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

REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Recommendations 10/11 GNSO Review Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder to review the attached documents per the message below. Kind 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, June 8, 2017 at 1:53 PM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Recommendations 10/11 GNSO Review Implementation Charter Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 08 June, please review the attached GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 10/11 in Word and PDF. 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. Please provide comments or questions to the list for inclusion in our discussion at the next meeting on Thursday, 22 June at 1200 UTC. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 08 June Action Items: Contracted Party House Membership: Staff will provide details concerning membership processes, particularly with respect to interest groups or non-contracted parties, and add these to the Google Document for tracking overarching or out-of-scope questions. Charter for Recommendations 24/25: 1) Revise the charter to indicate that the Working Group has discussed the following action from the GNSO Review Working Party: “determine whether or not there is a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met and if such a presumption is appropriate” and the Working Group determined that there is not a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met since a Constituency applicant could fail the evaluation process by the Board or the Stakeholder Group if it did not meet the criteria; 2) include the Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies as an attachment in the revised charter; 3) circulate the revised document for one week and if no comments are received initiate a Call for Consensus for two weeks. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Send the charter to the list for review and to initiate discussion. Continue discussion at the meeting on 22 June. Discussion Notes: 1. Charter for Recommendation 16: -- Call for Consensus closed on 29 May. There were no objections to the implementation charter so it is approved by full consensus. -- See the wiki for status on Consensus Calls and Charters under review at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Cons…. 2. Continue Discussion of Charter for Recommendations 24/25: -- Question: Referring to documents regarding the process. Would it be necessary dive into the process itself -- such as the duration? Looking at the flow chart could be as short as 3 months, but could be longer. Are there specific criteria that must be met? Answer: It would seem that an analysis of the process itself would be out of scope of these recommendations, which only address whether the process is followed, is transparent, and if guidelines exist. -- Question of presumption of the default outcome: Is it appropriate? What are the options for the Working Group? Answer: The Working Group could decide whether the presumption of admission (the “default outcome”) is appropriate given the fact that even if a new Constituency has met the criteria, it still could fail the evaluation by the Stakeholder Group or the Board for other reasons. If it decides it is appropriate then the Working Group may need to suggest changes to the constituency application and evaluation process. If it decides it is not appropriate then the process does not need to be modified, but the Working Group should call out the fact that this part of Recommendation 24 “subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted” may not be applied if a Constituency is deemed not to meet the criteria in the evaluation process. -- Where is the bar in anticipation of participation? There is some peril in not having objective criteria in terms of effectiveness or activity. The idea of active participation is too loose. -- NPOC is the only new constituency and those rules grew out of the stress and tension of trying to create a new constituency. NCSG wanted to just have interest groups, but rules were developed to accommodate the need for a group that said they wanted a constituency. NPOC was the only one that made it through the process. -- Have we set the bar so high that it sets a deterrent? Should we be looking at the criteria? Should the criteria be as objective as possible? -- Is this process transparent enough? Do we make changes to the process or not? -- The criteria have a value. We have a balance to ensure that they are active and grow to find their mission. Important to have high bars. >From the Chat: avri doria: Perhaps this is Off Topic, but why do we have a Staff/Board imposed process for new constituencies in NCPH but not in CPH? i have never understood this imbalance. avri doria: Thanks, I missed last week's mtg. Marika Konings: My recollection is similar, because the contracted aspect creates an automatic qualifying criteria it was deemed not necessary to create a process (either you have a contract and you can join through a set membership process, or you don't). avri doria: This relates to membership in the SGs, but not to the creation of constituencies. Marika Konings: Correct, but I believe linked to that on the contracted party side the view was that there was no need for constituencies as everyone is a contracted party (registry or registrar). But to get the real insight into this, we may need to dig into history and ask those directly involved in that decision. avri doria: They call it an interest group instead of a constituency. but the NCPH is nt allowed to have interest groups instead of constituencies. Marika Konings: I think the interest group concept was created to address the interest of those wanting to participate but not yet qualifying as contracted parties as they had not signed a contract with ICANN yet. I don't know if that concept still exists, even though there are groups that are organized in a certain way such as the Geo Names and BRG. It might be interesting to see whether there is further discussion in those groups around this as, for example, in the near future there will potentially be a new group of contracted parties (P/P providers) and in the past, there has also been mention of escrow providers as a specific group of contracted parties. avri doria: I was deeply involved in that particular set of events. Amr Elsadr: Apart from a constituency application that was outright rejected, there was also an applicant that made it through to the candidate constituency phase in the NCSG for a few years, but it didn't make it to full constituency status. Lori Schulman: Amr: who was the applicant that "partially" made it Amr Elsadr: The Consumer Constituency. avri doria: yes, I was part of the effort to start the consumer constituency in NCSG, but it never got sufficient participant support within the candidate constituency to meet the requirements of both the ICANN process & the NCSG requirements for active participation. Lori Schulman: Diversity is a good point and objective Amr Elsadr: The CCAOI application did not meet the diversity criteria in more than one way, which is one of the reasons the application was rejected. avri doria: A presumption of acceptance would be hard for everyone, but even harder for CSG as that would change the number of seats each of the existing constituencies could hold. Since council seats in the NCSG are based on an SG wide selection process, its model can support a multitude of constituencies if they met the conditions without any change to council seating except through elections at the SG level.

