<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;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:713425520;
mso-list-template-ids:1236989826;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1621105566;
mso-list-template-ids:-2047724226;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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'>Per action 4 below, and as discussed on today’s call, please see the attached revised implementation charter for Recommendation 22 for your review. Please suggest any changes to the redlined text on the list and we also will discuss the text at our meeting on 18 January.</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><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </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'>Notes & Action Items GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 13:00 UTC </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><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>2018 Work Plan</span></u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>: Staff will add to the work plan additional details about potential cost of transcription services, as well as in the charter for recommendations 7 & 12.</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Implementation Charter for Recommendation 34</span></u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>: Staff will add a sentence clarifying that there is currently no mandate or rule regarding rotation, and that the decision is left to the WG based on the composition of the membership and the utility of rotation. Staff will send this proposed text to the WG and for discussion on the call on 18 January. Once language is finalized, Staff will circulate the Charter for Recommendation 34 for a consensus call. </span><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Response to OEC Questions from Avri Doria</span></u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>: Send the response to Avri, but also ask about the significance of the reference to the February 2017 date.</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Implementation Charter for Recommendation 22</span></u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>: 1) Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework”; 2) Staff will investigate technical training opportunities and add these links to these options. </span><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>January and February 2018 Meetings</span></u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>: The meetings will be on 11 and 18 January, and the 01 February meeting will be canceled to avoid conflicts. The February meetings will occur on 08 and 22 February.</span><o:p></o:p></li></ol><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'>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><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1. Review agenda/SOIs: 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><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>2. Status of Consensus Calls for implementation charters for recommendation 4, and recommendations 5, 9, and 17: Consensus call ended on 8 January. There were no objections or comments. Charters were approved by consensus. </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. Discussion of the revised Work Plan:</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 has updated the work plan to include details about any anticipated budget effects for each of the items in the work plan (see work plan for details).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Items from 2017 have been removed. The work plan now begins in January 2018. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Question: Is it realistic to cover five recommendations in January? Answer: The work plan is ambitious. The Working Group is ahead of schedule. It is possible move more slowly to ensure thorough discussion. Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are closely related. Staff will provide as much detailed information as possible to support discussion of Charters for 7 and 12. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Comment: Details about costs of transcription services would be helpful to include. </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'>4. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendation 34:</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 charter focuses on rotation of meeting start times. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Text has been added describe current practices regarding meeting start time rotation, future opportunities for more robust data collection, and indicating that WG members' ability to participate depends not only on time zone but also other factors, such as non-ICANN commitments. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Final paragraph has been updated to summarize key points in the text.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Suggestion: it might be helpful to clarify in the text that ultimately it is up to the WG itself to determine the rotation. There is no rule across WGs. </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'>5. Discussion of the draft response to questions on the Implementation Status Report from the OEC:</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 provided implementation status report to OEC following ICANN60.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Questions were received from Avri Doria. Avri had been participating in this WG prior to joining the Board. She now serves on the OEC.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Staff has drafted suggested responses, but the responses should come from the WG and not from staff. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- We may receive additional questions from the OEC in the future, but it would be helpful to go ahead and respond to Avri's questions and ask about the relevance of the February 2017 date. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Regarding question on recommendation 18 -- the response indicates that we are following the Operating Procedures and evaluating on an periodic basis and not an ongoing basis. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Regarding question on Recommendation 27 -- the requested links are provided in the attachment to the 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'>From the chat: </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: what is Feb 2017 relevant for?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sara Bockey: Agree, why is Feb 2017 relevant. And the PDP would have to go thru IRT before implementing... so where would IRTP-C fall into this? Would it?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Marika Konings: This is what the PDP Manual currently says: "A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility."</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Marika Konings: not sure if Avri is referring to that? Or is there a separate PIA that I am not aware of?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Berry Cobb: The answer to Q1 on #16 is No. PIA has not been used. Likely first use will be the IGO CRPM PDP.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sara Bockey: Also, CL&D was implemented in Aug... does that fall into this?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sara Bockey: Guess maybe I'm not understanding...</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Berry Cobb: Curative Rights Protection Mechanisim</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sara Bockey: Consistant Labeling and Display</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sara Bockey: OK</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Berry Cobb: PIA does not apply to IRT. This is an assessment of policy recommendations.</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'>6. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendation 22:</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 term "competency-based framework" is unclear. ICANN offers many training options, but it is not always obvious if these are responsive to a "competency-based framework".</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Question: did staff check what the issues behind this recommendation to better understand the rationale? Staff will review the original report from the Independent Examiner to see if there is additional guidance regarding the "competency-based framework." </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Recommendations 26-29 relate to Statements of Interest. GDPR may impact the way personal information is displayed and stored. There may be changes to the Recommendations based on the implementation of GDPR. ICANN Organization is working on guidance in this area.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Question: Is there information about technical training included in this document? Staff can elaborate on technical training opportunities in the Charter. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual also have information about expectations for 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'>From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kris Seeburn: i think it has to be something to do with people with proper knowledge of what is bwing discussed</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Pascal Bekono: Why EU GDPR is so important to have recommendations 26-29 pending ?</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'>Kris Seeburn: i thought i saw a document from EU on for the internet, websites, ecommerce</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Any kind of data collection is falling - from a European perspective - under the GDPR</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kris Seeburn: i am sur there were two legal advise to ICANN on the gdpr</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Lori Schulman: There were 3 memos of legal advice on GDPR</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kris Seeburn: just a question : Are there any guidelines of ethics on mailing and or WG/WT/ccwg? Because at tmes things tends to degenerate ...i would be happy that these are taken care of.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Marika Konings: @Kris - the ICANN Standards of Behavior also apply there</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Marika Konings: @Kris - there is at least 1 example where a WG member was removed due to failure to meet the standards, despite numerous reminders. </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'>7. Next Meetings: </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'>-- Next meeting is 18 January at 1300 UTC. This is the last meeting in January. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- February meetings: The meeting on 01 February is canceled due to conflicts with a community intersessional. The meetings in February are on the 8<sup>th</sup> and the 22<sup>nd</sup>.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>