[Gnso-review-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes for GNSO Review WG Meeting on 16 November

Thu Nov 16 19:58:00 UTC 2017

Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 16 November.  These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2017. 

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items/Discussion Notes 16 November

Action Items:
Send membership list to SG/Cs to see if there need to be updates to the primary or alternate members.
Send email to the WG list about the timing of the meeting and inviting feedback about changing the schedule.
Staff will revise and recirculate the implementation charter for recommendations 26-29 for further discussion in the next meeting.

Notes:

1. Update from ICANN60:

-- The report was accepted, and an update was provided during the GNSO Council session. The WG will provide additional updates if there are any changes to the timeline for the group.

2. Consensus call for Recommendations 10 and 11, and Recommendation 18:

-- The call was extended for 3 weeks as it fell during the ICANN60 meeting.

-- The call ended on 09 November.

-- As no objections were raised the recommendations were deemed approved as implemented by full consensus.

-- Staff sent an update with a link to those charters in the Report on the Progress of Implementation to the staff supporting the OEC.

3. Work Plan for Phases 2 and 3:

-- This work plan is in line with the timeline presented to the GNSO Council, and might even be a bit aggressive in terms of goals.

-- It provides targets for dates by which staff will draft charters for specific recommendations.

-- Some dates may change due to dependences, in particular for items that are waiting on outcomes of the CCWG Accountability. 

-- WG members will review and come back to the list with comments.

4. Discussion of Revised Charter for Recommendations 26-29: 

-- This is the combined recommendations for 26-29 on stakeholder group and constituency membership and Statements of Interest.

-- Staff tried to see if these issues were addresses for procedures already in place; redline language suggests changes to reflect this.

-- Recommendation 26: Staff looked at language in Chapter 5. Staff suggested that "Committee" in the text could include "Executive Committee." It's already a requirement that relationships need to be called out. In the event of confidentiality, there are two other questions that address your interests or position - whether you are representing someone else or whether you have additional arrangements, benefits etc.

-- The current procedures appear to encompass recommendation 26. 

-- Recommendation 27 is different than just SOIs, it refers to providing lists of members as well as links to SOIs.

-- In attachment B, it states that here are lists of members available in a centrally located place -- gnso.icann.org. 

-- We are getting more people in Working Groups who are not members of constituencies or stakeholder groups and people just say they are part of NCUC. Maybe this recommendation could help to keep information about members in a central location to avoid these inconsistencies.

-- The issue of maintaining the integrity of the list - that appears to be out of scope for this recommendation. There isn't anything in these recommendations that speaks to this issue. The SOI functionality will eventually migrate to the Global Enrollment Platform will allow for greater integration. Staff can add reference to this in the charter. 

-- There might also be potential changes to the SOI form, for example "Are you participating in a particular SG/C," which will force people to think a little more carefully about their affiliations.

-- We may note the importance of having an enhanced SOI in which there is a clearer link between the affiliations stated in the profile and the corresponding groups. 

-- Regarding GDPR, should the group make a recommendation or is there a dependency on the overall work being done within ICANN regarding GDPR.

-- This might need to be an overarching statement for each of these recommendations. The way lists are administered might be changed due to GDPR in ways we might not yet be able to anticipate. We might need to call this out before we get into the details of each recommendation.

-- Do we need to make a note in specific parts of the charter where we deem it necessary? Perhaps staff could develop language that could be added where applicable.

-- We might need to call it out in the research staff has done in the solutions section and then possibly again in the WG determination section.

-- Staff can include in the charter the latest information on the platform, noting that it is subject to change. Not sure if FY19 is an accurate target date to include in the charter. 

-- Staff can see if Chris Gift's team could provide an update to this group about plans for the platform.

-- Recommendation 28: Chapter 6.0 of the operating procedures is on SG/Cs. The recommendation says that key clauses should be made mandatory. Staff went back to see how these provisions were developed. Key clauses use the word "should" instead of "must" or “shall”. The intent was that these were supposed to be mandatory and these procedures should be followed. There wouldn't be changes to the clauses that would change the intent. 

-- Every time you try to come to a consensus about what is going to be done in an international environment, "shall" or "should" is common language. It is a kind of binding obligation. We can leave it that there is a common understanding among those working on this issue, including the GNSO and the Council, that it is a binding rule. 

-- This is consistent with staff recollection of the discussion.

-- Other part of the recommendation - there should be sanctions for non-compliance.

-- There are sanctions built into the text already. In Chapter 5, staff must check that SOIs are completed. There is a statement at the beginning of every WG meeting in which the chair asks about updates to SOIs. It is a standard part of WG Guidelines. 

-- The GNSO Secretariat can confirm that if a person doesn't have an SOI, they are taken off the member list until the SOI is completed. This is a working sanction that is being applied. 

-- Staff is not vetting the SOI, but checking that it is complete.

-- Are there any cases in the past where sanctions were applied?

-- It does occasionally happen that a new member hasn't posted an SOI and was prevented from participating until the SOI was posted.

>From the chat:

Marika Konings: An interesting suggestion was made during the public forum at ICANN60 to 'force' people to keep SOIs up to date - what if an SOI expires after x amount of time so that people have to review / update their SOI on a regular basis. 

Marika Konings: because that seems to be one of the main issues at the moment, that people forget to check / update their SOIs when changes occur

Marika Konings: Similarly, with GDPR, additional consideration may need to be given with regards to how consent is requested and access to this info? Not sure whether this is in scope for the WG, but something that staff may need to look into?

rafik: @Marika  I have feeling that current platform is not optimal for SOI management.

Marika Konings: @Rafik - yes, I think you are absolutely right. Staff has been pushing for a WG sign up tool which would also manage SOIs as the wiki is definitely not ideal. 

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: perhaps have a clear document which states any conflict of interest

Lawrence Olawale-Roberts: Good points to note Marika

Lawrence Olawale-Roberts: @Rafik is the suggested feature does not come as a standard it could be customised by the provider

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: +1 rafik

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: that is true

Marika Konings: @Rafik - we have noticed the same issue. Maybe we could add a clarification to the SOI, basically explain for each field what info is expected to be filled out so that it is also clear that affiliation refers to membership, not whether you feel affiliated with a certain perspective.

rafik: +1

Marika Konings: it may not require a change to the operating procedures it is just providing additional info to help people fill out the form

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: +1 too

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: with regards to gdpr we need to ensure that information presented follow the questions are well stated to release of information

Marika Konings: staff can only check for completeness, not for accuracy... 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20171116/dcc83a0c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Review Working Group Work Plan 16 Nov 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 45566 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20171116/dcc83a0c/GNSOReviewWorkingGroupWorkPlan16Nov2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20171116/dcc83a0c/smime-0001.p7s>