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

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from GNSO Review Working Group call on Thursday, 11 May 2017 at 12:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3, attendance and chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on 11 May 2017 at 12:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-11may17-en.mp3<https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-11may17-en.mp3[mailer.samanage.com]> <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-11may17-en.mp3[mailer.samanage.com]> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7dupk3w9pj/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/pbbRAw Attendees: Members: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary) Lori Schulman (IPC Primary) Lawrence Olawale-Roberts (BC Primary) Rafik Dammak (NCSG Primary) Vicky Sheckler (IPC Alternate) Participants: Pascal Bekono (NCUC) Renata Aquino Ribeiro (Participant NCUC) Apologies: Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate) Jennifer Wolfe (RySG Primary) Janelle McAlister (Participant RySG) ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Amr Elsadr Berry Cobb Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 11 May 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Review WG Meeting on Thursday, 11 May 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Wiki meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Lori Schulman:My apologies for being late. Thank you to Michelle for the reminder. I was engrossed in writing a comment. Lori Schulman:I am In Germany too. Michelle DeSmyter:Thank you Lori - welcome and glad to have you! Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome Pascal! Pascal Bekono:Hello Michelle Pascal Bekono:Hi dear all Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome Renata! renata aquino:thanks. sorry for delay. Berry Cobb:And more importantly, that same section in the charter is duplicated in the template of an Initial Report. It is basicly a repeatable recommendation to be coupled with actual policy recommendations developed by the WG. renata aquino:y Lori Schulman:Please correct in the notes that it was INTA not IPC that conducted impact study in cooperation with CCT-RT Berry Cobb:I'd just add that DMPM's attempt was more of a cultural change and to develop a generic framework. They did not want to be to prescriptive as each issue the GNSO deals with is different. Lori Schulman:It adds to my comment but doesn't really address it Lori Schulman:I feel like we need a highly expert "metrics czar" Lori Schulman:Understand Berry's point as each WG is independent but I think we can get so in the weeds that we may not know how to ask the right questions Berry Cobb:@Lori as a WG formulates it's recommendations, the metrics should also be defined as a part of the draft report. The public comments and other input can help to guide the WG as to whether they selected the right ones. Lori Schulman:Agree with Rafki about more and more tasks Lori Schulman:Rafik Amr Elsadr:Apologies for the bad audio. I was trying to say that, in response to Lori's concern, if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. Berry Cobb:+1 Amr renata aquino:+1 Marika Konings:@Lori - how can that be addressed here? Julie Hedlund:@Lori: This may be out of scope of this recommendation implementation, but may be addressed separately by this Working Group. Berry Cobb:That's the world of forecasting and it is still an imperfect science. Lori Schulman:I understand Marika's and Julie's concerns perhaps we can highlight this as an ancillary issue Marika Konings:@Berry - do we have a kind of FAQ on the DMPM recommendations? It may be helpful to have something like that to remind WG members of their obligations in this regard? Lori Schulman:I understand the obligation but I also feel duty bound to raise the questions for consideration somewhere if not here Marika Konings:@Lori - further awareness of DMPM and maybe pointing to good vs. 'bad' examples may assist additional focus on this aspect of policy development? Berry Cobb:No FAQ. But that is why the generic PIA metrics framework was added both to the Charter and to the Draft Initial Report to force the WG to consider this as they formulate the recommendations. Lori Schulman:Implementation without good questions is silly Rafik:@berry the bullet points are only what we have as metrics framework? Lori Schulman:Can we at least suggest to staff a running list of questions including the issues we discussed today? Berry Cobb:As noted in this charter, refer to this page and review the "Working Group Charter" and Initial Working Group Report" links they contain DOCX files that contain the metrics framework. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun… renata aquino:+1 Berry Cobb:@Julie perhaps for the next call you can share your screen so that participants can see the PIA as listed in the Initial Report template. If there are issues with that then this group should focus on improving it in a way that meets the implementation of Rec #16. Marika Konings:note that WS2 is also looking at the issue of diversity Pascal Bekono:How can we match activities of the CCWG-Diverty and this one ? Rafik:@Marika yes , working on the report and we sent questionnaire to SO/AC Pascal Bekono:Maybe Rafik who is help us Pascal Bekono:Rafik is a rapporteur in ccwg renata aquino:+1 Rafik on sharing here the results Amr Elsadr:Note, from Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws: Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender. renata aquino:very impt note renata aquino:deadline is 1st june Amr Elsadr:Apologies. That was my line that dropped. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:sorry, I mean rec. 33 Rafik:thanks all Rafik:bye Lori Schulman:It was a good call. Thank you all. Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. renata aquino:thanks. bye.

1 0

Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Call 11 May 1200 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 10, 2017

May 10, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the notes and action items from the meeting on 27 April. Charters are attached for recommendations 16 & 33. These have been loaded into the Adobe Connect room for discussion during tomorrow’s call: Thursday, 11 May at 1200 UTC. Please also see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows: Review agenda SOIs Results of Consensus Calls for Recommendations 8 and 14/15 (responses due 04 May) Discussion of New Charter for Recommendation 16/Review for Consensus Call Begin discussion on Recommendation 33 Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 25 May AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 April Action Items: 1) Recommendation 16: Staff will create a new charter for a Consensus Call that makes it clear which aspects of the implementation of the DMPM Final Report apply to this recommendation. 2) Recommendation 18: Staff will create a new charter. In addressing recommendation 18 (periodic vs ongoing review of policies), note that the Working Group may choose to defer this until review of the ERRP is complete. The charter will also address in how reviews of Consensus Policies could be included, and reviewed by the Working Group, followed by a determination of whether future reviews should remain periodic, or become ongoing. 3) Recommendation 31: Move this recommendation to Phase 2. 4) Staff will produce charters for recommendations 33, and 24/25 for consideration. Discussion Notes: 1. Consensus Calls Reminder: -- Reminder of Consensus Calls for Recommendations 8 and 14/15 with responses due on 04 May. 2. Continued discussion on Recommendation 16 & 18 charter/update on GDD invite: -- First periodic review of a consensus policy set to start, but still no timeframe set - Expired Registration Recovery Policy (ERRP) -- Staff recommends decoupling of recommendations 16 and 18. -- Implementation of recommendation 16 appears to be completed - addressed in work-product templates present in the GNSO Operating Procedures in conducting Policy Impact Analysis within a decision-tree present in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. -- Reviews of policies that have already been completed include IRTP, and review if forthcoming on ICANN procedure on WHOIS conflict with local law. -- Staff suggests that the independent examiner's recommendation on changing policy reviews from "periodic" to "ongoing" should be revisited by the Working Group. -- Explanation of text included in updated charter on questions 16/18; Items 1, 2 and 3 in the "Solution" section of the charter address recommendation 16, while items 4, 5 and 6 address recommendation 18. -- Reviews of consensus policies take place within GDD's Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) - GDD-led project, including review of ERRP and an updated review of the ICANN procedure on WHOIS conflict with local law. -- CPIF provides reference to Support and Review of Consensus Policies past the Policy Effective Dates initiated by GDD in cooperation with Compliance and GNSO Policy staff. 3. Discussion of Recommendation 31: -- Charter includes context provided by the GAC/GNSO CG. -- This recommendation needs further discussion. Move to phase 2. >From the chat: Marika Konings: @Amr - from what I understood it is a principle issue, no one but the GAC Chair can represent the GAC, no matter in what capacity Donna Austin: Correct Marika, and a longstanding principle issue. avri doria: i still then there is a need for a formal liaison Amr Elsadr: Agree Avri. The need is present and real. The mechanism to work that out is difficult. Marika Konings: compared to a few years ago, we have seen increased participation by GAC members and there are definitely more mechanisms in place that make it difficult for the GAC to ignore the policy work that is going on, but it indeed it may not be enough, but if there is no willingness from the GAC to appoint a liaison, I'm not sure what the way around that is? Amr Elsadr: Perhaps the Working Group can look into alternative mechanisms to keep the GAC updated on ongoing policy work that don't involve a formal liaison? Rafik: liaison and individual gac members participation are complementing each other Marika Konings: The WG may want to review the GAC-GNSO CG recommendations as this was exactly the focus of their work (which was recently completed with the recommendations adopted by both the GAC and the GNSO) Marika Konings: and note that those recommendations contain within themselves mechanisms to review the recommendations should it turn out that there is still a lack of communication / engagement. avri doria: i.e we could have a liaison by another name? POC? Pascal Bekono: in project/recommendation section, is it possible to mention in bracket the " two work streams " Donna Austin: maybe Point of Contact would work, but it is a long shot Amr Elsadr: GAC/GNSO CG Final Status Report and Recommendations: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20161011/0a179c42/GAC…

