Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 13 July (see below) this is a consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 13. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below. The last version of the charter is attached for your review and posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Conse.... As noted in the attached charter, recommendation 13 states: “That the GNSO Council evaluate and, if appropriate, pilot a technology solution (such as Loomio or similar) to facilitate wider participation in Working Group consensus-based decision.” making. After discussing this recommendation during multiple meetings the Working Group 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 Thursday, 27 July. 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 July Action Items: Timeline: Staff will continue to update the dates in the timeline based on the current status of the charters. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Place this charter on hold until the evaluation is completed on the Geographic Names sessions held at ICANN59. Charter for Recommendation 13: Revise to reflect the Working Group determination that the recommendation has been implemented. Send to the list for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Charter for Recommendation 19: Revise to include further references to additional guidance concerning evaluating Working Group Guidance from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and the PDP Manual. Revise to reflect Working Group determination that the recommendation has been implemented. Send to the list for a one-week review to see if there are any further comments. If no comments or changes, send to the list for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Charter for Recommendation 30: Send to the list for review and discussion at the meeting on 27 July. Charters for Phase II Recommendations: Staff will prepare charters. Discussion Notes: 1. Timeline Status: -- Staff presented the timelines for Phases 1 and 2, and for Phase 3 recommendations. -- Staff noted that some of the deadlines will need to be adjusted. The Working Group asked how the timing would be determined and staff suggested that when reviewing the draft charters the Working Group could consider, with staff guidance, how long it would take for the Working Group to approve the implementation charter, and how long the implementation would take. -- Staff also noted that the original timeline in the implementation plan was a suggested timeline and that the Working Group has not been able to consider as many charters simultaneously. In addition, each charter takes at least two meetings for deliberation and two weeks for a consensus call. -- On the Phase 3 timeline, staff noted that the start date for several charters would need to be changed at they were set to start on 16 June 2017. Staff will look at the charters and determine if some can be completed in a shorter amount of time to ensure that the overall deadline can be met. 2. Continue discussion of Charter for Recommendations 10/11: – Staff provided an update on the Geographic Names moderated sessions at ICANN59 that was part of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (Subpro) PDP Working Group. Staff noted that they were well attended and generated rigorous and mostly productive discussions. However, staff noted that the PDP Working Group had not had the final assessment of the sessions. -- The Working Group agreed to keep the charter on hold until the PDP Working Group can provide the final assessment. 3. Continue discussion on Charter for Recommendation 13: – Update document management and the ICANN Information Transparency Initiative. Staff noted ICANN launched the Information Transparency Initiative (ITI) in March 2017. Per the ICANN Org Executive Team Report delivered to the ICANN Board of Directors in March 2017, “The proposed solution for document and content management and the replacement of the existing ICANN.Org website was presented to the executives who have provided internal approval for the project.” The ITI is not focused on providing collaborative tools for the community and staff to use to create content, but instead one of the goals is to make content more accessible. -- Staff suggested that the Working Group could consider that this recommendation is implemented. The Working Group agreed and asked staff to send the revised charter to the list for a two-week consensus call. 4. Begin discussion on Charter for Recommendation 19: -- Staff walked through the draft charter and noted that it appeared that the recommendation was satisfied with the guidance on the self-assessment process in the GNSO Working Group guidelines, as well as the report on the assessment provided to the GNSO Council, and the periodic updates from PDP Working Group liaisons to the Council. Staff noted, however, that there was other guidance from the PDP Manual and the Working Group Guidelines concerning membership, representation, and diversity and that excerpts from that guidance could be included for reference in the charter. Staff agreed to add those references and then send the revised charter to the list for review and comment. If there were no comments after one week staff would send the final charter out for a two-week consensus call. 5. Charter for Recommendation 30 and Phase 2 Charters: -- The Working Group agreed to take up discussion of the draft charter for recommendation 30 at its next meeting on 27 July and staff took the action to send the charter to the list for review. -- Jen Woolf, the Chair, urged the Working Group to finish up the Phase 1 recommendations as quickly as possible so that it could begin work on the Phase 2 recommendations so as to avoid delaying the schedule. Staff took the action to draft the Phase 2 charters: combined charter for recommendations 26, 27, 28, and 29; charter for recommendation 6.