Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 11 May, this is a consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 16. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below.  Per the action items, staff included in the charter text the excerpt of the framework for the Policy Impact Assessment from the template for the Working Group Initial Report.  In addition, staff included as an appendix the “Hints and Tips” page concerning metrics.  Staff also made some minor editorial changes. The last version of the charter, with changes noted above, is attached for your review. As noted in the attached charter, Recommendation 16 states, “That a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a standard part of any policy process.” After discussing this recommendation 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 Monday, 29 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 11 May Action Items: Recommendation 16: Staff will 1) revise the charter to make sure that there is no relevant language/reference from the strategic plan that may be missing; 2) make noted editorial changes and check links; 3) append the PIA framework from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Initial Report Template for reference; 4) send the final revised charter to the Working Group for a Consensus Call for two weeks. Recommendation 18: Staff is creating a standalone charter for consideration and further discussion by the Working Group. Recommendation 33: 1) Representatives on this WG to have their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies answer the questionnaire, which also asks about informal practices that encourage diversity. Deadline is 01 June. This charter will be revisited following receipt of the Stakeholder Group and Constituency responses to the Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team questionnaire, due on 01 June. 2) Staff also will contact support staff for the SGs and Cs to make sure that all procedures have been compiled. Recommendations 24/25: Staff will create a charter for consideration on the next Working Group Call on 25 May at 1200 UTC. Overarching Questions: The Working Group requested that staff should collect and track questions raised by the Working Group that may either relate to several GNSO review recommendations, to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or to GNSO processes in general. Discussion Notes: 1. Discussion of Recommendation 16: -- Goal: Strategic plan -- seems incomplete; check it. -- Separated from recommendation #18 to be considered in a standalone charter. -- WG to determine to what extent the DMPM recommendations fulfil the requirements of this recommendation -- Staff evaluation is that this recommendation has indeed been covered by the recommendations of the GNSO DMPM WG final report (specifically recommendations 3, 6 and 7, which have contributed to the creation of a new GNSO WG charter template available via link in the GNSO WG Guidelines). -- Should we start to create our metrics to put to this list? Maybe it is valuable to have a discussion here -- whether these are the ones that could be valuable for the impact analysis? -- ICANN staff: if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. -- Up to the WG to discuss the PIA and the related metric that should be used for that. It is the WG that is guiding this and creating the metrics that should be used. -- Reference to the strawman -- are we expected to provide the guidelines for the working group to develop metrics? Depending on the context of the background of WG are there metrics applicable to every WG? -- There are points in the charter and suggestions for metrics -- general metrics can be subdivided. -- How can we as a volunteer community ask the right questions? Where is the expertise to help guide us? -- May be too early to address this question, but may come out of further work of this WG -- don't forget that there are maybe questions that have an impact on the results of all of this. -- This issue could be consider as an overarching question by the WG. Suggestion to keep these questions as for further work for this WG.

From the chat:

Berry Cobb: I'd just add that DMPM's attempt was more of a cultural change and to develop a generic framework. They did not want to be to prescriptive as each issue the GNSO deals with is different. Lori Schulman: I feel like we need a highly expert "metrics czar" Lori Schulman: It adds to my comment but doesn't really address it Lori Schulman: Understand Berry's point as each WG is independent but I think we can get so in the weeds that we may not know how to ask the right questions Berry Cobb: @Lori as a WG formulates it's recommendations, the metrics should also be defined as a part of the draft report. The public comments and other input can help to guide the WG as to whether they selected the right ones. Lori Schulman: Agree with Rafik about more and more tasks Amr Elsadr: Apologies for the bad audio. I was trying to say that, in response to Lori's concern, if metrics/data available are found to be practically unhelpful in terms of a PIA, they are always subject to critical appraisal. Additionally, and also as a result of the DMPM WG's final report and recommendations, there is a mechanism for GNSO WGs to request data/metrics that may be helpful to them in achieving their charter objectives. This is true for data both internal and/or external to ICANN. Berry Cobb: +1 Amr renata aquino: +1 Marika Konings: @Lori - how can that be addressed here? Julie Hedlund: @Lori: This may be out of scope of this recommendation implementation, but may be addressed separately by this Working Group. Berry Cobb: That's the world of forecasting and it is still an imperfect science. Lori Schulman: I understand Marika's and Julie's concerns perhaps we can highlight this as an ancillary issue Marika Konings: @Berry - do we have a kind of FAQ on the DMPM recommendations? It may be helpful to have something like that to remind WG members of their obligations in this regard? Lori Schulman: Can we at least suggest to staff a running list of questions including the issues we discussed today? Berry Cobb: As noted in this charter, refer to this page and review the "Working Group Charter" and Initial Working Group Report" links they contain DOCX files that contain the metrics framework. https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures 2. Discussion of Recommendation 33: -- This recommendation may or may not require changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or GNSO SG/C charters/bylaws -- Staff performed a preliminary review of GNSO SG/C procedures for selecting GNSO Councilors. -- WS2 working on the first draft of the report [on diversity] and starting on recommendation, but issued questionnaire to SO/ACs asking about their diversity and current practices and procedures, also SGs and Cs. We can share that here. -- Suggestion that the WG could wait until we have the responses from the SGs and Cs. -- Get more guidance concerning the cultural diversity -- any agreed paper? Other constituencies may have the same problem to get a solid basis for getting answers to these questions.

From the chat:

Pascal Bekono: Maybe Rafik who is help us Pascal Bekono: Rafik is a rapporteur in ccwg renata aquino: +1 Rafik on sharing here the results Amr Elsadr: Note, from Section 11.3 of the ICANN Bylaws: Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender.