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

Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Call on 31 August 2017
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see the draft agenda below and attached materials for the meeting on Thursday, 31 August at 1200 UTC. Draft Agenda: Review agenda SOIs Update on Consensus Call on Charter for Recommendation 30 – Ends COB 31 August Discuss Timeline/Status Continue discussion on Charter for Recommendation 31 (now in Phase II, carried over from Phase I) Begin discussion on Recommendation 6 Begin discussion on Recommendations 26-29, time permitting Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 14 September (note new date/rotation) AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

REMINDER-CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 30 Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 17 August, this is a Consensus Call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 30. As noted in the attached charter, this is the recommendation for implementation: “That the GNSO develop and implement a policy for the provision of administrative support for Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies; and that Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies annually review and evaluate the effectiveness of administrative support they receive.” Following the discussion on the call on 17 August and per the Working Group’s direction staff have accepted the changes and are circulating the final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call to end on Thursday, 31 August. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 August Action Items: Recommendation 30: Staff will finalize the charter and send it out for a two-week consensus call; Recommendation 31: Staff will incorporate suggested changes based on the discussion on the 17 August call and send the revised version out for further review and discussion; Recommendations 26/27/28/29: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Recommendation 6: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Timeline: Staff will update the timeline for discussion at the call on 31 August; Meeting/Update at ICANN60: Staff will send a note to the list indicating that there will be a regularly scheduled meeting the week before ICANN60 so unless there are objections the suggestion is to not meet in person at ICANN60 as there will likely be conflicts; staff will request a slot in the GNSO Council schedule for an update from the WG on its progress. Notes: 1. Recommendation 30: -- Determined that the first part has been done -- the so-called “policy.” -- There is a process available in order where the different groups can rely on. -- Community budget requests can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/lgSuAg for those interested. -- Decisions for FY2017 are posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/3hCOAw 2. Recommendation 31: -- Either we say this will not be possible or suggest an alternative approach. -- It is really important to find some negotiated way to have GAC involvement, even if an informal role. Need to re-write this recommendation to allow informal involvement. Might agree to observer status. -- The Consultation Group included the GNSO and the GAC. What are we trying to accomplish? A GAC representative cannot represent the whole view of the GAC. -- Action: Revise the charter to note that the GNSO-GAC Consultation Group has completed its work, note its recommendations and that GAC members cannot act as even informal liaisons, and offer ways that the GAC can become involved (Work Track 5). Include justification for revising the recommendation. >From the chat: Marika Konings: Do note that this is an issue that was also considered by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group. The GAC is of the view that no one, apart from the GAC Chair, can represent the GAC and as such they are not willing to appoint liaisons to other SO/ACs or WGs. Marika Konings: it may be worth asking the question again to meet this recommendation, but the response will likely be along similar lines, unless perspectives have changed in the meantime.... Marika Konings: Maybe it is a question for the GAC to see what they would consider feasible and practical as they do seem to want to be more actively engaged in PDPs? Krishna Seeburn (Kris): We can still recommend for informal.... Rafik: @marika a question already asked several times to GAC I think :) Krishna Seeburn (Kris): i thnink observer status could work Pascal Bekono: Could you define 4. "Options" ??? Marika Konings: @Rafik - yes, but maybe one day the response is different, and in any case, I don't think this group can decide on what the GAC should be doing or providing, without their agreement ;-) 3. Meeting Slot at ICANN60/GNSO Update: -- How does that fit with our usual schedule? -- We do need to deliver a report to the GNSO. Staff will request a slot. -- Action: Staff will determine where we are in the schedule and if it is an off week suggest not holding a F2F meeting. Staff will request a slot for an update to the GNSO.

