourage diversity. Deadline is 01 June. This charter will be revisited following receipt of the Stakeholder Group and Constituency responses to the Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team questionnaire, due on 01 June. 2) Staff also will contact support staff for the SGs and Cs to make sure that all procedures have been compiled. Recommendations 24/25: Staff will create a charter for consideration on the next Working Group Call on 25 May at 1200 UTC. Overarching Questions: The Working Group requested that staff should collect and track questions raised by the Working Group that may either relate to several GNSO review recommendations, to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or to GNSO processes in general. Discussion Notes: 1. Discussion of Recommendation 16: -- Goal: Strategic plan -- seems incomplete; check it. -- Separated from recommendation #18 to be considered in a standalone charter. -- WG to determine to what extent the DMPM recommendations fulfil the requirements of this recommendation -- Staff evaluation is that this recommendation has indeed been covered by the recommendations of the GNSO DMPM WG final report (specifically recommendations 3, 6 and 7, which have contributed to the creation of a new GNSO WG charter template available via link in the GNSO WG Guidelines). -- Should we start to create our metrics to put to this list? Maybe it is valuable to have a discussion here -- whether these are the ones that could be valuable for the impact analysis? -- ICANN staff: if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. -- Up to the WG to discuss the PIA and the related metric that should be used for that. It is the WG that is guiding this and creating the metrics that should be used. -- Reference to the strawman -- are we expected to provide the guidelines for the working group to develop metrics? Depending on the context of the background of WG are there metrics applicable to every WG? -- There are points in the charter and suggestions for metrics -- general metrics can be subdivided. -- How can we as a volunteer community ask the right questions? Where is the expertise to help guide us? -- May be too early to address this question, but may come out of further work of this WG -- don't forget that there are maybe questions that have an impact on the results of all of this. -- This issue could be consider as an overarching question by the WG. Suggestion to keep these questions as for further work for this WG. >From the chat: Berry Cobb: I'd just add that DMPM's attempt was more of a cultural change and to develop a generic framework. They did not want to be to prescriptive as each issue the GNSO deals with is different. Lori Schulman: I feel like we need a highly expert "metrics czar" Lori Schulman: It adds to my comment but doesn't really address it Lori Schulman: Understand Berry's point as each WG is independent but I think we can get so in the weeds that we may not know how to ask the right questions Berry Cobb: @Lori as a WG formulates it's recommendations, the metrics should also be defined as a part of the draft report. The public comments and other input can help to guide the WG as to whether they selected the right ones. Lori Schulman: Agree with Rafik about more and more tasks Amr Elsadr: Apologies for the bad audio. I was trying to say that, in response to Lori's concern, if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. Berry Cobb: +1 Amr renata aquino: +1 Marika Konings: @Lori - how can that be addressed here? Julie Hedlund: @Lori: This may be out of scope of this recommendation implementation, but may be addressed separately by this Working Group. Berry Cobb: That's the world of forecasting and it is still an imperfect science. Lori Schulman: I understand Marika's and Julie's concerns perhaps we can highlight this as an ancillary issue Marika Konings: @Berry - do we have a kind of FAQ on the DMPM recommendations? It may be helpful to have something like that to remind WG members of their obligations in this regard? Lori Schulman: Can we at least suggest to staff a running list of questions including the issues we discussed today? Berry Cobb: As noted in this charter, refer to this page and review the "Working Group Charter" and Initial Working Group Report" links they contain DOCX files that contain the metrics framework. https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures 2. Discussion of Recommendation 33: -- This recommendation may or may not require changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or GNSO SG/C charters/bylaws -- Staff performed a preliminary review of GNSO SG/C procedures for selecting GNSO Councilors. -- WS2 working on the first draft of the report [on diversity] and starting on recommendation, but issued questionnaire to SO/ACs asking about their diversity and current practices and procedures, also SGs and Cs. We can share that here. -- Suggestion that the WG could wait until we have the responses from the SGs and Cs. -- Get more guidance concerning the cultural diversity -- any agreed paper? Other constituencies may have the same problem to get a solid basis for getting answers to these questions. >From the chat: Pascal Bekono: Maybe Rafik who is help us Pascal Bekono: Rafik is a rapporteur in ccwg renata aquino: +1 Rafik on sharing here the results Amr Elsadr: Note, from Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws: Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender.

