Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per action 2 below, and as discussed on today’s call, please see the attached revised implementation charter for Recommendation 34 for your review.  Please suggest any changes to the redlined text on the list and we also will discuss the text at our meeting on 18 January with the goal to send out a final version for a consensus call. For ease of reference, here also is the text (additions in red): Staff notes that the review of the effectiveness of meeting times is ongoing and may vary among Working Groups.  In addition, there currently are in place processes for Working Groups to assess the effectiveness of meeting time rotations within the limits of the current data collection methods.  Staff clarifies that there is currently no mandate or rule regarding meeting rotation, and that the decision is left to the Working Group based on the composition of the membership and the utility of rotation. Finally, a potential tool may be developed that could facilitate the assessment of participation patterns. Thus, staff recommends that the GNSO Working Group consider this recommendation to be implemented via the current Working Group practices and processes.  Working Group Determination: The GNSO Review Working Group has reviewed the current Working Group practices and processes for the rotation of meeting times and has determined that they address the recommendation that PDP Working Groups rotate the start time of their meetings in order not to disadvantage people who wish to participate from anywhere in the world.  In particular, the Working Group has determined that at this time it does not appear necessary for there to be a mandate or rule regarding meeting rotation.  Instead the decision as to whether to rotate meeting times should be left to the Working Group based on the composition of the membership and the utility of rotation. Thus, the Working Group determines that this recommendation is implemented. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: 2018 Work Plan: Staff will add to the work plan additional details about potential cost of transcription services, as well as in the charter for recommendations 7 & 12. Implementation Charter for Recommendation 34: Staff will add a sentence clarifying that there is currently no mandate or rule regarding rotation, and that the decision is left to the WG based on the composition of the membership and the utility of rotation. Staff will send this proposed text to the WG and for discussion on the call on 18 January. Once language is finalized, Staff will circulate the Charter for Recommendation 34 for a consensus call. Response to OEC Questions from Avri Doria: Send the response to Avri, but also ask about the significance of the reference to the February 2017 date. Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22: 1) Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework”; 2) Staff will investigate technical training opportunities and add these links to these options. January and February 2018 Meetings: The meetings will be on 11 and 18 January, and the 01 February meeting will be canceled to avoid conflicts. The February meetings will occur on 08 and 22 February. Notes: 1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates. 2. Status of Consensus Calls for implementation charters for recommendation 4, and recommendations 5, 9, and 17: Consensus call ended on 8 January. There were no objections or comments. Charters were approved by consensus. 3. Discussion of the revised Work Plan: -- Staff has updated the work plan to include details about any anticipated budget effects for each of the items in the work plan (see work plan for details). -- Items from 2017 have been removed. The work plan now begins in January 2018. -- Question: Is it realistic to cover five recommendations in January? Answer: The work plan is ambitious. The Working Group is ahead of schedule. It is possible move more slowly to ensure thorough discussion. Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are closely related. Staff will provide as much detailed information as possible to support discussion of Charters for 7 and 12. -- Comment: Details about costs of transcription services would be helpful to include. 4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34: -- This charter focuses on rotation of meeting start times. -- Text has been added describe current practices regarding meeting start time rotation, future opportunities for more robust data collection, and indicating that WG members' ability to participate depends not only on time zone but also other factors, such as non-ICANN commitments. -- Final paragraph has been updated to summarize key points in the text. -- Suggestion: it might be helpful to clarify in the text that ultimately it is up to the WG itself to determine the rotation. There is no rule across WGs. 5. Discussion of the draft response to questions on the Implementation Status Report from the OEC: -- Staff provided implementation status report to OEC following ICANN60. -- Questions were received from Avri Doria. Avri had been participating in this WG prior to joining the Board. She now serves on the OEC. -- Staff has drafted suggested responses, but the responses should come from the WG and not from staff. -- We may receive additional questions from the OEC in the future, but it would be helpful to go ahead and respond to Avri's questions and ask about the relevance of the February 2017 date. -- Regarding question on recommendation 18 -- the response indicates that we are following the Operating Procedures and evaluating on an periodic basis and not an ongoing basis. -- Regarding question on Recommendation 27 -- the requested links are provided in the attachment to the Charter.

From the chat:

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: what is Feb 2017 relevant for? Sara Bockey: Agree, why is Feb 2017 relevant. And the PDP would have to go thru IRT before implementing... so where would IRTP-C fall into this? Would it? Marika Konings: This is what the PDP Manual currently says: "A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility." Marika Konings: not sure if Avri is referring to that? Or is there a separate PIA that I am not aware of? Berry Cobb: The answer to Q1 on #16 is No. PIA has not been used. Likely first use will be the IGO CRPM PDP. Sara Bockey: Also, CL&D was implemented in Aug... does that fall into this? Sara Bockey: Guess maybe I'm not understanding... Berry Cobb: Curative Rights Protection Mechanisim Sara Bockey: Consistant Labeling and Display Sara Bockey: OK Berry Cobb: PIA does not apply to IRT. This is an assessment of policy recommendations. 6. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendation 22: -- The term "competency-based framework" is unclear. ICANN offers many training options, but it is not always obvious if these are responsive to a "competency-based framework". -- Question: did staff check what the issues behind this recommendation to better understand the rationale? Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework." -- Recommendations 26-29 relate to Statements of Interest. GDPR may impact the way personal information is displayed and stored. There may be changes to the Recommendations based on the implementation of GDPR. ICANN Organization is working on guidance in this area. -- Question: Is there information about technical training included in this document? Staff can elaborate on technical training opportunities in the Charter. -- Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual also have information about expectations for Working Group members.

From the chat:

Kris Seeburn: i think it has to be something to do with people with proper knowledge of what is bwing discussed Pascal Bekono: Why EU GDPR is so important to have recommendations 26-29 pending ?

From the chat:

Kris Seeburn: i thought i saw a document from EU on for the internet, websites, ecommerce Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Any kind of data collection is falling - from a European perspective - under the GDPR Kris Seeburn: i am sur there were two legal advise to ICANN on the gdpr Lori Schulman: There were 3 memos of legal advice on GDPR Kris Seeburn: just a question : Are there any guidelines of ethics on mailing and or WG/WT/ccwg? Because at tmes things tends to degenerate ...i would be happy that these are taken care of. Marika Konings: @Kris - the ICANN Standards of Behavior also apply there Marika Konings: @Kris - there is at least 1 example where a WG member was removed due to failure to meet the standards, despite numerous reminders. 7. Next Meetings: -- Next meeting is 18 January at 1300 UTC. This is the last meeting in January. -- February meetings: The meeting on 01 February is canceled due to conflicts with a community intersessional. The meetings in February are on the 8th and the 22nd.