1 0

CLOSED-CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 19 Revised Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 23, 2017

Aug. 23, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This Consensus Call below closed on 21 August and no objections were received. As there were no objections the implementation of Recommendation 19 is considered agreed by full consensus. See the latest status at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Cons…. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 at 8:50 AM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER-CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 19 Revised Implementation Charter Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 27 July, this is a Consensus Call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 19. As noted in the attached charter, this is the recommendation for implementation: “As strategic manager rather than a policy body the GNSO Council should continue to focus on ensuring that a Working Group has been properly constituted, has thoroughly fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due process.” No comments were received during the one-week review period that ended on Friday, 04 August. Thus, staff have accepted the changes and are circulating the final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call to end on Monday, 21 August. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 July Action Items: Charter for Recommendation 19: 1) incorporate references (including new references identified by staff); 2) send the charter out for review and then consensus call. Charter for Recommendation 30: 1) Revise the charter based on the WG discussion; 2) explore whether there already is a mechanism for review and whether the provision of support is binding or whether that should be a recommendation to the GNSO Council; 3) send a revised version to the WG to review and discuss. Meeting schedule: Move the meeting from 24 August back to 17 August to avoid the conflict with the GNSO Council meeting. Restart two-week rotation with the following meeting on 31 August. Notes: 1. Update on Consensus Call on Charter for Recommendation 13 – Ends COB 27 July -- Consensus call closes today (27 July) - in the absence of objection today, staff will announce that full consensus has been reached on the Charter for Recommendation 13 2. Continue discussion on Charter for Recommendation 19 -- Staff assumption is that existing guidance does exist for the GNSO Council ensuring that a Working Group has been properly constituted, has thoroughly fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due process - to be reviewed and agreed upon by the WG member. -- WG Self-Assessment required in the WG Guidelines allows for WG members involved in a PDP to provide their own assessment of the efficacy of the process, with a goal for further improvement in future work. -- WG guidelines sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 detail measures to ensure as broad and balanced representation in WGs, as practically possible. -- Section 8 PDP Manual details mechanisms to be included in the Charter including: Working Group Identification; Mission, Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization, and; Rules of Engagement. -- Section 9 of PDP Manual provides guidance on use of GNSO WGs to develop policy, due to presence of existing guidelines that require due process. -- Section 12 of the PDP Manual provides guidance to the GNSO Council on how to deliberate and decide on policy recommendations. -- Distinction between policy and how it is organized and managed by the GNSO Council. Question: Is there enough guidance for the management of the PDP and the Working Groups? -- With respect to other models -- do we need stronger language to ensure that the Working Group is the model for the PDP? -- There are other models for non-PDP work, and there also are guidelines for an expedited PDP. But the scope of this charter is limited to this recommendation: the GNSO Council's role in making sure the Working Groups are properly constituted. So, the focus is on Working Groups or other groups/models. -- Other models have been used for different projects, but not do develop Consensus Policies (not to replace PDP WGs). Examples include Working Parties, such as the precursor to this WG, and Drafting Teams. 3. Begin discussion on Charter for Recommendation 30 -- "GNSO Toolkit" and "Pilot Program" are two programs that exist to provide administrative support to GNSO SGs/Cs. -- Pilot Program has been running since 2014, and is no longer considered to be within a pilot phase. -- Charter includes links to an inventory of services currently being provided. -- Question: If you look to 2014 was something being done when this recommendation being established? -- Question: "develop and implement a policy" -- Is that covered here? Or is "policy" of a different level, as how to do provide the admin support? -- GNSO policy recommendations are developed via PDP Working Groups leading to changes and contractual obligations. Non-policy recommendations are developed by other groups. There is nothing that would prevent this GNSO Review Working Group from suggesting changes to procedures, but not as a "policy". -- Not sure how the GNSO Review Working Party came to the wording of this recommendation -- maybe not "policy" but perhaps agreement between ICANN and the GNSO community about the provision of the administrative support. -- It is in the remit of this WG to interpret the recommendation and how it could be implemented -- perhaps instead of "policy" it could be "guidelines" or "operating procedures" -- not a PDP. -- Acknowledge the development of the program over the last years and ongoing development and accept that as the best way to provide the support at the time being. -- In addition, there is the question of the review of the program, which is perhaps not fulfilled. Should tell the GNSO Council that it is up to them to decide whether measures should be taken in order to make the support more binding for both sides.