1 0

Mp3, attendance , AC chat and AC recording / GNSO Review Working Group 25 May 2017
by Terri Agnew May 25, 2017

May 25, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3, attendance, Adobe Connect recording and chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on 25 May 2017 at 12:00 UTC. mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-25may17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p2jt3al50ue/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1d0b66cd3929354d…> https://participate.icann.org/p2jt3al50ue/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZhmsAw Attendees: Members: Heath Dixon (RrSG Primary) Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate) Jennifer Wolfe (RySG Primary) Rafik Dammak (NCSG Primary) Participants: Pascal Bekono (NCUC) Apologies: Lori Schulman (IPC Primary) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary) Lawrence Olawale-Roberts (BC Primary) Amr Elsadr - Staff ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Berry Cobb Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 25 May 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 12:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=oFSN0grrg_pn5CQk0QresmRmpb6D4fX4AjQ36P88oxM&s=1rgDeAVw7xJy34x4d9evcbdNo9kzOo4ag5AwoFT2iDc&e= Terri Agnew:Welcome Pascal Bekono Pascal Bekono:Thank you Terri. Hello dear all Terri Agnew:Welcome Heath Dixon Heath Dixon:Hello. Thank you! Marika Konings:There is the Brand Registry Group - but they are not a constituency as far as I am aware, but they are organised as a group externally to ICANN. Marika Konings:they used to have "interest groups" but if I recall well, that was to accomodate those parties that did not have contracts yet with ICANN but where in the process of getting one (new gTLDs) Berry Cobb:BRG is classified as an Association within the RySG. However, the BRG as a group does not have voting rights. It is only those .BRANDS that are individual members of the RySG that retain voting privilege. Berry Cobb:There is also a GEO group setup as the same as the BRG. Pascal Bekono:Sorry I have a question, Please concerning recommendation 24. I'm asking, I saw the flow chart of the process (pdf file), I saw that the final version was made in 2011, don't you think that it can be review ? Berry Cobb:I will self-correct myself. The Associations w/in the RySG do have DySG voting rights per its charter and if they meet eligibility criteria. Berry Cobb:sorry RySG Terri Agnew:The next GNSO Review Working Group Meeting is on Thursday, 08 June 2017 at 12:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:@Jen, apology noted for 08 June call Sara Bockey:thanks all Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone for joining today! Pascal Bekono:Thank you all Rafik:Thanks Julie for the briefing Julie Hedlund:Thank you Rafik for your helpful questions.

1 0

REMINDER-CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 16 GNSO Review Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund May 25, 2017