1 0

CLOSED re: CONSENSUS CALL: GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 14 and 15
by Julie Hedlund May 10, 2017

May 10, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This Consensus Call closed on 04 May and no objections were received. As there were no objections the implementation of Recommendations 14 and 15 is considered agreed by full consensus. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 1:21 PM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER re: CONSENSUS CALL: GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 14 and 15 Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. The original message was sent on 20 April. Per the action items and notes below from the call on 13 April, this is a consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 14 and 15. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below. The latest version of the charter, with changes accepted and as discussed on the Working Group call, is attached for your review. As noted in the attached charter, the recommendations are: “14. That the GNSO further explores PDP ‘chunking’ and examines each potential PDP as to its feasibility for breaking into discrete stages. 15. That the GNSO continues current PDP Improvements Project initiatives to address timeliness of the PDP.” After discussing these recommendations at length during multiple meetings the WG determined that the recommendation had been implemented as stated in the charter based on activities that have already occurred. Working Group members are requested to respond to this consensus call in two weeks, by COB Thursday, 04 May. For a list of Working Group members and the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies represented see: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/WG+members+and+mailing+list. Please note that if no objections are raised, we will take that to mean there is approval of the charter as written. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Background on Decision-Making from the Working Group Charter: Per the Working Group Charter at https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Charter?preview=/61610405/61610404… the WG conducts decision-making via consensus. Specifically, the Charter states: “In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the GNSO Review Working Group shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call, they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies appointed Members of the Working Group. The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: 1. Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. 2. Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” The Charter further states: “In the case of recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, only recommendations that have achieved full consensus of the WG shall be forwarded to the GNSO Council. All other recommendations shall be forwarded if they achieve either consensus or full consensus of the WG.” In the case of this consensus call, as the implementation does not result in any new recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, the recommendation will be decided via consensus, although if there are no objections it may be that the decision will be full consensus. Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 April Action Items: Recommendation 8: Staff will post the recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. Recommendations 14 and 15: Staff will post the combined recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. Recommendations 16 and 18: Staff will invite GDD staff to the meeting on 27 April to give an overview of how period reviews are done. Recommendation 31: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. Discussion Notes: 1. Overview of work flowchart: -- Staff takes initiative to draft charter -- Working Group members review, consider recommendations, and decide whether to form a Sub Team to address it, or have full Working Group review the recommendations --> decide whether to approve draft charter or make revisions --> once charter is approved, move to implementation -- End of process includes reporting to the GNSO Council, in addition to provision in Working Group Charter that requires quarterly reporting to the GNSO Council --We have a bunch of recommendations, so how many can we do in parallel? Also, whether to divide into sub teams is complexity of content and human resources. It may become more complicated. -- Creating sub teams adds extra work. To what extent will they be touching on the PDP or similar things? Is there overlap? With a limited number of tasks sometimes taking them sequentially is better. -- Given the small number of participants in this group it is better to work through this in the full WG. -- General comment: Might also be helpful when this WG is reviewing the IE and Working Party recommendations when faced with problematic implementation issues that may require consultation with the GNSO Council. 2. Revised Recommendation Charters: Recommendation 8: -- Question: In a conversation of IRTs it seemed that there wasn't knowledge of implementation review teams -- are they working? Answer: Recent example -- Thick Whois IRT letter to GNSO Council on evolving privacy protection environment. -- Any consensus on how we move forward on this recommendation? Does this require more work? Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call. >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: ..., and have been included in GDD's Consensus Policy Implementation Framework: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa… avri doria: Amr, but are they being used, and how are they working? Amr Elsadr: In my experience, GDD often refers to these principles while working on implementation issues with IRTs. avri doria: is this a tussle over Roles and Responsibilities or mutual agreement on R&R. Donna Austin, RySG: @Avri, the CPH has encountered some differences of opinion about roles and responsibilities when it comes to implementation. Amr Elsadr: @Avri: The roles and responsibilities portions of the principles pertain to (for example) that it is the GNSO that develops gTLD policies. So when/if IRTs face implementation difficulties, they are on a tight leash in terms of deviating from the original intent of recommendations, and must refer these back to the GNSO. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, the CPH experience is not consistent with your description, in that we believe staff can become immovable on interpretation and does not refer things back to Council. Amr Elsadr: @Donna: My understanding is that the GNSO Council is working to clarify the role of Council liaisons to IRTs, which may be helpful in that regard? At least in terms of improving communication between IRTs and the GNSO? avri doria: thanks Donna, so there may be some more work to do in making sure that the IRT method is meeting the requirements of this review. Recommendations 14 and 15: -- Not sure that chunking in phases of work is the same as parallelization of sub teams. New gTLD did do some staging, but was a continuous PDP. -- Question: Should there be language in the WG Guidelines that specifically encourages phasing? -- Concern that PDPs are different so perhaps this should be guidance rather than prescriptive. Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call. >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: Another example of "chunking" may be IRTP? avri doria: exactly, avri doria: and that is what i was thinking was meant. phases was called out, and the gTLD subteam approach is not really chunking. Amr Elsadr: Next-Gen RDS PDP and Review of RPMs is also broken up into phases (not sure that counts as "chunking") that have independent initial report, public comment periods, final reports, Council votes, etc... avri doria: sort of a softer chunks avri doria: and even the community comment 1 & 2 approach of new gTLD might be considered phasing, though the tail of one phase overlaps the beginning of other pahses and the have an end to end dependency. Amr Elsadr: I actually need to check to make sure my last comment on RPMs is accurate. It is on RDS, but thinking about RPMs..., not so sure. Lori Schulman: I believe that each phase is intended to have separate reports Lori Schulman: but definitely need to confirm with co-chairs Amr Elsadr: I think you're right, Lori and Berry. :-) avri doria: Amr, i think that is one of the issues, many different ways of doing phasing, maybe some advice on how different forms can be used and why? Donna Austin, RySG: Is there a distinction between phasing and blocks of work? The RPM WG has two distinct tasks, rather than breaking the work into phases. avri doria: a note on ways to speed up PDPs. In my experience whenever we talk of speeding one up, it ends up taking longer, because of the extended discussions of whether it can be sped up and how. Donna Austin, RySG: could providing more opportunity for face-to-face meetings of the WG lead to speeding up work? avri doria: but the autopsy of a PDP looking for thing that could be done in the future is a good thing. Recommendations 16 & 18: -- Periodic versus ongoing review: the PDP Manual section 17 states that periodic review are necessary. Compare how GDD reviews are done concerning how an ongoing reviews are done. Would it be helpful for someone from GDD to give an overview of how periodic reviews are done? Yes, that would be helpful. Action Item: Invite GDD staff for the next call to give an overview of how period reviews are done. >From the chat: Berry Cobb: ERRP is in data collection phase for now. Analysis and initial report are on deck. Once complete it will be delivered to the GNSO Council. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, has the GDD actually done any reviews? Lori Schulman: yes very helpful avri doria: but in general this scope of work look reasonable Amr Elsadr: @Donna: That's actually one of the questions this WG might want an answer to. It might be premature to recommend changes to "periodic" reviews, if none have been completed and assessed yet? Lori Schulman: What are the 2 workstreams? avri doria: on 16/18 not sure how one does ongoing without some sort of periodicity. Recommendation 31: Action Item: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. >From the chat: Donna Austin, RySG: I don't agree on the GNSO GAC Liaison fulfulling the role. Lori Schulman: I don't understand this charter as well.