1 0

Meeting Schedule and Update at ICANN60
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per action item 6 below from the meeting on 17 August, staff confirms that as there will be a regularly scheduled meeting the week before ICANN60 the suggestion is not to request a slot to meet in person at ICANN60 and also that there will likely be conflicts. Unless there are objections staff will proceed accordingly. In addition, staff will request time on the GNSO Council’s working session schedule for a brief update from the WG Chair or Vice Chair (depending on availability and timing). Staff will prepare for the WG to review draft slides for the update. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 August Action Items: Recommendation 30: Staff will finalize the charter and send it out for a two-week consensus call; Recommendation 31: Staff will incorporate suggested changes based on the discussion on the 17 August call and send the revised version out for further review and discussion; Recommendations 26/27/28/29: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Recommendation 6: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Timeline: Staff will update the timeline for discussion at the call on 31 August; Meeting/Update at ICANN60: Staff will send a note to the list indicating that there will be a regularly scheduled meeting the week before ICANN60 so unless there are objections the suggestion is to not meet in person at ICANN60 as there will likely be conflicts; staff will request a slot in the GNSO Council schedule for an update from the WG on its progress. Notes: 1. Recommendation 30: -- Determined that the first part has been done -- the so-called “policy.” -- There is a process available in order where the different groups can rely on. -- Community budget requests can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/lgSuAg for those interested. -- Decisions for FY2017 are posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/3hCOAw 2. Recommendation 31: -- Either we say this will not be possible or suggest an alternative approach. -- It is really important to find some negotiated way to have GAC involvement, even if an informal role. Need to re-write this recommendation to allow informal involvement. Might agree to observer status. -- The Consultation Group included the GNSO and the GAC. What are we trying to accomplish? A GAC representative cannot represent the whole view of the GAC. -- Action: Revise the charter to note that the GNSO-GAC Consultation Group has completed its work, note its recommendations and that GAC members cannot act as even informal liaisons, and offer ways that the GAC can become involved (Work Track 5). Include justification for revising the recommendation. >From the chat: Marika Konings: Do note that this is an issue that was also considered by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group. The GAC is of the view that no one, apart from the GAC Chair, can represent the GAC and as such they are not willing to appoint liaisons to other SO/ACs or WGs. Marika Konings: it may be worth asking the question again to meet this recommendation, but the response will likely be along similar lines, unless perspectives have changed in the meantime.... Marika Konings: Maybe it is a question for the GAC to see what they would consider feasible and practical as they do seem to want to be more actively engaged in PDPs? Krishna Seeburn (Kris): We can still recommend for informal.... Rafik: @marika a question already asked several times to GAC I think :) Krishna Seeburn (Kris): i thnink observer status could work Pascal Bekono: Could you define 4. "Options" ??? Marika Konings: @Rafik - yes, but maybe one day the response is different, and in any case, I don't think this group can decide on what the GAC should be doing or providing, without their agreement ;-) 3. Meeting Slot at ICANN60/GNSO Update: -- How does that fit with our usual schedule? -- We do need to deliver a report to the GNSO. Staff will request a slot. -- Action: Staff will determine where we are in the schedule and if it is an off week suggest not holding a F2F meeting. Staff will request a slot for an update to the GNSO.

3 3

FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Projected Timeline
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 17, 2017