May 25, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 11 May, this is a consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 16. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below. Per the action items, staff included in the charter text the excerpt of the framework for the Policy Impact Assessment from the template for the Working Group Initial Report. In addition, staff included as an appendix the “Hints and Tips” page concerning metrics. Staff also made some minor editorial changes. The last version of the charter, with changes noted above, is attached for your review. As noted in the attached charter, Recommendation 16 states, “That a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a standard part of any policy process.” After discussing this recommendation at length during multiple meetings the WG determined that the recommendation had been implemented as stated in the charter based on activities that have already occurred. Working Group members are requested to respond to this consensus call by COB Monday, 29 May. For a list of Working Group members and the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies represented see:https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/WG+members+and+mailing+list. Please note that if no objections are raised, we will take that to mean there is approval of the charter as written. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Background on Decision-Making from the Working Group Charter: Per the Working Group Charter at https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Charter?preview=/61610405/61610404… the WG conducts decision-making via consensus. Specifically, the Charter states: “In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the GNSO Review Working Group shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call, they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies appointed Members of the Working Group. The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: 1. Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. 2. Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” The Charter further states: “In the case of recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, only recommendations that have achieved full consensus of the WG shall be forwarded to the GNSO Council. All other recommendations shall be forwarded if they achieve either consensus or full consensus of the WG.” In the case of this consensus call, as the implementation does not result in any new recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, the recommendation will be decided via consensus, although if there are no objections it may be that the decision will be full consensus. Action Items/Discussion Notes 11 May Action Items: Recommendation 16: Staff will 1) revise the charter to make sure that there is no relevant language/reference from the strategic plan that may be missing; 2) make noted editorial changes and check links; 3) append the PIA framework from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Initial Report Template for reference; 4) send the final revised charter to the Working Group for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Recommendation 18: Staff is creating a standalone charter for consideration and further discussion by the Working Group. Recommendation 33: 1) Representatives on this WG to have their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies answer the questionnaire, which also asks about informal practices that encourage diversity. Deadline is 01 June. This charter will be revisited following receipt of the Stakeholder Group and Constituency responses to the Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team questionnaire, due on 01 June. 2) Staff also will contact support staff for the SGs and Cs to make sure that all procedures have been compiled. Recommendations 24/25: Staff will create a charter for consideration on the next Working Group Call on 25 May at 1200 UTC. Overarching Questions: The Working Group requested that staff should collect and track questions raised by the Working Group that may either relate to several GNSO review recommendations, to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or to GNSO processes in general. Discussion Notes: 1. Discussion of Recommendation 16: -- Goal: Strategic plan -- seems incomplete; check it. -- Separated from recommendation #18 to be considered in a standalone charter. -- WG to determine to what extent the DMPM recommendations fulfil the requirements of this recommendation -- Staff evaluation is that this recommendation has indeed been covered by the recommendations of the GNSO DMPM WG final report (specifically recommendations 3, 6 and 7, which have contributed to the creation of a new GNSO WG charter template available via link in the GNSO WG Guidelines). -- Should we start to create our metrics to put to this list? Maybe it is valuable to have a discussion here -- whether these are the ones that could be valuable for the impact analysis? -- ICANN staff: if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. -- Up to the WG to discuss the PIA and the related metric that should be used for that. It is the WG that is guiding this and creating the metrics that should be used. -- Reference to the strawman -- are we expected to provide the guidelines for the working group to develop metrics? Depending on the context of the background of WG are there metrics applicable to every WG? -- There are points in the charter and suggestions for metrics -- general metrics can be subdivided. -- How can we as a volunteer community ask the right questions? Where is the expertise to help guide us? -- May be too early to address this question, but may come out of further work of this WG -- don't forget that there are maybe questions that have an impact on the results of all of this. -- This issue could be consider as an overarching question by the WG. Suggestion to keep these questions as for further work for this WG. >From the chat: Berry Cobb: I'd just add that DMPM's attempt was more of a cultural change and to develop a generic framework. They did not want to be to prescriptive as each issue the GNSO deals with is different. Lori Schulman: I feel like we need a highly expert "metrics czar" Lori Schulman: It adds to my comment but doesn't really address it Lori Schulman: Understand Berry's point as each WG is independent but I think we can get so in the weeds that we may not know how to ask the right questions Berry Cobb: @Lori as a WG formulates it's recommendations, the metrics should also be defined as a part of the draft report. The public comments and other input can help to guide the WG as to whether they selected the right ones. Lori Schulman: Agree with Rafik about more and more tasks Amr Elsadr: Apologies for the bad audio. I was trying to say that, in response to Lori's concern, if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. Berry Cobb: +1 Amr renata aquino: +1 Marika Konings: @Lori - how can that be addressed here? Julie Hedlund: @Lori: This may be out of scope of this recommendation implementation, but may be addressed separately by this Working Group. Berry Cobb: That's the world of forecasting and it is still an imperfect science. Lori Schulman: I understand Marika's and Julie's concerns perhaps we can highlight this as an ancillary issue Marika Konings: @Berry - do we have a kind of FAQ on the DMPM recommendations? It may be helpful to have something like that to remind WG members of their obligations in this regard? Lori Schulman: Can we at least suggest to staff a running list of questions including the issues we discussed today? Berry Cobb: As noted in this charter, refer to this page and review the "Working Group Charter" and Initial Working Group Report" links they contain DOCX files that contain the metrics framework. https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures 2. Discussion of Recommendation 33: -- This recommendation may or may not require changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or GNSO SG/C charters/bylaws -- Staff performed a preliminary review of GNSO SG/C procedures for selecting GNSO Councilors. -- WS2 working on the first draft of the report [on diversity] and starting on recommendation, but issued questionnaire to SO/ACs asking about their diversity and current practices and procedures, also SGs and Cs. We can share that here. -- Suggestion that the WG could wait until we have the responses from the SGs and Cs. -- Get more guidance concerning the cultural diversity -- any agreed paper? Other constituencies may have the same problem to get a solid basis for getting answers to these questions. >From the chat: Pascal Bekono: Maybe Rafik who is help us Pascal Bekono: Rafik is a rapporteur in ccwg renata aquino: +1 Rafik on sharing here the results Amr Elsadr: Note, from Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws: Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 25 May
by Julie Hedlund May 25, 2017

May 25, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 25 May. 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/2017-05-25+GNSO+Review+WG. The next call will be in two weeks on Thursday, 08 June at 1200 UTC. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 25 May Action Items: Charter for Recommendations 24/25: Staff will research Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) procedures for evaluating constituency applications and include this information in the revised charter. Staff will determine if there are publicly available links to all constituency applications and include them in the charter. Staff will provide information on how the RySG and RrSG evaluate requests for membership and provide that information to the WG as well as adding it to the Google document concerning questions that may be outside the scope of a charter. Staff will send the revised charter to the list, and call out the question concerning presumption of constituency application approval. Additional Charters: Staff should prepare additional charters for consideration at the meeting on 08 June. Discussion Notes on the Charter for Recommendations 24/25: -- Question: When we are talking about the process are we assuming the process is the same for the Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups are the same? -- NCSG -- Open to have constituencies. CSG - Not functioning as a Stakeholder Group, so adding new constituencies can be challenging. How do RySG and RrSG do it? -- Question: Is it appropriate to have a default of acceptance if all requirements are met? -- There are internal processes on how to include the constituency. There are elements like the charter, for example. Depends on how the SG sets up its own procedure. The option makes sense.

