January 2018 - Gnso-review-wg

CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 34 Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 18, 2018

Jan. 18, 2018

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a Consensus Call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 34. As noted in the attached charter, this is the recommendation for implementation: “That PDP Working Groups rotate the start time of their meetings in order not to disadvantage people who wish to participate from anywhere in the world.” The charter reflects the revisions agreed to at the Working Group meeting on 18 January (see notes below). Staff is circulating the revised version of the charter for a three-week Consensus Call to end on Thursday, 08 February 2018. If there are no objections the recommendation will be deemed to have been implemented by Full Consensus. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34: Staff will send the implementation charter out for 3-week consensus call. Consensus calls are typically two weeks, but the deadline will be extended due to community meetings taking place the week of 29 January. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22: Staff will clarify in the charter text the connection between the recommendation and the implementation of that framework through the existing training. This revision will be sent out by one week before the 8 February meeting, giving members time to review the text in advance of the meeting. The WG will aim to finalize this charter on the next call. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: 1) Staff will correct title on this charter document and change it to "GNSO Outreach and Working Group Participation." 2) Staff will research Stakeholder Group and Constituency (SG/C) activities related to outreach, evaluation mechanisms and metrics these existing programs have in place, the Stakeholder Journey project, and evaluation underway on the Fellowship program. Staff may also consider adding text linking the outreach taking place at the SG/C level with participation in Working Groups and other initiatives within the GNSO. 4) Staff will add suggestions for methods to gather additional metrics, and points to aid discussion on the sufficiency of current programs, as well as how to address cost barriers. Staff will circulate edits one week in advance of the 8 February meeting to give members time to review before the meeting. Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates. 2. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34: -- Text added to final paragraph before Working Group Determination clarifying that there is no mandate or rule regarding meeting rotation, and the decision about whether to rotate is left to the Working Group. The Working Group Determination also includes new text clarifying that the Working Group does not believe that it is necessary to create a mandate or rule regarding meeting rotation. -- Issue raised - underwhelming participation in the discussion about the charters. Do members need to make further efforts to engage the community in discussion about these charters? Maybe by extending the deadline, we can socialize the revisions more extensively. -- Response: A lot of this material has already been vetted and we are currently in the implementation phase. This may be why we are not getting a lot of feedback at this point. It does not hurt to socialize further, but some community members may feel that additional vetting is not necessary. -- Time has passed since the recommendations came out. A number of process improvements have already taken place since the Review came out. We want to give the community time to review our work, but we have a small dedicated core of volunteers who are actively engaged. Perhaps it makes sense to move more quickly with this smaller group given this background. 3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22: -- New content: Background was added clarifying the term "competency-based framework" drawing on explanations from the assessment report of the GNSO Review Working Party and the Final Report of the Independent Examiner. -- Question: This background means that there are two parts of skills to be developed - 1. procedural skills (PDP process, manual); 2. technical knowledge related to the specific work that the particular group is doing (as opposed to general technical knowledge). Is the additional text regarding general technical training responding to the element regarding technical training? -- Staff response: The intent of the technical modules discussed in the text is to provide information to the GNSO community regarding DNS infrastructure. >From the chat: Lori Schulman: yes, I was confused too. Technical training could also means using ICANN's technology to enable the work. Sara Bockey: Could technical training also be for staff - to have a better understanding of Ry / Rr techincal issues -- ICANN Learn contains training materials on ICANN's technology to enable the work. -- Staff receives training to have a better understanding of Ry/Rr technical issues -- Thinking about how this is going to be implemented - we have been asked to provide a framework. What does this mean? It is simply a list of resources or is it a broader framework? Looking at the list of technical materials listed in the charter, are we implying that we should be providing training on the items listed in the charter? -- If we decide that framework means a conceptual way of approaching the problem, how do we go about doing that? Would it be a curriculum? Is this group in a position to develop such a framework? -- We could develop a list of topics that would be useful to cover in general and/or for specific working teams. We could share this with the Council to consider and implement as needed on a case-by-case basis. -- There is a lot of material available, but there may be a lack of a conceptual frame or a clear path for an individual to develop the knowledge they need to be successful in a role, such as on the Council or in a Working Group. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a clearer connection between the training that is available and the needs for specific roles. >From the chat: Sara Bockey: I think ICANN topics are complex and the history related to issues too deep to really be effectively addressed in brief classes. Perhaps something that does a deeper dive over a longer period of time, like a semester say, would be helpful. I've done a good bit of this training with varying degrees of feeling like I took something away from it -- If we leave the charter as it is, we should be clear what is going to happen with this. The items on the list are already institutionalized. Is the connection between a request for some training and the implementation that is already done included in the charter? If so, our work on this charter may be done. -- Perhaps what is missing is a clearer connection to the implementation of the recommendations. 4. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: -- This charter does not appear to be one that is already implemented. It appears that there would be additional steps to take if the WG agrees to follow the recommended approach to the charter. -- The first recommendation is on the development and monitoring of metrics. Staff found a number of programs related to this recommendation, but it is not clear that there is a set of metrics that the GNSO is using to evaluate these programs. -- For recommendation 2, the group may determine that existing programs are sufficient. -- For recommendation 3, staff is working with Language Services to determine costs associated with recommendations 7 and 12. This might be a way to reduce/remove cost barriers to participation. Staff may be able to identify existing measures to reduce cost barriers, such as free or low-cost telecommunication services. -- Staff will circulate edits one week in advance of the 8 February meeting to give members time to review before the meeting. >From the chat: Marika Konings: the WG may need to define what current cost barriers are as policy development is largely done through online means (which do cost time and effort, but no other costs as there are usually free dial in numbers or otherwise dial outs provided) -- In the solution section, Current Outreach Strategies and Pilot Programs are listed. Marika Konings: Challenge is that many of these programs do not have a specific GNSO focus or criteria. Marika Konings: what may be missing from the list is SG/C specific outreach programs? Marika Konings: I guess that would fall under other activities? Marika Konings: but it may be worth getting more details on those as these are presumbably specifically focused on GNSO Lori Schulman: I like the idea of outreach. Agree with Marika. Sara Bockey: I've never heard of the stakeholder journey project. Is there a link to that? Pascal Bekono: Good point Marika Marika Konings: I believe there are also discussions on conducting a community wide review of the fellowship program -- Items to be discussed in the solutions section: Metrics to develop and monitor to evaluate ongoing effectiveness of current outreach strategies and pilot programs; Whether to develop and fund more targeted programs, beyond those already offered; How to best reduce or remove cost barriers to volunteer participation on WGs and policy development. -- In addition to gathering information about metrics for evaluating individual programs, it may be helpful to discuss if it would be helpful to have a more holistic evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs. -- Outreach appears to be done on the SG/C level within the GNSO. Each has a distinct target audience. Perhaps this could be summarized in the charter text. Remaining question - how do we evaluate success? It might be helpful to provide context about the relationship between outreach at the SG/C level and participation in Working Groups. -- Question - what does the Working Group think would be helpful to use in terms of metrics? >From the chat: Sara Bockey: I'm not sure re metrics. what exactly are the metrics looking at? Pascal Bekono: Metrics can be done through a survey ? -- The group will gather some additional information and then circle back to discuss further. -- For recommendation 2, the group may determine that existing programs are sufficient. -- For recommendation 3, staff is working with Language Services to determine costs associated with recommendations 7 and 12. This might be a way to reduce/remove cost barriers to participation. Staff may be able to identify existing measures to reduce cost barriers, such as free or low cost telecommunication services. 5. Next Meeting: 08 February 1300 UTC.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 18 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 18, 2018