Aug. 17, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action item from the meeting on 17 August and in the notes below, please see the attached projected timeline for discussion at the call on 31 August. It will be updated pending the outcome of the consensus call ending on 21 August, and the projection for the one ending on 31 August. Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------- Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 August Action Items: Recommendation 30: Staff will finalize the charter and send it out for a two-week consensus call; Recommendation 31: Staff will incorporate suggested changes based on the discussion on the 17 August call and send the revised version out for further review and discussion; Recommendations 26/27/28/29: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Recommendation 6: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Timeline: Staff will update the timeline for discussion at the call on 31 August; Meeting/Update at ICANN60: Staff will send a note to the list indicating that there will be a regularly scheduled meeting the week before ICANN60 so unless there are objections the suggestion is to not meet in person at ICANN60 as there will likely be conflicts; staff will request a slot in the GNSO Council schedule for an update from the WG on its progress. Notes: 1. Recommendation 30: -- Determined that the first part has been done -- the so-called “policy.” -- There is a process available in order where the different groups can rely on. -- Community budget requests can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/lgSuAg for those interested. -- Decisions for FY2017 are posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/3hCOAw 2. Recommendation 31: -- Either we say this will not be possible or suggest an alternative approach. -- It is really important to find some negotiated way to have GAC involvement, even if an informal role. Need to re-write this recommendation to allow informal involvement. Might agree to observer status. -- The Consultation Group included the GNSO and the GAC. What are we trying to accomplish? A GAC representative cannot represent the whole view of the GAC. -- Action: Revise the charter to note that the GNSO-GAC Consultation Group has completed its work, note its recommendations and that GAC members cannot act as even informal liaisons, and offer ways that the GAC can become involved (Work Track 5). Include justification for revising the recommendation. >From the chat: Marika Konings: Do note that this is an issue that was also considered by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group. The GAC is of the view that no one, apart from the GAC Chair, can represent the GAC and as such they are not willing to appoint liaisons to other SO/ACs or WGs. Marika Konings: it may be worth asking the question again to meet this recommendation, but the response will likely be along similar lines, unless perspectives have changed in the meantime.... Marika Konings: Maybe it is a question for the GAC to see what they would consider feasible and practical as they do seem to want to be more actively engaged in PDPs? Krishna Seeburn (Kris): We can still recommend for informal.... Rafik: @marika a question already asked several times to GAC I think :) Krishna Seeburn (Kris): i thnink observer status could work Pascal Bekono: Could you define 4. "Options" ??? Marika Konings: @Rafik - yes, but maybe one day the response is different, and in any case, I don't think this group can decide on what the GAC should be doing or providing, without their agreement ;-) 3. Meeting Slot at ICANN60/GNSO Update: -- How does that fit with our usual schedule? -- We do need to deliver a report to the GNSO. Staff will request a slot. -- Action: Staff will determine where we are in the schedule and if it is an off week suggest not holding a F2F meeting. Staff will request a slot for an update to the GNSO.

1 0

FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Phase II Recommendations 26-29, and 6
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 17, 2017