1 0

Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Call on 25 May 1200 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 25, 2017

May 25, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the notes and action items from the meeting on 11 May. The charter is attached for recommendations 24/25 in Word and PDF. These have been loaded into the Adobe Connect room for discussion during tomorrow’s call: Thursday, 25 May at 1200 UTC. Please also see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows: Review agenda SOIs Reminder of Consensus Call for Recommendations 16 (responses due 29 May) Begin discussion of Charter for Recommendations 24/25 Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 08 June AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 11 May Action Items: Recommendation 16: Staff will 1) revise the charter to make sure that there is no relevant language/reference from the strategic plan that may be missing; 2) make noted editorial changes and check links; 3) append the PIA framework from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Initial Report Template for reference; 4) send the final revised charter to the Working Group for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Recommendation 18: Staff is creating a standalone charter for consideration and further discussion by the Working Group. Recommendation 33: 1) Representatives on this WG to have their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies answer the questionnaire, which also asks about informal practices that encourage diversity. Deadline is 01 June. This charter will be revisited following receipt of the Stakeholder Group and Constituency responses to the Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team questionnaire, due on 01 June. 2) Staff also will contact support staff for the SGs and Cs to make sure that all procedures have been compiled. Recommendations 24/25: Staff will create a charter for consideration on the next Working Group Call on 25 May at 1200 UTC. Overarching Questions: The Working Group requested that staff should collect and track questions raised by the Working Group that may either relate to several GNSO review recommendations, to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or to GNSO processes in general. Discussion Notes: 1. Discussion of Recommendation 16: -- Goal: Strategic plan -- seems incomplete; check it. -- Separated from recommendation #18 to be considered in a standalone charter. -- WG to determine to what extent the DMPM recommendations fulfil the requirements of this recommendation -- Staff evaluation is that this recommendation has indeed been covered by the recommendations of the GNSO DMPM WG final report (specifically recommendations 3, 6 and 7, which have contributed to the creation of a new GNSO WG charter template available via link in the GNSO WG Guidelines). -- Should we start to create our metrics to put to this list? Maybe it is valuable to have a discussion here -- whether these are the ones that could be valuable for the impact analysis? -- ICANN staff: if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. -- Up to the WG to discuss the PIA and the related metric that should be used for that. It is the WG that is guiding this and creating the metrics that should be used. -- Reference to the strawman -- are we expected to provide the guidelines for the working group to develop metrics? Depending on the context of the background of WG are there metrics applicable to every WG? -- There are points in the charter and suggestions for metrics -- general metrics can be subdivided. -- How can we as a volunteer community ask the right questions? Where is the expertise to help guide us? -- May be too early to address this question, but may come out of further work of this WG -- don't forget that there are maybe questions that have an impact on the results of all of this. -- This issue could be consider as an overarching question by the WG. Suggestion to keep these questions as for further work for this WG. >From the chat: Berry Cobb: I'd just add that DMPM's attempt was more of a cultural change and to develop a generic framework. They did not want to be to prescriptive as each issue the GNSO deals with is different. Lori Schulman: I feel like we need a highly expert "metrics czar" Lori Schulman: It adds to my comment but doesn't really address it Lori Schulman: Understand Berry's point as each WG is independent but I think we can get so in the weeds that we may not know how to ask the right questions Berry Cobb: @Lori as a WG formulates it's recommendations, the metrics should also be defined as a part of the draft report. The public comments and other input can help to guide the WG as to whether they selected the right ones. Lori Schulman: Agree with Rafik about more and more tasks Amr Elsadr: Apologies for the bad audio. I was trying to say that, in response to Lori's concern, if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. Berry Cobb: +1 Amr renata aquino: +1 Marika Konings: @Lori - how can that be addressed here? Julie Hedlund: @Lori: This may be out of scope of this recommendation implementation, but may be addressed separately by this Working Group. Berry Cobb: That's the world of forecasting and it is still an imperfect science. Lori Schulman: I understand Marika's and Julie's concerns perhaps we can highlight this as an ancillary issue Marika Konings: @Berry - do we have a kind of FAQ on the DMPM recommendations? It may be helpful to have something like that to remind WG members of their obligations in this regard? Lori Schulman: Can we at least suggest to staff a running list of questions including the issues we discussed today? Berry Cobb: As noted in this charter, refer to this page and review the "Working Group Charter" and Initial Working Group Report" links they contain DOCX files that contain the metrics framework. https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures 2. Discussion of Recommendation 33: -- This recommendation may or may not require changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or GNSO SG/C charters/bylaws -- Staff performed a preliminary review of GNSO SG/C procedures for selecting GNSO Councilors. -- WS2 working on the first draft of the report [on diversity] and starting on recommendation, but issued questionnaire to SO/ACs asking about their diversity and current practices and procedures, also SGs and Cs. We can share that here. -- Suggestion that the WG could wait until we have the responses from the SGs and Cs. -- Get more guidance concerning the cultural diversity -- any agreed paper? Other constituencies may have the same problem to get a solid basis for getting answers to these questions. >From the chat: Pascal Bekono: Maybe Rafik who is help us Pascal Bekono: Rafik is a rapporteur in ccwg renata aquino: +1 Rafik on sharing here the results Amr Elsadr: Note, from Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws: Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender.