1 0

REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Recommendations 24/25 GNSO Review Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 08 June, please review the attached revised GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 24/25 in Word and PDF with changes highlighted as redlines. As noted in the attached charter, these are the recommendations for implementation: Recommendation 24: That the GNSO Council and Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies adhere to the published process for applications for new Constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application satisfy itself that all parties have followed the published process, subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted. That all applications for new Constituencies, including historic applications, be published on the ICANN website with full transparency of decision-making. Recommendation 25: That the GNSO Council commission the development of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing to establish a new Constituency. Working Group members are requested to respond to this review in one week, by COB Thursday, 15 June. If no comments are received during the review period staff will accept the changes and circulate the final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 08 June Action Items: Contracted Party House Membership: Staff will provide details concerning membership processes, particularly with respect to interest groups or non-contracted parties, and add these to the Google Document for tracking overarching or out-of-scope questions. Charter for Recommendations 24/25: 1) Revise the charter to indicate that the Working Group has discussed the following action from the GNSO Review Working Party: “determine whether or not there is a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met and if such a presumption is appropriate” and the Working Group determined that there is not a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met since a Constituency applicant could fail the evaluation process by the Board or the Stakeholder Group if it did not meet the criteria; 2) include the Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies as an attachment in the revised charter; 3) circulate the revised document for one week and if no comments are received initiate a Call for Consensus for two weeks. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Send the charter to the list for review and to initiate discussion. Continue discussion at the meeting on 22 June. Discussion Notes: 1. Charter for Recommendation 16: -- Call for Consensus closed on 29 May. There were no objections to the implementation charter so it is approved by full consensus. -- See the wiki for status on Consensus Calls and Charters under review at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Cons…. 2. Continue Discussion of Charter for Recommendations 24/25: -- Question: Referring to documents regarding the process. Would it be necessary dive into the process itself -- such as the duration? Looking at the flow chart could be as short as 3 months, but could be longer. Are there specific criteria that must be met? Answer: It would seem that an analysis of the process itself would be out of scope of these recommendations, which only address whether the process is followed, is transparent, and if guidelines exist. -- Question of presumption of the default outcome: Is it appropriate? What are the options for the Working Group? Answer: The Working Group could decide whether the presumption of admission (the “default outcome”) is appropriate given the fact that even if a new Constituency has met the criteria, it still could fail the evaluation by the Stakeholder Group or the Board for other reasons. If it decides it is appropriate then the Working Group may need to suggest changes to the constituency application and evaluation process. If it decides it is not appropriate then the process does not need to be modified, but the Working Group should call out the fact that this part of Recommendation 24 “subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted” may not be applied if a Constituency is deemed not to meet the criteria in the evaluation process. -- Where is the bar in anticipation of participation? There is some peril in not having objective criteria in terms of effectiveness or activity. The idea of active participation is too loose. -- NPOC is the only new constituency and those rules grew out of the stress and tension of trying to create a new constituency. NCSG wanted to just have interest groups, but rules were developed to accommodate the need for a group that said they wanted a constituency. NPOC was the only one that made it through the process. -- Have we set the bar so high that it sets a deterrent? Should we be looking at the criteria? Should the criteria be as objective as possible? -- Is this process transparent enough? Do we make changes to the process or not? -- The criteria have a value. We have a balance to ensure that they are active and grow to find their mission. Important to have high bars. >From the Chat: avri doria: Perhaps this is Off Topic, but why do we have a Staff/Board imposed process for new constituencies in NCPH but not in CPH? i have never understood this imbalance. avri doria: Thanks, I missed last week's mtg. Marika Konings: My recollection is similar, because the contracted aspect creates an automatic qualifying criteria it was deemed not necessary to create a process (either you have a contract and you can join through a set membership process, or you don't). avri doria: This relates to membership in the SGs, but not to the creation of constituencies. Marika Konings: Correct, but I believe linked to that on the contracted party side the view was that there was no need for constituencies as everyone is a contracted party (registry or registrar). But to get the real insight into this, we may need to dig into history and ask those directly involved in that decision. avri doria: They call it an interest group instead of a constituency. but the NCPH is nt allowed to have interest groups instead of constituencies. Marika Konings: I think the interest group concept was created to address the interest of those wanting to participate but not yet qualifying as contracted parties as they had not signed a contract with ICANN yet. I don't know if that concept still exists, even though there are groups that are organized in a certain way such as the Geo Names and BRG. It might be interesting to see whether there is further discussion in those groups around this as, for example, in the near future there will potentially be a new group of contracted parties (P/P providers) and in the past, there has also been mention of escrow providers as a specific group of contracted parties. avri doria: I was deeply involved in that particular set of events. Amr Elsadr: Apart from a constituency application that was outright rejected, there was also an applicant that made it through to the candidate constituency phase in the NCSG for a few years, but it didn't make it to full constituency status. Lori Schulman: Amr: who was the applicant that "partially" made it Amr Elsadr: The Consumer Constituency. avri doria: yes, I was part of the effort to start the consumer constituency in NCSG, but it never got sufficient participant support within the candidate constituency to meet the requirements of both the ICANN process & the NCSG requirements for active participation. Lori Schulman: Diversity is a good point and objective Amr Elsadr: The CCAOI application did not meet the diversity criteria in more than one way, which is one of the reasons the application was rejected. avri doria: A presumption of acceptance would be hard for everyone, but even harder for CSG as that would change the number of seats each of the existing constituencies could hold. Since council seats in the NCSG are based on an SG wide selection process, its model can support a multitude of constituencies if they met the conditions without any change to council seating except through elections at the SG level.

