Dear GNSO Review WG members, Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 15 November. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the recording or the transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2016-11-15+GNSO+Review+Working+Grou.... In addition, please see the wiki home page for your reference at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/GNSO+Review+Working+Group+Home. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action items: 1. Staff will produce a final draft implementation plan and send it to the WG on 15 November. 2. WG members should provide any final edits or comments on the plan by Friday, 18 November, which staff will incorporate into the final implementation plan. 3. Staff will produce a draft motion for Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to send to the GNSO Council along with the final implementation plan by the document and motion deadline of Monday, 21 November for the 01 December Council meeting. Discussion Notes: Overarching question: Is there a final step for the GNSO Review WG to agree that the implementation is complete? The WG is the accountability mechanism. Rec 20: Comments? None. Rec 21: Add a timeline -- recurring basis. Regular reporting/updating to the GNSO Council at every ICANN meeting as a status report to the GNSO. Put on the GNSO agenda. Rec. 7: Comments? What are existing measures? There are some existing services, such as real-time translation (as being done in ALAC), determine costs -- cost-benefit analysis -- including an assessment of costs. Rec. 35: Comments? Overlap with Accountability WS2-Diversity. A first step might be to review ongoing efforts in relation to the same subject to determine whether a separate WG is needed. Ensure it is coordinated with what is being done in WS2. Link the creation of new WG to the outcome of diversity subgroup. Rec. 22: Comments? None. Rec. 1, 2, 3: Comments? None. Rec. 5&9: Comments? None. Rec. 12: Comments? None. Rec. 17: Comments? None. Rec. 4: Comments? None. Rec. 34: Comments? Avri Doria: 1. How do we define effectiveness? 2. We are not really doing this and I think that we are wiggling out of actually doing it with the way this is being 'done'. Rafik Dammak: Another element to have in mind for implementation -- use more standard times, such as UTC. Don’t favor a particular region. Care needs to be taken in how "effectiveness" is defined. Rec. 36: Comments? None. Timeframe: Is this reasonable? Provide more time for high-priority items (phase 2). Extend the timeframe to end of 2017.