Jan. 18, 2018

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 January 2018. 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. Please note that the next meeting will occur on 08 February at 1300 UTC. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34: Staff will send the implementation charter out for 3-week consensus call. Consensus calls are typically two weeks, but the deadline will be extended due to community meetings taking place the week of 29 January. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22: Staff will clarify in the charter text the connection between the recommendation and the implementation of that framework through the existing training. This revision will be sent out by one week before the 8 February meeting, giving members time to review the text in advance of the meeting. The WG will aim to finalize this charter on the next call. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: 1) Staff will correct title on this charter document and change it to "GNSO Outreach and Working Group Participation." 2) Staff will research Stakeholder Group and Constituency (SG/C) activities related to outreach, evaluation mechanisms and metrics these existing programs have in place, the Stakeholder Journey project, and evaluation underway on the Fellowship program. Staff may also consider adding text linking the outreach taking place at the SG/C level with participation in Working Groups and other initiatives within the GNSO. 4) Staff will add suggestions for methods to gather additional metrics, and points to aid discussion on the sufficiency of current programs, as well as how to address cost barriers. Staff will circulate edits one week in advance of the 8 February meeting to give members time to review before the meeting. Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates. 2. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34: -- Text added to final paragraph before Working Group Determination clarifying that there is no mandate or rule regarding meeting rotation, and the decision about whether to rotate is left to the Working Group. The Working Group Determination also includes new text clarifying that the Working Group does not believe that it is necessary to create a mandate or rule regarding meeting rotation. -- Issue raised - underwhelming participation in the discussion about the charters. Do members need to make further efforts to engage the community in discussion about these charters? Maybe by extending the deadline, we can socialize the revisions more extensively. -- Response: A lot of this material has already been vetted and we are currently in the implementation phase. This may be why we are not getting a lot of feedback at this point. It does not hurt to socialize further, but some community members may feel that additional vetting is not necessary. -- Time has passed since the recommendations came out. A number of process improvements have already taken place since the Review came out. We want to give the community time to review our work, but we have a small dedicated core of volunteers who are actively engaged. Perhaps it makes sense to move more quickly with this smaller group given this background. 3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22: -- New content: Background was added clarifying the term "competency-based framework" drawing on explanations from the assessment report of the GNSO Review Working Party and the Final Report of the Independent Examiner. -- Question: This background means that there are two parts of skills to be developed - 1. procedural skills (PDP process, manual); 2. technical knowledge related to the specific work that the particular group is doing (as opposed to general technical knowledge). Is the additional text regarding general technical training responding to the element regarding technical training? -- Staff response: The intent of the technical modules discussed in the text is to provide information to the GNSO community regarding DNS infrastructure. >From the chat: Lori Schulman: yes, I was confused too. Technical training could also means using ICANN's technology to enable the work. Sara Bockey: Could technical training also be for staff - to have a better understanding of Ry / Rr techincal issues -- ICANN Learn contains training materials on ICANN's technology to enable the work. -- Staff receives training to have a better understanding of Ry/Rr technical issues -- Thinking about how this is going to be implemented - we have been asked to provide a framework. What does this mean? It is simply a list of resources or is it a broader framework? Looking at the list of technical materials listed in the charter, are we implying that we should be providing training on the items listed in the charter? -- If we decide that framework means a conceptual way of approaching the problem, how do we go about doing that? Would it be a curriculum? Is this group in a position to develop such a framework? -- We could develop a list of topics that would be useful to cover in general and/or for specific working teams. We could share this with the Council to consider and implement as needed on a case-by-case basis. -- There is a lot of material available, but there may be a lack of a conceptual frame or a clear path for an individual to develop the knowledge they need to be successful in a role, such as on the Council or in a Working Group. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a clearer connection between the training that is available and the needs for specific roles. >From the chat: Sara Bockey: I think ICANN topics are complex and the history related to issues too deep to really be effectively addressed in brief classes. Perhaps something that does a deeper dive over a longer period of time, like a semester say, would be helpful. I've done a good bit of this training with varying degrees of feeling like I took something away from it -- If we leave the charter as it is, we should be clear what is going to happen with this. The items on the list are already institutionalized. Is the connection between a request for some training and the implementation that is already done included in the charter? If so, our work on this charter may be done. -- Perhaps what is missing is a clearer connection to the implementation of the recommendations. 4. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: -- This charter does not appear to be one that is already implemented. It appears that there would be additional steps to take if the WG agrees to follow the recommended approach to the charter. -- The first recommendation is on the development and monitoring of metrics. Staff found a number of programs related to this recommendation, but it is not clear that there is a set of metrics that the GNSO is using to evaluate these programs. -- For recommendation 2, the group may determine that existing programs are sufficient. -- For recommendation 3, staff is working with Language Services to determine costs associated with recommendations 7 and 12. This might be a way to reduce/remove cost barriers to participation. Staff may be able to identify existing measures to reduce cost barriers, such as free or low-cost telecommunication services. -- Staff will circulate edits one week in advance of the 8 February meeting to give members time to review before the meeting. >From the chat: Marika Konings: the WG may need to define what current cost barriers are as policy development is largely done through online means (which do cost time and effort, but no other costs as there are usually free dial in numbers or otherwise dial outs provided) -- In the solution section, Current Outreach Strategies and Pilot Programs are listed. Marika Konings: Challenge is that many of these programs do not have a specific GNSO focus or criteria. Marika Konings: what may be missing from the list is SG/C specific outreach programs? Marika Konings: I guess that would fall under other activities? Marika Konings: but it may be worth getting more details on those as these are presumbably specifically focused on GNSO Lori Schulman: I like the idea of outreach. Agree with Marika. Sara Bockey: I've never heard of the stakeholder journey project. Is there a link to that? Pascal Bekono: Good point Marika Marika Konings: I believe there are also discussions on conducting a community wide review of the fellowship program -- Items to be discussed in the solutions section: Metrics to develop and monitor to evaluate ongoing effectiveness of current outreach strategies and pilot programs; Whether to develop and fund more targeted programs, beyond those already offered; How to best reduce or remove cost barriers to volunteer participation on WGs and policy development. -- In addition to gathering information about metrics for evaluating individual programs, it may be helpful to discuss if it would be helpful to have a more holistic evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs. -- Outreach appears to be done on the SG/C level within the GNSO. Each has a distinct target audience. Perhaps this could be summarized in the charter text. Remaining question - how do we evaluate success? It might be helpful to provide context about the relationship between outreach at the SG/C level and participation in Working Groups. -- Question - what does the Working Group think would be helpful to use in terms of metrics? >From the chat: Sara Bockey: I'm not sure re metrics. what exactly are the metrics looking at? Pascal Bekono: Metrics can be done through a survey ? -- The group will gather some additional information and then circle back to discuss further. -- For recommendation 2, the group may determine that existing programs are sufficient. -- For recommendation 3, staff is working with Language Services to determine costs associated with recommendations 7 and 12. This might be a way to reduce/remove cost barriers to participation. Staff may be able to identify existing measures to reduce cost barriers, such as free or low cost telecommunication services. 5. Next Meeting: 08 February 1300 UTC.

