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

GNSO2 Review Implementation
by Khaled Koubaa Feb. 12, 2018

Feb. 12, 2018

Dear members of the GNSO2 Review Implementation Working Group, Congratulations on completing phase 1 of the GNSO2 implementation! Thank you for submitting the semi-annual implementation progress report to keep us appraised of the status of your work on implementing GNSO2 recommendations, and for addressing all of our questions. We look forward to your next update on the progress of your work and wish you success in implementation of phases 2 and 3 of this review recommendations. Thank you for your dedication and diligent work. Best regards, Khaled Koubaa Chair of the OEC -- --------------------------------------- Khaled KOUBAA / خالد قوبعة Board Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) khaled.koubaa(a)board.icann.org

1 0

CLOSED - CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 34 Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 9, 2018

Feb. 9, 2018

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This Consensus Call below closed on 08 February 2018 and no objections were received. As there were no objections the implementation of Recommendation 34 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 <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 5:23 PM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER - CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 34 Implementation Charter Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items below, 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 08 February 2018
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 8, 2018

Feb. 8, 2018

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 08 February 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/2018. Please note that the next meeting will occur on 15 February at 1300 UTC. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 08 February 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: Action Item 1 (revised implementation charter for recommendation 22): Staff will accept changes in the document and add text to the GNSO Review Working Group determination recommending accessibility of training, and in particular real-time interaction through remote platforms. Staff will also add language recommending that all of the trainings and learning materials are linked from the GNSO website and described in the context of the competency-based framework. Staff will send these proposed changes on the mailing list and invite feedback on proposed edits between now and next week's call. Action Item 2 (revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3): 1) Collect additional information about the potential budget reduction for the CROPP Program and reasons for this. Move CROPP to #1. Action Item 3 (revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3): Staff will connect with ICANN staff to understand links between regional outreach, stakeholder journey, and some of the other initiatives described in the implementation charter. In revised text, focus on the manifestation of the outreach in the regions rather than describing the program. Action Item 4 (revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3): Staff will get in touch with Secretariats of SG/Cs to get more information about how they do outreach and whether any metrics are available on these efforts. Action Item 5 (revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3): Add to metrics section, a metric that looks at engagement/level of activity/sustainability. Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No SOI Updates. 2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendation 34: -- A call for consensus was opened 3 weeks ago. This was a longer consensus call due to meetings over the last few weeks. The consensus call will close later today. Staff will send an update once the deadline has passed. If there are no comments or objections, the implementation charter will be deemed to be approved by full consensus. >From the chat: Kris Seeburn: Please put down a kind of attendance or metrics to see whether it is working -- Staff clarified that individual working groups do informal assessments regarding attendance to ensure that rotation is serving the intended purpose. Kris Seeburn: ok that sounds great...... Sara Bockey: Yes, and I've seen this happen :) 3. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22: -- During the last meeting, staff was asked to more clearly link the programs available to a competency-based framework. -- Text describing the framework has been added. Throughout text about individual programs, specific references linking program elements to the framework have also been added. -- The text now includes additional references to existing programs and detailed explanations of these programs. -- Question: The list of opportunities is a mix of online and face-to-face programs. Is this sufficiently clear in the text? Answer: Some of these programs are exclusively online, whereas others are a combination of online and face-to-face. Of the online materials, some are static and others are more interactive. -- There is a difference between online and face-to-face programs. Face-to-face programs will reach fewer people. Is it clear that the ones that require in-person attendance require the participants to physically be present? The only program that requires physical attendance is the ICANN Academy training. The majority of the training does not require attendance in-person. >From the chat: Marika Konings: but there is the ability to track 'attendance' for GNSO Learn, no? So could it be made a requirement to take certain courses? Marika Konings: not in person I mean, but that it has been taken Kris Seeburn: maybe we could do face to face training plannings - perhaps that will help the new members Kris Seeburn: i understand ...but if you see the list of elected sometimes you find that many did not go through them.... Lori Schulman: If there is a requirement to take courses then are they all online? Lori Schulman: The Face2Face Leadership program was very good. I was sorry that more couldn't take it. There were no phone leadership courses and I think that is a great idea. -- There are newcomer and fellowship programs where community members are funded to travel to ICANN meetings. These will also include some training. These appear to have a somewhat different focus (newcomers vs. Council members and WG members). -- The opportunity to get training should be as wide as possible to reach as many stakeholders as possible. Ideally, as many courses as possible should be available online. This could be a recommendation from the group. Tracking is also important to gather information about who has completed the courses and whether the materials have been helpful to participants. Is it possible to put text about these items in the determination? -- Additional support for making materials available online. At the same time, materials that are passively consumed are less helpful. Adobe Connect sessions with live interaction are more interactive. The most well-rounded trainings have a little bit of everything: face-to-face, online static content, dynamic online interaction (such as through Adobe Connect). >From the chat: Kris Seeburn: when comes to leadership it is a real challenge and also the understanding of consensus Kris Seeburn: but i am in support with wolf ulrich Marika Konings: Maybe providing information on all the training available in an integrated manner may already help? Kris Seeburn: ALAC is doing that already -- People may currently have trouble finding appropriate learning opportunities. It may be helpful to have a one-stop-shop with information about all of the different opportunities, who is eligible, who can apply/participate, and how participation takes place (online, in-person, etc). This may be able to help people to identify what is missing. -- See Action 1 reflecting next steps regarding Recommendation 22. 4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: -- On the last call, staff was asked to look at GNSO outreach efforts within SG/Cs and the GNSO generally, add text regarding recommendations on the use of metrics, and add text about reducing cost barriers to participation. Staff added text on these items. -- There is ongoing evaluation of the fellows program and ongoing oversight within the GNSO Council and SG/Cs. There is currently discussion underway regarding the fellowship program in the context of the FY19 Budget. -- With respect to metrics, staff added text recommending ways to use metrics to evaluate effectiveness (see 3: Suggested Metrics on page 3 of the implementation charter). -- Question: CROPP appears to be missing from 1, but appears in 3. Should it be included in 1 because it is not only GNSO-related? Answer: Yes, this should be moved. -- Question: How does the Regional Outreach Program fit into the other elements related to outreach? Answer: Additional information needs to be gathered on this front. There are local events, connections to institutions of higher learning, and other activities. -- Under Stakeholder Group and Constituency outreach, is it possible to provide additional information about the activities. Each SG/C has the information about outreach in different places. It can be difficult to find this on the different websites. Is there a way to improve this? -- We should learn from the experience of SG/Cs regarding outreach. -- Question from staff: regarding metrics, would it be helpful to get SG/C input? -- Suggestion: contact the secretariats of the SG/Cs about both metrics and outreach measures? -- Suggestion: include not only in metrics on the number of new members but also try to track engagement of members. The real success would be having more active members, not just new members. >From the chat: Kris Seeburn: i would take constituencies and break into region as well 5. Status of the Work Plan: Update will be included in the call next week. 6. Next Meeting: 15 February 1300 UTC (moved from 22 February due to conflict with GNSO Council meeting). 7. AOB: None.

