<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Title content=""><meta name=Keywords content=""><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>This is a Consensus Call for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for Recommendation 18.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>As noted in the attached charter, this is the recommendation for implementation: “Recommendation 18: That the GNSO Council evaluate post implementation policy effectiveness on an ongoing basis (rather than periodically as stated in the current GNSO Operating Procedures); and that these evaluations are analyzed by the GNSO Council to monitor and improve the drafting and scope of future PDP Charters and facilitate the effectiveness of GNSO policy outcomes over time.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>The charter reflects the revisions agreed to at the Working Group meeting on 19 October (see notes below). The revisions are reflected as redlined text in the attached revised charter. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Staff is circulating the revised version of the charter for a three-week Consensus Call to end on <u>Thursday, 09 November 2017</u>.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Action Items/Discussion Notes 19 October</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Action Items: </span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides</span></u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>: Staff will send finalized report and slides to Wolf-Ulrich along with a draft message to Council. Wolf-Ulrich will send these materials to Council by the deadline for motions and documents on 22 October.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>2. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10/11</span></u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>: 1) Add that there is a process to follow for any request that requires resources. This process should be followed if a WG would like to use a facilitator that requires financial resources. 2) Add an update on the staff action to produce guidelines. 3) Send the revised version for a Consensus Call on 19 October for three weeks, ending on 09 November.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>3. <u>Revised Charter for Recommendation 18</u>: Send the revised version for a Consensus Call on 19 October for three weeks, ending on 09 November.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Notes:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1. SOIs</span></i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>: No updates.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>2. Revised OEC/GNSO Council Report and Slides:</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Slides will be used in GNSO Council update on 01 November.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Slides include text on current status (on phase I, II, and III), timeline, and next steps.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Will be important to note on current status that Phase I items have already been implemented.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- For changes in Phase II and III, changes to Operating Procedures will go out for public comment and then to Council for a vote.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Phase II has begun with the review Recommendation 6, which has been combined with 33 and 36 relating to diversity), as well as Recommendations 26-29.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Timeline: Work expected to be completed within the overall deadline or the original schedule.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Krishna Seeburn - Kris: how confident we will be done by sep 2018?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> -- The WG is confident that it will remain within this timeframe, and will inform OEC and the GNSO Council if this changes.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Example added to the slides following Wolf-Ulrich's recommendation (see slide 7 discussing Recommendation 8).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Background is included at the end of the slides for reference. The presentation will only be 15 mins, so will not likely be covered in the presentation.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Slides reflect order of information provided in the report. The background is included last because of the limited amount of time for the presentation. If we cover the background first, there may not be time to cover the new and most important information.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Covering the new and important information first will keep the Council engaged.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- The goal is for Wolf-Ulrich to send slides and report to the Council either today or tomorrow. Sunday is the document deadline (22 Oct).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Edits to the report reflect changes and feedback from last week, as well as updates to text on Recommendations 10,11, and 18.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Brief discussion of current status is added upfront in the Executive Summary, followed by the more detailed status summary, timeline and next steps.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Updated text included for recommendations 10, 11, 18.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- We will update this report with the implemented version of the Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Text under recommendation 18 on page 11 has been updated as well.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Krishna Seeburn - Kris: perhaps the background should come in first....</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Krishna Seeburn: summarised important points....but if you guys feel it the right way..then no issues.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Krishna Seeburn: might be interesting to just note and highlight that the geonames is not yet ready but would only start soon??</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Geo names is only discussed under Recommendations 10 and 11 as an example of a recently completed session that made use of a facilitator. It demonstrates that there is currently an effective means for WGs to secure the services of a facilitator when the WG determines that such assistance is needed.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- No questions on the report. Staff suggests accepting all changes.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>3. Revised Charter for Recommendations 10 and 11:</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Recommendation 10 and 11 covers WGs' ability to request and use facilitation.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- From last week, staff was asked to check if WG Guidelines cover how to proceed if WG's have diverging views and whether there is guidance on when and how to engage a facilitator.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Revised text includes example of geo names session at ICANN59 to demonstrate a WG successfully engaging a facilitator.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- definition of divergence and recommended method of determining level of consensus from WG Guidelines have been added to the Charter. This guidance speaks to the ways WGs can work through divergent views.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- It's up to this group to determine if additional guidelines are necessary.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- There was an action item. This WG discussed whether there should be guidelines. The discussion seemed to indicate that there is enough guidance for PDP WGs on whether and how to use facilitation and no additional guidance is needed.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- PDPs differ widely and may have different needs.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>>From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Marika Konings: Staff still has as an action item from the previous pilot for "Development of draft guidelines for the use and application for face-to-</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>face facilitated PDP WG meetings for Council review and adoption". Maybe there is no need for guidelines, but there may be a need for a process by which a WG could request facilitation as it is also a resource question. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Krishna Seeburn - Kris: let it roll for now and we see how things pan out??</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Marika Konings: I am also checking whether something was done in relation to the outstanding staff action item re. guidelines.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- In the current process, WGs go to staff with the request for facilitation, to be considered by management.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- In the current example, ICANN org management evaluated that the request was within available resources and budget and granted the request.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Can also potentially add text to Working Group Determination: "within the current process for WGs to request staff and budgetary resources."</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This is ready to go out for consensus call. Suggested timeline - 9 November.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>4. Revised Charter for Recommendation 18:</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Recommendation 18 was discussed a few months ago and was put on hold. Staff recommends moving in forward at this time.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- The staff analysis has been previously discussed. GDD and policy department have a role in reviewing policy implementation Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Staff reviewed CPIF - it appears to complete implementation of the recommendation, except for part of the recommendation that says that policy should be evaluated on a continuous</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>basis.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- The WG has discussed the issue of periodic vs. continuous evaluation of policy post-implementation effectiveness.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Level of medium-hard was assigned to this part of the recommendation noting that it may not be possible to do ongoing reviews.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This WG agreed that this aspect of the recommendation does not seem feasible.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This item was put on hold because of that element of the recommendation regarding ongoing evaluation.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Expired Registry Recovery policy does not have an end date. We may not want to wait for the result, as it might send us past the deadline for review.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Staff recommends editing Working Group Determination to say that the "ongoing" element of the recommendation is not feasible to implement.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Appears to be general agreement with this approach</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This item will go out for a consensus call -- suggested end date is also 09 November.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat: </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Krishna Seeburn: I agree with that constant review is: resources would have to be allotted all the time...</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i have no objection on that</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Krishna Seeburn - Kris: none..</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i understand</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>5. Meeting schedule:</span></i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> Next meeting 16 November, return to bi-weekly schedule.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>