[Gnso-review-wg] Agenda and Materials for 19 October Meeting 12:00 UTC
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Wed Oct 18 20:33:45 UTC 2017
Yes, phase 1 is sufficient for this purpose.
Thanks and regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Am 18.10.2017 um 22:29 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
>
> Thanks Wolf-Ulrich for the suggestion and we’ll note your apologies
> for tomorrow’s call.
>
> As to your suggestion, the WG has not finalized the implementation
> charters for any of the Phase 2 recommendations. The WG has reviewed
> the charter for recommendation 6, but it is being put on hold and
> combined with recommendations 33 and 36 as they all are dependent on
> the deliberations of the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Diversity
> Sub Team. The WG also discussed recommendations 26-29, but staff is
> still working on revisions to that charter (as it is a quite long
> charter) so deliberations aren’t complete.
>
> Perhaps the WG could highlight a couple of the implemented charters
> from Phase 1. We’ll take this up for discussion tomorrow.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> *From: *<gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:25 PM
> *To: *"gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-review-wg] Agenda and Materials for 19 October
> Meeting 12:00 UTC
>
> Thanks Julie,
>
> the status report looks great to me.
>
> With regards to the council update, we should have at least one or two
> concrete recommendations of phase 1 and 2 to be named. So we could
> explain by example how we approached our determinations. Otherwise it
> may be hard for council members to recall what it is about.
>
> Apologies again for missing the call tomorrow.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Am 18.10.2017 um 00:41 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
>
> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>
> Please see below the agenda for the meeting on Thursday, 19
> October at 12:00 UTC. Please also see the attached materials
> amended per the notes below from the meeting on 12 October. In
> addition, a revised charter for recommendation 18 is attached for
> consideration and discussion.
>
> Draft agenda:
>
> 1. Review agenda
> 2. SOIs
> 3. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides
> 4. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11
> 5. Revised Charter for Recommendation 18
> 6. Meeting schedule
> 7. AOB
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> *Action Items/Discussion Notes 12 October*
>
> **
>
> *Action Items: *
>
> Draft Implementation Status Report:
>
> 1. Move key points on status to the beginning of the Executive
> Summary;
> 2. As the report will be provided in November, any
> recommendations finalized in October should be marked as
> completed;
> 3. On the timeline, create a separate section in the Executive
> Summary and include a WG judgement that the work is expected
> to be completed within the original timeline, but if there are
> any issues that could adversely affect the timeline these will
> be brought to the attention of the OEC;
> 4. Produce slides for the GNSO Council update.
>
> Charter for Recommendations 10/11:
>
> 1. Include pointers to relevant sections of the Working Group
> Guidelines that could address issues where there are strongly
> convergent opinions in a PDP WG;
> 2. Provide suggested text for a WG determination.
>
> *Notes:*
>
> /1. SOIs: No updates/
>
> /2. Draft Implementation Status Report for OEC/GNSO Council:/
>
> Staff summary of the report:
>
> -- OEC has asked that this WG transmit final report to the OEC.
> The OEC will review over email. No formal presentation is needed.
> This report can form the basis of the update to the GNSO Council
> on 1 Nov at ICANN60.
>
> -- OEC support staff will clarify if the GNSO Council will need to
> make a formal approval of the report through a motion. It is
> likely that formal approval will not be needed.
>
> -- Question: How much time do we have to update the Council? Can
> we ask Council for any feedback or objections during this update?
> We are not expecting a big discussion or any major issues raised.
> Response: Draft schedule is not yet available, but likely no more
> than 15 mins.
>
> -- The wording in the original Board resolution approving the plan
> notes updates from the WG to the OEC, not from the Council,
> indicating that there is likely no official approval needed.
> Transparency is still a priority.
>
> -- Status summary: 9 out of 11 of the Phase 1 recommendations had
> already been implemented through previous work.
>
> -- OEC is asking for implementation status. With work underway,
> those approved as implemented have been implemented through
> previous work. The timeline antiicipated additional work would be
> needed, but this was not the case.
>
> -- The final two recommendations 10 and 11 may be able to be
> resolved later on this call.
>
> -- Phases 2 and 3: The Working Group has reviewed and discussed
> the implementation charters for the 5 Phase II Recommendations and
> 2 charters for recommendations moved from Phase 1 to Phase 2.
> Staff is combining recommendations 6, 33, (Phase 2) with 36 (Phase
> 3) as these all relate to diversity and thus are pending the
> recommendations from the Cross-Community Working Group Work Stream
> 2 Diversity Sub Team recommendations. The Working Group will
> begin discussion of Phase 3 recommendations in November 2017.
>
> -- Dependencies with WS 2 Diversity Sub Team are discussed
> explicitly because the OEC has expressed interest in this issue.
>
> -- Timelines for Phase 1, 2, and 3 are included in the report.
>
> -- The Phase 3 recommendations have been grouped by priority in
> the chart, reflecting priorities expressed by OEC staff.
>
> -- Dates have been adjusted to reflect progress. No end dates have
> been extended beyond final targets identified earlier.
>
> -- Draft slides for Council presentation will be available next
> week for WG review.
>
> -- Suggestion: Single chart in the presentation for all phases.
>
> From the Chat:
>
> Krishna Seeburn - Kris: sounds good
>
> Lori Schulman: Sounds practical
>
> -- Comment: Consider changing "GNSO2 Review" on page 1 to "GNOS
> Review 2". Response - this is how the OEC refers to this report
> -- "GNSO2 Review" - This title was included in template provided
> by OEC staff.
>
> -- Main message of exec summary is in the last paragraph. Shift
> this to the beginning of the exec summary.