1 0

REMINDER: Announcement: Pre-ICANN59 Policy Update Webinar Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 12, 2017

June 12, 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

FOR REVIEW: Recommendations 10/11 GNSO Review Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 08 June, please review the attached GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 10/11 in Word and PDF. 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. Please provide comments or questions to the list for inclusion in our discussion at the next meeting on Thursday, 22 June at 1200 UTC. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 08 June Action Items: Contracted Party House Membership: Staff will provide details concerning membership processes, particularly with respect to interest groups or non-contracted parties, and add these to the Google Document for tracking overarching or out-of-scope questions. Charter for Recommendations 24/25: 1) Revise the charter to indicate that the Working Group has discussed the following action from the GNSO Review Working Party: “determine whether or not there is a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met and if such a presumption is appropriate” and the Working Group determined that there is not a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met since a Constituency applicant could fail the evaluation process by the Board or the Stakeholder Group if it did not meet the criteria; 2) include the Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies as an attachment in the revised charter; 3) circulate the revised document for one week and if no comments are received initiate a Call for Consensus for two weeks. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Send the charter to the list for review and to initiate discussion. Continue discussion at the meeting on 22 June. Discussion Notes: 1. Charter for Recommendation 16: -- Call for Consensus closed on 29 May. There were no objections to the implementation charter so it is approved by full consensus. -- See the wiki for status on Consensus Calls and Charters under review at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Cons…. 2. Continue Discussion of Charter for Recommendations 24/25: -- Question: Referring to documents regarding the process. Would it be necessary dive into the process itself -- such as the duration? Looking at the flow chart could be as short as 3 months, but could be longer. Are there specific criteria that must be met? Answer: It would seem that an analysis of the process itself would be out of scope of these recommendations, which only address whether the process is followed, is transparent, and if guidelines exist. -- Question of presumption of the default outcome: Is it appropriate? What are the options for the Working Group? Answer: The Working Group could decide whether the presumption of admission (the “default outcome”) is appropriate given the fact that even if a new Constituency has met the criteria, it still could fail the evaluation by the Stakeholder Group or the Board for other reasons. If it decides it is appropriate then the Working Group may need to suggest changes to the constituency application and evaluation process. If it decides it is not appropriate then the process does not need to be modified, but the Working Group should call out the fact that this part of Recommendation 24 “subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted” may not be applied if a Constituency is deemed not to meet the criteria in the evaluation process. -- Where is the bar in anticipation of participation? There is some peril in not having objective criteria in terms of effectiveness or activity. The idea of active participation is too loose. -- NPOC is the only new constituency and those rules grew out of the stress and tension of trying to create a new constituency. NCSG wanted to just have interest groups, but rules were developed to accommodate the need for a group that said they wanted a constituency. NPOC was the only one that made it through the process. -- Have we set the bar so high that it sets a deterrent? Should we be looking at the criteria? Should the criteria be as objective as possible? -- Is this process transparent enough? Do we make changes to the process or not? -- The criteria have a value. We have a balance to ensure that they are active and grow to find their mission. Important to have high bars. >From the Chat: avri doria: Perhaps this is Off Topic, but why do we have a Staff/Board imposed process for new constituencies in NCPH but not in CPH? i have never understood this imbalance. avri doria: Thanks, I missed last week's mtg. Marika Konings: My recollection is similar, because the contracted aspect creates an automatic qualifying criteria it was deemed not necessary to create a process (either you have a contract and you can join through a set membership process, or you don't). avri doria: This relates to membership in the SGs, but not to the creation of constituencies. Marika Konings: Correct, but I believe linked to that on the contracted party side the view was that there was no need for constituencies as everyone is a contracted party (registry or registrar). But to get the real insight into this, we may need to dig into history and ask those directly involved in that decision. avri doria: They call it an interest group instead of a constituency. but the NCPH is nt allowed to have interest groups instead of constituencies. Marika Konings: I think the interest group concept was created to address the interest of those wanting to participate but not yet qualifying as contracted parties as they had not signed a contract with ICANN yet. I don't know if that concept still exists, even though there are groups that are organized in a certain way such as the Geo Names and BRG. It might be interesting to see whether there is further discussion in those groups around this as, for example, in the near future there will potentially be a new group of contracted parties (P/P providers) and in the past, there has also been mention of escrow providers as a specific group of contracted parties. avri doria: I was deeply involved in that particular set of events. Amr Elsadr: Apart from a constituency application that was outright rejected, there was also an applicant that made it through to the candidate constituency phase in the NCSG for a few years, but it didn't make it to full constituency status. Lori Schulman: Amr: who was the applicant that "partially" made it Amr Elsadr: The Consumer Constituency. avri doria: yes, I was part of the effort to start the consumer constituency in NCSG, but it never got sufficient participant support within the candidate constituency to meet the requirements of both the ICANN process & the NCSG requirements for active participation. Lori Schulman: Diversity is a good point and objective Amr Elsadr: The CCAOI application did not meet the diversity criteria in more than one way, which is one of the reasons the application was rejected. avri doria: A presumption of acceptance would be hard for everyone, but even harder for CSG as that would change the number of seats each of the existing constituencies could hold. Since council seats in the NCSG are based on an SG wide selection process, its model can support a multitude of constituencies if they met the conditions without any change to council seating except through elections at the SG level.

