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

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 13 July
by Julie Hedlund July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 July. 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/2017-06-22+GNSO+Review+WG. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 July Action Items: Timeline: Staff will continue to update the dates in the timeline based on the current status of the charters. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Place this charter on hold until the evaluation is completed on the Geographic Names sessions held at ICANN59. Charter for Recommendation 13: Revise to reflect the Working Group determination that the recommendation has been implemented. Send to the list for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Charter for Recommendation 19: Revise to include further references to additional guidance concerning evaluating Working Group Guidance from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and the PDP Manual. Revise to reflect Working Group determination that the recommendation has been implemented. Send to the list for a one-week review to see if there are any further comments. If no comments or changes, send to the list for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Charter for Recommendation 30: Send to the list for review and discussion at the meeting on 27 July. Charters for Phase II Recommendations: Staff will prepare charters. Discussion Notes: 1. Timeline Status: -- Staff presented the timelines for Phases 1 and 2, and for Phase 3 recommendations. -- Staff noted that some of the deadlines will need to be adjusted. The Working Group asked how the timing would be determined and staff suggested that when reviewing the draft charters the Working Group could consider, with staff guidance, how long it would take for the Working Group to approve the implementation charter, and how long the implementation would take. -- Staff also noted that the original timeline in the implementation plan was a suggested timeline and that the Working Group has not been able to consider as many charters simultaneously. In addition, each charter takes at least two meetings for deliberation and two weeks for a consensus call. -- On the Phase 3 timeline, staff noted that the start date for several charters would need to be changed at they were set to start on 16 June 2017. Staff will look at the charters and determine if some can be completed in a shorter amount of time to ensure that the overall deadline can be met. 2. Continue discussion of Charter for Recommendations 10/11: – Staff provided an update on the Geographic Names moderated sessions at ICANN59 that was part of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (Subpro) PDP Working Group. Staff noted that they were well attended and generated rigorous and mostly productive discussions. However, staff noted that the PDP Working Group had not had the final assessment of the sessions. -- The Working Group agreed to keep the charter on hold until the PDP Working Group can provide the final assessment. 3. Continue discussion on Charter for Recommendation 13: – Update document management and the ICANN Information Transparency Initiative. Staff noted ICANN launched the Information Transparency Initiative (ITI) in March 2017. Per the ICANN Org Executive Team Report delivered to the ICANN Board of Directors in March 2017, “The proposed solution for document and content management and the replacement of the existing ICANN.Org website was presented to the executives who have provided internal approval for the project.” The ITI is not focused on providing collaborative tools for the community and staff to use to create content, but instead one of the goals is to make content more accessible. -- Staff suggested that the Working Group could consider that this recommendation is implemented. The Working Group agreed and asked staff to send the revised charter to the list for a two-week consensus call. 4. Begin discussion on Charter for Recommendation 19: -- Staff walked through the draft charter and noted that it appeared that the recommendation was satisfied with the guidance on the self-assessment process in the GNSO Working Group guidelines, as well as the report on the assessment provided to the GNSO Council, and the periodic updates from PDP Working Group liaisons to the Council. Staff noted, however, that there was other guidance from the PDP Manual and the Working Group Guidelines concerning membership, representation, and diversity and that excerpts from that guidance could be included for reference in the charter. Staff agreed to add those references and then send the revised charter to the list for review and comment. If there were no comments after one week staff would send the final charter out for a two-week consensus call. 5. Charter for Recommendation 30 and Phase 2 Charters: -- The Working Group agreed to take up discussion of the draft charter for recommendation 30 at its next meeting on 27 July and staff took the action to send the charter to the list for review. -- Jen Woolf, the Chair, urged the Working Group to finish up the Phase 1 recommendations as quickly as possible so that it could begin work on the Phase 2 recommendations so as to avoid delaying the schedule. Staff took the action to draft the Phase 2 charters: combined charter for recommendations 26, 27, 28, and 29; charter for recommendation 6.