1 0

CLOSED re: CONSENSUS CALL: GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 8
by Julie Hedlund May 10, 2017

May 10, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This Consensus Call closed on 04 May and no objections were received. As there were no objections the implementation of Recommendation 8 is considered agreed by full consensus. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 1:20 PM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER re: CONSENSUS CALL: GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 8 Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. The original message was sent on 20 April. Per the action items and notes below from the call on 13 April, this is a consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 8. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below. The last version of the charter, with changes accepted and as discussed on the Working Group call, is attached for your review. As noted in the attached charter, Recommendation 8 states, “That Working Groups should have an explicit role in responding to implementation issues related to policy they have developed.” After discussing this recommendation at length during multiple meetings the WG determined that the recommendation had been implemented as stated in the charter based on activities that have already occurred. Working Group members are requested to respond to this consensus call in two weeks, by COB Thursday, 04 May. For a list of Working Group members and the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies represented see: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/WG+members+and+mailing+list. Please note that if no objections are raised, we will take that to mean there is approval of the charter as written. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Background on Decision-Making from the Working Group Charter: Per the Working Group Charter at https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Charter?preview=/61610405/61610404… the WG conducts decision-making via consensus. Specifically, the Charter states: “In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the GNSO Review Working Group shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call, they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies appointed Members of the Working Group. The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: 1. Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. 2. Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” The Charter further states: “In the case of recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, only recommendations that have achieved full consensus of the WG shall be forwarded to the GNSO Council. All other recommendations shall be forwarded if they achieve either consensus or full consensus of the WG.” In the case of this consensus call, as the implementation does not result in any new recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, the recommendation will be decided via consensus, although if there are no objections it may be that the decision will be full consensus. Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 April Action Items: 1. Recommendation 8: Staff will post the recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. 2. Recommendations 14 and 15: Staff will post the combined recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. 3. Recommendations 16 and 18: Staff will invite GDD staff to the meeting on 27 April to give an overview of how period reviews are done. 4. Recommendation 31: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. Discussion Notes: 1. Overview of work flowchart: -- Staff takes initiative to draft charter -- Working Group members review, consider recommendations, and decide whether to form a Sub Team to address it, or have full Working Group review the recommendations --> decide whether to approve draft charter or make revisions --> once charter is approved, move to implementation -- End of process includes reporting to the GNSO Council, in addition to provision in Working Group Charter that requires quarterly reporting to the GNSO Council --We have a bunch of recommendations, so how many can we do in parallel? Also, whether to divide into sub teams is complexity of content and human resources. It may become more complicated. -- Creating sub teams adds extra work. To what extent will they be touching on the PDP or similar things? Is there overlap? With a limited number of tasks sometimes taking them sequentially is better. -- Given the small number of participants in this group it is better to work through this in the full WG. -- General comment: Might also be helpful when this WG is reviewing the IE and Working Party recommendations when faced with problematic implementation issues that may require consultation with the GNSO Council. 2. Revised Recommendation Charters: Recommendation 8: -- Question: In a conversation of IRTs it seemed that there wasn't knowledge of implementation review teams -- are they working? Answer: Recent example -- Thick Whois IRT letter to GNSO Council on evolving privacy protection environment. -- Any consensus on how we move forward on this recommendation? Does this require more work? Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call. >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: ..., and have been included in GDD's Consensus Policy Implementation Framework: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa… avri doria: Amr, but are they being used, and how are they working? Amr Elsadr: In my experience, GDD often refers to these principles while working on implementation issues with IRTs. avri doria: is this a tussle over Roles and Responsibilities or mutual agreement on R&R. Donna Austin, RySG: @Avri, the CPH has encountered some differences of opinion about roles and responsibilities when it comes to implementation. Amr Elsadr: @Avri: The roles and responsibilities portions of the principles pertain to (for example) that it is the GNSO that develops gTLD policies. So when/if IRTs face implementation difficulties, they are on a tight leash in terms of deviating from the original intent of recommendations, and must refer these back to the GNSO. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, the CPH experience is not consistent with your description, in that we believe staff can become immovable on interpretation and does not refer things back to Council. Amr Elsadr: @Donna: My understanding is that the GNSO Council is working to clarify the role of Council liaisons to IRTs, which may be helpful in that regard? At least in terms of improving communication between IRTs and the GNSO? avri doria: thanks Donna, so there may be some more work to do in making sure that the IRT method is meeting the requirements of this review. Recommendations 14 and 15: -- Not sure that chunking in phases of work is the same as parallelization of sub teams. New gTLD did do some staging, but was a continuous PDP. -- Question: Should there be language in the WG Guidelines that specifically encourages phasing? -- Concern that PDPs are different so perhaps this should be guidance rather than prescriptive. Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call. >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: Another example of "chunking" may be IRTP? avri doria: exactly, avri doria: and that is what i was thinking was meant. phases was called out, and the gTLD subteam approach is not really chunking. Amr Elsadr: Next-Gen RDS PDP and Review of RPMs is also broken up into phases (not sure that counts as "chunking") that have independent initial report, public comment periods, final reports, Council votes, etc... avri doria: sort of a softer chunks avri doria: and even the community comment 1 & 2 approach of new gTLD might be considered phasing, though the tail of one phase overlaps the beginning of other pahses and the have an end to end dependency. Amr Elsadr: I actually need to check to make sure my last comment on RPMs is accurate. It is on RDS, but thinking about RPMs..., not so sure. Lori Schulman: I believe that each phase is intended to have separate reports Lori Schulman: but definitely need to confirm with co-chairs Amr Elsadr: I think you're right, Lori and Berry. :-) avri doria: Amr, i think that is one of the issues, many different ways of doing phasing, maybe some advice on how different forms can be used and why? Donna Austin, RySG: Is there a distinction between phasing and blocks of work? The RPM WG has two distinct tasks, rather than breaking the work into phases. avri doria: a note on ways to speed up PDPs. In my experience whenever we talk of speeding one up, it ends up taking longer, because of the extended discussions of whether it can be sped up and how. Donna Austin, RySG: could providing more opportunity for face-to-face meetings of the WG lead to speeding up work? avri doria: but the autopsy of a PDP looking for thing that could be done in the future is a good thing. Recommendations 16 & 18: -- Periodic versus ongoing review: the PDP Manual section 17 states that periodic review are necessary. Compare how GDD reviews are done concerning how an ongoing reviews are done. Would it be helpful for someone from GDD to give an overview of how periodic reviews are done? Yes, that would be helpful. Action Item: Invite GDD staff for the next call to give an overview of how period reviews are done. >From the chat: Berry Cobb: ERRP is in data collection phase for now. Analysis and initial report are on deck. Once complete it will be delivered to the GNSO Council. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, has the GDD actually done any reviews? Lori Schulman: yes very helpful avri doria: but in general this scope of work look reasonable Amr Elsadr: @Donna: That's actually one of the questions this WG might want an answer to. It might be premature to recommend changes to "periodic" reviews, if none have been completed and assessed yet? Lori Schulman: What are the 2 workstreams? avri doria: on 16/18 not sure how one does ongoing without some sort of periodicity. Recommendation 31: Action Item: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. >From the chat: Donna Austin, RySG: I don't agree on the GNSO GAC Liaison fulfulling the role. Lori Schulman: I don't understand this charter as well.