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Recommendations 24/25 GNSO Review Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 08 June, please review the attached revised GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 24/25 in Word and PDF with changes highlighted as redlines. As noted in the attached charter, these are the recommendations for implementation: Recommendation 24: That the GNSO Council and Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies adhere to the published process for applications for new Constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application satisfy itself that all parties have followed the published process, subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted. That all applications for new Constituencies, including historic applications, be published on the ICANN website with full transparency of decision-making. Recommendation 25: That the GNSO Council commission the development of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing to establish a new Constituency. Working Group members are requested to respond to this review in one week, by COB Thursday, 15 June. If no comments are received during the review period staff will accept the changes and circulate the final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 08 June Action Items: Contracted Party House Membership: Staff will provide details concerning membership processes, particularly with respect to interest groups or non-contracted parties, and add these to the Google Document for tracking overarching or out-of-scope questions. Charter for Recommendations 24/25: 1) Revise the charter to indicate that the Working Group has discussed the following action from the GNSO Review Working Party: “determine whether or not there is a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met and if such a presumption is appropriate” and the Working Group determined that there is not a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met since a Constituency applicant could fail the evaluation process by the Board or the Stakeholder Group if it did not meet the criteria; 2) include the Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies as an attachment in the revised charter; 3) circulate the revised document for one week and if no comments are received initiate a Call for Consensus for two weeks. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Send the charter to the list for review and to initiate discussion. Continue discussion at the meeting on 22 June. Discussion Notes: 1. Charter for Recommendation 16: -- Call for Consensus closed on 29 May. There were no objections to the implementation charter so it is approved by full consensus. -- See the wiki for status on Consensus Calls and Charters under review at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Cons…. 2. Continue Discussion of Charter for Recommendations 24/25: -- Question: Referring to documents regarding the process. Would it be necessary dive into the process itself -- such as the duration? Looking at the flow chart could be as short as 3 months, but could be longer. Are there specific criteria that must be met? Answer: It would seem that an analysis of the process itself would be out of scope of these recommendations, which only address whether the process is followed, is transparent, and if guidelines exist. -- Question of presumption of the default outcome: Is it appropriate? What are the options for the Working Group? Answer: The Working Group could decide whether the presumption of admission (the “default outcome”) is appropriate given the fact that even if a new Constituency has met the criteria, it still could fail the evaluation by the Stakeholder Group or the Board for other reasons. If it decides it is appropriate then the Working Group may need to suggest changes to the constituency application and evaluation process. If it decides it is not appropriate then the process does not need to be modified, but the Working Group should call out the fact that this part of Recommendation 24 “subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted” may not be applied if a Constituency is deemed not to meet the criteria in the evaluation process. -- Where is the bar in anticipation of participation? There is some peril in not having objective criteria in terms of effectiveness or activity. The idea of active participation is too loose. -- NPOC is the only new constituency and those rules grew out of the stress and tension of trying to create a new constituency. NCSG wanted to just have interest groups, but rules were developed to accommodate the need for a group that said they wanted a constituency. NPOC was the only one that made it through the process. -- Have we set the bar so high that it sets a deterrent? Should we be looking at the criteria? Should the criteria be as objective as possible? -- Is this process transparent enough? Do we make changes to the process or not? -- The criteria have a value. We have a balance to ensure that they are active and grow to find their mission. Important to have