1 0

*updated attendance* Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from GNSO Review WG call on Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 12:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3, attendance and chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 12:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-wg-13jul17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6bkj4ak3kn/<https://participate.icann.org/p6bkj4ak3kn/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=b560bc8bdbc53ab3…> 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/HmTwAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Attendance Members: Avri Doria (NCSG Alternate) Heath Dixon (RrSG Primary) Jennifer Wolfe (RySG Primary) Rafik Dammak (NCSG Primary) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary) Participants: Kris Seeburn (NCUC) Pascal Bekono (NCUC) Apologies: Lori Schulman ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Amr Elsadr Berry Cobb Julie Bisland ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 July 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 12:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Julie Bisland:Welcome Pascal Bekono! Pascal Bekono:Hello dear all Pascal Bekono:thank you Julie Kris Seeburn:just for the record when will other changes or talks that happened at the GAC affect us? Would that not affect all the charters? Kris Seeburn:the disapearance of ccnso at length by recommendation of the gac and who are the staheholders would remain. That also sugeests that TlD will be inplace. Kris Seeburn:there may srill be more changes since the icann 59 Rafik:I think Kris is talking about geonames avri doria:we are getting into details of geonames and probably should focus on the nature of the assistance. Jen Wolfe:Agreed - this is a different issue. Kris Seeburn:thanks avri Amr Elsadr:For reference, info on the WG self-assessment is present here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Amr Elsadr:Here it is: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Pascal Bekono:Notify the Chair when all team members have completed the questionnaire; What can happen if one member do not fill the questionnaire ? Amr Elsadr:To add to what Julie said about following up with WG members on completing the survey, it isn't actually mandatory for all WG members to fill it in. Historically, largely only active members of WGs have responded. Pascal Bekono:Thank you Amr Amr Elsadr:On membership and constitution of GNSO WGs, there are parts of the GNSO WG Guidelines that cover this. Amr Elsadr:From GNSO WG Guidelines, Section 3.2 - RepresentativenessIdeally, a Working Group should mirror the diversity and representativeness of the community by having representatives from most, if not all, CO Stakeholder Groups and/or Constituencies. It should be noted that certain issues might be more of interest to one part of the community than others. The Chair, in cooperation with the Secretariat and ICANN Staff, is continually expected to assess whether the WG has sufficiently broad representation, and if not, which groups should be approached to encourage participation. Similarly, if the Chair is of the opinion that there is over-representation to the point of capture, he/she should inform the Chartering Organization. Amr Elsadr:Section 2.2.1 - Chair..., The Chair should make it clear that participation on sub-teams is open to all and he/she should encourage representational balance to the degree possible. However, it should be understood that there will not always be volunteers from every interest group and that it is often acceptable to have a small sub-team that is not totally representational perform an initial role that will later be reviewed by a broader more representational group. In those cases where initially there is insufficient balance, the Chair should make a special outreach effort to those groups not represented. In all cases where the Chair believes that one set of interests or expertise is missing from a group, special efforts must be made to bring that interest or expertise into the group via invitation or other method and the situation must be documented in the final report, including a discussion of the efforts made to redress the balance..., Amr Elsadr:Was dropped off the call just as I was coming off mute. :-) Julie Bisland:the Operator is dialing now Amr Elsadr:Back on now. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:I'm fine with the status. Thanks Julie and Amr Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Rafik:bye all Kris Seeburn:take care... cheers avri doria:thanks, bye Pascal Bekono:thanks

2 1

Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Call on 13 July 1200 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 12, 2017

July 12, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see the draft agenda below and attached materials for the meeting on Thursday, 13 July at 1200 UTC. Draft Agenda: Review agenda SOIs Timeline Status Continue discussion of Charter for Recommendations 10/11 – Update on Geographic Names Moderated sessions at ICANN59 Continue discussion on Charter for Recommendation 13 – Update document management and the ICANN Information Transparency Initiative Begin discussion on Charter for Recommendation 19 Begin discussion on Charter for Recommendation 30 (time permitting) Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 27 July AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

CLOSED -- REVISED/EXTENDED CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendations 24/25 GNSO Review Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This Consensus Call closed on 10 July and no objections were received. As there were no objections the implementation of Recommendations 24/25 is considered agreed by full consensus. See the latest status at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Cons…. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] Reminder -- REVISED/EXTENDED CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendations 24/25 GNSO Review Implementation Charter Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. Per the action items and notes below from the call on 22 June this is a revised and extended consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 24 and 25. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below. Per the notes, staff has revised the charter determinations to correct item 1, and to add a new item 3 recommendation. The changes are in redline in the attached revised charter. As noted in the attached charter, recommendations 24 and 25 state: 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 consensus call by COB Monday, 10 July. 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 22 June Action Items: Charter for Recommendations 24/25: 1) Revise the charter determinations to correct item 1, and to add a new item 3 recommendation; 2) send out for a new extended Consensus Call to end on COB Monday, 10 July. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Evaluate Geographic Names facilitated sessions at ICANN59 in a brief survey. Place this charter on hold until Geographic Names session results are evaluated. Charter for Recommendation 13: Look at what ICANN may be developing for a document management system. Next Meeting: Propose on the list moving the 06 July meeting to 13 July and if there no objections reschedule. Discussion Notes: 1. Consensus Call for Recommendation 24/25 Charter: -- Suggestion to add a recommendation that current and historic information be consolidated in one web page. -- Staff suggests to accept edits from Wolf-Ulrich - that current processes address recommendation 24, and that they are effective and accessible, but notes that to be more clear the wording should mirror that for Recommendation 25 as follows: “That the current processes address Recommendation 24 and that they are effective and accessible.” -- Question: Should the consensus call be extended, following circulation of track changes by staff? The Working Group agreed to extend the Consensus Call on the revised document to COB 10 July. 2. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: -- Pilot Project -- not sure it was helpful to have a F2F facilitated meeting. Pilot was conducted twice for the PPSAI PDP, and once for the IGO/INGO access to curative rights PDP. The link to the results is contained in the charter. Results of the survey were mixed -- not conclusive that the F2F sessions were helpful. -- Hard to say in future if there will be a need for a facilitator. If we leave it as it is what could be done if it comes up? Could we establish a framework or do we leave it as it is? -- Suggestion: Evaluate Geographic Names facilitated sessions at ICANN59 in a brief survey -- were they helpful? Should there be guidelines? -- Perhaps if we have criteria they could be very broad. -- Place this charter on hold until we can evaluate the Geographic Names session results. 3. Charter for Recommendation 13: -- Note that access to Google Doc is not universal - some might not have access (example: because of geo blocking), while access to Microsoft Word could also be challenging due to licensing costs. -- Question: The SSAC conducted research on a tool. What were the results? Answer: Decided to use Google Docs and Microsoft Word. Using Google Docs for drafts and Microsoft Word for final drafts. -- Question: Are there access issues? What if there are public interests? Answer: Access can be moderated -- to edit, comment, etc. based on who has the link. Access also depends on if someone has a Google account or if one can afford Microsoft. Google Drive is not accessible in China. -- Maybe need criteria to have in mind. There is the issue of user acceptance for new tools. -- One thing that works for those in the developing region is what you have with Microsoft Word where you can work offline. Google Docs has its own advantages to see comments in real time. Both platforms have advantages. If ICANN is looking at a document management system it must have the ability to work offline. -- Action: Look at what ICANN may be developing for a document management system. 4. Next meeting: -- Propose on the list moving the 06 July meeting to 13 July and if there no objections reschedule.