Aug. 17, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action item from the meeting on 17 August and in the notes below, please see the attached draft charters for review and discussion on the call on 31 August 2017. These are the relevant recommendations: Recommendation 26: That GNSO Council members, Executive Committee members of Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies and members of Working Groups complete and maintain a current, comprehensive Statement of Interest on the GNSO website. Where individuals represent bodies or clients, this information is to be posted. If not posted because of client confidentiality, the participant’s interest or position must be disclosed. Failing either of these, the individual not be permitted to participate. Recommendation 27: That the GNSO establish and maintain a centralized publicly available list of members and individual participants of every Constituency and Stakeholder Group (with a link to the individual’s Statement of Interest where one is required and posted). Recommendation 28: That section 6.1.2 Membership of Chapter 6.0 Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies: Operating Principles and Participation Guidelines of the GNSO Operating Procedures be revised to clarify that key clauses are mandatory rather than advisory, and to institute meaningful sanctions for non-compliance where appropriate. Recommendation 29: That Statements of Interest of GNSO Council Members and Executive Committee members of all Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies include the total number of years that person has held leadership positions in ICANN. Recommendation 6: That the GNSO record and regularly publish statistics on Working Group participation (including diversity statistics). Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 August Action Items: Recommendation 30: Staff will finalize the charter and send it out for a two-week consensus call; Recommendation 31: Staff will incorporate suggested changes based on the discussion on the 17 August call and send the revised version out for further review and discussion; Recommendations 26/27/28/29: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Recommendation 6: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Timeline: Staff will update the timeline for discussion at the call on 31 August; Meeting/Update at ICANN60: Staff will send a note to the list indicating that there will be a regularly scheduled meeting the week before ICANN60 so unless there are objections the suggestion is to not meet in person at ICANN60 as there will likely be conflicts; staff will request a slot in the GNSO Council schedule for an update from the WG on its progress. Notes: 1. Recommendation 30: -- Determined that the first part has been done -- the so-called “policy.” -- There is a process available in order where the different groups can rely on. -- Community budget requests can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/lgSuAg for those interested. -- Decisions for FY2017 are posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/3hCOAw 2. Recommendation 31: -- Either we say this will not be possible or suggest an alternative approach. -- It is really important to find some negotiated way to have GAC involvement, even if an informal role. Need to re-write this recommendation to allow informal involvement. Might agree to observer status. -- The Consultation Group included the GNSO and the GAC. What are we trying to accomplish? A GAC representative cannot represent the whole view of the GAC. -- Action: Revise the charter to note that the GNSO-GAC Consultation Group has completed its work, note its recommendations and that GAC members cannot act as even informal liaisons, and offer ways that the GAC can become involved (Work Track 5). Include justification for revising the recommendation. >From the chat: Marika Konings: Do note that this is an issue that was also considered by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group. The GAC is of the view that no one, apart from the GAC Chair, can represent the GAC and as such they are not willing to appoint liaisons to other SO/ACs or WGs. Marika Konings: it may be worth asking the question again to meet this recommendation, but the response will likely be along similar lines, unless perspectives have changed in the meantime.... Marika Konings: Maybe it is a question for the GAC to see what they would consider feasible and practical as they do seem to want to be more actively engaged in PDPs? Krishna Seeburn (Kris): We can still recommend for informal.... Rafik: @marika a question already asked several times to GAC I think :) Krishna Seeburn (Kris): i thnink observer status could work Pascal Bekono: Could you define 4. "Options" ??? Marika Konings: @Rafik - yes, but maybe one day the response is different, and in any case, I don't think this group can decide on what the GAC should be doing or providing, without their agreement ;-) 3. Meeting Slot at ICANN60/GNSO Update: -- How does that fit with our usual schedule? -- We do need to deliver a report to the GNSO. Staff will request a slot. -- Action: Staff will determine where we are in the schedule and if it is an off week suggest not holding a F2F meeting. Staff will request a slot for an update to the GNSO.

1 0

FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Revised Recommendation 31 Draft Charter
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 17, 2017

Aug. 17, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action item from the meeting on 17 August and in the notes below, please see the attached revised draft charter for the implementation of Recommendation 31 for your review, and for discussion at the meeting on 31 August. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 August Action Items: Recommendation 30: Staff will finalize the charter and send it out for a two-week consensus call; Recommendation 31: Staff will incorporate suggested changes based on the discussion on the 17 August call and send the revised version out for further review and discussion; Recommendations 26/27/28/29: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Recommendation 6: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Timeline: Staff will update the timeline for discussion at the call on 31 August; Meeting/Update at ICANN60: Staff will send a note to the list indicating that there will be a regularly scheduled meeting the week before ICANN60 so unless there are objections the suggestion is to not meet in person at ICANN60 as there will likely be conflicts; staff will request a slot in the GNSO Council schedule for an update from the WG on its progress. Notes: 1. Recommendation 30: -- Determined that the first part has been done -- the so-called “policy.” -- There is a process available in order where the different groups can rely on. -- Community budget requests can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/lgSuAg for those interested. -- Decisions for FY2017 are posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/3hCOAw 2. Recommendation 31: -- Either we say this will not be possible or suggest an alternative approach. -- It is really important to find some negotiated way to have GAC involvement, even if an informal role. Need to re-write this recommendation to allow informal involvement. Might agree to observer status. -- The Consultation Group included the GNSO and the GAC. What are we trying to accomplish? A GAC representative cannot represent the whole view of the GAC. -- Action: Revise the charter to note that the GNSO-GAC Consultation Group has completed its work, note its recommendations and that GAC members cannot act as even informal liaisons, and offer ways that the GAC can become involved (Work Track 5). Include justification for revising the recommendation. >From the chat: Marika Konings: Do note that this is an issue that was also considered by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group. The GAC is of the view that no one, apart from the GAC Chair, can represent the GAC and as such they are not willing to appoint liaisons to other SO/ACs or WGs. Marika Konings: it may be worth asking the question again to meet this recommendation, but the response will likely be along similar lines, unless perspectives have changed in the meantime.... Marika Konings: Maybe it is a question for the GAC to see what they would consider feasible and practical as they do seem to want to be more actively engaged in PDPs? Krishna Seeburn (Kris): We can still recommend for informal.... Rafik: @marika a question already asked several times to GAC I think :) Krishna Seeburn (Kris): i thnink observer status could work Pascal Bekono: Could you define 4. "Options" ??? Marika Konings: @Rafik - yes, but maybe one day the response is different, and in any case, I don't think this group can decide on what the GAC should be doing or providing, without their agreement ;-) 3. Meeting Slot at ICANN60/GNSO Update: -- How does that fit with our usual schedule? -- We do need to deliver a report to the GNSO. Staff will request a slot. -- Action: Staff will determine where we are in the schedule and if it is an off week suggest not holding a F2F meeting. Staff will request a slot for an update to the GNSO.