high bars. >From the Chat: avri doria: Perhaps this is Off Topic, but why do we have a Staff/Board imposed process for new constituencies in NCPH but not in CPH? i have never understood this imbalance. avri doria: Thanks, I missed last week's mtg. Marika Konings: My recollection is similar, because the contracted aspect creates an automatic qualifying criteria it was deemed not necessary to create a process (either you have a contract and you can join through a set membership process, or you don't). avri doria: This relates to membership in the SGs, but not to the creation of constituencies. Marika Konings: Correct, but I believe linked to that on the contracted party side the view was that there was no need for constituencies as everyone is a contracted party (registry or registrar). But to get the real insight into this, we may need to dig into history and ask those directly involved in that decision. avri doria: They call it an interest group instead of a constituency. but the NCPH is nt allowed to have interest groups instead of constituencies. Marika Konings: I think the interest group concept was created to address the interest of those wanting to participate but not yet qualifying as contracted parties as they had not signed a contract with ICANN yet. I don't know if that concept still exists, even though there are groups that are organized in a certain way such as the Geo Names and BRG. It might be interesting to see whether there is further discussion in those groups around this as, for example, in the near future there will potentially be a new group of contracted parties (P/P providers) and in the past, there has also been mention of escrow providers as a specific group of contracted parties. avri doria: I was deeply involved in that particular set of events. Amr Elsadr: Apart from a constituency application that was outright rejected, there was also an applicant that made it through to the candidate constituency phase in the NCSG for a few years, but it didn't make it to full constituency status. Lori Schulman: Amr: who was the applicant that "partially" made it Amr Elsadr: The Consumer Constituency. avri doria: yes, I was part of the effort to start the consumer constituency in NCSG, but it never got sufficient participant support within the candidate constituency to meet the requirements of both the ICANN process & the NCSG requirements for active participation. Lori Schulman: Diversity is a good point and objective Amr Elsadr: The CCAOI application did not meet the diversity criteria in more than one way, which is one of the reasons the application was rejected. avri doria: A presumption of acceptance would be hard for everyone, but even harder for CSG as that would change the number of seats each of the existing constituencies could hold. Since council seats in the NCSG are based on an SG wide selection process, its model can support a multitude of constituencies if they met the conditions without any change to council seating except through elections at the SG level.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 08 June
by Julie Hedlund June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 08 June. 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/2017-06-08+GNSO+Review+WG. The next call will be in two weeks on Thursday, 22 June at 1200 UTC. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 08 June Action Items: Contracted Party House Membership: Staff will provide details concerning membership processes, particularly with respect to interest groups or non-contracted parties, and add these to the Google Document for tracking overarching or out-of-scope questions. Charter for Recommendations 24/25: 1) Revise the charter to indicate that the Working Group has discussed the following action from the GNSO Review Working Party: “determine whether or not there is a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met and if such a presumption is appropriate” and the Working Group determined that there is not a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met since a Constituency applicant could fail the evaluation process by the Board or the Stakeholder Group if it did not meet the criteria; 2) include the Process for Recognition of New gNSO Constituencies as an attachment in the revised charter; 3) circulate the revised document for one week and if no comments are received initiate a Call for Consensus for two weeks. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Send the charter to the list for review and to initiate discussion. Continue discussion at the meeting on 22 June. Discussion Notes: 1. Charter for Recommendation 16: -- Call for Consensus closed on 29 May. There were no objections to the implementation charter so it is approved by full consensus. -- See the wiki for status on Consensus Calls and Charters under review at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Cons…. 