1 0

Reminder -- REVISED/EXTENDED CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendations 24/25 GNSO Review Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund July 6, 2017

July 6, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. Per the action items and notes below from the call on 22 June this is a revised and extended consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 24 and 25. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below. Per the notes, staff has revised the charter determinations to correct item 1, and to add a new item 3 recommendation. The changes are in redline in the attached revised charter. As noted in the attached charter, recommendations 24 and 25 state: 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 consensus call by COB Monday, 10 July. 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 22 June Action Items: Charter for Recommendations 24/25: 1) Revise the charter determinations to correct item 1, and to add a new item 3 recommendation; 2) send out for a new extended Consensus Call to end on COB Monday, 10 July. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Evaluate Geographic Names facilitated sessions at ICANN59 in a brief survey. Place this charter on hold until Geographic Names session results are evaluated. Charter for Recommendation 13: Look at what ICANN may be developing for a document management system. Next Meeting: Propose on the list moving the 06 July meeting to 13 July and if there no objections reschedule. Discussion Notes: 1. Consensus Call for Recommendation 24/25 Charter: -- Suggestion to add a recommendation that current and historic information be consolidated in one web page. -- Staff suggests to accept edits from Wolf-Ulrich - that current processes address recommendation 24, and that they are effective and accessible, but notes that to be more clear the wording should mirror that for Recommendation 25 as follows: “That the current processes address Recommendation 24 and that they are effective and accessible.” -- Question: Should the consensus call be extended, following circulation of track changes by staff? The Working Group agreed to extend the Consensus Call on the revised document to COB 10 July. 2. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: -- Pilot Project -- not sure it was helpful to have a F2F facilitated meeting. Pilot was conducted twice for the PPSAI PDP, and once for the IGO/INGO access to curative rights PDP. The link to the results is contained in the charter. Results of the survey were mixed -- not conclusive that the F2F sessions were helpful. -- Hard to say in future if there will be a need for a facilitator. If we leave it as it is what could be done if it comes up? Could we establish a framework or do we leave it as it is? -- Suggestion: Evaluate Geographic Names facilitated sessions at ICANN59 in a brief survey -- were they helpful? Should there be guidelines? -- Perhaps if we have criteria they could be very broad. -- Place this charter on hold until we can evaluate the Geographic Names session results. 3. Charter for Recommendation 13: -- Note that access to Google Doc is not universal - some might not have access (example: because of geo blocking), while access to Microsoft Word could also be challenging due to licensing costs. -- Question: The SSAC conducted research on a tool. What were the results? Answer: Decided to use Google Docs and Microsoft Word. Using Google Docs for drafts and Microsoft Word for final drafts. -- Question: Are there access issues? What if there are public interests? Answer: Access can be moderated -- to edit, comment, etc. based on who has the link. Access also depends on if someone has a Google account or if one can afford Microsoft. Google Drive is not accessible in China. -- Maybe need criteria to have in mind. There is the issue of user acceptance for new tools. -- One thing that works for those in the developing region is what you have with Microsoft Word where you can work offline. Google Docs has its own advantages to see comments in real time. Both platforms have advantages. If ICANN is looking at a document management system it must have the ability to work offline. -- Action: Look at what ICANN may be developing for a document management system. 4. Next meeting: -- Propose on the list moving the 06 July meeting to 13 July and if there no objections reschedule.

1 0