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

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 29 March
by Julie Hedlund March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 29 March at ICANN58. 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/2017-03-30+GNSO+Review+WG. Note that a Doodle poll will be held to confirm the timing of the next call that will be in two weeks on Thursday, 13 April. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 29 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

Mp3, AC Chat and attendance GNSO Review Working Group 30 March 2017
by Nathalie Peregrine March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Dear all, Please find the mp3 for the GNSO Review Working Group held on 30 March 2017 at 12:00 UTC mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-wg-30mar17-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: Heath Dixon (RrSG Primary) Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate) Jennifer Wolfe (RySG Primary) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary) Lori Schulman (IPC Primary) Participants: Pascal Bekono (NCUC) Apologies: Lawrence Owalale-Roberts, Renata Aquino Ribeiro ICANN staff: Marika Konings Julie Hedlund Amr Elsadr 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 30 March 2017 Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group meeting on the 30 March 2017 Nathalie Peregrine:Agenda meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Amr Elsadr:Hi folks. Hope all are well. Sara Bockey:Good day. Waiting on my first cup of coffee. BTW...hear a popping noise. Is it just me? Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Hi everyone Julie Hedlund:Hello everyone! Amr Elsadr:I hear the occasional pop on my line as well. Nathalie Peregrine:getting it fixed, thanks! Amr Elsadr:Gone now, I think. Sara Bockey:It is 5am for PT for me and heath so hopefully Heath will join soon Amr Elsadr:I think Rafik is honeymooning right now. :-) Amr Elsadr:We should call him while on honeymoon, and ask him to send apologies next time he gets married. :-) Marika Konings:The IRT Principles address composition so maybe it is worth referring to those as well? Marika Konings: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 policyrecommendations. The call for volunteers may need to reach beyond the workinggroup members to ensure broad participation by parties directly impacted by theimplementation and parties with specialized expertise needed forimplementation. In some cases, additional outreach at the start or at a later stageof the IRT may be necessary to ensure that appropriate expertise is availableand that directly affected parties are involved in the IRT." Amr Elsadr:The bracketed portion of number 2. (e.g. composition) is an extract of one of the recommendations coming out of the P&I WG regarding IRT formation/composition. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:That should be enough from my point of view Lori Schulman:My apologies for being late. Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome Lori Lori Schulman:thank you Lori Schulman:I am in the chat only. Lori Schulman:I will dial in too. Marika Konings:could that be part of the WG assessment? Ask a question on if/how the PDP could have moved faster? Marika Konings:and then those ideas could be shared / discussed? Lori Schulman:Let me dial in. Marika Konings:@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 excercise 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.. Marika Konings:The PDP only outlines minimum requirements - there is a lot of flexibility in how work can be conducted. For example, nothing would prevent groups from meeting every day for 4 hours :-) Marika Konings:Note that the model used to be a Task Force in which each SG/C would appoint 1 or 2 people max. not an open WG model. Marika Konings:so maybe a middle way could be explored? Marika Konings:not open participation but neither the very limited participation of the past? 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? Marika Konings: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? Lori Schulman:Public comments are too late for many not well versed in the subject Marika Konings:Thinking out loud, what about a plenary style model of participation - the plenary would meet once a month to get updated on the progress / status of work, while the leg work (weekly calls) is undertaken by a number of reps? Marika Konings:sorry, probably getting way ahead of what you are trying to achieve today :-) Marika Konings:there may also be other models - it may be worth exploring similar organizations to see how they conduct similar activities? Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:I agree to your suggestion, Julie Pascal Bekono:Hello dear all. Sorry for the delay, another important meeting Nathalie Peregrine:I've noted you in the attendance list Pascal Amr Elsadr:Does the WG also wish to address the distinction between periodic vs. ongoing post-implementation policy effectiveness evaluation? Amr Elsadr:Implementation of ongoing evaluations also need to be considered. Lori Schulman:Thanks to the staff for their diligence. Lori Schulman:WE are small but we are mighty. Julie Hedlund:Thanks Lori! Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Has "effectiveness" been defined in more detail in the report? Pascal Bekono:Thanks Nat, I am reading meeting's notes Amr Elsadr:@WUK: I don't believe it has. This would be dependent on how the DMPM recs are implemented? Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone!! Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.

