Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 30 November. 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/2017. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 30 November Action Items: Recommendations 26-29: Staff will place this charter implementation on hold pending updates related to GDPR, which will take effect in May 2018. Recommendation 4: Staff will change text to ICANN59 in July of 2017 (where it currently says ICANN60).  Staff will add reference to recognition within the GNSO and internal efforts underway to develop recognition of volunteers throughout the year. Recommendation 34: Staff will add that there is ongoing assessment by WGs and periodic assessments of attendance by leadership.  Staff also will add that when leadership teams and look at effectiveness it may be different for different working groups.  Second goal may be to encourage participation from those who may not be participating from that time zone.  Rotation, even if it loses attendance from other time zones may still be deemed valuable.  It is a bit of a balancing act that the leadership are in the best position to evaluate. Recommendations 5, 9, 17: Staff will review language regarding confidentiality of names and will also revisit if text is clear regarding expectations about responses in the survey. Staff will revise recommendations if necessary. Staff will send out reminder to confirm primary and alternate members. (Done.) Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates. 2. Discussion of revised charter for recommendations 26-29: -- These recommendations have been discussed twice previously. -- Revisions reflect comments from the last call. -- The strategic alignment does still appear to be correct from a staff perspective. -- One issue raised - the GDPR will be enforced beginning May 2018. Staff added language indicating that the text of these recommendations may need to be revisited with GDPR implementation. -- Status of internal discussions around SOIs and compliance with GDPR and other privacy and data protection laws -- no specific proposal with respect to how we ask for SOIs and what goes into the SOIs. An update will be provided by ICANN staff within the next few months, if there will be changes to either element, staff will let the WG know. -- Stop gap interim solution - information that is displayed to a person signing up for a Working Group will be updated. It will explain the purpose, need for consent, and what is collected and published. -- When can we expect to need to revisit implementation of this recommendation? Is it enough to mention that there is a relationship between SOIs and GDPR and that additional work may be pending on this issue, or is the WG obliged to revisit the issue? -- Recommendation 26, 27: implemented already. Rec 28: Key clauses are already taken to be mandatory. Rec 29: While not currently feasible to include the number of years, upon change to the form, the form could include the requirement of a start date. -- Staff entered suggested language that these might need to be revisited. What may change is the content of the form. We don't know at this point. -- We are currently looking at a stop gap that will need a more permanent solution. Hopefully by the next WG call, the language that will be shown to prospective WG members will be available. -- This WG may want to look at what is and is not within scope for the WG. -- The way that recommendations are implemented may change with GDPR, this is something that may be worth flagging to the GNSO Council by this group and others.

From the chat:

Marika Konings: One comment in relation to the SOI, following up on Mary's update, at some point it may also need to be considered whether SOIs need to be published publicly without any kind of access control (is that proportional to the purpose?). One could for example consider whether this information is only visible after logging into the wiki space, with clear information available how a log in can be obtained so it is still accessible, but there are some access requirements in place. -- Once the impact of GDPR impact is clear, we may want to pick up this charter again (perhaps after May 2018) and see if any updates are needed. -- changes to Operating Procedures are in scope for this WG if they are necessary.

From the chat:

Mary Wong: Thanks for clarifying, Julie - that's what I meant about scope, in two respects: specific to the implementation of the current recommendations, and more broadly for the GNSO Operating Procedures. -- This charter will be marked as "on hold" on the wiki. 3. Discussion of implementation charter for recommendation 4: -- The programs that we currently have did not exist or were just getting started when these recommendations were developed. -- Two programs: ICANN Community Recognition Program, ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award

From the chat:

Mary Wong: The Community Recognition program spans all officers who are stepping down from SO, AC, SG and Constituency leadership. -- This can be added to the text. -- The GNSO relies on Working Groups to do the main work of the GNSO. Noting that the more people you award the prize, the less valuable the prize, how can we cover more WG participants, leaders, and those who are doing the difficult work in the future? -- Staff is evolving the Community Recognition Program to recognize WG participants that may take place throughout the year. -- Between now and the next AGM, there will likely be ways to recognize WG volunteers. -- Some other forms of recognition exist, for example when a WG is closed, the Council passes a resolution thanking the WG for its work. 4. Discussion of implementation charter for recommendation 34: -- Is this recommendation only focused on effectiveness of the rotation or are there other points? -- The recommendation itself is limited in scope. It is only focused on rotation. -- If it is only focused on this point, may want to add a suggestion for periodic reminder to review rotation. -- Text in the scope statement comes from GNSO Review Working Party. There is no definition of effectiveness, but WGs are doing an assessment of effectiveness to see if rotation is working. -- Staff may want to add that there is ongoing assessment by WGs and periodic assessments of attendance by leadership. -- When leadership teams and look at effectiveness it may be different for different working groups.  Second goal may be to encourage participation from those who may not be participating from that time zone.  Rotation, even if it loses attendance from other time zones may still be deemed valuable.  It is a bit of a balancing act that the leadership are in the best position to evaluate.

From the chat:

Marika Konings: From a personal experience on the RDS WG, the out of bounds rotation definitely gets a lot less attendance than the 'normal' WG meeting, but the leadership is committed to keeping this rotation to accomodate participants from the Asia-Pacific timezone, regardless of lesser attendance. Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i've noticed that marika.... i am on the RDS Mary Wong: +1 to Marika's observation from the RPM Working Group Mary Wong: As Emily is saying, we do, however, get grumbling from either American or European-based folks on rotations that are APAC-friendly, but that is simply a function of the fact that currently WG membership is dominated by volunteers from those regions. That may change in the future, 5. Discussion of implementation charter for recommendations 5, 9, and 17: -- For the survey, the name is required but it is kept confidential. This field is used to confirm that the individual is a Working Group member.

From the chat:

Mary Wong: Yes, name is required to make sure the person responding is a WG member in fact. However, the information is kept confidential. Marika Konings: Summary information is published but not attributed as far as I recall -- May want to provide example answers in the survey. -- Staff will review language regarding confidentiality of names and will also revisit if text is clear regarding expectations about responses in the survey. Staff will revise recommendations if necessary.