Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the notes and action items from the meeting on 27 April. Charters are attached for recommendations 16 & 33. These have been loaded into the Adobe Connect room for discussion during tomorrow’s call: Thursday, 11 May at 1200 UTC. Please also see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows: Review agenda SOIs Results of Consensus Calls for Recommendations 8 and 14/15 (responses due 04 May) Discussion of New Charter for Recommendation 16/Review for Consensus Call Begin discussion on Recommendation 33 Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 25 May AOB Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 27 April Action Items: 1) Recommendation 16: Staff will create a new charter for a Consensus Call that makes it clear which aspects of the implementation of the DMPM Final Report apply to this recommendation. 2) Recommendation 18: Staff will create a new charter. In addressing recommendation 18 (periodic vs ongoing review of policies), note that the Working Group may choose to defer this until review of the ERRP is complete. The charter will also address in how reviews of Consensus Policies could be included, and reviewed by the Working Group, followed by a determination of whether future reviews should remain periodic, or become ongoing. 3) Recommendation 31: Move this recommendation to Phase 2. 4) Staff will produce charters for recommendations 33, and 24/25 for consideration. Discussion Notes: 1. Consensus Calls Reminder: -- Reminder of Consensus Calls for Recommendations 8 and 14/15 with responses due on 04 May. 2. Continued discussion on Recommendation 16 & 18 charter/update on GDD invite: -- First periodic review of a consensus policy set to start, but still no timeframe set - Expired Registration Recovery Policy (ERRP) -- Staff recommends decoupling of recommendations 16 and 18. -- Implementation of recommendation 16 appears to be completed - addressed in work-product templates present in the GNSO Operating Procedures in conducting Policy Impact Analysis within a decision-tree present in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. -- Reviews of policies that have already been completed include IRTP, and review if forthcoming on ICANN procedure on WHOIS conflict with local law. -- Staff suggests that the independent examiner's recommendation on changing policy reviews from "periodic" to "ongoing" should be revisited by the Working Group. -- Explanation of text included in updated charter on questions 16/18; Items 1, 2 and 3 in the "Solution" section of the charter address recommendation 16, while items 4, 5 and 6 address recommendation 18. -- Reviews of consensus policies take place within GDD's Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) - GDD-led project, including review of ERRP and an updated review of the ICANN procedure on WHOIS conflict with local law. -- CPIF provides reference to Support and Review of Consensus Policies past the Policy Effective Dates initiated by GDD in cooperation with Compliance and GNSO Policy staff. 3. Discussion of Recommendation 31: -- Charter includes context provided by the GAC/GNSO CG. -- This recommendation needs further discussion. Move to phase 2.
From the chat:
Marika Konings: @Amr - from what I understood it is a principle issue, no one but the GAC Chair can represent the GAC, no matter in what capacity Donna Austin: Correct Marika, and a longstanding principle issue. avri doria: i still then there is a need for a formal liaison Amr Elsadr: Agree Avri. The need is present and real. The mechanism to work that out is difficult. Marika Konings: compared to a few years ago, we have seen increased participation by GAC members and there are definitely more mechanisms in place that make it difficult for the GAC to ignore the policy work that is going on, but it indeed it may not be enough, but if there is no willingness from the GAC to appoint a liaison, I'm not sure what the way around that is? Amr Elsadr: Perhaps the Working Group can look into alternative mechanisms to keep the GAC updated on ongoing policy work that don't involve a formal liaison? Rafik: liaison and individual gac members participation are complementing each other Marika Konings: The WG may want to review the GAC-GNSO CG recommendations as this was exactly the focus of their work (which was recently completed with the recommendations adopted by both the GAC and the GNSO) Marika Konings: and note that those recommendations contain within themselves mechanisms to review the recommendations should it turn out that there is still a lack of communication / engagement. avri doria: i.e we could have a liaison by another name? POC? Pascal Bekono: in project/recommendation section, is it possible to mention in bracket the " two work streams " Donna Austin: maybe Point of Contact would work, but it is a long shot Amr Elsadr: GAC/GNSO CG Final Status Report and Recommendations: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20161011/0a179c42/GAC-...