<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.10.2017 um 00:41 schrieb Julie
Hedlund:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:903BB87B-D931-473C-84B5-2760C72F6EA2@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 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Draft agenda:</span></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph"><span>Review agenda</span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"><span>SOIs</span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"><span>Revised OEC/GNSO Council
Report and Slides</span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"><span>Revised Charter for
Recommendations 10 and 11</span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"><span>Revised Charter for
Recommendation 18</span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"><span>Meeting schedule</span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph"><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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Action Items/Discussion Notes 12
October</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Action Items: </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Draft Implementation Status Report:</span></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>Move key points on status to the
beginning of the Executive Summary;</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>As the report will be provided in
November, any recommendations finalized in October should
be marked as completed;</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>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;</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>Produce slides for the GNSO
Council update.</span></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Charter for Recommendations 10/11:</span></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>Include pointers to relevant
sections of the Working Group Guidelines that could
address issues where there are strongly convergent
opinions in a PDP WG;</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span>Provide suggested text for a WG
determination.</span></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Notes:</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span>1. SOIs: No updates</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span>2. Draft Implementation Status
Report for OEC/GNSO Council:</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Staff summary of the report:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Status summary: 9 out of 11 of the
Phase 1 recommendations had already been implemented through
previous work. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- The final two recommendations 10
and 11 may be able to be resolved later on this call.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Dependencies with WS 2 Diversity
Sub Team are discussed explicitly because the OEC has
expressed interest in this issue.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Timelines for Phase 1, 2, and 3
are included in the report. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- The Phase 3 recommendations have
been grouped by priority in the chart, reflecting priorities
expressed by OEC staff. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Dates have been adjusted to
reflect progress. No end dates have been extended beyond
final targets identified earlier.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Draft slides for Council
presentation will be available next week for WG review.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Suggestion: Single chart in the
presentation for all phases.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>From the Chat:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Krishna Seeburn - Kris: sounds good</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Lori Schulman: Sounds practical</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Main message of exec summary is in
the last paragraph. Shift this to the beginning of the exec
summary.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Section 1: Recommendations
Implemented To Date:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- We will send report after ICANN60.
Can we adjust language that currently reads ". . . are
expected to be completed in October 2017."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Recommendations Implemented to
date - Phase 1 - Work already underway. Going through
example of Recommendation 8. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Section 2: Upcoming Recommendations
to be Completed:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- If we can resolve recommendations
10 and 11, we move these to Section 1.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Phase 2: High Priority Items -
each item in this section includes Proposed Implementation
Steps</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Staff will send a revised version
of the report today and leave open for comments into next
week. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Item to fix: Header on medium and
low priority items (page 21) should say Phase 3, not Phase
2. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Medium priority items are listed
followed by low priority items. Groupings are consistent
with grouping presented in implementation plan. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Text comes directly from
implementation plan for this section.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>From the chat: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i suggest
that that be on the agenda clearly stated</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span>3. Charter Discussions:</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Recommendations 10-11 related to
using a facilitator -- was on hold pending Geographic Names
Session at ICANN59. Staff can provide an update. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Pilot project is complete, survey
was published, we have the results. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Potential text stating that that
current system of selectively bringing in facilitators is
working. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Staff can proposed revised text
and then the group can proceed with a consensus call. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- Mandated piece is out of scope of
these recommendations. The recommendations are about making
sure there is an opportunity for facilitation, not a
requirement. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- What does staff need from the WG
on this recommendation?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>From the Chat:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Krishna Seeburn - Kris: thanks for
the appraisal...i think it has it's weight and support the
idea</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Krishna Seeburn - Kris: but i think a
good briefing for the group onlist would be important</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i would like
to know the impact from the objectives and real outputs</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span>4. Meeting Schedule: Next meeting
is in one week -- 19 October</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </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>