1 0

Agenda and Materials for GNSO Review WG Meeting 30 March 2017
by Julie Hedlund March 30, 2017

March 30, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the notes and action items from the meeting on 15 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, 30 March at 1200 UTC. Please also see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows: 1. Review agenda 2. SOIs 3. Review revised draft charters based on actions from ICANN58 4. Recommendation implementation tracking tool 5. Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 13 April 6. AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 15 March Action Items: 1. Staff will update the recommendation charters based on the notes captured below. 2. On recommendations 16 & 18 staff will review the recommendations in the DMPM Final Report concerning Policy Impact Analysis. Discussion Notes: Recommendation 8 --Question: Does the WG become the IRT? --Answer: It is not expected that the WG would become the IRT, but some continuity is very helpful. Example: Registrar Transfer Policy. It is not envisioned that all Working Group members will join an IRT. The Procedures call for other experts as well. One scenario: when more than 1 PDP is implemented the is an option to merge IRTs into one. GNSO Operating Procedures call for the formation of the IRT, but the WG will no longer exist. Recommendation 15: --Question: What was the original request for timeliness? --Answer: Several years ago there was a project or an intent to address how to make PDPs go faster. What was the PDP Improvements Project Initiative. Staff can research how these efforts originated. The Expedited PDP assumed that certain work could be done, but does that satisfy this recommendation? Per the PDP intiative one of the changes is that Policy Staff include the draft charters in the Preliminary Issue Report. The wording of the recommendation may have been overtaken by time. Think about recommending a more formal process be undertaken for speeding up PDPs. Perhaps, periodically in PDPs to share ideas how it could be speeded up. Recommendation 14: Question: Should PDP WGs be encouraged to phase or "chunk" PDPs? Answer: It depends on the PDP, the amount of work, the volunteer capacity. It should be encouraged when it works. Classic was the Registrar Transfer Policy, currently the RDS PDP broken into 3 phases. Should language be added to the PDP Manual to promote phasing? KPI: How to reword? Staff will address that. Recommendations 16&18: --Question: Where is the Policy Impact Analysis included? --Answer: Staff will look into whether a recommendation has been made and whether this has been address. --Question: Does this relate specifically to the outcome of the recommendations and the DMPM. --Answer: Staff will provide additional analysis.

2 2

Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 15 March
by Julie Hedlund March 16, 2017

March 16, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 15 March at ICANN58. 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 when available will be posted at: https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nmr/gnso-review-working-group. Note that based on the results of the Doodle poll the next call will be in two weeks on Thursday, 30 March at 1200 UTC. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 15 March Action Items: 1. Staff will update the recommendation charters based on the notes captured below. 2. On recommendations 16 & 18 staff will review the recommendations in the DMPM Final Report concerning Policy Impact Analysis. Discussion Notes: Recommendation 8 --Question: Does the WG become the IRT? --Answer: It is not expected that the WG would become the IRT, but some continuity is very helpful. Example: Registrar Transfer Policy. It is not envisioned that all Working Group members will join an IRT. The Procedures call for other experts as well. One scenario: when more than 1 PDP is implemented the is an option to merge IRTs into one. GNSO Operating Procedures call for the formation of the IRT, but the WG will no longer exist. Recommendation 15: --Question: What was the original request for timeliness? --Answer: Several years ago there was a project or an intent to address how to make PDPs go faster. What was the PDP Improvements Project Initiative. Staff can research how these efforts originated. The Expedited PDP assumed that certain work could be done, but does that satisfy this recommendation? Per the PDP intiative one of the changes is that Policy Staff include the draft charters in the Preliminary Issue Report. The wording of the recommendation may have been overtaken by time. Think about recommending a more formal process be undertaken for speeding up PDPs. Perhaps, periodically in PDPs to share ideas how it could be speeded up. Recommendation 14: Question: Should PDP WGs be encouraged to phase or "chunk" PDPs? Answer: It depends on the PDP, the amount of work, the volunteer capacity. It should be encouraged when it works. Classic was the Registrar Transfer Policy, currently the RDS PDP broken into 3 phases. Should language be added to the PDP Manual to promote phasing? KPI: How to reword? Staff will address that. Recommendations 16&18: --Question: Where is the Policy Impact Analysis included? --Answer: Staff will look into whether a recommendation has been made and whether this has been address. --Question: Does this relate specifically to the outcome of the recommendations and the DMPM. --Answer: Staff will provide additional analysis.