1 0

REMINDER re: CONSENSUS CALL: GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 14 and 15
by Julie Hedlund April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. The original message was sent on 20 April. Per the action items and notes below from the call on 13 April, this is a consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 14 and 15. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below. The latest version of the charter, with changes accepted and as discussed on the Working Group call, is attached for your review. As noted in the attached charter, the recommendations are: “14. That the GNSO further explores PDP ‘chunking’ and examines each potential PDP as to its feasibility for breaking into discrete stages. 15. That the GNSO continues current PDP Improvements Project initiatives to address timeliness of the PDP.” After discussing these recommendations at length during multiple meetings the WG determined that the recommendation had been implemented as stated in the charter based on activities that have already occurred. Working Group members are requested to respond to this consensus call in two weeks, by COB Thursday, 04 May. For a list of Working Group members and the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies represented see: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/WG+members+and+mailing+list. Please note that if no objections are raised, we will take that to mean there is approval of the charter as written. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Background on Decision-Making from the Working Group Charter: Per the Working Group Charter at https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Charter?preview=/61610405/61610404… the WG conducts decision-making via consensus. Specifically, the Charter states: “In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the GNSO Review Working Group shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call, they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies appointed Members of the Working Group. The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: 1. Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. 2. Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” The Charter further states: “In the case of recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, only recommendations that have achieved full consensus of the WG shall be forwarded to the GNSO Council. All other recommendations shall be forwarded if they achieve either consensus or full consensus of the WG.” In the case of this consensus call, as the implementation does not result in any new recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, the recommendation will be decided via consensus, although if there are no objections it may be that the decision will be full consensus. Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 April Action Items: Recommendation 8: Staff will post the recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. Recommendations 14 and 15: Staff will post the combined recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. Recommendations 16 and 18: Staff will invite GDD staff to the meeting on 27 April to give an overview of how period reviews are done. Recommendation 31: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. Discussion Notes: 1. Overview of work flowchart: -- Staff takes initiative to draft charter -- Working Group members review, consider recommendations, and decide whether to form a Sub Team to address it, or have full Working Group review the recommendations --> decide whether to approve draft charter or make revisions --> once charter is approved, move to implementation -- End of process includes reporting to the GNSO Council, in addition to provision in Working Group Charter that requires quarterly reporting to the GNSO Council --We have a bunch of recommendations, so how many can we do in parallel? Also, whether to divide into sub teams is complexity of content and human resources. It may become more complicated. -- Creating sub teams adds extra work. To what extent will they be touching on the PDP or similar things? Is there overlap? With a limited number of tasks sometimes taking them sequentially is better. -- Given the small number of participants in this group it is better to work through this in the full WG. -- General comment: Might also be helpful when this WG is reviewing the IE and Working Party recommendations when faced with problematic implementation issues that may require consultation with the GNSO Council. 2. Revised Recommendation Charters: Recommendation 8: -- Question: In a conversation of IRTs it seemed that there wasn't knowledge of implementation review teams -- are they working? Answer: Recent example -- Thick Whois IRT letter to GNSO Council on evolving privacy protection environment. -- Any consensus on how we move forward on this recommendation? Does this require more work? Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call. >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: ..., and have been included in GDD's Consensus Policy Implementation Framework: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa… avri doria: Amr, but are they being used, and how are they working? Amr Elsadr: In my experience, GDD often refers to these principles while working on implementation issues with IRTs. avri doria: is this a tussle over Roles and Responsibilities or mutual agreement on R&R. Donna Austin, RySG: @Avri, the CPH has encountered some differences of opinion about roles and responsibilities when it comes to implementation. Amr Elsadr: @Avri: The roles and responsibilities portions of the principles pertain to (for example) that it is the GNSO that develops gTLD policies. So when/if IRTs face implementation difficulties, they are on a tight leash in terms of deviating from the original intent of recommendations, and must refer these back to the GNSO. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, the CPH experience is not consistent with your description, in that we believe staff can become immovable on interpretation and does not refer things back to Council. Amr Elsadr: @Donna: My understanding is that the GNSO Council is working to clarify the role of Council liaisons to IRTs, which may be helpful in that regard? At least in terms of improving communication between IRTs and the GNSO? avri doria: thanks Donna, so there may be some more work to do in making sure that the IRT method is meeting the requirements of this review. Recommendations 14 and 15: -- Not sure that chunking in phases of work is the same as parallelization of sub teams. New gTLD did do some staging, but was a continuous PDP. -- Question: Should there be language in the WG Guidelines that specifically encourages phasing? -- Concern that PDPs are different so perhaps this should be guidance rather than prescriptive. Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call. >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: Another example of "chunking" may be IRTP? avri doria: exactly, avri doria: and that is what i was thinking was meant. phases was called out, and the gTLD subteam approach is not really chunking. Amr Elsadr: Next-Gen RDS PDP and Review of RPMs is also broken up into phases (not sure that counts as "chunking") that have independent initial report, public comment periods, final reports, Council votes, etc... avri doria: sort of a softer chunks avri doria: and even the community comment 1 & 2 approach of new gTLD might be considered phasing, though the tail of one phase overlaps the beginning of other pahses and the have an end to end dependency. Amr Elsadr: I actually need to check to make sure my last comment on RPMs is accurate. It is on RDS, but thinking about RPMs..., not so sure. Lori Schulman: I believe that each phase is intended to have separate reports Lori Schulman: but definitely need to confirm with co-chairs Amr Elsadr: I think you're right, Lori and Berry. :-) avri doria: Amr, i think that is one of the issues, many different ways of doing phasing, maybe some advice on how different forms can be used and why? Donna Austin, RySG: Is there a distinction between phasing and blocks of work? The RPM WG has two distinct tasks, rather than breaking the work into phases. avri doria: a note on ways to speed up PDPs. In my experience whenever we talk of speeding one up, it ends up taking longer, because of the extended discussions of whether it can be sped up and how. Donna Austin, RySG: could providing more opportunity for face-to-face meetings of the WG lead to speeding up work? avri doria: but the autopsy of a PDP looking for thing that could be done in the future is a good thing. Recommendations 16 & 18: -- Periodic versus ongoing review: the PDP Manual section 17 states that periodic review are necessary. Compare how GDD reviews are done concerning how an ongoing reviews are done. Would it be helpful for someone from GDD to give an overview of how periodic reviews are done? Yes, that would be helpful. Action Item: Invite GDD staff for the next call to give an overview of how period reviews are done. >From the chat: Berry Cobb: ERRP is in data collection phase for now. Analysis and initial report are on deck. Once complete it will be delivered to the GNSO Council. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, has the GDD actually done any reviews? Lori Schulman: yes very helpful avri doria: but in general this scope of work look reasonable Amr Elsadr: @Donna: That's actually one of the questions this WG might want an answer to. It might be premature to recommend changes to "periodic" reviews, if none have been completed and assessed yet? Lori Schulman: What are the 2 workstreams? avri doria: on 16/18 not sure how one does ongoing without some sort of periodicity. Recommendation 31: Action Item: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. >From the chat: Donna Austin, RySG: I don't agree on the GNSO GAC Liaison fulfulling the role. Lori Schulman: I don't understand this charter as well.

