[Gnso-review-wg] CLOSED-CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendations 13 GNSO Review Implementation Charter

Fri Jul 28 20:13:15 UTC 2017

Thanks very much Julie! Have a nice weekend.

Wolf-Ulrich

Am 28.07.2017 um 21:29 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
>
> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>
> This Consensus Call below closed on 27 July and no objections were 
> received.  As there were no objections the implementation of 
> Recommendation 13 is considered agreed by full consensus.  See the 
> latest status at: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Consensus+Calls.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> *From: *<gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund 
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, July 24, 2017 at 1:56 PM
> *To: *"gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER-CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendations 
> 13 GNSO Review Implementation Charter
>
> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>
> Per the action items and notes below from the call on 13 July (see 
> below) this is a */consensus call/* for the GNSO Review Implementation 
> Charter for Recommendation 13.  For information and guidance on the 
> decision-making process please see the background below.
>
> The last version of the charter is attached for your review and posted 
> on the wiki at: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Consensus+Calls. 
> As noted in the attached charter, recommendation 13 states: “That the 
> GNSO Council evaluate and, if appropriate, pilot a technology solution 
> (such as Loomio or similar) to facilitate wider participation in 
> Working Group consensus-based decision.” making.
>
> After discussing this recommendation during multiple meetings the 
> Working Group 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 
> */by Thursday, 27 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/gnso-review-charter-21jul16-en-1.pdf 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 July*
>
> **
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>  1. _Timeline_: Staff will continue to update the dates in the
>     timeline based on the current status of the charters.
>  2. _Charter for Recommendations 10/11_: Place this charter on hold
>     until the evaluation is completed on the Geographic Names sessions
>     held at ICANN59.
>  3. _Charter for Recommendation 13_: Revise to reflect the Working
>     Group determination that the recommendation has been implemented. 
>     Send to the list for a Consensus Call for two weeks.
>  4. _Charter for Recommendation 19_: Revise to include further
>     references to additional guidance concerning evaluating Working
>     Group Guidance from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and the PDP
>     Manual. Revise to reflect Working Group determination that the
>     recommendation has been implemented.  Send to the list for a
>     one-week review to see if there are any further comments.  If no
>     comments or changes, send to the list for a Consensus Call for two
>     weeks.
>  5. _Charter for Recommendation 30:_ Send to the list for review and
>     discussion at the meeting on 27 July.
>  6. _Charters for Phase II Recommendations:_ Staff will prepare charters.
>
> *Discussion Notes: *
>
> /1. Timeline Status: /
>
> -- Staff presented the timelines for Phases 1 and 2, and for Phase 3 
> recommendations.
>
> -- Staff noted that some of the deadlines will need to be adjusted.  
> The Working Group asked how the timing would be determined and staff 
> suggested that when reviewing the draft charters the Working Group 
> could consider, with staff guidance, how long it would take for the 
> Working Group to approve the implementation charter, and how long the 
> implementation would take.
>
> -- Staff also noted that the original timeline in the implementation 
> plan was a suggested timeline and that the Working Group has not been 
> able to consider as many charters simultaneously.  In addition, each 
> charter takes at least two meetings for deliberation and two weeks for 
> a consensus call.
>
> -- On the Phase 3 timeline, staff noted that the start date for 
> several charters would need to be changed at they were set to start on 
> 16 June 2017.  Staff will look at the charters and determine if some 
> can be completed in a shorter amount of time to ensure that the 
> overall deadline can be met.
>
> /2. Continue discussion of Charter for Recommendations 10/11:/
>
> – Staff provided an update on the Geographic Names moderated sessions 
> at ICANN59 that was part of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures 
> (Subpro) PDP Working Group.  Staff noted that they were well attended 
> and generated rigorous and mostly productive discussions.  However, 
> staff noted that the PDP Working Group had not had the final 
> assessment of the sessions.
>
> -- The Working Group agreed to keep the charter on hold until the PDP 
> Working Group can provide the final assessment.
>
> /3. Continue discussion on Charter for Recommendation 13:/
>
> – Update document management and the ICANN Information Transparency 
> Initiative.  Staff noted ICANN launched the Information Transparency 
> Initiative (ITI) in March 2017.  Per the ICANN Org Executive Team 
> Report delivered to the ICANN Board of Directors in March 2017, “The 
> proposed solution for document and content management and the 
> replacement of the existing ICANN.Org website was presented to the 
> executives who have provided internal approval for the project.”  The 
> ITI is not focused on providing collaborative tools for the community 
> and staff to use to create content, but instead one of the goals is to 
> make content more accessible.
>
> -- Staff suggested that the Working Group could consider that this 
> recommendation is implemented.  The Working Group agreed and asked 
> staff to send the revised charter to the list for a two-week consensus 
> call.
>
> /4. Begin discussion on Charter for Recommendation 19:/
>
> -- Staff walked through the draft charter and noted that it appeared 
> that the recommendation was satisfied with the guidance on the 
> self-assessment process in the GNSO Working Group guidelines, as well 
> as the report on the assessment provided to the GNSO Council, and the 
> periodic updates from PDP Working Group liaisons to the Council.  
> Staff noted, however, that there was other guidance from the PDP 
> Manual and the Working Group Guidelines concerning membership, 
> representation, and diversity and that excerpts from that guidance 
> could be included for reference in the charter.  Staff agreed to add 
> those references and then send the revised charter to the list for 
> review and comment.  If there were no comments after one week staff 
> would send the final charter out for a two-week consensus call.
>
> /5. Charter for Recommendation 30 and Phase 2 Charters:/
>
> -- The Working Group agreed to take up discussion of the draft charter 
> for recommendation 30 at its next meeting on 27 July and staff took 
> the action to send the charter to the list for review.
>
> -- Jen Woolf, the Chair, urged the Working Group to finish up the 
> Phase 1 recommendations as quickly as possible so that it could begin 
> work on the Phase 2 recommendations so as to avoid delaying the 
> schedule. Staff took the action to draft the Phase 2 charters: 
> combined charter for recommendations 26, 27, 28, and 29; charter for 
> recommendation 6.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-review-wg mailing list
> Gnso-review-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20170728/4003fe4a/attachment.html>