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from GNSO Review WG call on Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Jan. 18, 2018

Jan. 18, 2018

Dear all, Please find the mp3, AC Recording, attendance and AC Chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-18jan18-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p1xtx9xj8p3/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a6178ff179b97849…> https://participate.icann.org/p1xtx9xj8p3/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> 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 agenda page: <https://community.icann.org/x/dg9yB> https://community.icann.org/x/dg9yB Attendance Members: Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary) Jen Wolfe (RySG Primary) Lori Schulman (IPC Primary) Participants: Pascal Bekono (NCUC) Apologies: Rafik Dammak (NCSG Primary) Kris Seeburn (NCUC Participant) ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Emily Barabas 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 18 January 2018 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 13:00 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=euDcGA1kcB3ZJoHZ3XrT0XEjukmUzNRpfaFwnI3EA60&s=yUjdRMhwiAA5z7_Rc9x3fnDjw4GtoTLzRsVi2mA9KhA&e= Sara Bockey:Good Morning/Day Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Hi everybody Lori Schulman:hi Terri Agnew:Welcome Pascal Bekono Pascal Bekono:Hi, Thank you Terri Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:I agree.Thanks Julie Lori Schulman:I would extend. Lori Schulman:Thank you for the good explanation. Lori Schulman:yes, I was confused too. Technical training could also means using ICANN's technology to enable the work. Sara Bockey:Could technical training also be for staff - to have a better understanding of Ry / Rr techincal issues Sara Bockey:I think ICANN topics are complex and the history related to issues too deep to really be effectively addressed in brief classes. Perhaps something that does a deeper dive over a longer period of time, like a semester say, would be helpful. I've done a good bit of this training with varying degrees of feeling like I took something away from it Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:this would be helpfull and sufficient Marika Konings:the WG may need to define what current cost barriers are as policy development is largely done through online means (which do cost time and effort, but no other costs as there are usually free dial in numbers or otherwise dial outs provided) Marika Konings:Challenge is that many of these programs do not have a specific GNSO focus or criteria. Marika Konings:what may be missing from the list is SG/C specific outreach programs? Marika Konings:I guess that would fall under other activities? Marika Konings:but it may be worth getting more details on those as these are presumbably specifically focused on GNSO Lori Schulman:I like the idea of outreach. Agree with Marika. Sara Bockey:I've never heard of the stakeholder journey project. Is there a link to that? Pascal Bekono:Good point Marika Marika Konings:I believe there are also discussions on conducting a community wide review of the fellowship program Sara Bockey:I'm not sure re metrics. what exactly are the metrics looking at? Pascal Bekono:Metrics can be done through a survey ? Sara Bockey:sounds good to me Lori Schulman:yes Sara Bockey:Thanks all! Lori Schulman:thanks Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:bye Lori Schulman:great job Julie Lori Schulman:and Jen

1 0

Agenda and Materials for 18 January Meeting 13:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 17, 2018