1 0

REMINDER re: CONSENSUS CALL: GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 8
by Julie Hedlund April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. The original message was sent on 20 April. Per the action items and notes below from the call on 13 April, this is a consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 8. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below. The last version of the charter, with changes accepted and as discussed on the Working Group call, is attached for your review. As noted in the attached charter, Recommendation 8 states, “That Working Groups should have an explicit role in responding to implementation issues related to policy they have developed.” After discussing this recommendation at length during multiple meetings the WG determined that the recommendation had been implemented as stated in the charter based on activities that have already occurred. Working Group members are requested to respond to this consensus call in two weeks, by COB Thursday, 04 May. For a list of Working Group members and the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies represented see: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/WG+members+and+mailing+list. Please note that if no objections are raised, we will take that to mean there is approval of the charter as written. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Background on Decision-Making from the Working Group Charter: Per the Working Group Charter at https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Charter?preview=/61610405/61610404… the WG conducts decision-making via consensus. Specifically, the Charter states: “In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the GNSO Review Working Group shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call, they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies appointed Members of the Working Group. The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: 1. Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. 2. Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” The Charter further states: “In the case of recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, only recommendations that have achieved full consensus of the WG shall be forwarded to the GNSO Council. All other recommendations shall be forwarded if they achieve either consensus or full consensus of the WG.” In the case of this consensus call, as the implementation does not result in any new recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, the recommendation will be decided via consensus, although if there are no objections it may be that the decision will be full consensus. Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 April Action Items: 1. Recommendation 8: Staff will post the recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. 2. Recommendations 14 and 15: Staff will post the combined recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. 3. Recommendations 16 and 18: Staff will invite GDD staff to the meeting on 27 April to give an overview of how period reviews are done. 4. Recommendation 31: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. Discussion Notes: 1. Overview of work flowchart: -- Staff takes initiative to draft charter -- Working Group members review, consider recommendations, and decide whether to form a Sub Team to address it, or have full Working Group review the recommendations --> decide whether to approve draft charter or make revisions --> once charter is approved, move to implementation -- End of process includes reporting to the GNSO Council, in addition to provision in Working Group Charter that requires quarterly reporting to the GNSO Council --We have a bunch of recommendations, so how many can we do in parallel? Also, whether to divide into sub teams is complexity of content and human resources. It may become more complicated. -- Creating sub teams adds extra work. To what extent will they be touching on the PDP or similar things? Is there overlap? With a limited number of tasks sometimes taking them sequentially is better. -- Given the small number of participants in this group it is better to work through this in the full WG. -- General comment: Might also be helpful when this WG is reviewing the IE and Working Party recommendations when faced with problematic implementation issues that may require consultation with the GNSO Council. 2. Revised Recommendation Charters: Recommendation 8: -- Question: In a conversation of IRTs it seemed that there wasn't knowledge of implementation review teams -- are they working? Answer: Recent example -- Thick Whois IRT letter to GNSO Council on evolving privacy protection environment. -- Any consensus on how we move forward on this recommendation? Does this require more work? Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call. >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: ..., and have been included in GDD's Consensus Policy Implementation Framework: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa… avri doria: Amr, but are they being used, and how are they working? Amr Elsadr: In my experience, GDD often refers to these principles while working on implementation issues with IRTs. avri doria: is this a tussle over Roles and Responsibilities or mutual agreement on R&R. Donna Austin, RySG: @Avri, the CPH has encountered some differences of opinion about roles and responsibilities when it comes to implementation. Amr Elsadr: @Avri: The roles and responsibilities portions of the principles pertain to (for example) that it is the GNSO that develops gTLD policies. So when/if IRTs face implementation difficulties, they are on a tight leash in terms of deviating from the original intent of recommendations, and must refer these back to the GNSO. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, the CPH experience is not consistent with your description, in that we believe staff can become immovable on interpretation and does not refer things back to Council. Amr Elsadr: @Donna: My understanding is that the GNSO Council is working to clarify the role of Council liaisons to IRTs, which may be helpful in that regard? At least in terms of improving communication between IRTs and the GNSO? avri doria: thanks Donna, so there may be some more work to do in making sure that the IRT method is meeting the requirements of this review. Recommendations 14 and 15: -- Not sure that chunking in phases of work is the same as parallelization of sub teams. New gTLD did do some staging, but was a continuous PDP. -- Question: Should there be language in the WG Guidelines that specifically encourages phasing? -- Concern that PDPs are different so perhaps this should be guidance rather than prescriptive. Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call. >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: Another example of "chunking" may be IRTP? avri doria: exactly, avri doria: and that is what i was thinking was meant. phases was called out, and the gTLD subteam approach is not really chunking. Amr Elsadr: Next-Gen RDS PDP and Review of RPMs is also broken up into phases (not sure that counts as "chunking") that have independent initial report, public comment periods, final reports, Council votes, etc... avri doria: sort of a softer chunks avri doria: and even the community comment 1 & 2 approach of new gTLD might be considered phasing, though the tail of one phase overlaps the beginning of other pahses and the have an end to end dependency. Amr Elsadr: I actually need to check to make sure my last comment on RPMs is accurate. It is on RDS, but thinking about RPMs..., not so sure. Lori Schulman: I believe that each phase is intended to have separate reports Lori Schulman: but definitely need to confirm with co-chairs Amr Elsadr: I think you're right, Lori and Berry. :-) avri doria: Amr, i think that is one of the issues, many different ways of doing phasing, maybe some advice on how different forms can be used and why? Donna Austin, RySG: Is there a distinction between phasing and blocks of work? The RPM WG has two distinct tasks, rather than breaking the work into phases. avri doria: a note on ways to speed up PDPs. In my experience whenever we talk of speeding one up, it ends up taking longer, because of the extended discussions of whether it can be sped up and how. Donna Austin, RySG: could providing more opportunity for face-to-face meetings of the WG lead to speeding up work? avri doria: but the autopsy of a PDP looking for thing that could be done in the future is a good thing. Recommendations 16 & 18: -- Periodic versus ongoing review: the PDP Manual section 17 states that periodic review are necessary. Compare how GDD reviews are done concerning how an ongoing reviews are done. Would it be helpful for someone from GDD to give an overview of how periodic reviews are done? Yes, that would be helpful. Action Item: Invite GDD staff for the next call to give an overview of how period reviews are done. >From the chat: Berry Cobb: ERRP is in data collection phase for now. Analysis and initial report are on deck. Once complete it will be delivered to the GNSO Council. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, has the GDD actually done any reviews? Lori Schulman: yes very helpful avri doria: but in general this scope of work look reasonable Amr Elsadr: @Donna: That's actually one of the questions this WG might want an answer to. It might be premature to recommend changes to "periodic" reviews, if none have been completed and assessed yet? Lori Schulman: What are the 2 workstreams? avri doria: on 16/18 not sure how one does ongoing without some sort of periodicity. Recommendation 31: Action Item: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. >From the chat: Donna Austin, RySG: I don't agree on the GNSO GAC Liaison fulfulling the role. Lori Schulman: I don't understand this charter as well.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 27 April
by Julie Hedlund April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 April. 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/2017-04-27+GNSO+Review+WG. Please also see the attached summary of the status of the implementation of recommendations. The next call will be in two weeks on Thursday, 11 May at 1200 UTC. A meeting notice has been sent separately. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 April Action Items: 1) Recommendation 16: Staff will create a new charter for a Consensus Call that makes it clear which aspects of the implementation of the DMPM Final Report apply to this recommendation. 2) Recommendation 18: Staff will create a new charter. In addressing recommendation 18 (periodic vs ongoing review of policies), note that the Working Group may choose to defer this until review of the ERRP is complete. The charter will also address in how reviews of Consensus Policies could be included, and reviewed by the Working Group, followed by a determination of whether future reviews should remain periodic, or become ongoing. 3) Recommendation 31: Move this recommendation to Phase 2. 4) Staff will produce charters for recommendations 33, and 24/25 for consideration at the next meeting on 11 May. Discussion Notes: 1. Consensus Calls Reminder: -- Reminder of Consensus Calls for Recommendations 8 and 14/15 with responses due on 04 May. 2. Continued discussion on Recommendation 16 & 18 charter/update on GDD invite: -- First periodic review of a consensus policy set to start, but still no timeframe set - Expired Registration Recovery Policy (ERRP) -- Staff recommends decoupling of recommendations 16 and 18. -- Implementation of recommendation 16 appears to be completed - addressed in work-product templates present in the GNSO Operating Procedures in conducting Policy Impact Analysis within a decision-tree present in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. -- Reviews of policies that have already been completed include IRTP, and review if forthcoming on ICANN procedure on WHOIS conflict with local law. -- Staff suggests that the independent examiner's recommendation on changing policy reviews from "periodic" to "ongoing" should be revisited by the Working Group. -- Explanation of text included in updated charter on questions 16/18; Items 1, 2 and 3 in the "Solution" section of the charter address recommendation 16, while items 4, 5 and 6 address recommendation 18. -- Reviews of consensus policies take place within GDD's Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) - GDD-led project, including review of ERRP and an updated review of the ICANN procedure on WHOIS conflict with local law. -- CPIF provides reference to Support and Review of Consensus Policies past the Policy Effective Dates initiated by GDD in cooperation with Compliance and GNSO Policy staff. 3. Discussion of Recommendation 31: -- Charter includes context provided by the GAC/GNSO CG. -- This recommendation needs further discussion. Move to phase 2. >From the chat: Marika Konings: @Amr - from what I understood it is a principle issue, no one but the GAC Chair can represent the GAC, no matter in what capacity Donna Austin: Correct Marika, and a longstanding principle issue. avri doria: i still then there is a need for a formal liaison Amr Elsadr: Agree Avri. The need is present and real. The mechanism to work that out is difficult. Marika Konings: compared to a few years ago, we have seen increased participation by GAC members and there are definitely more mechanisms in place that make it difficult for the GAC to ignore the policy work that is going on, but it indeed it may not be enough, but if there is no willingness from the GAC to appoint a liaison, I'm not sure what the way around that is? Amr Elsadr: Perhaps the Working Group can look into alternative mechanisms to keep the GAC updated on ongoing policy work that don't involve a formal liaison? Rafik: liaison and individual gac members participation are complementing each other Marika Konings: The WG may want to review the GAC-GNSO CG recommendations as this was exactly the focus of their work (which was recently completed with the recommendations adopted by both the GAC and the GNSO) Marika Konings: and note that those recommendations contain within themselves mechanisms to review the recommendations should it turn out that there is still a lack of communication / engagement. avri doria: i.e we could have a liaison by another name? POC? Pascal Bekono: in project/recommendation section, is it possible to mention in bracket the " two work streams " Donna Austin: maybe Point of Contact would work, but it is a long shot Amr Elsadr: GAC/GNSO CG Final Status Report and Recommendations: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20161011/0a179c42/GAC…