1 0

CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendation 30 Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 17, 2017

Aug. 17, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 17 August, this is a Consensus Call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 30. As noted in the attached charter, this is the recommendation for implementation: “That the GNSO develop and implement a policy for the provision of administrative support for Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies; and that Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies annually review and evaluate the effectiveness of administrative support they receive.” Following the discussion on the call on 17 August and per the Working Group’s direction staff have accepted the changes and are circulating the final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call to end on Thursday, 31 August. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 August Action Items: Recommendation 30: Staff will finalize the charter and send it out for a two-week consensus call; Recommendation 31: Staff will incorporate suggested changes based on the discussion on the 17 August call and send the revised version out for further review and discussion; Recommendations 26/27/28/29: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Recommendation 6: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Timeline: Staff will update the timeline for discussion at the call on 31 August; Meeting/Update at ICANN60: Staff will send a note to the list indicating that there will be a regularly scheduled meeting the week before ICANN60 so unless there are objections the suggestion is to not meet in person at ICANN60 as there will likely be conflicts; staff will request a slot in the GNSO Council schedule for an update from the WG on its progress. Notes: 1. Recommendation 30: -- Determined that the first part has been done -- the so-called “policy.” -- There is a process available in order where the different groups can rely on. -- Community budget requests can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/lgSuAg for those interested. -- Decisions for FY2017 are posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/3hCOAw 2. Recommendation 31: -- Either we say this will not be possible or suggest an alternative approach. -- It is really important to find some negotiated way to have GAC involvement, even if an informal role. Need to re-write this recommendation to allow informal involvement. Might agree to observer status. -- The Consultation Group included the GNSO and the GAC. What are we trying to accomplish? A GAC representative cannot represent the whole view of the GAC. -- Action: Revise the charter to note that the GNSO-GAC Consultation Group has completed its work, note its recommendations and that GAC members cannot act as even informal liaisons, and offer ways that the GAC can become involved (Work Track 5). Include justification for revising the recommendation. >From the chat: Marika Konings: Do note that this is an issue that was also considered by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group. The GAC is of the view that no one, apart from the GAC Chair, can represent the GAC and as such they are not willing to appoint liaisons to other SO/ACs or WGs. Marika Konings: it may be worth asking the question again to meet this recommendation, but the response will likely be along similar lines, unless perspectives have changed in the meantime.... Marika Konings: Maybe it is a question for the GAC to see what they would consider feasible and practical as they do seem to want to be more actively engaged in PDPs? Krishna Seeburn (Kris): We can still recommend for informal.... Rafik: @marika a question already asked several times to GAC I think :) Krishna Seeburn (Kris): i thnink observer status could work Pascal Bekono: Could you define 4. "Options" ??? Marika Konings: @Rafik - yes, but maybe one day the response is different, and in any case, I don't think this group can decide on what the GAC should be doing or providing, without their agreement ;-) 3. Meeting Slot at ICANN60/GNSO Update: -- How does that fit with our usual schedule? -- We do need to deliver a report to the GNSO. Staff will request a slot. -- Action: Staff will determine where we are in the schedule and if it is an off week suggest not holding a F2F meeting. Staff will request a slot for an update to the GNSO.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 17 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 17, 2017

