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

FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 31
by Julie Hedlund April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action item below, please see that attached draft charter for recommendation 31 for your review and discussion. The document is provided in Word and PDF. Please feel free to suggest edits to the list, either in an email or directly in the Word document. 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. 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

CONSENSUS CALL: GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 14 and 15
by Julie Hedlund April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, 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

CONSENSUS CALL: GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 8
by Julie Hedlund April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, 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 13 April
by Julie Hedlund April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 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/2017-04-13+GNSO+Review+WG. The next call will be in two weeks on Thursday, 27 April at 1200 UTC. A meeting notice has been sent separately. 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. 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

**Updated attendance clarification/ Mp3, attendance , AC chat and AC recording / GNSO Review Working Group 13 April 2017
by Terri Agnew April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3, attendance, Adobe Connect recording and chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on 13 April 2017 at 12:00 UTC. mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-13apr17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p55qqjixk6i/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=436763efcaabf56f…> https://participate.icann.org/p55qqjixk6i/ 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/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZhmsAw Attendees: Members: Heath Dixon (RrSG Primary) 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) Avri Dori (NCSG Alternate) Participants: Pascal Bekono (NCUC) Apologies: Renata Aquino Ribeiro (Participant NCUC) Marika Konings - Staff ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Negar Farzinnia Amr Elsadr 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 13 April 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 13 April 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_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=4Hoy9oJOmVuv9pB2Wb8KL_eW6naqoFnxwbRG9w088LE&e= Lori Schulman:Hi Terri Agnew:Welcome Heath Dixon Heath Dixon:Good morning. avri doria:subdividing into teams does take a bunch of extra human overhead Rafik:indeed Avri Lori Schulman:Agree with Avri. No subteams. Lori Schulman:Sorry, Avri, I may have imputed Lori Schulman:"no subteams" Lori Schulman:I agree much human capital needed and human capital is in short supply avri doria:not that i am against subteams in all cases. but it has to be worth the overhead. Sara Bockey:Agree with Lori & Avri. No subteams. Lori Schulman:Avri, I understand you rpoint. I think we are too small even with a large number of tasks in front of us. Amr Elsadr:Principles concerning implementation and IRTs were developed by the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=jkd6RAQvbL6h6v4atDvjnxYOUBmmDPT0Y_hpsbjJa-4&e= Amr Elsadr:..., and have been included in GDD's Consensus Policy Implementation Framework: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=sfr2FwYqVSITI_U9lPrKif7F_6MJ7ZSPjAwBe_684PY&e= 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 Responsiblities or mutal ageement 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. avri doria:thbanks Donna, so there may be some more work to do in making sure that the IRT method is meeting the requirements of this review. 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? Donna Austin, RySG:@Amr, it certainly may. to the extent that it's relevant to this discussion the CPH did write to the Board recently highlighting some concerns on a number of things including implementation of policy: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=GOytgxOs-5Lv_n90tUyMhxmC7dB_lJU89MhvV8sX6Lo&e= avri doria:Donna, that is a critical point. Also in terms of the Staff Accountabitliy subteam work. 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. Berry Cobb:RPM is too. Phase 1 is the RPMs for New gTLDs. Phase 2 is the UDRP review Lori Schulman:Confirm Berry's comment. RPMs are being done in 2 distinct blocks of work Amr Elsadr:Yup Berry. Just wasn't sure if each phase would have it's own initial report, public comment, etc..., which I probably should be more sure of. ;-) 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 thinkl 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 expereince whenever we talk of speediing one up, it ends up taking longer, becasue 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. avri doria:Donna sometimes, but sometimes there is a lot of overhead into preparing for a f2f and then debreif. So it has to be well planned to be be useful. They are good for working hard issues, but not necessarily as a speed up factor. Amr Elsadr:@Donna: My guess is that meetings at Policy Forums will help answer that question. :-) Donna Austin, RySG:Good points Avri avri doria:Policy Forums may be too short to accomodate all the f2f time that people need. Berry Cobb:ERRP is in data collection phase for now. Analaysis and initial report are on deck. Once complete it will be delivered to the GNSO Council Donna Austin, RySG:@Avri, that's why we should have two a year, and and ICANN AGM. Lori Schulman:Yes, Meeting A confuses me. Lori Schulman:2 meeting B formats and 1 big meeting would make sense Lori Schulman:Sorry, that is a tangent Lori Schulman:How does "ongoing" work" Lori Schulman:How does "ongoing" work? Super labor intensive? Lori Schulman:Yes, I would like to understand "ongoing" Lori Schulman:Agree with Amr 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 aswer 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. Terri Agnew:next GNSO Review Working Group Meeting will be scheduled on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 12:00 UTC Lori Schulman:Very good call today. Thank you. Happy Spring Holidays! Donna Austin, RySG:I don't agree on the GNSO GAC Liaison fulfulling the liaison role. Lori Schulman:I don't understand this charter as well. Lori Schulman:bye Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. avri doria:bye and thanks Sara Bockey:thanks all Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Thanks and bye