2. Continue Discussion of Charter for Recommendations 24/25: -- Question: Referring to documents regarding the process. Would it be necessary dive into the process itself -- such as the duration? Looking at the flow chart could be as short as 3 months, but could be longer. Are there specific criteria that must be met? Answer: It would seem that an analysis of the process itself would be out of scope of these recommendations, which only address whether the process is followed, is transparent, and if guidelines exist. -- Question of presumption of the default outcome: Is it appropriate? What are the options for the Working Group? Answer: The Working Group could decide whether the presumption of admission (the “default outcome”) is appropriate given the fact that even if a new Constituency has met the criteria, it still could fail the evaluation by the Stakeholder Group or the Board for other reasons. If it decides it is appropriate then the Working Group may need to suggest changes to the constituency application and evaluation process. If it decides it is not appropriate then the process does not need to be modified, but the Working Group should call out the fact that this part of Recommendation 24 “subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted” may not be applied if a Constituency is deemed not to meet the criteria in the evaluation process. -- Where is the bar in anticipation of participation? There is some peril in not having objective criteria in terms of effectiveness or activity. The idea of active participation is too loose. -- NPOC is the only new constituency and those rules grew out of the stress and tension of trying to create a new constituency. NCSG wanted to just have interest groups, but rules were developed to accommodate the need for a group that said they wanted a constituency. NPOC was the only one that made it through the process. -- Have we set the bar so high that it sets a deterrent? Should we be looking at the criteria? Should the criteria be as objective as possible? -- Is this process transparent enough? Do we make changes to the process or not? -- The criteria have a value. We have a balance to ensure that they are active and grow to find their mission. Important to have high bars. >From the Chat: avri doria: Perhaps this is Off Topic, but why do we have a Staff/Board imposed process for new constituencies in NCPH but not in CPH? i have never understood this imbalance. avri doria: Thanks, I missed last week's mtg. Marika Konings: My recollection is similar, because the contracted aspect creates an automatic qualifying criteria it was deemed not necessary to create a process (either you have a contract and you can join through a set membership process, or you don't). avri doria: This relates to membership in the SGs, but not to the creation of constituencies. Marika Konings: Correct, but I believe linked to that on the contracted party side the view was that there was no need for constituencies as everyone is a contracted party (registry or registrar). But to get the real insight into this, we may need to dig into history and ask those directly involved in that decision. avri doria: They call it an interest group instead of a constituency. but the NCPH is nt allowed to have interest groups instead of constituencies. Marika Konings: I think the interest group concept was created to address the interest of those wanting to participate but not yet qualifying as contracted parties as they had not signed a contract with ICANN yet. I don't know if that concept still exists, even though there are groups that are organized in a certain way such as the Geo Names and BRG. It might be interesting to see whether there is further discussion in those groups around this as, for example, in the near future there will potentially be a new group of contracted parties (P/P providers) and in the past, there has also been mention of escrow providers as a specific group of contracted parties. avri doria: I was deeply involved in that particular set of events. Amr Elsadr: Apart from a constituency application that was outright rejected, there was also an applicant that made it through to the candidate constituency phase in the NCSG for a few years, but it didn't make it to full constituency status. Lori Schulman: Amr: who was the applicant that "partially" made it Amr Elsadr: The Consumer Constituency. avri doria: yes, I was part of the effort to start the consumer constituency in NCSG, but it never got sufficient participant support within the candidate constituency to meet the requirements of both the ICANN process & the NCSG requirements for active participation. Lori Schulman: Diversity is a good point and objective Amr Elsadr: The CCAOI application did not meet the diversity criteria in more than one way, which is one of the reasons the application was rejected. avri doria: A presumption of acceptance would be hard for everyone, but even harder for CSG as that would change the number of seats each of the existing constituencies could hold. Since council seats in the NCSG are based on an SG wide selection process, its model can support a multitude of constituencies if they met the conditions without any change to council seating except through elections at the SG level.

