Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the following action items from the meeting on 25 May please see for your review the attached revised charter in PDF and Word for the implementation of recommendations 24 and 25. The revisions are included as redlines. See also the updates for each action item below in bold italic. In addition, the charter is posted to the wiki at the following link where you will find the status summary of the recommendations, the charters approved by consensus, and the current documents for review: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Conse.... Action Items for Charter for Recommendations 24/25: Staff will research Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) procedures for evaluating constituency applications and include this information in the revised charter. See the links to the NCSG and CSG application procedures in the revised charter. Staff will determine if there are publicly available links to all constituency applications and include them in the charter. Staff has confirmed that all constituency applications are publicly available at the links provided in the charter. Staff will provide information on how the RySG and RrSG evaluate requests for membership and provide that information to the WG as well as adding it to the Google document concerning questions that may be outside the scope of a charter. See RrSG: http://icannregistrars.org/membership/ and https://goo.gl/forms/qrIAE6IiPjH2L3Cv1; RySG: http://www.rysg.info/membership-application. This also has been added to the Google document to capture overarching questions at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tGKhFTGIPFEeO-CYRw-rcLpmz15JOxg3UgFiVlFU.... Staff will send the revised charter to the list, and call out the question concerning presumption of constituency application approval. Staff suggests that with respect to this part of the recommendation, “subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted” the Working Group, as noted in the recommendation, should decide whether the presumption of admission (the “default outcome”) is appropriate given the fact that even if a new Constituency has met the criteria, it still could fail the evaluation by the Stakeholder Group or the Board for other reasons. For example, the “default” recommendation is challenging because the process as set up now demands that the new Constituency “prove” itself during the Candidate Phase through active participation in policy development activities. There is not just an assumption of recognition without demonstrated commitment. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Staff