1 0

Mp3, attendance and AC chat / GNSO Review Working Group 27 April 2017
by Nathalie Peregrine April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3, attendance and chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on 27 April 2017 at 12:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-27apr17-en.mp3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailer.samanage.com_wf_…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZhmsAw Attendees: Members: Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate) Jennifer Wolfe (RySG Primary) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary) Lori Schulman (IPC Primary) Donna Austin (RySG Alternate) Lawrence Olawale-Roberts (BC Primary) Rafik Dammak (NCSG Primary) Participants: Avri Dori (NCSG) Pascal Bekono (NCUC) Apologies: Renata Aquino Ribeiro (Participant NCUC) ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Amr Elsadr 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 27 April 2017 Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Review WG Meeting on Thursday, 27 April 2017 Nathalie Peregrine:Wiki meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Lori:I am having trouble dialing in. Could someone please dial out at +1-202-704-0408. Thank you. Nathalie Peregrine:Yes of course. Lori:I can hear you but my internet connection is in and out so phone is better for audio. Lori:I am on the call! Lori:Mike muted. Lori:I put messages out to IPC. So far, no questions. Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome Raifk Nathalie Peregrine:and Donna! Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome Jen! Marika Konings:a new review is also being planned on the conflicts with local law procedure as requested by the GNSO Council. avri doria:i am unclear on the degree of periodicity that is being requested. Monthly, quarterly, yearly, every n years?? avri doria:right, staff is requesting periodicity, what sort? Lori:Continual reviews could be a waste a resources Amr Elsadr:Periodic reviews are already requirements in the PDP Manual. Sara Bockey:I think I just lost audio... avri doria:even ongoing is periodic. just daily or weekly. Sara Bockey:there you are :) Nathalie Peregrine:@ Sara, I see your mic is muted, could you unmute please? avri doria:reviewing them as the are done is ongoin without periodicity. Nathalie Peregrine:We can also dial out to you Berry Cobb:@Lori. The ERRP Review is now in the data collection phase. We're starting with complaint data from Compliance related to expiration of names. Data collection may also include a survey of sorts from Registrars/Registrants (TBD). A report will be compiled from Staff and once complete will be delivered to the GNSO Council for their review. Should the Council determine that additional policy work is required, the Council will then instruct staff to create an Issues Report for a possible PDP. Sara Bockey:I can hear now. not sure what happened Lori:@Berry, thank you. That is my concern, that there is some substantive community review. Marika Konings:regarding periodicity - there may not need to be a one size fits all, there may be different triggering mechanisms. For example, the original policy recommendations may have included a specific timeframe by which recommendations need to be reviewed (I believe IRTP is an example of that), there may be data that indicate that there is an issue that would trigger a review, or maybe if neither of those have happened in x years, an automatic review is kicked off (and remember, a review could say, everything is working as intended, no need to change anything) Lori: Recommendation 8 is one of our consensus calls Lori:The IRT has a lifecyele too, correct? Lori:This sort of goes to Avri's point about intervals between reviews Lori:Yes, this was an abundance of information. Its appears that there is community oversight and flexibility. Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome Pascal Marika Konings:The CG considered this question but as no single member can speak for the GAC apart from the chair, there was no support for appointing a formal liaison. However, individual members are being encouraged to participate and additional mechanisms were put in place to facilitate GAC early engagement in GNSO policy development. Marika Konings:so maybe that meets the objective of what a liaison role was trying to achieve? Marika Konings:also noting that the key dependency here is a blocking factor as the GAC is not willing to assign formal liaisons Amr Elsadr:I wonder if it would make a difference to the GAC that the liaison would be a non-binding, non-voting liaison? Marika Konings:@Amr - from what I understood it is a principle issue, no one but the GAC Chair can represent the GAC, no matter in what capacity Donna Austin:Correct Marika, and a longstanding principle issue. Lori:I agree with Avri's point. This needs more thought and discussion. Amr Elsadr:Yes, they've made that abundantly clear. :-) avri doria:i still then there is a need for a formal liaison Amr Elsadr:Agree Avri. The need is present and real. The mechanism to work that out is difficult. Marika Konings:compared to a few years ago, we have seen increased participation by GAC members and there are definitely more mechanisms in place that make it difficult for the GAC to ignore the policy work that is going on, but it indeed it may not be enough, but if there is no willingness from the GAC to appoint a liaison, I'm not sure what the way around that is? Amr Elsadr:Perhaps the Working Group can look into alternative mechanisms to keep the GAC updated on ongoing policy work that don't involve a formal liaison? Rafik:liaison and individual gac members participation are complementing each other Marika Konings:The WG may want to review the GAC-GNSO CG recommendations as this was exactly the focus of their work (which was recently completed with the recommendations adopted by both the GAC and the GNSO) Marika Konings:and note that those recommendations contain within themselves mechanisms to review the recommendations should it turn out that there is still a lack of communication / engagement avri doria:i.e we could have a liaison by another name? POC? Pascal Bekono:in project/recommendation section, is it possible to mention in bracket the " two work streams " Donna Austin:maybe Point of Contact would work, but it is a long shot Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:PoC looks better? Amr Elsadr:GAC/GNSO CG Final Status Report and Recommendations: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20161011/0a179c42/GAC… Lori:Thanks for doing all of this great prep work Lori:ciao! Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Thanks all and bye Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Sara Bockey:thanks all avri doria:bye

