<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Thanks Julie,</p>
<p>see my comments inserted.</p>
<p>Apologies again that I can't attend today's call.</p>
<p>Wolf-Ulrich</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.05.2017 um 23:34 schrieb Julie
Hedlund:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7A8B7551-72D8-43F9-8E4C-AA814D47EFEE@icann.org">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear GNSO Review Working Group
members,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Please see below the notes and action
items from the meeting on 11 May. The charter is attached
for recommendations 24/25 in Word and PDF. These have been
loaded into the Adobe Connect room for discussion during
tomorrow’s call: Thursday, 25 May at 1200 UTC. Please also
see the draft agenda for tomorrow’s call as follows:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>Review agenda </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>SOIs </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>Reminder of Consensus Call for
Recommendations 16 (responses due 29 May)</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>Begin discussion of Charter for
Recommendations 24/25</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 08
June</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>AOB</span></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Best regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Julie</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Action Items/Discussion Notes 11
May</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Action Items: </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span>Recommendation 16</span></u><span>:
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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span>Recommendation 18</span></u><span>:
Staff is creating a standalone charter for consideration and
further discussion by the Working Group.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span>Recommendation 33</span></u><span>:
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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>2) Staff also will contact support
staff for the SGs and Cs to make sure that all procedures
have been compiled.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span>Recommendations 24/25</span></u><span>:
Staff will create a charter for consideration on the next
Working Group Call on 25 May at 1200 UTC.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span>Overarching Questions</span></u><span>:
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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Discussion Notes: </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span>1. Discussion of Recommendation
16:</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Goal: Strategic plan -- seems
incomplete; check it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Separated from recommendation #18
to be considered in a standalone charter.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- WG to determine to what extent the
DMPM recommendations fulfil the requirements of this
recommendation</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- There are points in the charter
and suggestions for metrics -- general metrics can be
subdivided.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- How can we as a volunteer
community ask the right questions? Where is the expertise
to help guide us?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- This issue could be consider as an
overarching question by the WG. Suggestion to keep these
questions as for further work for this WG.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>From the chat:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Lori Schulman: I feel like we need a
highly expert "metrics czar"</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Lori Schulman: It adds to my comment
but doesn't really address it</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Lori Schulman: Agree with Rafik about
more and more tasks</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Berry Cobb: +1 Amr</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>renata aquino: +1</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Marika Konings: @Lori - how can that
be addressed here? </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Julie Hedlund: @Lori: This may be out
of scope of this recommendation implementation, but may be
addressed separately by this Working Group.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Berry Cobb: That's the world of
forecasting and it is still an imperfect science.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Lori Schulman: I understand Marika's
and Julie's concerns perhaps we can highlight this as an
ancillary issue</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Lori Schulman: Can we at least
suggest to staff a running list of questions including the
issues we discussed today?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures">https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span>2. Discussion of Recommendation
33:</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- This recommendation may or may not
require changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures and/or GNSO
SG/C charters/bylaws</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Staff performed a preliminary
review of GNSO SG/C procedures for selecting GNSO
Councilors.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Suggestion that the WG could wait
until we have the responses from the SGs and Cs.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>From the chat:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Pascal Bekono: Maybe Rafik who is
help us </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Pascal Bekono: Rafik is a rapporteur
in ccwg</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>renata aquino: +1 Rafik on sharing
here the results</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.</span></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-review-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-review-wg@icann.org">Gnso-review-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>