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from GNSO Review Working Group call on Thursday, 08 June 2017 at 12:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3, attendance and chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on 08 June 2017 at 12:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-08jun17-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-08jun17-en.mp3> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6l52pibcow/ 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 page: https://community.icann.org/x/qbbRAw Attendees: Members: Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary) Lori Schulman (IPC Primary) Lawrence Olawale-Roberts (BC Primary) Rafik Dammak (NCSG Primary) Victoria Sheckler (IPC Alternate) Participants: Avri Dori (NCSG) Apologies: Jennifer Wolfe (RySG Primary) ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Amr Elsadr Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 08 June 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group call on Thursday, 08 June 2017 at 12:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… avri doria:Perhaps this is Off Topic, but why do we have a Staff/Board imposed process for new constituencies in NCPH but not in CPH? i have never understood this imbalance. avri doria:thanks, i missed last week's mtg Marika Konings:my recollection is similar, because the contracted aspect creates an autmoatic qualifying criteria it was deemed not necessary to create a process (either you have a contract and you can join through a set membership process, or you don't) avri doria:this relates to memberership in the SGs, but not to the creation of constituencies. Marika Konings:correct, but I believe linked to that on the contracted party side the view was that there was no need for constituencies as everyone is a contracted party (registry or registrar). But to get the real insight into this, we may need to dig into history and ask those directly involved in that decision. avri doria:they call it an nterst group instead of a constituency. but the NCPH is nt allowed to have interest groups instead of constituencies. Marika Konings:I think the interest group concept was created to address the interest of those wanting to participate but not yet qualifying as contracted parties as they had not signed a contract with ICANN yet. I don't know if that concept still exists, even though there are groups that are organised in a certain way such as the Geo Names and BRG. It might be interesting to see whether there is further discussion in those groups around this as, for example, in the near future there will potentially be a new group of contracted parties (P/P providers) and in the past, there has also been mention of escrow providers as a specific group of contracted parties. avri doria:i was deeply invovled in tha particlar set of events. Amr Elsadr:Apart from a constituency application that was outright rejected, there was also an applicant that made it through to the candidate constituency phase in the NCSG for a few years, but it didn't make it to full constituency status. Lori Schulman:Amr: who was the applicant th"partially" made it Amr Elsadr:The Consumer Constituency. avri doria:yes, i was part of the effort to start the consumer constituency in NCSG, but it never got sufifcinet particpant support within the candidate constituency to meet the requirements of both the ICANN process & th NCSG requirements for active particpation. Lori Schulman:Diversity is a good point and objective Amr Elsadr:The CCAOI application did not meet the diversity criteria in more than one way, which is one of the reasons the application was rejected. avri doria:a presumption of acceptance would be hard for everyone, but even harder for CSG as that would change the number of seats each of the existing constitneucnies could hold. Since council seats in the NCSG are based on a aSG wide selction process, its model can support a multitude of constituencies if they met the conditions without any change to council seating except therough elections at the SG level. avri doria:not advertaising just epxlaining. Lori Schulman:Would it be possible to send criteria for forming a constitutency too. Sara Bockey:thanks all Lori Schulman:Can we get a link to the criteria? Lori Schulman:Can we have a link to the criteria? Rafik:do we have meeting in jburg? Lori Schulman:thanks Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Lori Schulman:one less meeting conflict yay! Lori Schulman:ciao

