Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This Consensus Call below closed on 09 November and no objections were received. As there were no objections the implementation of Recommendations 10 and 11 is considered agreed by full consensus. See the latest status at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Conse.... Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 10:49 AM To: "gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER - CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendations 10 & 11 Implementation Charter Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder. This is a Consensus Call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11. As noted in the attached charter, these are the recommendations for implementation: “Recommendation 10: That the GNSO Council develop criteria for Working Groups to engage a professional facilitator/moderator in certain situations. Recommendation 11: That the face-to-face PDP Working Group pilot project be assessed when completed. If the results are beneficial, guidelines should be developed and support funding made available.” The charter reflects the revisions agreed to at the Working Group meeting on 19 October (see notes below). The revisions are reflected as redlined text in the attached revised charter. Staff is circulating the revised version of the charter for a three-week Consensus Call to end on Thursday, 09 November 2017. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 19 October Action Items: 1. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides: Staff will send finalized report and slides to Wolf-Ulrich along with a draft message to Council. Wolf-Ulrich will send these materials to Council by the deadline for motions and documents on 22 October. 2. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10/11: 1) Add that there is a process to follow for any request that requires resources. This process should be followed if a WG would like to use a facilitator that requires financial resources. 2) Add an update on the staff action to produce guidelines. 3) Send the revised version for a Consensus Call on 19 October for three weeks, ending on 09 November. 3. Revised Charter for Recommendation 18: Send the revised version for a Consensus Call on 19 October for three weeks, ending on 09 November. Notes: 1. SOIs: No updates. 2. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides: -- Slides will be used in GNSO Council update on 01 November. -- Slides include text on current status (on phase I, II, and III), timeline, and next steps. -- Will be important to note on current status that Phase I items have already been implemented. -- For changes in Phase II and III, changes to Operating Procedures will go out for public comment and then to Council for a vote. -- Phase II has begun with the review Recommendation 6, which has been combined with 33 and 36 relating to diversity), as well as Recommendations 26-29. -- Timeline: Work expected to be completed within the overall deadline or the original schedule.
From the chat:
Krishna Seeburn - Kris: how confident we will be done by sep 2018? -- The WG is confident that it will remain within this timeframe, and will inform OEC and the GNSO Council if this changes. -- Example added to the slides following Wolf-Ulrich's recommendation (see slide 7 discussing Recommendation 8). -- Background is included at the end of the slides for reference. The presentation will only be 15 mins, so will not likely be covered in the presentation. -- Slides reflect order of information provided in the report. The background is included last because of the limited amount of time for the presentation. If we cover the background first, there may not be time to cover the new and most important information. -- Covering the new and important information first will keep the Council engaged. -- The goal is for Wolf-Ulrich to send slides and report to the Council either today or tomorrow. Sunday is the document deadline (22 Oct). -- Edits to the report reflect changes and feedback from last week, as well as updates to text on Recommendations 10,11, and 18. -- Brief discussion of current status is added upfront in the Executive Summary, followed by the more detailed status summary, timeline and next steps. -- Updated text included for recommendations 10, 11, 18. -- We will update this report with the implemented version of the Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11. -- Text under recommendation 18 on page 11 has been updated as well.
From the chat:
Krishna Seeburn - Kris: perhaps the background should come in first.... Krishna Seeburn: summarised important points....but if you guys feel it the right way..then no issues. Krishna Seeburn: might be interesting to just note and highlight that the geonames is not yet ready but would only start soon?? -- Geo names is only discussed under Recommendations 10 and 11 as an example of a recently completed session that made use of a facilitator. It demonstrates that there is currently an effective means for WGs to secure the services of a facilitator when the WG determines that such assistance is needed. -- No questions on the report. Staff suggests accepting all changes. 3. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11: -- Recommendation 10 and 11 covers WGs' ability to request and use facilitation. -- From last week, staff was asked to check if WG Guidelines cover how to proceed if WG's have diverging views and whether there is guidance on when and how to engage a facilitator. -- Revised text includes example of geo names session at ICANN59 to demonstrate a WG successfully engaging a facilitator. -- definition of divergence and recommended method of determining level of consensus from WG Guidelines have been added to the Charter. This guidance speaks to the ways WGs can work through divergent views. -- It's up to this group to determine if additional guidelines are necessary. -- There was an action item. This WG discussed whether there should be guidelines. The discussion seemed to indicate that there is enough guidance for PDP WGs on whether and how to use facilitation and no additional guidance is needed. -- PDPs differ widely and may have different needs.
From the chat:
Marika Konings: Staff still has as an action item from the previous pilot for "Development of draft guidelines for the use and application for face-to- face facilitated PDP WG meetings for Council review and adoption". Maybe there is no need for guidelines, but there may be a need for a process by which a WG could request facilitation as it is also a resource question. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: let it roll for now and we see how things pan out?? Marika Konings: I am also checking whether something was done in relation to the outstanding staff action item re. guidelines. -- In the current process, WGs go to staff with the request for facilitation, to be considered by management. -- In the current example, ICANN org management evaluated that the request was within available resources and budget and granted the request. -- Can also potentially add text to Working Group Determination: "within the current process for WGs to request staff and budgetary resources." -- This is ready to go out for consensus call. Suggested timeline - 9 November. 4. Revised Charter for Recommendation 18: -- Recommendation 18 was discussed a few months ago and was put on hold. Staff recommends moving in forward at this time. -- The staff analysis has been previously discussed. GDD and policy department have a role in reviewing policy implementation Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF). -- Staff reviewed CPIF - it appears to complete implementation of the recommendation, except for part of the recommendation that says that policy should be evaluated on a continuous basis. -- The WG has discussed the issue of periodic vs. continuous evaluation of policy post-implementation effectiveness. -- Level of medium-hard was assigned to this part of the recommendation noting that it may not be possible to do ongoing reviews. -- This WG agreed that this aspect of the recommendation does not seem feasible. -- This item was put on hold because of that element of the recommendation regarding ongoing evaluation. -- Expired Registry Recovery policy does not have an end date. We may not want to wait for the result, as it might send us past the deadline for review. -- Staff recommends editing Working Group Determination to say that the "ongoing" element of the recommendation is not feasible to implement. -- Appears to be general agreement with this approach -- This item will go out for a consensus call -- suggested end date is also 09 November.
From the chat:
Krishna Seeburn: I agree with that constant review is: resources would have to be allotted all the time... Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i have no objection on that Krishna Seeburn - Kris: none.. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i understand 5. Meeting schedule: Next meeting 16 November, return to bi-weekly schedule.