Jan. 17, 2018

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the draft agenda for the meeting on Thursday, 18 January at 13:00 UTC. Please also see the attached materials and the action items below from the previous meeting. Draft agenda: Review agenda/SOIs Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34 Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22 Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3 Next Meeting: 08 February 1300 UTC. AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items from 11 January 2018: 2018 Work Plan: Staff will add to the work plan additional details about potential cost of transcription services, as well as in the charter for recommendations 7 & 12. (PENDING) Implementation Charter for Recommendation 34: Staff will add a sentence clarifying that there is currently no mandate or rule regarding rotation, and that the decision is left to the WG based on the composition of the membership and the utility of rotation. Staff will send this proposed text to the WG and for discussion on the call on 18 January. Once language is finalized, Staff will circulate the Charter for Recommendation 34 for a consensus call. (SEE ATTACHED REVISION) Response to OEC Questions from Avri Doria: Send the response to Avri, but also ask about the significance of the reference to the February 2017 date. (DONE) Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22: 1) Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework”; 2) Staff will investigate technical training opportunities and add these links to these options. (SEE ATTACHED REVISION) January and February 2018 Meetings: The meetings will be on 11 and 18 January, and the 01 February meeting will be canceled to avoid conflicts. The February meetings will occur on 08 and 22 February.

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Revised Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 2018

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per action 4 below, and as discussed on today’s call, please see the attached revised implementation charter for Recommendation 22 for your review. Please suggest any changes to the redlined text on the list and we also will discuss the text at our meeting on 18 January. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: 2018 Work Plan: Staff will add to the work plan additional details about potential cost of transcription services, as well as in the charter for recommendations 7 & 12. Implementation Charter for Recommendation 34: Staff will add a sentence clarifying that there is currently no mandate or rule regarding rotation, and that the decision is left to the WG based on the composition of the membership and the utility of rotation. Staff will send this proposed text to the WG and for discussion on the call on 18 January. Once language is finalized, Staff will circulate the Charter for Recommendation 34 for a consensus call. Response to OEC Questions from Avri Doria: Send the response to Avri, but also ask about the significance of the reference to the February 2017 date. Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22: 1) Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework”; 2) Staff will investigate technical training opportunities and add these links to these options. January and February 2018 Meetings: The meetings will be on 11 and 18 January, and the 01 February meeting will be canceled to avoid conflicts. The February meetings will occur on 08 and 22 February. Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates. 2. Status of Consensus Calls for implementation charters for recommendation 4, and recommendations 5, 9, and 17: Consensus call ended on 8 January. There were no objections or comments. Charters were approved by consensus. 3. Discussion of the revised Work Plan: -- Staff has updated the work plan to include details about any anticipated budget effects for each of the items in the work plan (see work plan for details). -- Items from 2017 have been removed. The work plan now begins in January 2018. -- Question: Is it realistic to cover five recommendations in January? Answer: The work plan is ambitious. The Working Group is ahead of schedule. It is possible move more slowly to ensure thorough discussion. Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are closely related. Staff will provide as much detailed information as possible to support discussion of Charters for 7 and 12. -- Comment: Details about costs of transcription services would be helpful to include. 4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34: -- This charter focuses on rotation of meeting start times. -- Text has been added describe current practices regarding meeting start time rotation, future opportunities for more robust data collection, and indicating that WG members' ability to participate depends not only on time zone but also other factors, such as non-ICANN commitments. -- Final paragraph has been updated to summarize key points in the text. -- Suggestion: it might be helpful to clarify in the text that ultimately it is up to the WG itself to determine the rotation. There is no rule across WGs. 5. Discussion of the draft response to questions on the Implementation Status Report from the OEC: -- Staff provided implementation status report to OEC following ICANN60. -- Questions were received from Avri Doria. Avri had been participating in this WG prior to joining the Board. She now serves on the OEC. -- Staff has drafted suggested responses, but the responses should come from the WG and not from staff. -- We may receive additional questions from the OEC in the future, but it would be helpful to go ahead and respond to Avri's questions and ask about the relevance of the February 2017 date. -- Regarding question on recommendation 18 -- the response indicates that we are following the Operating Procedures and evaluating on an periodic basis and not an ongoing basis. -- Regarding question on Recommendation 27 -- the requested links are provided in the attachment to the Charter. >From the chat: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: what is Feb 2017 relevant for? Sara Bockey: Agree, why is Feb 2017 relevant. And the PDP would have to go thru IRT before implementing... so where would IRTP-C fall into this? Would it? Marika Konings: This is what the PDP Manual currently says: "A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility." Marika Konings: not sure if Avri is referring to that? Or is there a separate PIA that I am not aware of? Berry Cobb: The answer to Q1 on #16 is No. PIA has not been used. Likely first use will be the IGO CRPM PDP. Sara Bockey: Also, CL&D was implemented in Aug... does that fall into this? Sara Bockey: Guess maybe I'm not understanding... Berry Cobb: Curative Rights Protection Mechanisim Sara Bockey: Consistant Labeling and Display Sara Bockey: OK Berry Cobb: PIA does not apply to IRT. This is an assessment of policy recommendations. 6. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendation 22: -- The term "competency-based framework" is unclear. ICANN offers many training options, but it is not always obvious if these are responsive to a "competency-based framework". -- Question: did staff check what the issues behind this recommendation to better understand the rationale? Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework." -- Recommendations 26-29 relate to Statements of Interest. GDPR may impact the way personal information is displayed and stored. There may be changes to the Recommendations based on the implementation of GDPR. ICANN Organization is working on guidance in this area. -- Question: Is there information about technical training included in this document? Staff can elaborate on technical training opportunities in the Charter. -- Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual also have information about expectations for Working Group members. >From the chat: Kris Seeburn: i think it has to be something to do with people with proper knowledge of what is bwing discussed Pascal Bekono: Why EU GDPR is so important to have recommendations 26-29 pending ? >From the chat: Kris Seeburn: i thought i saw a document from EU on for the internet, websites, ecommerce Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Any kind of data collection is falling - from a European perspective - under the GDPR Kris Seeburn: i am sur there were two legal advise to ICANN on the gdpr Lori Schulman: There were 3 memos of legal advice on GDPR Kris Seeburn: just a question : Are there any guidelines of ethics on mailing and or WG/WT/ccwg? Because at tmes things tends to degenerate ...i would be happy that these are taken care of. Marika Konings: @Kris - the ICANN Standards of Behavior also apply there Marika Konings: @Kris - there is at least 1 example where a WG member was removed due to failure to meet the standards, despite numerous reminders. 7. Next Meetings: -- Next meeting is 18 January at 1300 UTC. This is the last meeting in January. -- February meetings: The meeting on 01 February is canceled due to conflicts with a community intersessional. The meetings in February are on the 8th and the 22nd.