1 0

Correction: Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Meeting 27 April 1200 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 26, 2017

April 26, 2017

Correction: The call is tomorrow, Thursday, 27 April. Best regards, Julie From: <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 5:26 PM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Meeting 28 April 1200 UTC Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the notes and action items from the meeting on 13 April. Charters are attached for recommendations 16 & 18, and 31. These have been loaded into the Adobe Connect room for discussion during tomorrow’s call: Thursday, 27 April at 1200 UTC. Please also see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows: Review agenda SOIs Status/reminder of Consensus Calls (responses due 04 May) Continued discussion on Recommendation 16 & 18 charter/update on GDD invite Begin discussion on Recommendation 31 Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 11 May AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 April Action Items: 1. Recommendation 8: Staff will post the recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. (DONE – Response due 04 May) 2. Recommendations 14 and 15: Staff will post the combined recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. (DONE – Response due 04 May) 3. Recommendations 16 and 18: Staff will invite GDD staff to the meeting on 27 April to give an overview of how period reviews are done. (pending) 4. Recommendation 31: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. (DONE) Discussion Notes: 1. Overview of work flowchart: -- Staff takes initiative to draft charter -- Working Group members review, consider recommendations, and decide whether to form a Sub Team to address it, or have full Working Group review the recommendations --> decide whether to approve draft charter or make revisions --> once charter is approved, move to implementation -- End of process includes reporting to the GNSO Council, in addition to provision in Working Group Charter that requires quarterly reporting to the GNSO Council --We have a bunch of recommendations, so how many can we do in parallel? Also, whether to divide into sub teams is complexity of content and human resources. It may become more complicated. -- Creating sub teams adds extra work. To what extent will they be touching on the PDP or similar things? Is there overlap? With a limited number of tasks sometimes taking them sequentially is better. -- Given the small number of participants in this group it is better to work through this in the full WG. -- General comment: Might also be helpful when this WG is reviewing the IE and Working Party recommendations when faced with problematic implementation issues that may require consultation with the GNSO Council. 2. Revised Recommendation Charters: Recommendation 8: -- Question: In a conversation of IRTs it seemed that there wasn't knowledge of implementation review teams -- are they working? Answer: Recent example -- Thick Whois IRT letter to GNSO Council on evolving privacy protection environment. -- Any consensus on how we move forward on this recommendation? Does this require more work? Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call. >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: ..., and have been included in GDD's Consensus Policy Implementation Framework: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa… avri doria: Amr, but are they being used, and how are they working? Amr Elsadr: In my experience, GDD often refers to these principles while working on implementation issues with IRTs. avri doria: is this a tussle over Roles and Responsibilities or mutual agreement on R&R. Donna Austin, RySG: @Avri, the CPH has encountered some differences of opinion about roles and responsibilities when it comes to implementation. Amr Elsadr: @Avri: The roles and responsibilities portions of the principles pertain to (for example) that it is the GNSO that develops gTLD policies. So when/if IRTs face implementation difficulties, they are on a tight leash in terms of deviating from the original intent of recommendations, and must refer these back to the GNSO. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, the CPH experience is not consistent with your description, in that we believe staff can become immovable on interpretation and does not refer things back to Council. Amr Elsadr: @Donna: My understanding is that the GNSO Council is working to clarify the role of Council liaisons to IRTs, which may be helpful in that regard? At least in terms of improving communication between IRTs and the GNSO? avri doria: thanks Donna, so there may be some more work to do in making sure that the IRT method is meeting the requirements of this review. Recommendations 14 and 15: -- Not sure that chunking in phases of work is the same as parallelization of sub teams. New gTLD did do some staging, but was a continuous PDP. -- Question: Should there be language in the WG Guidelines that specifically encourages phasing? -- Concern that PDPs are different so perhaps this should be guidance rather than prescriptive. Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call. >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: Another example of "chunking" may be IRTP? avri doria: exactly, avri doria: and that is what i was thinking was meant. phases was called out, and the gTLD subteam approach is not really chunking. Amr Elsadr: Next-Gen RDS PDP and Review of RPMs is also broken up into phases (not sure that counts as "chunking") that have independent initial report, public comment periods, final reports, Council votes, etc... avri doria: sort of a softer chunks avri doria: and even the community comment 1 & 2 approach of new gTLD might be considered phasing, though the tail of one phase overlaps the beginning of other pahses and the have an end to end dependency. Amr Elsadr: I actually need to check to make sure my last comment on RPMs is accurate. It is on RDS, but thinking about RPMs..., not so sure. Lori Schulman: I believe that each phase is intended to have separate reports Lori Schulman: but definitely need to confirm with co-chairs Amr Elsadr: I think you're right, Lori and Berry. :-) avri doria: Amr, i think that is one of the issues, many different ways of doing phasing, maybe some advice on how different forms can be used and why? Donna Austin, RySG: Is there a distinction between phasing and blocks of work? The RPM WG has two distinct tasks, rather than breaking the work into phases. avri doria: a note on ways to speed up PDPs. In my experience whenever we talk of speeding one up, it ends up taking longer, because of the extended discussions of whether it can be sped up and how. Donna Austin, RySG: could providing more opportunity for face-to-face meetings of the WG lead to speeding up work? avri doria: but the autopsy of a PDP looking for thing that could be done in the future is a good thing. Recommendations 16 & 18: -- Periodic versus ongoing review: the PDP Manual section 17 states that periodic review are necessary. Compare how GDD reviews are done concerning how an ongoing reviews are done. Would it be helpful for someone from GDD to give an overview of how periodic reviews are done? Yes, that would be helpful. Action Item: Invite GDD staff for the next call to give an overview of how period reviews are done. >From the chat: Berry Cobb: ERRP is in data collection phase for now. Analysis and initial report are on deck. Once complete it will be delivered to the GNSO Council. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, has the GDD actually done any reviews? Lori Schulman: yes very helpful avri doria: but in general this scope of work look reasonable Amr Elsadr: @Donna: That's actually one of the questions this WG might want an answer to. It might be premature to recommend changes to "periodic" reviews, if none have been completed and assessed yet? Lori Schulman: What are the 2 workstreams? avri doria: on 16/18 not sure how one does ongoing without some sort of periodicity. Recommendation 31: Action Item: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. >From the chat: Donna Austin, RySG: I don't agree on the GNSO GAC Liaison fulfulling the role. Lori Schulman: I don't understand this charter as well.