Aug. 17, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 17 August. 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. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 August Action Items: Recommendation 30: Staff will finalize the charter and send it out for a two-week consensus call; Recommendation 31: Staff will incorporate suggested changes based on the discussion on the 17 August call and send the revised version out for further review and discussion; Recommendations 26/27/28/29: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Recommendation 6: Staff will prepare a draft charter; Timeline: Staff will update the timeline for discussion at the call on 31 August; Meeting/Update at ICANN60: Staff will send a note to the list indicating that there will be a regularly scheduled meeting the week before ICANN60 so unless there are objections the suggestion is to not meet in person at ICANN60 as there will likely be conflicts; staff will request a slot in the GNSO Council schedule for an update from the WG on its progress. Notes: 1. Recommendation 30: -- Determined that the first part has been done -- the so-called “policy.” -- There is a process available in order where the different groups can rely on. -- Community budget requests can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/lgSuAg for those interested. -- Decisions for FY2017 are posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/3hCOAw 2. Recommendation 31: -- Either we say this will not be possible or suggest an alternative approach. -- It is really important to find some negotiated way to have GAC involvement, even if an informal role. Need to re-write this recommendation to allow informal involvement. Might agree to observer status. -- The Consultation Group included the GNSO and the GAC. What are we trying to accomplish? A GAC representative cannot represent the whole view of the GAC. -- Action: Revise the charter to note that the GNSO-GAC Consultation Group has completed its work, note its recommendations and that GAC members cannot act as even informal liaisons, and offer ways that the GAC can become involved (Work Track 5). Include justification for revising the recommendation. >From the chat: Marika Konings: Do note that this is an issue that was also considered by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group. The GAC is of the view that no one, apart from the GAC Chair, can represent the GAC and as such they are not willing to appoint liaisons to other SO/ACs or WGs. Marika Konings: it may be worth asking the question again to meet this recommendation, but the response will likely be along similar lines, unless perspectives have changed in the meantime.... Marika Konings: Maybe it is a question for the GAC to see what they would consider feasible and practical as they do seem to want to be more actively engaged in PDPs? Krishna Seeburn (Kris): We can still recommend for informal.... Rafik: @marika a question already asked several times to GAC I think :) Krishna Seeburn (Kris): i thnink observer status could work Pascal Bekono: Could you define 4. "Options" ??? Marika Konings: @Rafik - yes, but maybe one day the response is different, and in any case, I don't think this group can decide on what the GAC should be doing or providing, without their agreement ;-) 3. Meeting Slot at ICANN60/GNSO Update: -- How does that fit with our usual schedule? -- We do need to deliver a report to the GNSO. Staff will request a slot. -- Action: Staff will determine where we are in the schedule and if it is an off week suggest not holding a F2F meeting. Staff will request a slot for an update to the GNSO.