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Revised Implementation Charter for Recommendation 34
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 2018

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per action 2 below, and as discussed on today’s call, please see the attached revised implementation charter for Recommendation 34 for your review. Please suggest any changes to the redlined text on the list and we also will discuss the text at our meeting on 18 January with the goal to send out a final version for a consensus call. For ease of reference, here also is the text (additions in red): Staff notes that the review of the effectiveness of meeting times is ongoing and may vary among Working Groups. In addition, there currently are in place processes for Working Groups to assess the effectiveness of meeting time rotations within the limits of the current data collection methods. Staff clarifies that there is currently no mandate or rule regarding meeting rotation, and that the decision is left to the Working Group based on the composition of the membership and the utility of rotation. Finally, a potential tool may be developed that could facilitate the assessment of participation patterns. Thus, staff recommends that the GNSO Working Group consider this recommendation to be implemented via the current Working Group practices and processes. Working Group Determination: The GNSO Review Working Group has reviewed the current Working Group practices and processes for the rotation of meeting times and has determined that they address the recommendation that PDP Working Groups rotate the start time of their meetings in order not to disadvantage people who wish to participate from anywhere in the world. In particular, the Working Group has determined that at this time it does not appear necessary for there to be a mandate or rule regarding meeting rotation. Instead the decision as to whether to rotate meeting times should be left to the Working Group based on the composition of the membership and the utility of rotation. Thus, the Working Group determines that this recommendation is implemented. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: 2018 Work Plan: Staff will add to the work plan additional details about potential cost of transcription services, as well as in the charter for recommendations 7 & 12. Implementation Charter for Recommendation 34: Staff will add a sentence clarifying that there is currently no mandate or rule regarding rotation, and that the decision is left to the WG based on the composition of the membership and the utility of rotation. Staff will send this proposed text to the WG and for discussion on the call on 18 January. Once language is finalized, Staff will circulate the Charter for Recommendation 34 for a consensus call. Response to OEC Questions from Avri Doria: Send the response to Avri, but also ask about the significance of the reference to the February 2017 date. Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22: 1) Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework”; 2) Staff will investigate technical training opportunities and add these links to these options. January and February 2018 Meetings: The meetings will be on 11 and 18 January, and the 01 February meeting will be canceled to avoid conflicts. The February meetings will occur on 08 and 22 February. Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates. 2. Status of Consensus Calls for implementation charters for recommendation 4, and recommendations 5, 9, and 17: Consensus call ended on 8 January. There were no objections or comments. Charters were approved by consensus. 3. Discussion of the revised Work Plan: -- Staff has updated the work plan to include details about any anticipated budget effects for each of the items in the work plan (see work plan for details). -- Items from 2017 have been removed. The work plan now begins in January 2018. -- Question: Is it realistic to cover five recommendations in January? Answer: The work plan is ambitious. The Working Group is ahead of schedule. It is possible move more slowly to ensure thorough discussion. Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are closely related. Staff will provide as much detailed information as possible to support discussion of Charters for 7 and 12. -- Comment: Details about costs of transcription services would be helpful to include. 4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34: -- This charter focuses on rotation of meeting start times. -- Text has been added describe current practices regarding meeting start time rotation, future opportunities for more robust data collection, and indicating that WG members' ability to participate depends not only on time zone but also other factors, such as non-ICANN commitments. -- Final paragraph has been updated to summarize key points in the text. -- Suggestion: it might be helpful to clarify in the text that ultimately it is up to the WG itself to determine the rotation. There is no rule across WGs. 5. Discussion of the draft response to questions on the Implementation Status Report from the OEC: -- Staff provided implementation status report to OEC following ICANN60. -- Questions were received from Avri Doria. Avri had been participating in this WG prior to joining the Board. She now serves on the OEC. -- Staff has drafted suggested responses, but the responses should come from the WG and not from staff. -- We may receive additional questions from the OEC in the future, but it would be helpful to go ahead and respond to Avri's questions and ask about the relevance of the February 2017 date. -- Regarding question on recommendation 18 -- the response indicates that we are following the Operating Procedures and evaluating on an periodic basis and not an ongoing basis. -- Regarding question on Recommendation 27 -- the requested links are provided in the attachment to the Charter. >From the chat: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: what is Feb 2017 relevant for? Sara Bockey: Agree, why is Feb 2017 relevant. And the PDP would have to go thru IRT before implementing... so where would IRTP-C fall into this? Would it? Marika Konings: This is what the PDP Manual currently says: "A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility." Marika Konings: not sure if Avri is referring to that? Or is there a separate PIA that I am not aware of? Berry Cobb: The answer to Q1 on #16 is No. PIA has not been used. Likely first use will be the IGO CRPM PDP. Sara Bockey: Also, CL&D was implemented in Aug... does that fall into this? Sara Bockey: Guess maybe I'm not understanding... Berry Cobb: Curative Rights Protection Mechanisim Sara Bockey: Consistant Labeling and Display Sara Bockey: OK Berry Cobb: PIA does not apply to IRT. This is an assessment of policy recommendations. 6. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendation 22: -- The term "competency-based framework" is unclear. ICANN offers many training options, but it is not always obvious if these are responsive to a "competency-based framework". -- Question: did staff check what the issues behind this recommendation to better understand the rationale? Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework." -- Recommendations 26-29 relate to Statements of Interest. GDPR may impact the way personal information is displayed and stored. There may be changes to the Recommendations based on the implementation of GDPR. ICANN Organization is working on guidance in this area. -- Question: Is there information about technical training included in this document? Staff can elaborate on technical training opportunities in the Charter. -- Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual also have information about expectations for Working Group members. >From the chat: Kris Seeburn: i think it has to be something to do with people with proper knowledge of what is bwing discussed Pascal Bekono: Why EU GDPR is so important to have recommendations 26-29 pending ? >From the chat: Kris Seeburn: i thought i saw a document from EU on for the internet, websites, ecommerce Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Any kind of data collection is falling - from a European perspective - under the GDPR Kris Seeburn: i am sur there were two legal advise to ICANN on the gdpr Lori Schulman: There were 3 memos of legal advice on GDPR Kris Seeburn: just a question : Are there any guidelines of ethics on mailing and or WG/WT/ccwg? Because at tmes things tends to degenerate ...i would be happy that these are taken care of. Marika Konings: @Kris - the ICANN Standards of Behavior also apply there Marika Konings: @Kris - there is at least 1 example where a WG member was removed due to failure to meet the standards, despite numerous reminders. 7. Next Meetings: -- Next meeting is 18 January at 1300 UTC. This is the last meeting in January. -- February meetings: The meeting on 01 February is canceled due to conflicts with a community intersessional. The meetings in February are on the 8th and the 22nd.

