<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 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;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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:883827273;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:227206906 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1263417547;
mso-list-template-ids:381068074;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailOriginalBody">Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,</a></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> </span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Please see below and attached the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 12 April 2018. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at: </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2018"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2018</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>. </span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> </span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Please note that the next meeting will occur on 26 April at 1300 UTC.</span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> </span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Best regards,</span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Julie</span></p><div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> </span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b> </b></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b>Action Items and Notes GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 12 April 2018 at 13:00 UTC </b></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> </span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b>Action Items:<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Action Items: Status of actions items re: implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Staff will send out an email after this call with the links that were gathered regarding the fellowship program.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Staff will update the charter to point to data already being collected on CROP and the Fellowship Program.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Staff will update the determination part of the charter to state that there are existing metrics and point to those. <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Staff will check with fellowship staff about whether data is self-reported from former fellows or confirmed by staff.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>In referencing the GNSO Council comment on the fellowship program, Staff will note that the Council comment is focused on its role as manager of the PDP and does not necessarily incorporate more views of individual SG/Cs. SG/Cs submitted comments separately.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Staff will add a note in the determination that there are cost-effective solutions available, such as translation provided by technology rather than live human translators. Specifically, “The Working Group notes that a traditional RTT solution typically includes professional translators. Understanding that the costs for such translators may be prohibitive for some uses, other solutions may include automated services, volunteers or translations of executive summaries of transcripts after public meetings.”<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Staff will put the revised charter out for consensus call and if it is approved, this item will be put on the next available Council meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Action Item 9: Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21: Staff notes that if the WG supports bringing the proposal to Council to expand the scope of the SCBO to include recommendation 20 this can also be raised in the update to Council.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b>Notes:<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1. Review agenda/SOIs: No SOI Updates.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>2. Status of Consensus Call for revised implementation charter for recommendation 22 (closed 30 March): The consensus call closed and no objections were noted. The recommendation is updated by full consensus. The wiki has been updated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>3. Status of actions items re: implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Work on recs 1,2,3 is ongoing but there are updates. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Staff is in the process of researching metrics and received some feedback yesterday.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- The Fellowship Program consultation just ended. As part of that consultation process, a number of metrics and information were gathered and put on the website where the consultation was announced. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Data is available on fellows that have gone on to participate in the SO/ACs, broken out by SO and AC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Staff will send out an email after this call with the links that were gathered. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- The second action item involved metrics for the CROP Program. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Staff circulated with the agenda, links to reports on the CROP Program. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- The window for providing input about the Fellowship program is closed, so there is not an opportunity for this WG to provide a response to this consultation at this time. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- It might be helpful to review the GNSO Council response to the consultation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- In particular, the Council recommends objective metrics for determining what makes a fellow “active” in addition to the metrics already being captured by the program.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- The charter could point to the recommendation of the Council in the Council response to the consultation rather than duplicating these recommendations. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- The revisions to the implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, and 3 will be reviewed on the next call.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Support expressed for the WG pointing to the GNSO Council comment in addition to the material already developed for this implementation charter.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Question: Are the metrics provided by the fellowship program self-reported by former fellows or confirmed by staff? There have been some discrepancies between fellows reporting membership in certain groups and actual membership of those groups.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- The Council comment is focused on its role as manager of the PDP and does not necessarily incorporate more views of individual SG/Cs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>4. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 7 & 12:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Additional edits have been made in the WG determination language. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Wolf-Ulrich provided suggested edits to the text. Staff made a suggestion in addition to these edits. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- In recommendation 12, the recommendation pertains to the feasibility of providing real-time transcription service. In the determination, it states that there should be a clearly defined rationale for the decision whether or not to provide these services, based on demand. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Any request for translation or transcription has a budget implications. Staff suggested to add text that requests for these services in channeled through the GNSO Council. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Question: Can we note that there are cost-effective solutions available, such as translation provided by technology rather than live human translators. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Agreement to add this. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Should we make any recommendations to Council about how to deal with this recommendation from a budget perspective going forward?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- We are not mandating a change to procedures, but we are invoking the GNSO Council. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Translation is a shared pool resource in some cases. Is it possible to check the proposed budget for FY19 to see what is budgeted for language services? If the resource is shared, maybe the cost consideration is less of a concern for Council.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Within the draft budget, language services were listed under GSE. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- There are several sub-sections under the main category of language services, for example transcription services.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- There are no specific allocations to the policy department with respect to language services. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- The bulk of expenses are under that portfolio.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>from Marika Konings to All Participants: with the current budget situation, it would likely require the Council to decide what services would no longer be provided to be able to provide these services - so basically the Council and/or WGs may need to decide what their priority is for resource allocation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>from Marika Konings to All Participants: I believe language services is one of the areas that was proposed to be reduced and be more demand driven?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>from Berry Cobb to All Participants: Stand corrected. FY19 Language Services = $2.9M at 6.7 FTE<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>from Berry Cobb to All Participants: A bulk of which is for project: Recurring Activity - Language Services Support (All Services)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>from Berry Cobb to All Participants: Description: Provision of translations, transcription, teleconference interpretation and scribing support throughout the organization. Including Scribing support for Board meetings, retreats and workshops.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>from Lori Schulman to All Participants: [Added language] The Working Group notes that a traditional RTT solution typically includes professional translators. Understanding that the costs for such translators may be prohibitive for some uses, other solutions may include automated services, volunteers or translations of executive summaries of transcripts after public meetings.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- It should be kept in mind in our response that many of the language services are pooled. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Staff will add language suggested by Lori. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Should the WG consider this set of recommendations implemented or call out to the Council the recommendation included in the determination?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- One possibility is to give Council an update in an upcoming meeting, and call out the recommendations in this charter in that discussion. WG members support this approach.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Staff suggests that we could send this revised charter out for consensus call and if it is passed, we can put this as an item on the next available Council meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Support expressed for this approach.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>5. Discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Review of the text of the draft charter.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- With respect to recommendation 20, the most important consideration is to link ICANN strategic objective and policy development objectives. The suggested path forward could make sense. Was this discussed in strategic discussions in the Council (in January and in San Juan)?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- This was not discussed by Council. This is something that staff would need to explore with Council leadership before it should be finalized in the Charter. Staff can initiate this conversation unless the WG has an alternative suggestion for a path forward. This could also be included in the update to the Council in an upcoming meeting. The WG members support including it in the update to the Council.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Regarding recommendation 21, there have been many initiatives developed since the recommendations were forward, and these sources are useful.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>6. Next Meeting: 26 April 1300 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>7. AOB: None </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>