Dear GNSO Review WG Members, Please see below the discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 06 October. 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/2016-10-06+GNSO+Review+Working+Grou.... The slides are attached and also posted to the meeting page on the wiki. In addition, please see the wiki home page for your reference at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/GNSO+Review+Working+Group+Home. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director GNSO Review WG Meeting, 06 October 2016: Actions/Discussion Notes Action Items: 1. WG members should take the Doodle Poll (deadline COB 06 October) to schedule the next call for the week after next. 2. WG members will consider volunteering for the Vice-Chair role (see attached criteria) with a decision to be made at the next meeting. 3. Staff will produce a first draft of the implementation plan, including dependencies between recommendations, prioritization, resource requirements, and possible budget effects, for consideration at the next meeting. 1. Overview and goals: · GNSO volunteer capacity; · Realistic implementation schedule and plan; and · Expected outcomes and measuring results. 2. Timeline/Deadlines: · To GNSO Council by 21 November for 01 December meeting. · GNSO Council must provide to the Board by 31 December 2016. 3. Draft Implementation Plan: Overview, Outline, Considerations Discussion Notes: · Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: How to organize ourselves -- do we need to split up our group, or go on in one group? · Jen Wolfe: Going through each recommendation will be in the implementation phase. · Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Framework for the plan, and after that could be split up in the implementation. · Heath Dixon: Has work been done on dependencies? · Julie Hedlund (ICANN staff): Some work has been done and staff will build on that to produce something for the WG to review. · Lori Schulman: What is the purpose of this WG? · Jen Wolfe: Take the 34 recommendations that have been approved by the Board and produce a plan to implement them. Between now and November we will just create a plan. This work is organizational, not substantive. · Larisa Gurnick (ICANN staff): Good point. 1) to the extent that there are changes underway that might have an impact on implementation, these could be flagged as the dependencies -- so the work is not contradictory to other work underway; 2) WS 2 -- In the work that staff is doing to support WS 2 such as the sub group on diversity -- we have provided sections of the GNSO Review report and the recommendations that got adopted so that there could be alignment. · Rafik Dammak: We don't have a mandate to change the recommendations from the GNSO Review Working Party and approved by the Board. Now with WS 2, and WS 1 -- there are so many things going on. Are we really aiming to make it by the beginning of December and how? · Jen Wolfe: Thanks for raising that. Recognizing that there are phases to all of the work being done -- with this first piece we are trying to develop a plan to group recommendations in batches and a plan for each batch. There could be a group looking at the implementation of each batch. We want just a macro level plan at this point. We have talked to staff to provide a framework of a plan that we can respond to. · Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: When you look at the prioritization you have high, medium, and low -- and the most are in the agreed, work already underway, agreed with modification. Outline to the OEC on work already underway. · Jen Wolfe: Good point -- batch work already done separately. Agreed and agree with modifications could go together. · Heath Dixon: Do we have an example of a plan at this high level that we could use as a guide? · Jen Wolfe: Need to take it also to the next step of who should do it and how to measure it -- create the basic framework. · Larisa Gurnick (ICANN staff): Another component -- think about resources that would be required to do the work and costs, to be considered for the budget cycle. · Rafik Dammak: In terms of prioritization, we have to prioritize by high, medium, and low. Need to check what is already done. Also dependencies would highlight variances. · Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: The batching is the last step in the discussion. Make a distinction between already agreed and ongoing work. We need to find out where we stand with the orange recommendations and what is still open. Also, what is the impact on resources from staff and budget. Could give a first idea to the OEC. Also about the measurement, but that would come later. · Jen Wolfe: Question -- is there no objection for staff to take a week to provide a draft framework. [No one opposed.] Some questions concerning considerations: o Volunteer capacity to implement improvements -- what to factor in and what would be realistic? o How many recommendations realistic to be tackled in one year? · Heath Dixon: The number depends upon the amount of work to be done for each. Suggest staff should answer some questoins such as who would need to do what. High level estimation -- staff to do? Community to do? # of volunteers? Do we need to collect data before we can move forward? · Lori Schulman: Agree. May be helpful to categorize the batches -- what type of work each recommendation will involve. Combine based on what has to happen. Helpful to know what is based on data that need to be collected. 4. Vice-Chair Volunteers: Set a deadline for the next meeting and resend the criteria.