1 0

GNSO Review Working Group Response to Avri Doria and the OEC on the Implementation Status Report
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 2018

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per action item 3 below, and as discussed during today’s call, please see the attached response that staff will send to Avri Doria and the OEC on behalf of the GNSO Review Working Group. Unless there are any further comments from the Working Group, this response will be sent tomorrow. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: 2018 Work Plan: Staff will add to the work plan additional details about potential cost of transcription services, as well as in the charter for recommendations 7 & 12. Implementation Charter for Recommendation 34: Staff will add a sentence clarifying that there is currently no mandate or rule regarding rotation, and that the decision is left to the WG based on the composition of the membership and the utility of rotation. Staff will send this proposed text to the WG and for discussion on the call on 18 January. Once language is finalized, Staff will circulate the Charter for Recommendation 34 for a consensus call. Response to OEC Questions from Avri Doria: Send the response to Avri, but also ask about the significance of the reference to the February 2017 date. Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22: 1) Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework”; 2) Staff will investigate technical training opportunities and add these links to these options. January and February 2018 Meetings: The meetings will be on 11 and 18 January, and the 01 February meeting will be canceled to avoid conflicts. The February meetings will occur on 08 and 22 February. Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates. 2. Status of Consensus Calls for implementation charters for recommendation 4, and recommendations 5, 9, and 17: Consensus call ended on 8 January. There were no objections or comments. Charters were approved by consensus. 3. Discussion of the revised Work Plan: -- Staff has updated the work plan to include details about any anticipated budget effects for each of the items in the work plan (see work plan for details). -- Items from 2017 have been removed. The work plan now begins in January 2018. -- Question: Is it realistic to cover five recommendations in January? Answer: The work plan is ambitious. The Working Group is ahead of schedule. It is possible move more slowly to ensure thorough discussion. Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are closely related. Staff will provide as much detailed information as possible to support discussion of Charters for 7 and 12. -- Comment: Details about costs of transcription services would be helpful to include. 4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34: -- This charter focuses on rotation of meeting start times. -- Text has been added describe current practices regarding meeting start time rotation, future opportunities for more robust data collection, and indicating that WG members' ability to participate depends not only on time zone but also other factors, such as non-ICANN commitments. -- Final paragraph has been updated to summarize key points in the text. -- Suggestion: it might be helpful to clarify in the text that ultimately it is up to the WG itself to determine the rotation. There is no rule across WGs. 5. Discussion of the draft response to questions on the Implementation Status Report from the OEC: -- Staff provided implementation status report to OEC following ICANN60. -- Questions were received from Avri Doria. Avri had been participating in this WG prior to joining the Board. She now serves on the OEC. -- Staff has drafted suggested responses, but the responses should come from the WG and not from staff. -- We may receive additional questions from the OEC in the future, but it would be helpful to go ahead and respond to Avri's questions and ask about the relevance of the February 2017 date. -- Regarding question on recommendation 18 -- the response indicates that we are following the Operating Procedures and evaluating on an periodic basis and not an ongoing basis. -- Regarding question on Recommendation 27 -- the requested links are provided in the attachment to the Charter. >From the chat: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: what is Feb 2017 relevant for? Sara Bockey: Agree, why is Feb 2017 relevant. And the PDP would have to go thru IRT before implementing... so where would IRTP-C fall into this? Would it? Marika Konings: This is what the PDP Manual currently says: "A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility." Marika Konings: not sure if Avri is referring to that? Or is there a separate PIA that I am not aware of? Berry Cobb: The answer to Q1 on #16 is No. PIA has not been used. Likely first use will be the IGO CRPM PDP. Sara Bockey: Also, CL&D was implemented in Aug... does that fall into this? Sara Bockey: Guess maybe I'm not understanding... Berry Cobb: Curative Rights Protection Mechanisim Sara Bockey: Consistant Labeling and Display Sara Bockey: OK Berry Cobb: PIA does not apply to IRT. This is an assessment of policy recommendations. 6. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendation 22: -- The term "competency-based framework" is unclear. ICANN offers many training options, but it is not always obvious if these are responsive to a "competency-based framework". -- Question: did staff check what the issues behind this recommendation to better understand the rationale? Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework." -- Recommendations 26-29 relate to Statements of Interest. GDPR may impact the way personal information is displayed and stored. There may be changes to the Recommendations based on the implementation of GDPR. ICANN Organization is working on guidance in this area. -- Question: Is there information about technical training included in this document? Staff can elaborate on technical training opportunities in the Charter. -- Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual also have information about expectations for Working Group members. >From the chat: Kris Seeburn: i think it has to be something to do with people with proper knowledge of what is bwing discussed Pascal Bekono: Why EU GDPR is so important to have recommendations 26-29 pending ? >From the chat: Kris Seeburn: i thought i saw a document from EU on for the internet, websites, ecommerce Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Any kind of data collection is falling - from a European perspective - under the GDPR Kris Seeburn: i am sur there were two legal advise to ICANN on the gdpr Lori Schulman: There were 3 memos of legal advice on GDPR Kris Seeburn: just a question : Are there any guidelines of ethics on mailing and or WG/WT/ccwg? Because at tmes things tends to degenerate ...i would be happy that these are taken care of. Marika Konings: @Kris - the ICANN Standards of Behavior also apply there Marika Konings: @Kris - there is at least 1 example where a WG member was removed due to failure to meet the standards, despite numerous reminders. 7. Next Meetings: -- Next meeting is 18 January at 1300 UTC. This is the last meeting in January. -- February meetings: The meeting on 01 February is canceled due to conflicts with a community intersessional. The meetings in February are on the 8th and the 22nd.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 11 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 2018

