Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, This is a reminder.  The original message was sent on 20 April. Per the action items and notes below from the call on 13 April, this is a consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 14 and 15. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below. The latest version of the charter, with changes accepted and as discussed on the Working Group call, is attached for your review. As noted in the attached charter, the recommendations are: “14. That the GNSO further explores PDP ‘chunking’ and examines each potential PDP as to its feasibility for breaking into discrete stages. 15. That the GNSO continues current PDP Improvements Project initiatives to address timeliness of the PDP.” After discussing these recommendations at length during multiple meetings the WG determined that the recommendation had been implemented as stated in the charter based on activities that have already occurred. Working Group members are requested to respond to this consensus call in two weeks, by COB Thursday, 04 May. For a list of Working Group members and the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies represented see: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/WG+members+and+mailing+list. Please note that if no objections are raised, we will take that to mean there is approval of the charter as written. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Background on Decision-Making from the Working Group Charter: Per the Working Group Charter at https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Charter?preview=/61610405/61610404/... the WG conducts decision-making via consensus. Specifically, the Charter states: “In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the GNSO Review Working Group shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call, they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies appointed Members of the Working Group. The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: 1. Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. 2. Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.” The Charter further states: “In the case of recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, only recommendations that have achieved full consensus of the WG shall be forwarded to the GNSO Council. All other recommendations shall be forwarded if they achieve either consensus or full consensus of the WG.” In the case of this consensus call, as the implementation does not result in any new recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, the recommendation will be decided via consensus, although if there are no objections it may be that the decision will be full consensus. Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 April Action Items: Recommendation 8: Staff will post the recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. Recommendations 14 and 15: Staff will post the combined recommendation charter to the list for a consensus call. Recommendations 16 and 18: Staff will invite GDD staff to the meeting on 27 April to give an overview of how period reviews are done. Recommendation 31: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review. Discussion Notes: 1. Overview of work flowchart: -- Staff takes initiative to draft charter -- Working Group members review, consider recommendations, and decide whether to form a Sub Team to address it, or have full Working Group review the recommendations --> decide whether to approve draft charter or make revisions --> once charter is approved, move to implementation -- End of process includes reporting to the GNSO Council, in addition to provision in Working Group Charter that requires quarterly reporting to the GNSO Council --We have a bunch of recommendations, so how many can we do in parallel? Also, whether to divide into sub teams is complexity of content and human resources. It may become more complicated. -- Creating sub teams adds extra work. To what extent will they be touching on the PDP or similar things? Is there overlap? With a limited number of tasks sometimes taking them sequentially is better. -- Given the small number of participants in this group it is better to work through this in the full WG. -- General comment: Might also be helpful when this WG is reviewing the IE and Working Party recommendations when faced with problematic implementation issues that may require consultation with the GNSO Council. 2. Revised Recommendation Charters: Recommendation 8: -- Question: In a conversation of IRTs it seemed that there wasn't knowledge of implementation review teams -- are they working? Answer: Recent example -- Thick Whois IRT letter to GNSO Council on evolving privacy protection environment. -- Any consensus on how we move forward on this recommendation? Does this require more work? Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call.

From the chat:

Amr Elsadr: ..., and have been included in GDD's Consensus Policy Implementation Framework: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementat... avri doria: Amr, but are they being used, and how are they working? Amr Elsadr: In my experience, GDD often refers to these principles while working on implementation issues with IRTs. avri doria: is this a tussle over Roles and Responsibilities or mutual agreement on R&R. Donna Austin, RySG: @Avri, the CPH has encountered some differences of opinion about roles and responsibilities when it comes to implementation. Amr Elsadr: @Avri: The roles and responsibilities portions of the principles pertain to (for example) that it is the GNSO that develops gTLD policies. So when/if IRTs face implementation difficulties, they are on a tight leash in terms of deviating from the original intent of recommendations, and must refer these back to the GNSO. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, the CPH experience is not consistent with your description, in that we believe staff can become immovable on interpretation and does not refer things back to Council. Amr Elsadr: @Donna: My understanding is that the GNSO Council is working to clarify the role of Council liaisons to IRTs, which may be helpful in that regard? At least in terms of improving communication between IRTs and the GNSO? avri doria: thanks Donna, so there may be some more work to do in making sure that the IRT method is meeting the requirements of this review. Recommendations 14 and 15: -- Not sure that chunking in phases of work is the same as parallelization of sub teams. New gTLD did do some staging, but was a continuous PDP. -- Question: Should there be language in the WG Guidelines that specifically encourages phasing? -- Concern that PDPs are different so perhaps this should be guidance rather than prescriptive. Action Item: Staff will put the recommendation out for a consensus call.

From the chat:

Amr Elsadr: Another example of "chunking" may be IRTP? avri doria: exactly, avri doria: and that is what i was thinking was meant. phases was called out, and the gTLD subteam approach is not really chunking. Amr Elsadr: Next-Gen RDS PDP and Review of RPMs is also broken up into phases (not sure that counts as "chunking") that have independent initial report, public comment periods, final reports, Council votes, etc... avri doria: sort of a softer chunks avri doria: and even the community comment 1 & 2 approach of new gTLD might be considered phasing, though the tail of one phase overlaps the beginning of other pahses and the have an end to end dependency. Amr Elsadr: I actually need to check to make sure my last comment on RPMs is accurate. It is on RDS, but thinking about RPMs..., not so sure. Lori Schulman: I believe that each phase is intended to have separate reports Lori Schulman: but definitely need to confirm with co-chairs Amr Elsadr: I think you're right, Lori and Berry. :-) avri doria: Amr, i think that is one of the issues, many different ways of doing phasing, maybe some advice on how different forms can be used and why? Donna Austin, RySG: Is there a distinction between phasing and blocks of work? The RPM WG has two distinct tasks, rather than breaking the work into phases. avri doria: a note on ways to speed up PDPs. In my experience whenever we talk of speeding one up, it ends up taking longer, because of the extended discussions of whether it can be sped up and how. Donna Austin, RySG: could providing more opportunity for face-to-face meetings of the WG lead to speeding up work? avri doria: but the autopsy of a PDP looking for thing that could be done in the future is a good thing. Recommendations 16 & 18: -- Periodic versus ongoing review: the PDP Manual section 17 states that periodic review are necessary. Compare how GDD reviews are done concerning how an ongoing reviews are done. Would it be helpful for someone from GDD to give an overview of how periodic reviews are done? Yes, that would be helpful. Action Item: Invite GDD staff for the next call to give an overview of how period reviews are done.

From the chat:

Berry Cobb: ERRP is in data collection phase for now. Analysis and initial report are on deck. Once complete it will be delivered to the GNSO Council. Donna Austin, RySG: @Amr, has the GDD actually done any reviews? Lori Schulman: yes very helpful avri doria: but in general this scope of work look reasonable Amr Elsadr: @Donna: That's actually one of the questions this WG might want an answer to. It might be premature to recommend changes to "periodic" reviews, if none have been completed and assessed yet? Lori Schulman: What are the 2 workstreams? avri doria: on 16/18 not sure how one does ongoing without some sort of periodicity. Recommendation 31: Action Item: Staff will send the draft charter to the list for review.

From the chat:

Donna Austin, RySG: I don't agree on the GNSO GAC Liaison fulfulling the role. Lori Schulman: I don't understand this charter as well.