Dear GNSO Review Working Group members, Per the action items and notes below from the call on 22 June this is a revised and extended consensus call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendations 24 and 25. For information and guidance on the decision-making process please see the background below. Per the notes, staff has revised the charter determinations to correct item 1, and to add a new item 3 recommendation.  The changes are in redline in the attached revised charter. As noted in the attached charter, recommendations 24 and 25 state: Recommendation 24: That the GNSO Council and Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies adhere to the published process for applications for new Constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application satisfy itself that all parties have followed the published process, subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted. That all applications for new Constituencies, including historic applications, be published on the ICANN website with full transparency of decision-making. Recommendation 25: That the GNSO Council commission the development of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing to establish a new Constituency. Working Group members are requested to respond to this consensus call by COB Monday, 10 July. 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 22 June Action Items: Charter for Recommendations 24/25: 1) Revise the charter determinations to correct item 1, and to add a new item 3 recommendation; 2) send out for a new extended Consensus Call to end on COB Monday, 10 July. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Evaluate Geographic Names facilitated sessions at ICANN59 in a brief survey. Place this charter on hold until Geographic Names session results are evaluated. Charter for Recommendation 13: Look at what ICANN may be developing for a document management system. Next Meeting: Propose on the list moving the 06 July meeting to 13 July and if there no objections reschedule. Discussion Notes: 1. Consensus Call for Recommendation 24/25 Charter: -- Suggestion to add a recommendation that current and historic information be consolidated in one web page. -- Staff suggests to accept edits from Wolf-Ulrich - that current processes address recommendation 24, and that they are effective and accessible, but notes that to be more clear the wording should mirror that for Recommendation 25 as follows: “That the current processes address Recommendation 24 and that they are effective and accessible.” -- Question: Should the consensus call be extended, following circulation of track changes by staff? The Working Group agreed to extend the Consensus Call on the revised document to COB 10 July. 2. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: -- Pilot Project -- not sure it was helpful to have a F2F facilitated meeting. Pilot was conducted twice for the PPSAI PDP, and once for the IGO/INGO access to curative rights PDP. The link to the results is contained in the charter. Results of the survey were mixed -- not conclusive that the F2F sessions were helpful. -- Hard to say in future if there will be a need for a facilitator. If we leave it as it is what could be done if it comes up? Could we establish a framework or do we leave it as it is? -- Suggestion: Evaluate Geographic Names facilitated sessions at ICANN59 in a brief survey -- were they helpful? Should there be guidelines? -- Perhaps if we have criteria they could be very broad. -- Place this charter on hold until we can evaluate the Geographic Names session results. 3. Charter for Recommendation 13: -- Note that access to Google Doc is not universal - some might not have access (example: because of geo blocking), while access to Microsoft Word could also be challenging due to licensing costs. -- Question: The SSAC conducted research on a tool. What were the results? Answer: Decided to use Google Docs and Microsoft Word. Using Google Docs for drafts and Microsoft Word for final drafts. -- Question: Are there access issues? What if there are public interests? Answer: Access can be moderated -- to edit, comment, etc. based on who has the link. Access also depends on if someone has a Google account or if one can afford Microsoft. Google Drive is not accessible in China. -- Maybe need criteria to have in mind. There is the issue of user acceptance for new tools. -- One thing that works for those in the developing region is what you have with Microsoft Word where you can work offline. Google Docs has its own advantages to see comments in real time. Both platforms have advantages. If ICANN is looking at a document management system it must have the ability to work offline. -- Action: Look at what ICANN may be developing for a document management system. 4. Next meeting: -- Propose on the list moving the 06 July meeting to 13 July and if there no objections reschedule.