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from GNSO Review WG call on Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 13:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 8, 2018

Feb. 8, 2018

Dear all, Please find the mp3, AC Recording, attendance and AC Chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 13:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-08feb18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6sxtsb1r56/<https://participate.icann.org/p6sxtsb1r56/?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/ew9yB Attendance Members: Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary) Lori Schulman (IPC Primary) Participants: Kris Seeburn (NCUC) On Audio Only: Lawrence Owalale-Roberts (BC Primary) Apologies: Jen Wolfe, Rafik Dammak ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Emily Barabas Marika Konings 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 8 February 2018 Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 13:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Nathalie Peregrine:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome Kris! Kris Seeburn:hi ladies Kris Seeburn:funny i think i am late but too muh ahead of time Nathalie Peregrine:But thanks for joining early! Kris Seeburn:how are we doing on schedule....we be done before the official set schedule? Sara Bockey:Good morning/afternoon/evening :) Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome! Kris Seeburn:hi berry and hi sara Lori Schulman:There was an 8 am call yesterday too. Lots of calls this week. Lori Schulman:I am on Eastern time. For Pac folks its 5 am. Sara Bockey:Agree Lori! Sara Bockey:It's 6am here in AZ :) Lori Schulman:It's a bit much but I have been MIA for most of the winter due to illness. I have been advised that I need to modify my schedule and no flying for the rest of the month. Kris Seeburn:Please put down a kind of attendance or metrics to see whether it is working Kris Seeburn:ok that sounds great...... Sara Bockey:Yes, and I've seen this happen :) Kris Seeburn:i find that consensus is still a problem in many WGs...i am wondering if there is anything we can do Marika Konings:but there is the ability to track 'attendance' for GNSO Learn, no? So could it be made a requirement to take certain courses? Marika Konings:not in person I mean, but that it has been taken Kris Seeburn:maybe we could do face to face training plannings - perhaps that will help the new members Kris Seeburn:i understand ...but if you see the list of elected sometimes you find that many did not go through them.... Lori Schulman:If there is a requirement to take courses then are they all online? Lori Schulman:The Face2Face Leadership program was very good. I was sorry that more couldn't take it. There were no phone leadership courses and I think that is a great idea. Kris Seeburn:+1 ulrich Kris Seeburn:that would be good Kris Seeburn:when comes to leadership it is a real challenge and also the understanding of consensus Kris Seeburn:but i am in support with wolf ulrich Marika Konings:Maybe providing information on all the training available in an integrated manner may already help? Kris Seeburn:ALAC is doing that already Kris Seeburn:they strated...that recently Kris Seeburn:i think it works if we do.... Emily Barabas:I have been able to hear Julie Nathalie Peregrine:@ Wolf-Ulrich, the audio is fine on the audio bridge, would you like us to dial out t you? Nathalie Peregrine:the AC audio is far less reliable. Nathalie Peregrine:Oh you're on the bridge :) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Thanks Nathalie, I'm on the phone Kris Seeburn:i would keep it Kris Seeburn:i would take consstituencies and break into region as well Kris Seeburn:agree with you ulrich Kris Seeburn:by the way you are right it will e important to have a list of outreach activitieis from all contituencies Kris Seeburn:in one place Sara Bockey:thanks all Kris Seeburn:thnaks.....catch you all Lori Schulman:thank you Wolf Ulrich for pulling the heavy oar

1 0

Agenda and Materials for 08 February Meeting 13:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 6, 2018

Feb. 6, 2018

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the draft agenda for the meeting on Thursday, 08 February 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 Call for revised implementation charter for recommendation 34 Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 22 Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3 Status of the Work Plan Next Meeting: 16 February 1300 UTC (moved from 22 February due to conflict with GNSO Council meeting) AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items from 18 January 2018: 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. 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.

1 0

REMINDER - CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 34 Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 1, 2018

Feb. 1, 2018

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items below, 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

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