1 0

Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Meeting 28 April 1200 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 26, 2017

April 26, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the notes and action items from the meeting on 13 April. Charters are attached for recommendations 16 & 18, and 31. These have been loaded into the Adobe Connect room for discussion during tomorrow’s call: Thursday, 28 April at 1200 UTC. Please also see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows: Review agenda SOIs Status/reminder of Consensus Calls (responses due 04 May) Continued discussion on Recommendation 16 & 18 charter/update on GDD invite Begin discussion on Recommendation 31 Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 11 May AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 April Action Items: 1. Recommendation 8: Staff will post the recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. (DONE – Response due 04 May) 2. Recommendations 14 and 15: Staff will post the combined recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. (DONE – Response due 04 May) 3. Recommendations 16 and 18: Staff will invite GDD staff to the meeting on 27 April to give an overview of how period reviews are done. (pending) 4. Recommendation 31: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. (DONE) Discussion Notes: 1. Overview of work flowchart: -- Staff takes initiative to draft charter -- Working Group members review, consider recommendations, and decide whether to form a Sub Team to address it, or have full Working Group review the recommendations --> decide whether to approve draft charter or make revisions --> once charter is approved, move to implementation -- End of process includes reporting to the GNSO Council, in addition to provision in Working Group Charter that requires quarterly reporting to the GNSO Council --We have a bunch of recommendations, so how many can we do in parallel? Also, whether to divide into sub teams is complexity of content and human resources. It may become more complicated. -- Creating sub teams adds extra work. To what extent will they be touching on the PDP or similar things? Is there overlap? With a limited number of tasks sometimes taking them sequentially is better. -- Given the small number of participants in this group it is better to work through this in the full WG. -- General comment: Might also be helpful when this WG is reviewing the IE and Working Party recommendations when faced with problematic implementation issues that may require consultation with the GNSO Council. 2. Revised Recommendation Charters: Recommendation 8: -- Question: In a conversation of IRTs it seemed that there wasn't knowledge of implementation review teams -- are they working? Answer: Recent example -- Thick Whois IRT letter to GNSO Council on evolving privacy protection environment. -- Any consensus on how we move forward on this recommendation? Does this require more work? Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call. >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: ..., and have been included in GDD's Consensus Policy Implementation Framework: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa… avri doria: Amr, but are they being used, and how are they working? Amr Elsadr: In my experience, GDD often refers to these principles while working on implementation issues with IRTs. avri doria: is this a tussle over Roles and Responsibilities or mutual agreement on R&R. Donna Austin, RySG: @Avri, the CPH has encountered some differences of opinion about roles and responsibilities when it comes to implementation. Amr Elsadr: @Avri: The roles and responsibilities portions of the principles pertain to (for example) that it is the GNSO that develops gTLD policies. So when/if IRTs face implementation difficulties, they are on a tight leash in terms of deviating from the original intent of recommendations, and must refer these back to the GNSO. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, the CPH experience is not consistent with your description, in that we believe staff can become immovable on interpretation and does not refer things back to Council. Amr Elsadr: @Donna: My understanding is that the GNSO Council is working to clarify the role of Council liaisons to IRTs, which may be helpful in that regard? At least in terms of improving communication between IRTs and the GNSO? avri doria: thanks Donna, so there may be some more work to do in making sure that the IRT method is meeting the requirements of this review. Recommendations 14 and 15: -- Not sure that chunking in phases of work is the same as parallelization of sub teams. New gTLD did do some staging, but was a continuous PDP. -- Question: Should there be language in the WG Guidelines that specifically encourages phasing? -- Concern that PDPs are different so perhaps this should be guidance rather than prescriptive. Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call. >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: Another example of "chunking" may be IRTP? avri doria: exactly, avri doria: and that is what i was thinking was meant. phases was called out, and the gTLD subteam approach is not really chunking. Amr Elsadr: Next-Gen RDS PDP and Review of RPMs is also broken up into phases (not sure that counts as "chunking") that have independent initial report, public comment periods, final reports, Council votes, etc... avri doria: sort of a softer chunks avri doria: and even the community comment 1 & 2 approach of new gTLD might be considered phasing, though the tail of one phase overlaps the beginning of other pahses and the have an end to end dependency. Amr Elsadr: I actually need to check to make sure my last comment on RPMs is accurate. It is on RDS, but thinking about RPMs..., not so sure. Lori Schulman: I believe that each phase is intended to have separate reports Lori Schulman: but definitely need to confirm with co-chairs Amr Elsadr: I think you're right, Lori and Berry. :-) avri doria: Amr, i think that is one of the issues, many different ways of doing phasing, maybe some advice on how different forms can be used and why? Donna Austin, RySG: Is there a distinction between phasing and blocks of work? The RPM WG has two distinct tasks, rather than breaking the work into phases. avri doria: a note on ways to speed up PDPs. In my experience whenever we talk of speeding one up, it ends up taking longer, because of the extended discussions of whether it can be sped up and how. Donna Austin, RySG: could providing more opportunity for face-to-face meetings of the WG lead to speeding up work? avri doria: but the autopsy of a PDP looking for thing that could be done in the future is a good thing. Recommendations 16 & 18: -- Periodic versus ongoing review: the PDP Manual section 17 states that periodic review are necessary. Compare how GDD reviews are done concerning how an ongoing reviews are done. Would it be helpful for someone from GDD to give an overview of how periodic reviews are done? Yes, that would be helpful. Action Item: Invite GDD staff for the next call to give an overview of how period reviews are done. >From the chat: Berry Cobb: ERRP is in data collection phase for now. Analysis and initial report are on deck. Once complete it will be delivered to the GNSO Council. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, has the GDD actually done any reviews? Lori Schulman: yes very helpful avri doria: but in general this scope of work look reasonable Amr Elsadr: @Donna: That's actually one of the questions this WG might want an answer to. It might be premature to recommend changes to "periodic" reviews, if none have been completed and assessed yet? Lori Schulman: What are the 2 workstreams? avri doria: on 16/18 not sure how one does ongoing without some sort of periodicity. Recommendation 31: Action Item: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. >From the chat: Donna Austin, RySG: I don't agree on the GNSO GAC Liaison fulfulling the role. Lori Schulman: I don't understand this charter as well.

1 0