2 2

Announcement: Pre-ICANN59 Policy Update Webinar Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew May 22, 2017

May 22, 2017

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-22-en Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> this form by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will host a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), in preparation for the upcoming ICANN59 Policy Forum in Johannesburg, South Africa. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and to brief the community on the Empowered Community consultation and cross-community sessions taking place in Johannesburg. Briefings on the Empowered Community Consultation and Cross-Community Sessions: * Special session on the Proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendments * Next-Generation Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services (RDS) policy requirements * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) * Geographic names * Operational side of ICANN's Operating Plan and Budget * Who sets ICANN's priorities? Updates on Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and regional Internet registries (RIR) policy development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community * Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs in English for 90 minutes. The webinar will be conducted via Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, participants may submit questions using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en> here. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> this form by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. Ozan Sahin Community Engagement Support Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6218 Mobile: +90.533.641.0007 Email: ozan.sahin(a)icann.org <mailto:ozan.sahin@icann.org> Skype: ozan.sahin.icann www.icann.org

1 0

WS2 diversity questionnaire
by Rafik Dammak May 16, 2017

May 16, 2017

Hi, with regard to recommendation 33, I am sharing the diversity questionnaire that was sent to SO/AC Best, Rafik

5 5

CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 16 GNSO Review Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund May 15, 2017

May 15, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 11 May, this is a consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 16. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below. Per the action items, staff included in the charter text the excerpt of the framework for the Policy Impact Assessment from the template for the Working Group Initial Report. In addition, staff included as an appendix the “Hints and Tips” page concerning metrics. Staff also made some minor editorial changes. The last version of the charter, with changes noted above, is attached for your review. As noted in the attached charter, Recommendation 16 states, “That a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a standard part of any policy process.” After discussing this recommendation at length during multiple meetings the WG determined that the recommendation had been implemented as stated in the charter based on activities that have already occurred. Working Group members are requested to respond to this consensus call in two weeks, by COB Monday, 29 May. For a list of Working Group members and the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies represented see:https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/WG+members+and+mailing+list. Please note that if no objections are raised, we will take that to mean there is approval of the charter as written. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Background on Decision-Making from the Working Group Charter: Per the Working Group Charter at https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Charter?preview=/61610405/61610404… the WG conducts decision-making via consensus. Specifically, the Charter states: “In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the GNSO Review Working Group shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call, they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies appointed Members of the Working Group. The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: 1. Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. 2. Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” The Charter further states: “In the case of recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, only recommendations that have achieved full consensus of the WG shall be forwarded to the GNSO Council. All other recommendations shall be forwarded if they achieve either consensus or full consensus of the WG.” In the case of this consensus call, as the implementation does not result in any new recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, the recommendation will be decided via consensus, although if there are no objections it may be that the decision will be full consensus. Action Items/Discussion Notes 11 May Action Items: Recommendation 16: Staff will 1) revise the charter to make sure that there is no relevant language/reference from the strategic plan that may be missing; 2) make noted editorial changes and check links; 3) append the PIA framework from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Initial Report Template for reference; 4) send the final revised charter to the Working Group for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Recommendation 18: Staff is creating a standalone charter for consideration and further discussion by the Working Group. Recommendation 33: 1) Representatives on this WG to have their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies answer the questionnaire, which also asks about informal practices that encourage diversity. Deadline is 01 June. This charter will be revisited following receipt of the Stakeholder Group and Constituency responses to the Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team questionnaire, due on 01 June. 2) Staff also will contact support staff for the SGs and Cs to make sure that all procedures have been compiled. Recommendations 24/25: Staff will create a charter for consideration on the next Working Group Call on 25 May at 1200 UTC. Overarching Questions: The Working Group requested that staff should collect and track questions raised by the Working Group that may either relate to several GNSO review recommendations, to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or to GNSO processes in general. Discussion Notes: 1. Discussion of Recommendation 16: -- Goal: Strategic plan -- seems incomplete; check it. -- Separated from recommendation #18 to be considered in a standalone charter. -- WG to determine to what extent the DMPM recommendations fulfil the requirements of this recommendation -- Staff evaluation is that this recommendation has indeed been covered by the recommendations of the GNSO DMPM WG final report (specifically recommendations 3, 6 and 7, which have contributed to the creation of a new GNSO WG charter template available via link in the GNSO WG Guidelines). -- Should we start to create our metrics to put to this list? Maybe it is valuable to have a discussion here -- whether these are the ones that could be valuable for the impact analysis? -- ICANN staff: if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. -- Up to the WG to discuss the PIA and the related metric that should be used for that. It is the WG that is guiding this and creating the metrics that should be used. -- Reference to the strawman -- are we expected to provide the guidelines for the working group to develop metrics? Depending on the context of the background of WG are there metrics applicable to every WG? -- There are points in the charter and suggestions for metrics -- general metrics can be subdivided. -- How can we as a volunteer community ask the right questions? Where is the expertise to help guide us? -- May be too early to address this question, but may come out of further work of this WG -- don't forget that there are maybe questions that have an impact on the results of all of this. -- This issue could be consider as an overarching question by the WG. Suggestion to keep these questions as for further work for this WG. >From the chat: Berry Cobb: I'd just add that DMPM's attempt was more of a cultural change and to develop a generic framework. They did not want to be to prescriptive as each issue the GNSO deals with is different. Lori Schulman: I feel like we need a highly expert "metrics czar" Lori Schulman: It adds to my comment but doesn't really address it Lori Schulman: Understand Berry's point as each WG is independent but I think we can get so in the weeds that we may not know how to ask the right questions Berry Cobb: @Lori as a WG formulates it's recommendations, the metrics should also be defined as a part of the draft report. The public comments and other input can help to guide the WG as to whether they selected the right ones. Lori Schulman: Agree with Rafik about more and more tasks Amr Elsadr: Apologies for the bad audio. I was trying to say that, in response to Lori's concern, if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. Berry Cobb: +1 Amr renata aquino: +1 Marika Konings: @Lori - how can that be addressed here? Julie Hedlund: @Lori: This may be out of scope of this recommendation implementation, but may be addressed separately by this Working Group. Berry Cobb: That's the world of forecasting and it is still an imperfect science. Lori Schulman: I understand Marika's and Julie's concerns perhaps we can highlight this as an ancillary issue Marika Konings: @Berry - do we have a kind of FAQ on the DMPM recommendations? It may be helpful to have something like that to remind WG members of their obligations in this regard? Lori Schulman: Can we at least suggest to staff a running list of questions including the issues we discussed today? Berry Cobb: As noted in this charter, refer to this page and review the "Working Group Charter" and Initial Working Group Report" links they contain DOCX files that contain the metrics framework. https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures 2. Discussion of Recommendation 33: -- This recommendation may or may not require changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or GNSO SG/C charters/bylaws -- Staff performed a preliminary review of GNSO SG/C procedures for selecting GNSO Councilors. -- WS2 working on the first draft of the report [on diversity] and starting on recommendation, but issued questionnaire to SO/ACs asking about their diversity and current practices and procedures, also SGs and Cs. We can share that here. -- Suggestion that the WG could wait until we have the responses from the SGs and Cs. -- Get more guidance concerning the cultural diversity -- any agreed paper? Other constituencies may have the same problem to get a solid basis for getting answers to these questions. >From the chat: Pascal Bekono: Maybe Rafik who is help us Pascal Bekono: Rafik is a rapporteur in ccwg renata aquino: +1 Rafik on sharing here the results Amr Elsadr: Note, from Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws: Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender.

1 0

Overarching Questions: Google Document
by Julie Hedlund May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per this action item from the notes below: Overarching Questions: The Working Group requested that staff should collect and track questions raised by the Working Group that may either relate to several GNSO review recommendations, to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or to GNSO processes in general. Please see the Google Document at: https://docs.google.com/a/icann.org/document/d/1Kzr1r4cBVpl5J3R7NnWtxQ5r_CA…. The link allows you to comment on the document and staff can respond with changes or additions. The question raised today by Lori Schulman has been included. 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: Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 12:20 PM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 11 May Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 11 May. 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/2017-05-11+GNSO+Review+WG. The next call will be in two weeks on Thursday, 25 May at 1200 UTC. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 11 May Action Items: Recommendation 16: Staff will 1) revise the charter to make sure that there is no relevant language/reference from the strategic plan that may be missing; 2) make noted editorial changes and check links; 3) append the PIA framework from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Initial Report Template for reference; 4) send the final revised charter to the Working Group for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Recommendation 18: Staff is creating a standalone charter for consideration and further discussion by the Working Group. Recommendation 33: 1) Representatives on this WG to have their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies answer the questionnaire, which also asks about informal practices that encourage diversity. Deadline is 01 June. This charter will be revisited following receipt of the Stakeholder Group and Constituency responses to the Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team questionnaire, due on 01 June. 2) Staff also will contact support staff for the SGs and Cs to make sure that all procedures have been compiled. Recommendations 24/25: Staff will create a charter for consideration on the next Working Group Call on 25 May at 1200 UTC. Overarching Questions: The Working Group requested that staff should collect and track questions raised by the Working Group that may either relate to several GNSO review recommendations, to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or to GNSO processes in general. Discussion Notes: 1. Discussion of Recommendation 16: -- Goal: Strategic plan -- seems incomplete; check it. -- Separated from recommendation #18 to be considered in a standalone charter. -- WG to determine to what extent the DMPM recommendations fulfil the requirements of this recommendation -- Staff evaluation is that this recommendation has indeed been covered by the recommendations of the GNSO DMPM WG final report (specifically recommendations 3, 6 and 7, which have contributed to the creation of a new GNSO WG charter template available via link in the GNSO WG Guidelines). -- Should we start to create our metrics to put to this list? Maybe it is valuable to have a discussion here -- whether these are the ones that could be valuable for the impact analysis? -- ICANN staff: if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. -- Up to the WG to discuss the PIA and the related metric that should be used for that. It is the WG that is guiding this and creating the metrics that should be used. -- Reference to the strawman -- are we expected to provide the guidelines for the working group to develop metrics? Depending on the context of the background of WG are there metrics applicable to every WG? -- There are points in the charter and suggestions for metrics -- general metrics can be subdivided. -- How can we as a volunteer community ask the right questions? Where is the expertise to help guide us? -- May be too early to address this question, but may come out of further work of this WG -- don't forget that there are maybe questions that have an impact on the results of all of this. -- This issue could be consider as an overarching question by the WG. Suggestion to keep these questions as for further work for this WG. >From the chat: Berry Cobb: I'd just add that DMPM's attempt was more of a cultural change and to develop a generic framework. They did not want to be to prescriptive as each issue the GNSO deals with is different. Lori Schulman: I feel like we need a highly expert "metrics czar" Lori Schulman: It adds to my comment but doesn't really address it Lori Schulman: Understand Berry's point as each WG is independent but I think we can get so in the weeds that we may not know how to ask the right questions Berry Cobb: @Lori as a WG formulates it's recommendations, the metrics should also be defined as a part of the draft report. The public comments and other input can help to guide the WG as to whether they selected the right ones. Lori Schulman: Agree with Rafik about more and more tasks Amr Elsadr: Apologies for the bad audio. I was trying to say that, in response to Lori's concern, if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. Berry Cobb: +1 Amr renata aquino: +1 Marika Konings: @Lori - how can that be addressed here? Julie Hedlund: @Lori: This may be out of scope of this recommendation implementation, but may be addressed separately by this Working Group. Berry Cobb: That's the world of forecasting and it is still an imperfect science. Lori Schulman: I understand Marika's and Julie's concerns perhaps we can highlight this as an ancillary issue Marika Konings: @Berry - do we have a kind of FAQ on the DMPM recommendations? It may be helpful to have something like that to remind WG members of their obligations in this regard? Lori Schulman: Can we at least suggest to staff a running list of questions including the issues we discussed today? Berry Cobb: As noted in this charter, refer to this page and review the "Working Group Charter" and Initial Working Group Report" links they contain DOCX files that contain the metrics framework. https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures 2. Discussion of Recommendation 33: -- This recommendation may or may not require changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or GNSO SG/C charters/bylaws -- Staff performed a preliminary review of GNSO SG/C procedures for selecting GNSO Councilors. -- WS2 working on the first draft of the report [on diversity] and starting on recommendation, but issued questionnaire to SO/ACs asking about their diversity and current practices and procedures, also SGs and Cs. We can share that here. -- Suggestion that the WG could wait until we have the responses from the SGs and Cs. -- Get more guidance concerning the cultural diversity -- any agreed paper? Other constituencies may have the same problem to get a solid basis for getting answers to these questions. >From the chat: Pascal Bekono: Maybe Rafik who is help us Pascal Bekono: Rafik is a rapporteur in ccwg renata aquino: +1 Rafik on sharing here the results Amr Elsadr: Note, from Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws: Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 11 May