1 0

Mp3, attendance , AC chat and AC recording / GNSO Review Working Group 13 April 2017
by Terri Agnew April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3, attendance, Adobe Connect recording and chat below for the GNSO Review Working Group held on 13 April 2017 at 12:00 UTC. mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-13apr17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p55qqjixk6i/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=436763efcaabf56f…> https://participate.icann.org/p55qqjixk6i/ 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/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZhmsAw Attendees: Members: Heath Dixon (RrSG Primary) 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: Pascal Bekono (NCUC) Avri Dori (NCSG) Apologies: Renata Aquino Ribeiro (Participant NCUC) Marika Konings - Staff ICANN staff: Julie Hedlund Negar Farzinnia Amr Elsadr 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 13 April 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 13 April 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_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=4Hoy9oJOmVuv9pB2Wb8KL_eW6naqoFnxwbRG9w088LE&e= Lori Schulman:Hi Terri Agnew:Welcome Heath Dixon Heath Dixon:Good morning. avri doria:subdividing into teams does take a bunch of extra human overhead Rafik:indeed Avri Lori Schulman:Agree with Avri. No subteams. Lori Schulman:Sorry, Avri, I may have imputed Lori Schulman:"no subteams" Lori Schulman:I agree much human capital needed and human capital is in short supply avri doria:not that i am against subteams in all cases. but it has to be worth the overhead. Sara Bockey:Agree with Lori & Avri. No subteams. Lori Schulman:Avri, I understand you rpoint. I think we are too small even with a large number of tasks in front of us. Amr Elsadr:Principles concerning implementation and IRTs were developed by the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=jkd6RAQvbL6h6v4atDvjnxYOUBmmDPT0Y_hpsbjJa-4&e= Amr Elsadr:..., and have been included in GDD's Consensus Policy Implementation Framework: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=sfr2FwYqVSITI_U9lPrKif7F_6MJ7ZSPjAwBe_684PY&e= 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 Responsiblities or mutal ageement 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. avri doria:thbanks Donna, so there may be some more work to do in making sure that the IRT method is meeting the requirements of this review. 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? Donna Austin, RySG:@Amr, it certainly may. to the extent that it's relevant to this discussion the CPH did write to the Board recently highlighting some concerns on a number of things including implementation of policy: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=GOytgxOs-5Lv_n90tUyMhxmC7dB_lJU89MhvV8sX6Lo&e= avri doria:Donna, that is a critical point. Also in terms of the Staff Accountabitliy subteam work. 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. Berry Cobb:RPM is too. Phase 1 is the RPMs for New gTLDs. Phase 2 is the UDRP review Lori Schulman:Confirm Berry's comment. RPMs are being done in 2 distinct blocks of work Amr Elsadr:Yup Berry. Just wasn't sure if each phase would have it's own initial report, public comment, etc..., which I probably should be more sure of. ;-) 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 thinkl 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 expereince whenever we talk of speediing one up, it ends up taking longer, becasue 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. avri doria:Donna sometimes, but sometimes there is a lot of overhead into preparing for a f2f and then debreif. So it has to be well planned to be be useful. They are good for working hard issues, but not necessarily as a speed up factor. Amr Elsadr:@Donna: My guess is that meetings at Policy Forums will help answer that question. :-) Donna Austin, RySG:Good points Avri avri doria:Policy Forums may be too short to accomodate all the f2f time that people need. Berry Cobb:ERRP is in data collection phase for now. Analaysis and initial report are on deck. Once complete it will be delivered to the GNSO Council Donna Austin, RySG:@Avri, that's why we should have two a year, and and ICANN AGM. Lori Schulman:Yes, Meeting A confuses me. Lori Schulman:2 meeting B formats and 1 big meeting would make sense Lori Schulman:Sorry, that is a tangent Lori Schulman:How does "ongoing" work" Lori Schulman:How does "ongoing" work? Super labor intensive? Lori Schulman:Yes, I would like to understand "ongoing" Lori Schulman:Agree with Amr 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 aswer 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. Terri Agnew:next GNSO Review Working Group Meeting will be scheduled on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 12:00 UTC Lori Schulman:Very good call today. Thank you. Happy Spring Holidays! Donna Austin, RySG:I don't agree on the GNSO GAC Liaison fulfulling the liaison role. Lori Schulman:I don't understand this charter as well. Lori Schulman:bye Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. avri doria:bye and thanks Sara Bockey:thanks all Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Thanks and bye