1 0

FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL: Recommendations 15, 16 & 18, 14, and 31 Implementation Charters
by Julie Hedlund March 14, 2017

March 14, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see the attached implementation charters for review for recommendations 15, 16 & 18, 14, and 31 (in the order of priority from the Implementation Plan). These will also be part of the discussion at our public ICANN58 meeting on Wednesday, 15 March, from 15:15 to 16:45, as time permits. See https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nmr/gnso-review-working-group for participation details. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

REMINDER FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL: Recommendation 8 Implementation Charter
by Julie Hedlund March 13, 2017

March 13, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder of the attached implementation charter for review, including changes based on the discussion from our first meeting (see below). This will also be part of the discussion at our public ICANN58 meeting on Wednesday, 15 March, from 15:15 to 16:45. See https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nmr/gnso-review-working-group for participation details. 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: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 12:03 AM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL: Recommendation 8 Implementation Charter Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Based on our discussion during today’s meeting on the first of the Phase I recommendations, Recommendation 8, please see the attached revised charter. The changes captured are: 1. Deleted boilerplate information that would be the same for each recommendation (project sponsor, owner, manager, and background). These could be provided for each batch of charters as they are submitted to the GNSO Council when the work is completed. 2. Clarified the scope as to what work is expected and by whom, and the solution as to what work has been done and the expected outcome. Please let us know of any questions or edits you may have to the revised charter. Staff will continue to develop charters for the rest of the Phase I recommendations and submit them to the Working Group list for review and approval as they are complete. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 2

Doodle Results: Scheduling GNSO Review WG Recurring Meetings
by Julie Hedlund March 9, 2017

March 9, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Thank you very much for taking the poll that closed COB yesterday, 08 March per the message below. Based on the results of the poll the time and date with the most attendees was on Thursdays at 1200 UTC. These meeting will be held every other week at that time and day, and will commence on Thursday, 30 March. A meeting notice and calendar invite will be sent separately. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <gnso-review-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:04 AM To: "gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-review-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER - Doodle: Scheduling GNSO Review WG Recurring Meetings Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per our discussion at our last meeting staff has the action to run a Doodle poll to select the day and time of the recurring GNSO Review WG meetings that will take place every other week, beginning the week of 27 March (excepting the meeting to be held at ICANN58). Please take the Doodle poll at the link below. We have selected days and times that work best for the availability of the WG Chair, Jen Wolfe, and Vice-Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, and also tried to avoid very early or very late times (to the extent possible). Note, however, 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. NOTE: Consider these as a recurring time slot for a meeting every other week, beginning the week of 27 March. Doodle link: http://doodle.com/poll/ixgdsawssrghi6ca -- 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, 08 March. Thank you for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

REMINDER - Doodle: Scheduling GNSO Review WG Recurring Meetings
by Julie Hedlund March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per our discussion at our last meeting staff has the action to run a Doodle poll to select the day and time of the recurring GNSO Review WG meetings that will take place every other week, beginning the week of 27 March (excepting the meeting to be held at ICANN58). Please take the Doodle poll at the link below. We have selected days and times that work best for the availability of the WG Chair, Jen Wolfe, and Vice-Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, and also tried to avoid very early or very late times (to the extent possible). Note, however, 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. NOTE: Consider these as a recurring time slot for a meeting every other week, beginning the week of 27 March. Doodle link: http://doodle.com/poll/ixgdsawssrghi6ca -- 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, 08 March. Thank you for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

ICANN58: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Nathalie Peregrine March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Dear all, Pre-ICANN meeting email inboxes are full at the best of times, so the GNSO SO/AC Support team has created a one-stop wiki page for all your open meeting remote participation queries. In addition to this, the ICANN meetings website provides you with an easy to navigate schedule and the possibility of downloading all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN58 Meeting Schedule<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_&d=…> GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Step 1 Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage, and if not done yet, create a log in when prompted. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your calendar inbox. To get a general description of the session, please hover your mouse over the session title and a summary of the session will appear as well as a “add to my schedule” option. Step 2 Please download the ICANN58 Mobile App to automatically receive the latest updates to your schedule (available on Apple and Android products, look for “ICANN58”) Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule and on the GNSO Remote Participation Wiki page) will provide audio streaming. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Terri Agnew will be onsite to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://FB60497E-61D8-4FE9-BF9C-EB238191E416/gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team

1 0

Doodle: Scheduling GNSO Review WG Recurring Meetings
by Julie Hedlund March 1, 2017

March 1, 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 select the day and time of the recurring GNSO Review WG meetings that will take place every other week, beginning the week of 27 March (excepting the meeting to be held at ICANN58). Please take the Doodle poll at the link below. We have selected days and times that work best for the availability of the WG Chair, Jen Wolfe, and Vice-Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, and also tried to avoid very early or very late times (to the extent possible). Note, however, 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. NOTE: Consider these as a recurring time slot for a meeting every other week, beginning the week of 27 March. Doodle link: http://doodle.com/poll/ixgdsawssrghi6ca -- 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, 08 March. Thank you for your assistance. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0