by Julie Hedlund May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 11 May. 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/2017-05-11+GNSO+Review+WG. The next call will be in two weeks on Thursday, 25 May at 1200 UTC. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 11 May Action Items: Recommendation 16: Staff will 1) revise the charter to make sure that there is no relevant language/reference from the strategic plan that may be missing; 2) make noted editorial changes and check links; 3) append the PIA framework from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Initial Report Template for reference; 4) send the final revised charter to the Working Group for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Recommendation 18: Staff is creating a standalone charter for consideration and further discussion by the Working Group. Recommendation 33: 1) Representatives on this WG to have their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies answer the questionnaire, which also asks about informal practices that encourage diversity. Deadline is 01 June. This charter will be revisited following receipt of the Stakeholder Group and Constituency responses to the Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team questionnaire, due on 01 June. 2) Staff also will contact support staff for the SGs and Cs to make sure that all procedures have been compiled. Recommendations 24/25: Staff will create a charter for consideration on the next Working Group Call on 25 May at 1200 UTC. Overarching Questions: The Working Group requested that staff should collect and track questions raised by the Working Group that may either relate to several GNSO review recommendations, to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or to GNSO processes in general. Discussion Notes: 1. Discussion of Recommendation 16: -- Goal: Strategic plan -- seems incomplete; check it. -- Separated from recommendation #18 to be considered in a standalone charter. -- WG to determine to what extent the DMPM recommendations fulfil the requirements of this recommendation -- Staff evaluation is that this recommendation has indeed been covered by the recommendations of the GNSO DMPM WG final report (specifically recommendations 3, 6 and 7, which have contributed to the creation of a new GNSO WG charter template available via link in the GNSO WG Guidelines). -- Should we start to create our metrics to put to this list? Maybe it is valuable to have a discussion here -- whether these are the ones that could be valuable for the impact analysis? -- ICANN staff: if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. -- Up to the WG to discuss the PIA and the related metric that should be used for that. It is the WG that is guiding this and creating the metrics that should be used. -- Reference to the strawman -- are we expected to provide the guidelines for the working group to develop metrics? Depending on the context of the background of WG are there metrics applicable to every WG? -- There are points in the charter and suggestions for metrics -- general metrics can be subdivided. -- How can we as a volunteer community ask the right questions? Where is the expertise to help guide us? -- May be too early to address this question, but may come out of further work of this WG -- don't forget that there are maybe questions that have an impact on the results of all of this. -- This issue could be consider as an overarching question by the WG. Suggestion to keep these questions as for further work for this WG. >From the chat: Berry Cobb: I'd just add that DMPM's attempt was more of a cultural change and to develop a generic framework. They did not want to be to prescriptive as each issue the GNSO deals with is different. Lori Schulman: I feel like we need a highly expert "metrics czar" Lori Schulman: It adds to my comment but doesn't really address it Lori Schulman: Understand Berry's point as each WG is independent but I think we can get so in the weeds that we may not know how to ask the right questions Berry Cobb: @Lori as a WG formulates it's recommendations, the metrics should also be defined as a part of the draft report. The public comments and other input can help to guide the WG as to whether they selected the right ones. Lori Schulman: Agree with Rafik about more and more tasks Amr Elsadr: Apologies for the bad audio. I was trying to say that, in response to Lori's concern, if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. Berry Cobb: +1 Amr renata aquino: +1 Marika Konings: @Lori - how can that be addressed here? Julie Hedlund: @Lori: This may be out of scope of this recommendation implementation, but may be addressed separately by this Working Group. Berry Cobb: That's the world of forecasting and it is still an imperfect science. Lori Schulman: I understand Marika's and Julie's concerns perhaps we can highlight this as an ancillary issue Marika Konings: @Berry - do we have a kind of FAQ on the DMPM recommendations? It may be helpful to have something like that to remind WG members of their obligations in this regard? Lori Schulman: Can we at least suggest to staff a running list of questions including the issues we discussed today? Berry Cobb: As noted in this charter, refer to this page and review the "Working Group Charter" and Initial Working Group Report" links they contain DOCX files that contain the metrics framework. https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures 2. Discussion of Recommendation 33: -- This recommendation may or may not require changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or GNSO SG/C charters/bylaws -- Staff performed a preliminary review of GNSO SG/C procedures for selecting GNSO Councilors. -- WS2 working on the first draft of the report [on diversity] and starting on recommendation, but issued questionnaire to SO/ACs asking about their diversity and current practices and procedures, also SGs and Cs. We can share that here. -- Suggestion that the WG could wait until we have the responses from the SGs and Cs. -- Get more guidance concerning the cultural diversity -- any agreed paper? Other constituencies may have the same problem to get a solid basis for getting answers to these questions. >From the chat: Pascal Bekono: Maybe Rafik who is help us Pascal Bekono: Rafik is a rapporteur in ccwg renata aquino: +1 Rafik on sharing here the results Amr Elsadr: Note, from Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws: Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender.

1 0