1 0

Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Meeting 13 April 1200 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 12, 2017

April 12, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the notes and action items from the meeting on 30 March. Per the action items revised charters are attached with redlines to show changes from the previous versions. These have been loaded into the Adobe Connect room for discussion during tomorrow’s call: Thursday, 13 April at 1200 UTC. Please also see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows: Review agenda SOIs Flow chart of work Review revised draft charters based on actions at 30 March meeting Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 27 April AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 30 March Action Items: 1. Staff will send a Doodle Poll to confirm the timing of the next call that will be in two weeks on Thursday, 13 April. 2. Recommendation 8: Include in the solution section a link to the IRT Principles. Amend the KPIs that it is up to the future establishment of the WG to make them aware of the IRT requirements and principles. 3. Recommendations 14 & 15: Combine recommendations 14 and 15 on timing and phasing and suggest possible language. 4. Recommendations 16 & 18: Staff will provide context and background for Recommendation 18 and circulate them on the list. Discussion Notes: Review revised draft charters based on actions from ICANN 58: Recommendation 8: -- Staff perspective that implementation of GNSO Policy and Implementation WG recommendations addresses this recommendation from the GNSO Review. -- General comment on recommendation charters regarding KPIs: Not clear what appropriate KPIs would be, if implementation measures are not measurable (example: if implementation involves changes in language to GNSO PDP Manual or GNSO WG Guidelines) -- There was the requirement that the WG members should join the IRT. Question: How is that incorporated in the solution? Should we be more precise under #2? -- KPIs: Up to the future establishment of the WG to make them aware and that could be enough. >From the chat: Marika Konings: The IRT Principles address composition so maybe it is worth referring to those as well? This is what the IRT Principles say: "The call for IRT volunteers should at a minimum be sent to all members of thePDP working group that was responsible for developing the policy recommendations. The call for volunteers may need to reach beyond the working group members to ensure broad participation by parties directly impacted by the implementation and parties with specialized expertise needed for implementation. In some cases, additional outreach at the start or at a later stageof the IRT may be necessary to ensure that appropriate expertise is available and that directly affected parties are involved in the IRT." Recommendation 15: -- Makes sense to include it as part of the assessment process. -- How to cycle that into future PDPs? -- Every PDP is ideosyncratic. Do we want to continue to have completely open PDPs? Do we want size limitations? -- Phasing could be a way to mitigate size. Smaller groups addressing work simultaneously. -- A plenary might be a good way to go. >From the chat: Marika Konings: Could that be part of the WG assessment? Ask a question on if/how the PDP could have moved faster? And then those ideas could be shared / discussed? @Julie - I think it is a link. The GOP refer to it, but do not dictate the questions as far as I am aware. Amr Elsadr: One previous measure taken during a staff exercise for improving PDPs was including PDP WG charters in preliminary issues reports. This was meant to save time used to form charter drafting teams, draft the charters, submitting for public comments and having Council adopt them. This is now included in the process to accept issues report.. Lori Schulman: Does broad participation necessarily mean high numbers vs. having many interests represented? Each PDP could be sized according to needs. I think that idea of phasing. Marika Konings: good point Lori - I guess the question is though how and who do you assess whether different interests are represented? would it be feasible to have each SG/C to appoint 3-4 reps representing those different interests? Amr Elsadr: @Lori: Public comment periods is one way to participate? Also during early PDP WG outreach to SOs/ACs? Marika Konings: there may also be other models - it may be worth exploring similar organizations to see how they conduct similar activities? Recommendations 16 & 18: -- Question: Recommendation 18 points to policy effectiveness -- could have a wider frame than the PIA. That the goals of the policy process have been achieved? Or could the policy process be improved? >From the chat: Amr Elsadr: Does the WG also wish to address the distinction between periodic vs. ongoing post-implementation policy effectiveness evaluation? Implementation of ongoing evaluations also need to be considered. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Has "effectiveness" been defined in more detail in the report? Amr Elsadr: @WUK: I don't believe it has. This would be dependent on how the DMPM recs are implemented?