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 11 January 2018. 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. Please note that the next meeting will occur on 18 January at 1300 UTC. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: 2018 Work Plan: Staff will add to the work plan additional details about potential cost of transcription services, as well as in the charter for recommendations 7 & 12. Implementation Charter for Recommendation 34: Staff will add a sentence clarifying that there is currently no mandate or rule regarding rotation, and that the decision is left to the WG based on the composition of the membership and the utility of rotation. Staff will send this proposed text to the WG and for discussion on the call on 18 January. Once language is finalized, Staff will circulate the Charter for Recommendation 34 for a consensus call. Response to OEC Questions from Avri Doria: Send the response to Avri, but also ask about the significance of the reference to the February 2017 date. Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22: 1) Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework”; 2) Staff will investigate technical training opportunities and add these links to these options. January and February 2018 Meetings: The meetings will be on 11 and 18 January, and the 01 February meeting will be canceled to avoid conflicts. The February meetings will occur on 08 and 22 February. Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates. 2. Status of Consensus Calls for implementation charters for recommendation 4, and recommendations 5, 9, and 17: Consensus call ended on 8 January. There were no objections or comments. Charters were approved by consensus. 3. Discussion of the revised Work Plan: -- Staff has updated the work plan to include details about any anticipated budget effects for each of the items in the work plan (see work plan for details). -- Items from 2017 have been removed. The work plan now begins in January 2018. -- Question: Is it realistic to cover five recommendations in January? Answer: The work plan is ambitious. The Working Group is ahead of schedule. It is possible move more slowly to ensure thorough discussion. Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are closely related. Staff will provide as much detailed information as possible to support discussion of Charters for 7 and 12. -- Comment: Details about costs of transcription services would be helpful to include. 4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34: -- This charter focuses on rotation of meeting start times. -- Text has been added describe current practices regarding meeting start time rotation, future opportunities for more robust data collection, and indicating that WG members' ability to participate depends not only on time zone but also other factors, such as non-ICANN commitments. -- Final paragraph has been updated to summarize key points in the text. -- Suggestion: it might be helpful to clarify in the text that ultimately it is up to the WG itself to determine the rotation. There is no rule across WGs. 5. Discussion of the draft response to questions on the Implementation Status Report from the OEC: -- Staff provided implementation status report to OEC following ICANN60. -- Questions were received from Avri Doria. Avri had been participating in this WG prior to joining the Board. She now serves on the OEC. -- Staff has drafted suggested responses, but the responses should come from the WG and not from staff. -- We may receive additional questions from the OEC in the future, but it would be helpful to go ahead and respond to Avri's questions and ask about the relevance of the February 2017 date. -- Regarding question on recommendation 18 -- the response indicates that we are following the Operating Procedures and evaluating on an periodic basis and not an ongoing basis. -- Regarding question on Recommendation 27 -- the requested links are provided in the attachment to the Charter. >From the chat: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: what is Feb 2017 relevant for? Sara Bockey: Agree, why is Feb 2017 relevant. And the PDP would have to go thru IRT before implementing... so where would IRTP-C fall into this? Would it? Marika Konings: This is what the PDP Manual currently says: "A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility." Marika Konings: not sure if Avri is referring to that? Or is there a separate PIA that I am not aware of? Berry Cobb: The answer to Q1 on #16 is No. PIA has not been used. Likely first use will be the IGO CRPM PDP. Sara Bockey: Also, CL&D was implemented in Aug... does that fall into this? Sara Bockey: Guess maybe I'm not understanding... Berry Cobb: Curative Rights Protection Mechanisim Sara Bockey: Consistant Labeling and Display Sara Bockey: OK Berry Cobb: PIA does not apply to IRT. This is an assessment of policy recommendations. 6. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendation 22: -- The term "competency-based framework" is unclear. ICANN offers many training options, but it is not always obvious if these are responsive to a "competency-based framework". -- Question: did staff check what the issues behind this recommendation to better understand the rationale? Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework." -- Recommendations 26-29 relate to Statements of Interest. GDPR may impact the way personal information is displayed and stored. There may be changes to the Recommendations based on the implementation of GDPR. ICANN Organization is working on guidance in this area. -- Question: Is there information about technical training included in this document? Staff can elaborate on technical training opportunities in the Charter. -- Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual also have information about expectations for Working Group members. >From the chat: Kris Seeburn: i think it has to be something to do with people with proper knowledge of what is bwing discussed Pascal Bekono: Why EU GDPR is so important to have recommendations 26-29 pending ? >From the chat: Kris Seeburn: i thought i saw a document from EU on for the internet, websites, ecommerce Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Any kind of data collection is falling - from a European perspective - under the GDPR Kris Seeburn: i am sur there were two legal advise to ICANN on the gdpr Lori Schulman: There were 3 memos of legal advice on GDPR Kris Seeburn: just a question : Are there any guidelines of ethics on mailing and or WG/WT/ccwg? Because at tmes things tends to degenerate ...i would be happy that these are taken care of. Marika Konings: @Kris - the ICANN Standards of Behavior also apply there Marika Konings: @Kris - there is at least 1 example where a WG member was removed due to failure to meet the standards, despite numerous reminders. 7. Next Meetings: -- Next meeting is 18 January at 1300 UTC. This is the last meeting in January. -- February meetings: The meeting on 01 February is canceled due to conflicts with a community intersessional. The meetings in February are on the 8th and the 22nd.

