Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below and attached the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 29 March 2018. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2018. Please note that the next meeting will occur on 12 April at 1300 UTC. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items and Notes GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: Implementation Charter for Recommendations 1, 2, & 3: Staff will research metrics related to the fellowship program and see if these might be referenced in the charter and included as an appendix. Staff will also look into the fellowship program consultation currently underway and include a reference in the charter text. Staff will research whether there are metrics associated with the CROP program, for example an evaluation of the pilot. Staff will ask support staff from SG/Cs if there are additional metrics on participation that can be referenced and add this information to the charter. Staff will draft the determination reference existing efforts to collect metrics, noting that resources are stretched, and recommending that the GNSO leverage any metrics that already exist or are being gathered. Staff will circulate by email in advance of the next meeting. Staff will investigate the best way for the WG to provide input on the fellowship program. Should the WG provide input directly into the fellowship program consultation? Implementation Charter for Recommendations 7 & 12: In addressing recommendation 12, staff will revise text to focus the content of the recommendation itself, which addresses real-time transcription. Information about other services should be provided as context. Staff will adjust text regarding demand-based approach to live translation on Working Group calls to provide greater flexibility – drawing on feedback from WG members. Staff will seek to circulate a revised version of this charter to the mailing list prior to the next call, incorporating feedback from members received on the call and over email. Notes: Review agenda/SOIs: No Updates. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendation 22: The three-week consensus call will end today, March 29. No objections have been raised so far. If there are no objections raised, it will be agreed by consensus. Staff will provide an update on 30 March. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: Staff has completed revisions requested during the last call regarding GNSO Council comments on budget cuts for CROP. See page 3. On page 4, language on the use of dues for SG/C outreach has been made more neutral. No concerns were raised about these edits. There is not yet a Working Group determination for these recommendations. Part of the recommendation is to gather metrics. Some of the comments on the FY19 budget included calls for metrics to show the effectiveness of outreach programs. Are these useful recommendations or suggestions? The suggestions for metrics are helpful. For the fellowship program, there is an ongoing process to gather feedback using a survey. Is this done for other programs, as well, such as CROP? Perhaps the WG should reference these surveys or reviews as a method of data collection for the future. Staff will research metrics related to the fellowship program. Are there statistics on membership or activity levels at the SG/C level? ISPCP and NCSG/NCUC collect some information about participation and new members joining. It is possible for SG/Cs to look at, for example, increases in membership numbers after outreach events? Another perspective on metrics – a report/survey was previously done. It provided some demographic information about fellows, for example country, age, etc. It did not provide information that might help evaluate success. Concern about metrics – may cause additional administrative burdens. How do you balance the need for information and limited resources (volunteer time, staff time, etc)? Consider mentioning in the charter that there are currently strains on resources. Some of the questions about metrics on engagement are being addressed by GSE. Chris Mondini is working on a North America GSE plan to collect some information about this. Efforts should be coordinated. This data may be a little different than what is being sought in this recommendation, as it is not specific to GNSO working group participation. Staff will draft the determination to reference existing efforts to collect metrics, noting that resources are stretched, and recommending that the GNSO leverage any metrics that already exist or are being gathered. Staff will gather input on whether there are any additional comments on sections 4. and 5. Fellows come into the program with very different backgrounds. Some might be more in a position than others to participate actively with less extensive ramp up. This should be taken into account. Will this group provide input to the survey on the fellowship program and provide input on metrics and other recommendations? There are different elements to the feedback the WG can provide. One is to the ICANN Organization and the other is to the fellowship program itself. It is important not to have metrics for the sake of metrics. Data should be collected for a specific purpose to evaluate if programs are meeting their goals. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12: Staff looked into the option of translating documents as an alternative to transcription in multiple languages. Language was to point 3 on page 3. Information about all of ICANN’s translation services is included as an appendix to this charter. Staff added text on SG/C engagement related to recommendation 7: Language services offers translation of policy-development related documents, as well as SG/C comments. Text was added about audio transcription that can be provided after a call has taken place. It was noted that this is a relatively low-cost option. Analysis provided by Wolf-Ulrich has been added for illustration, with an additional note about potential additional costs that may need to be considered. Working Group Determination has been added at the bottom of page 5. It should be clear that we are mainly providing advice with respect to the content of the recommendation itself, which applies to real-time transcription, and that the other information provided about additional services is primarily for context. In the Working Group Determination, there is currently text indicating that interpretation should be demand-based. Should there be greater flexibility in terms of the approach the GNSO takes to interpretation? Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21: Postponed to the next meeting. Next Meeting: 12 April 1300 UTC AOB: None.