1 0

Reminder re Doodle: Confirming Time of Recurring Meetings
by Julie Hedlund April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per our discussion at our meeting last week staff has the action to run a Doodle poll to confirm the time of the recurring GNSO Review WG meetings that will take place every other week, beginning with the next call on 13 April. Please take the Doodle poll at the link below. Note that the WG membership is widely spread across time zones and it will be impossible to find a time that is comfortable for all participants. If these times and days are not sufficient we will expand the poll. Doodle link: https://beta.doodle.com/poll/hqk2m4pzsk2ur3dt -- The poll is set with time zone support so you can change the time to your time zone. Please take the poll as soon as possible, but not later than TODAY COB Wednesday, 05 April. Thank you for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Reminder re Doodle: Confirming Time of Recurring Meetings
by Julie Hedlund April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per our discussion at our meeting last week staff has the action to run a Doodle poll to confirm the time of the recurring GNSO Review WG meetings that will take place every other week, beginning with the next call on 13 April. Please take the Doodle poll at the link below. Note that the WG membership is widely spread across time zones and it will be impossible to find a time that is comfortable for all participants. If these times and days are not sufficient we will expand the poll. Doodle link: https://beta.doodle.com/poll/hqk2m4pzsk2ur3dt -- The poll is set with time zone support so you can change the time to your time zone. Please take the poll as soon as possible, but not later than COB Wednesday, 05 April. Thank you for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Doodle: Confirming Time of Recurring Meetings
by Julie Hedlund March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per our discussion at our meeting today staff has the action to run a Doodle poll to confirm the time of the recurring GNSO Review WG meetings that will take place every other week, beginning with the next call on 13 April. Please take the Doodle poll at the link below. Note that the WG membership is widely spread across time zones and it will be impossible to find a time that is comfortable for all participants. If these times and days are not sufficient we will expand the poll. Doodle link: https://beta.doodle.com/poll/hqk2m4pzsk2ur3dt -- The poll is set with time zone support so you can change the time to your time zone. Please take the poll as soon as possible, but not later than COB Wednesday, 05 April. Thank you for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0