1 0

Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Call on 08 June 1200 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see the draft agenda below and attached materials for the meeting tomorrow, Thursday, 08 June at 1200 UTC. Draft Agenda: Review agenda SOIs Continue discussion of Charter for Recommendations 24/25 Begin discussion of Charter for Recommendations 10/11 Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 22 June AOB Revised Charter for Recommendations 24/25: Per the following action items please see for your review the attached revised charter in PDF and Word for the implementation of recommendations 24 and 25. The revisions are included as redlines. See also the updates for each action item below in bold italic. 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. See the links to the NCSG and CSG application procedures in the revised charter. Staff will determine if there are publicly available links to all constituency applications and include them in the charter. Staff has confirmed that all constituency applications are publicly available at the links provided 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. See RrSG: http://icannregistrars.org/membership/ and https://goo.gl/forms/qrIAE6IiPjH2L3Cv1; RySG: http://www.rysg.info/membership-application. This also has been added to the Google document to capture overarching questions at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tGKhFTGIPFEeO-CYRw-rcLpmz15JOxg3UgFiVlF…. Staff will send the revised charter to the list, and call out the question concerning presumption of constituency application approval. Staff suggests that with respect to this part of the recommendation, “subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted” the Working Group, as noted in the recommendation, should decide whether the presumption of admission (the “default outcome”) is appropriate given the fact that even if a new Constituency has met the criteria, it still could fail the evaluation by the Stakeholder Group or the Board for other reasons. For example, the “default” recommendation is challenging because the process as set up now demands that the new Constituency “prove” itself during the Candidate Phase through active participation in policy development activities. There is not just an assumption of recognition without demonstrated commitment. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: In addition, a new charter is attached for recommendations 10/11. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Note re: FOR REVIEW: Revised GNSO Review Implementation Charter Recs 24/25
by Julie Hedlund June 2, 2017

June 2, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Just a note that to view the markup/redlines in the document click on Review and then on “All Markup”. Kind 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: Friday, June 2, 2017 at 5:55 PM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised GNSO Review Implementation Charter Recs 24/25 Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the following action items from the meeting on 25 May please see for your review the attached revised charter in PDF and Word for the implementation of recommendations 24 and 25. The revisions are included as redlines. See also the updates for each action item below in bold italic. In addition, the charter is posted to the wiki at the following link where you will find the status summary of the recommendations, the charters approved by consensus, and the current documents for review: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Cons…. Action Items for 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. See the links to the NCSG and CSG application procedures in the revised charter. Staff will determine if there are publicly available links to all constituency applications and include them in the charter. Staff has confirmed that all constituency applications are publicly available at the links provided 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. See RrSG: http://icannregistrars.org/membership/ and https://goo.gl/forms/qrIAE6IiPjH2L3Cv1; RySG: http://www.rysg.info/membership-application. This also has been added to the Google document to capture overarching questions at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tGKhFTGIPFEeO-CYRw-rcLpmz15JOxg3UgFiVlF…. Staff will send the revised charter to the list, and call out the question concerning presumption of constituency application approval. Staff suggests that with respect to this part of the recommendation, “subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted” the Working Group, as noted in the recommendation, should decide whether the presumption of admission (the “default outcome”) is appropriate given the fact that even if a new Constituency has met the criteria, it still could fail the evaluation by the Stakeholder Group or the Board for other reasons. For example, the “default” recommendation is challenging because the process as set up now demands that the new Constituency “prove” itself during the Candidate Phase through active participation in policy development activities. There is not just an assumption of recognition without demonstrated commitment. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Staff

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Revised GNSO Review Implementation Charter Recs 24/25
by Julie Hedlund June 2, 2017

June 2, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the following action items from the meeting on 25 May please see for your review the attached revised charter in PDF and Word for the implementation of recommendations 24 and 25. The revisions are included as redlines. See also the updates for each action item below in bold italic. In addition, the charter is posted to the wiki at the following link where you will find the status summary of the recommendations, the charters approved by consensus, and the current documents for review: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Cons…. Action Items for 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. See the links to the NCSG and CSG application procedures in the revised charter. Staff will determine if there are publicly available links to all constituency applications and include them in the charter. Staff has confirmed that all constituency applications are publicly available at the links provided 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. See RrSG: http://icannregistrars.org/membership/ and https://goo.gl/forms/qrIAE6IiPjH2L3Cv1; RySG: http://www.rysg.info/membership-application. This also has been added to the Google document to capture overarching questions at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tGKhFTGIPFEeO-CYRw-rcLpmz15JOxg3UgFiVlF…. Staff will send the revised charter to the list, and call out the question concerning presumption of constituency application approval. Staff suggests that with respect to this part of the recommendation, “subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted” the Working Group, as noted in the recommendation, should decide whether the presumption of admission (the “default outcome”) is appropriate given the fact that even if a new Constituency has met the criteria, it still could fail the evaluation by the Stakeholder Group or the Board for other reasons. For example, the “default” recommendation is challenging because the process as set up now demands that the new Constituency “prove” itself during the Candidate Phase through active participation in policy development activities. There is not just an assumption of recognition without demonstrated commitment. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Staff

1 0