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from GNSO Review WG call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 2018

Dear all, Please find the mp3, AC Recording, attendance and AC Chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-11jan18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p57vbcjudk5/<https://participate.icann.org/p57vbcjudk5/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=390c3f629a9e8e92…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/ Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/dA9yB Attendance Members: Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate) Rafik Dammak (NCSG Primary) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary) Lawrence Owalale-Roberts (BC Primary) Jen Wolfe (RySG Primary) Lori Schulman (IPC Primary) Participants: Kris Seeburn (NCUC) Pascal Bekono (NCUC) Apologies: Mahendra Limaye ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Emily Barabas Berry Cobb Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 11 January 2018 Nathalie Peregrine: Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC Nathalie Peregrine:Wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Kris Seeburn:hi all.... looks like we still to wait Kris Seeburn:thnaks... Kris Seeburn:hope you managed to get some time off and celebrate Nathalie Peregrine:Indeed, and best wishes to all for 2018! Kris Seeburn:thats goood then... +1 Julie Hedlund:Happy New Year Everyone! Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Happy New Year! Lori Schulman:Hi there Pascal Bekono:Happy New year Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Thanks Julie Kris Seeburn:The rotation is good but it seems we are still trying to get it right.... Kris Seeburn:We end up with questions that was already addressed but it comes back Kris Seeburn:I'll highly suggest on rotation meetings people get to read and digest the missed meetings we will need that to move on else duplication happens.. But i agree with wolf Kris Seeburn:i think yes Kris Seeburn:sounds good Nathalie Peregrine:We'll mute the line Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:We helped her getting the job :-) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:what is Feb 2017 relevant for? Sara Bockey:Agree, why is Feb 2017 relevant. And the PDP would have to go thru IRT before implementing... so where would IRTP-C fall into this? Would it? Kris Seeburn:i think there has been no pdp implementations...if i am not wrong Kris Seeburn:most are incomplete at this stage Marika Konings:This is what the PDP Manual currently says: "A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility." Marika Konings:not sure if Avri is referring to that? Or is there a separate PIA that I am not aware of? Berry Cobb:The answer to Q1 on #16 is No. PIA has not been used. Likely first use will be the IGO CRPM PDP. Sara Bockey:Also, CL&D was implemented in Aug... does that fall into this? Sara Bockey:Guess maybe I'm not understanding... Berry Cobb:Curative Rights Protection Mechanisim Sara Bockey:Consistant Labeling and Display Sara Bockey:OK Berry Cobb:PIA does not apply to IRT. This is an assessment of policy recomendations. Sara Bockey:Ah, OK. Thank you. Got it now Sara Bockey:it's early here ;) Kris Seeburn:i thin avri has put that because she knows no much has been done from PDP Kris Seeburn:i think we need to find the dealocks...and move Lori Schulman:agree Kris Seeburn:i think it has to be something to do with people with proper knowledge of what is bwing discussed Pascal Bekono:Why EU GDPR is so important to have recommendations 26-29 pending ? Kris Seeburn:i thought i saw a document from EU on for the internet, websites, ecommerce Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Any kind of data collection is falling - from a European perspective - under the GDPR Kris Seeburn:i am sur there were two legal advise to ICANN on the gdpr Lori Schulman:There were 3 memos of legal advice on GDPR Kris Seeburn:just a question : Are there any guidelines of ethics on mailing and or WG/WT/ccwg? Because at tmes things tends to degenerate ...i would be happy that these are taken care of. Marika Konings:@Kris - the ICANN Standards of Behavior also apply there Kris Seeburn:i agree Kris Seeburn:then these to be fully enforced Marika Konings:@Kris - there is at least 1 example where a WG member was removed due to failure to meet the standards, despite numerous reminders. Lori Schulman:Good meeting. Lori Schulman:Thank you to staff for making it so easy for us Lori Schulman:intersessional and board workshops are 1,2 Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Intersessional Nathalie Peregrine:We will go over all the invites after the call Sara Bockey:Thanks all! Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Thanks and bye! Lori Schulman:bye Kris Seeburn:cheerio bye Kris Seeburn:tc

1 0

Agenda and Materials for 11 January Meeting 13:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 10, 2018

Jan. 10, 2018

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Happy New Year! Please see below the draft agenda for the meeting on Thursday, 11 January at 13:00 UTC. Please also see the attached materials and the action items below from the previous meeting. Draft agenda: Review agenda/SOIs Status of Consensus Calls for implementation charters for recommendation 4, and recommendations 5, 9, and 17 Discussion of the revised Work Plan Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34 Discussion of the draft response to questions on the Implementation Status Report from the OEC Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendation 22 Next Meeting: 18 January 1300 UTC. AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items from 14 December 2017: Implementation Charter for Recommendation 4: 1) Staff will accept changes and send out final version for consensus call. Normally consensus calls last 2 weeks. Due to the holidays, staff suggests closing the consensus call on 8 January. 2) Staff will send out a reminder on 02 January. Implementation Charter for Recommendation 34: Staff will revise the charter based on the discussion on the call and send it out for review and for discussion on the call on 11 January. Implementation Charter for Recommendations 5, 9, and 17: 1) Staff will accept changes and send the charter out for a consensus call, closing 08 January. 2) Staff will send out a reminder on 02 January. 2018 Work Plan: Staff will revise the Work Plan to include updated status as well as notes concerning where recommendations may have budget effects. January 2018 Meetings: The meetings will be rescheduled to occur on 11 and 18 January to avoid conflicts.

1 0