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from GNSO Review WG call on Thursday, 17 August 2017 at 12:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Aug. 17, 2017

Aug. 17, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3, attendance and chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on Thursday, 17 August 2017 at 12:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-17aug17-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p1poexoey5r/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a734cab52dd0f74b 6487850c643c955ffb306ed2d345023772faa3091aafe84d> https://participate.icann.org/p1poexoey5r/ 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 -2Dactivities_calendar&d=DQMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5c M&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=xZIJEMTVQJAaGhrSEs-mGNP1af 5ZhtLo5tjqyJUr5j4&s=zi8HqkcJPzyRZtbiQ-TlsxBQhcExCdcb-3Ezk1dDjec&e=> 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/vAghB Attendance Members: Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate) Rafik Dammak (NCSG Primary) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary) Lori Schulman (IPC Primary) Jennifer Wolfe (RySG Primary) Lawrence Olawale-Roberts (BC Primary) Participants: Kris Seeburn (NCUC - Participant) Pascal Bekono (NCUC - Participant) Apologies: Heath Dixon (RrSG Primary) Amr Elsadr (staff) ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Negar Farzinnia 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 17 August 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 17 August 2017 at 12:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_v AghB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ vAghB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6-INZ9dX3PZNkB9SBuadconO2HNjEPQrHSzz3yfnMKk &s=zxBzqDiSAgAulDFePUv-4TNtXJseOh6tZUcIBazvB8s&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6-INZ9dX3PZNkB9SBuadconO2HNjEPQrHSzz3yfnMKk&s=zx BzqDiSAgAulDFePUv-4TNtXJseOh6tZUcIBazvB8s&e= Krishna Seeburn (Kris):thanx Pascal Bekono:hello dear all Terri Agnew:Welcome Lori Schulman Lori Schulman:hi Terri Agnew:finding the line Marika Konings:Further info about the community budget requests can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_l gSuAg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ lgSuAg&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6-INZ9dX3PZNkB9SBuadconO2HNjEPQrHSzz3yfnMK k&s=-MRo75JDrdfJ6xoXnie4UryY_L-j4G5jJQH7U2gymQA&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6-INZ9dX3PZNkB9SBuadconO2HNjEPQrHSzz3yfnMKk&s=-M Ro75JDrdfJ6xoXnie4UryY_L-j4G5jJQH7U2gymQA&e= for those interested Marika Konings:Decisions for FY2017 are posted here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_3 hCOAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ 3hCOAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6-INZ9dX3PZNkB9SBuadconO2HNjEPQrHSzz3yfnMK k&s=Am65nkMpexSgeNt42eK6bIJrQbfmix3wNaeSkonKs8g&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6-INZ9dX3PZNkB9SBuadconO2HNjEPQrHSzz3yfnMKk&s=Am 65nkMpexSgeNt42eK6bIJrQbfmix3wNaeSkonKs8g&e= Marika Konings:Do note that this is an issue that was also considered by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group. The GAC is of the view that no one, apart from the GAC Chair, can represent the GAC and as such they are not willing to appoint liaisons to other SO/ACs or WGs. Marika Konings:it may be worth asking the question again to meet this recommendation, but the response will likely be along similar lines, unless perspectives have changed in the meantime.... Marika Konings:Maybe it is a question for the GAC to see what they would consider feasible and practical as they do seem to want to be more actively engaged in PDPs? Krishna Seeburn (Kris):We can still recommend for informal.... Krishna Seeburn (Kris):am sure they will not formalise Rafik:@marika a question already asked several times to GAC I think :) Sara Bockey:Julie you are very faint now...can barely hear you Sara Bockey:I hear Lori very well Krishna Seeburn (Kris):i thnink observer status could work Pascal Bekono:Could you define 4. "Optioins" ??? Marika Konings:@Rafik - yes, but maybe one day the response is different, and in any case, I don't think this group can decide on what the GAC should be doing or providing, without their agreement ;-) Rafik:@marika I do agree :) Rafik:they are called co-leaders I think, avoiding the term co-chairs Rafik:old hand Krishna Seeburn (Kris):i fully agree Marika Konings:OEC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:OEC Pascal Bekono:I think that it can be interesting to have a face to face meeting in ICANN60. I'm still looking for funding to attend Terri Agnew:the next GNSO Review Working Group Meeting will be on Thursday, 31 August 2017 at 12:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Krishna Seeburn (Kris):bye Rafik:bye all Pascal Bekono:thanks, bye Sara Bockey:thanks all

1 0