<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Yes, phase 1 is sufficient for this purpose.</p>
<p>Thanks and regards</p>
<p>Wolf-Ulrich<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.10.2017 um 22:29 schrieb Julie
Hedlund:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:303DE20C-C8AC-4365-8385-38500E8739CC@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">Thanks Wolf-Ulrich for the suggestion and
we’ll note your apologies for tomorrow’s call.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Perhaps the WG could highlight a couple of
the implemented charters from Phase 1. We’ll take this up for
discussion tomorrow.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Julie</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From: </span></b><span><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org"><gnso-review-wg-bounces@icann.org></a>
on behalf of "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de"><wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:25 PM<br>
<b>To: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org">"gnso-review-wg@icann.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-review-wg@icann.org"><gnso-review-wg@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-review-wg] Agenda and Materials
for 19 October Meeting 12:00 UTC</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p>Thanks Julie,</p>
<p>the status report looks great to me.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Apologies again for missing the call tomorrow.</p>
<p>Best regards</p>
<p>Wolf-Ulrich</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 18.10.2017 um 00:41 schrieb Julie
Hedlund:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Draft agenda:</p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal">Review agenda </li>
<li class="MsoNormal">SOIs </li>
<li class="MsoNormal">Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and
Slides </li>
<li class="MsoNormal">Revised Charter for Recommendations
10 and 11 </li>
<li class="MsoNormal">Revised Charter for Recommendation
18 </li>
<li class="MsoNormal">Meeting schedule </li>
<li class="MsoNormal">AOB </li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Julie</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Action Items/Discussion Notes 12
October</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Action Items: </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Draft Implementation Status Report:</p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal">Move key points on status to the
beginning of the Executive Summary; </li>
<li class="MsoNormal">As the report will be provided in
November, any recommendations finalized in October
should be marked as completed; </li>
<li class="MsoNormal">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; </li>
<li class="MsoNormal">Produce slides for the GNSO Council
update. </li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Charter for Recommendations 10/11:</p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal">Include pointers to relevant
sections of the Working Group Guidelines that could
address issues where there are strongly convergent
opinions in a PDP WG; </li>
<li class="MsoNormal">Provide suggested text for a WG
determination. </li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Notes:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>1. SOIs: No updates</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>2. Draft Implementation Status
Report for OEC/GNSO Council:</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Staff summary of the report:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Status summary: 9 out of 11 of the
Phase 1 recommendations had already been implemented
through previous work. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- The final two recommendations 10 and
11 may be able to be resolved later on this call.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Dependencies with WS 2 Diversity Sub
Team are discussed explicitly because the OEC has
expressed interest in this issue.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Timelines for Phase 1, 2, and 3 are
included in the report. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- The Phase 3 recommendations have
been grouped by priority in the chart, reflecting
priorities expressed by OEC staff. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Dates have been adjusted to reflect
progress. No end dates have been extended beyond final
targets identified earlier.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Draft slides for Council
presentation will be available next week for WG review.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Suggestion: Single chart in the
presentation for all phases.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From the Chat:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Krishna Seeburn - Kris: sounds good</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lori Schulman: Sounds practical</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Main message of exec summary is in
the last paragraph. Shift this to the beginning of the
exec summary.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 1: Recommendations Implemented
To Date:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- We will send report after ICANN60.
Can we adjust language that currently reads ". . . are
expected to be completed in October 2017."</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Recommendations Implemented to date
- Phase 1 - Work already underway. Going through example
of Recommendation 8. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 2: Upcoming Recommendations to
be Completed:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- If we can resolve recommendations 10
and 11, we move these to Section 1.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Phase 2: High Priority Items - each
item in this section includes Proposed Implementation
Steps</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Staff will send a revised version of
the report today and leave open for comments into next
week. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Item to fix: Header on medium and
low priority items (page 21) should say Phase 3, not Phase
2. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Medium priority items are listed
followed by low priority items. Groupings are consistent
with grouping presented in implementation plan. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Text comes directly from
implementation plan for this section.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From the chat: </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i suggest that
that be on the agenda clearly stated</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>3. Charter Discussions:</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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 </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Recommendations 10-11 related to
using a facilitator -- was on hold pending Geographic
Names Session at ICANN59. Staff can provide an update. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Pilot project is complete, survey
was published, we have the results. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Potential text stating that that
current system of selectively bringing in facilitators is
working. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Staff can proposed revised text and
then the group can proceed with a consensus call. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Mandated piece is out of scope of
these recommendations. The recommendations are about
making sure there is an opportunity for facilitation, not
a requirement. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- What does staff need from the WG on
this recommendation?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From the Chat:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Krishna Seeburn - Kris: thanks for the
appraisal...i think it has it's weight and support the
idea</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Krishna Seeburn - Kris: but i think a
good briefing for the group onlist would be important</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i would like to
know the impact from the objectives and real outputs</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>4. Meeting Schedule: Next meeting is
in one week -- 19 October</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<pre>_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre>Gnso-review-wg mailing list</pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Gnso-review-wg@icann.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-review-wg@icann.org</a></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>