>
> Section 1: Recommendations Implemented To Date:
>
> -- We will send report after ICANN60. Can we adjust language that
> currently reads ". . . are expected to be completed in October 2017."
>
> -- First paragraph on 2nd page of exec summary: should we add a
> judgment from our group about the recent timeline? For example,
> that we are confident in our ability to keep with the timeline
> until the end of next year, or if there are any indications that
> would weaken this judgment. Staff response -- in addition to add a
> single graphic, staff would like to add timeline as another
> section of the executive summary with an intro paragraph stating
> that the WG is confident it will be able to meet the timeline. We
> can also say that if anything comes up that will impact the
> timeline that the WG will make the OEC aware.
>
> -- Recommendations Implemented to date - Phase 1 - Work already
> underway. Going through example of Recommendation 8.
>
> -- OEC asked for links to reports for each of the items. These are
> included in the green section at the bottom of each recommendation
> summary.
>
> Section 2: Upcoming Recommendations to be Completed:
>
> -- If we can resolve recommendations 10 and 11, we move these to
> Section 1.
>
> -- Phase 2: High Priority Items - each item in this section
> includes Proposed Implementation Steps
>
> -- Recs 6,33,26 - staff will work to complete the consolidation of
> these three items into a single charter. Dependencies are called
> out in the text. Based on WS2 SubTeam on Diversity timeline, we
> are anticipating addressing this one around June 2018.
>
> -- Recs 26-29 - work is underway. We discussed in 28 Sept meeting.
> We have some additional work on each of these recommendations to
> do. This will be updated in the report if progress is made on
> action items.
>
> -- Staff will send a revised version of the report today and leave
> open for comments into next week.
>
> -- Item to fix: Header on medium and low priority items (page 21)
> should say Phase 3, not Phase 2.
>
> -- Medium priority items are listed followed by low priority
> items. Groupings are consistent with grouping presented in
> implementation plan.
>
> -- Text comes directly from implementation plan for this section.
>
> -- Timing: We can give the report to the OEC as soon as we have
> reported to the GNSO Council (early November). Anything scheduled
> for completion in October should be marked as complete.
>
> -- Review of the report may not need to go through a consensus
> call. Suggestion to finalize by 19 Oct to make the document
> deadline for Council meeting at ICANN60.
>
> -- Feedback - This seems like an appropriate approach. Not sure if
> the OEC is diving into recommendations for the time being. But
> good to have the details available in case they need additional
> information.
>
> From the chat:
>
> Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i think we may need a more clearer
> discussion with oters on this because i seem to find that in many
> policies the work is stalling
>
> Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i suggest that that be on the agenda
> clearly stated
>
> /3. Charter Discussions:/
>
> -- No updates to items 26-29. Next items will be Phase 3. Staff
> needs to look at how these items should be grouped. There are a
> couple of items on hold
>
> -- Recommendations 10-11 related to using a facilitator -- was on
> hold pending Geographic Names Session at ICANN59. Staff can
> provide an update.
>
> -- Pilot project is complete, survey was published, we have the
> results.
>
> -- The WG discussed whether there should be guidelines. Concern
> was raised that it would be difficult or inadvisable to mandate
> use of facilitation. Ad hoc funding is available and was most
> recently used for geographic names sessions at ICANN59. There is a
> report from the facilitator with recommendations.
>
> -- Suggestion: adjust charter to make use of these
> recommendations. Staff can provide a summary of the outcomes of
> the ICANN59 sessions, noting the specific reasons why a
> facilitator was brought in for this session.
>
> -- Potential text stating that that current system of selectively
> bringing in facilitators is working.
>
> -- Staff can proposed revised text and then the group can proceed
> with a consensus call.
>
> -- Where are we in terms of the relationship between the outcome
> of these facilitated sessions and the work product we are working
> on? In the end does it help us to cover what was expected in these
> recommendations?
>
> -- Is this an overall working concept for any facilitated meeting?
> Beyond the geographic names sessions, there are a lot of big
> challenging issues with polarized views in the major PDPs. Any
> recommendations related to facilitation should be something we
> should support.
>
> -- These recommendations would be relevant to any WG considering
> facilitation. Our evaluation is that groups can request
> facilitations during or outside of a meeting. Rec 11 refers to the
> Pilot Program. Staff is suggesting that we indicate, looking at
> the current status using the example of SubPro being able to get
> facilitation at ICANN59, demonstrates that WGs can get this
> assistance if they need it. We can recommend not using formal
> guidelines because needs vary, and that this recommendation has
> been met as there is already a process for meeting needs in the
> future.
>
> -- Perhaps the guidelines should be guidelines about when you
> should ask for facilitation, as opposed to guidelines about how to
> proceed if facilitation is requested. This will help ensure that
> WGs do request assistance when they need it.
>
> -- Mandated piece is out of scope of these recommendations. The
> recommendations are about making sure there is an opportunity for
> facilitation, not a requirement.
>
> -- What does staff need from the WG on this recommendation?
>
> -- Staff will incorporate a suggested WG determination and look at
> WG guidelines and look at whether there are guidelines about how
> to proceed if there are diverging views about whether facilitation
> is needed.
>
> -- We can also revisit Recommendation 18. If we do this, we will
> have completed all Phase 1 work, which can be reflected in the OEC
> Report.
>
> From the Chat:
>
> Krishna Seeburn - Kris: thanks for the appraisal...i think it has
> it's weight and support the idea
>
> Krishna Seeburn - Kris: but i think a good briefing for the group
> onlist would be important
>
> Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i would like to know the impact from the
> objectives and real outputs
>
> /4. Meeting Schedule: Next meeting is in one week -- 19 October/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-review-wg mailing list
>
> Gnso-review-wg at icann.org <mailto: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/20171018/4c865e46/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-review-wg
mailing list