<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:11.0pt;
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.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.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
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;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>HI Rafik,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you for your helpful comments. With respect to diversity, it is great to hear that the recommendations have been confirmed by the CCWG. Could you point us to the final version of the diversity recommendations? Staff can then analyze these against the GNSO Review recommendations. This would help us to develop the implementation charter(s), of course taking into account the implementation of the CCWG recommendations.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Julie<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com><br><b>Date: </b>Friday, April 13, 2018 at 1:28 AM<br><b>To: </b>Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><br><b>Cc: </b>"gnso-review-wg@icann.org" <gnso-review-wg@icann.org><br><b>Subject: </b>[Ext] Re: [Gnso-review-wg] GNSO Review Implementation: April Work Plan<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailOriginalBody">Hi Julie, <o:p></o:p></a></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Thanks for the summary and workplan,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>In addition, the second issue relates to recommendation 20 and the suggestion that the scope of the charter for the Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) could be expanded, so that it is also responsible for annually reviewing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and ensuring that the planning of future GNSO activities is in alignment with these Strategic Objectives. This would require approval by the Council, and hence would be helpful to have a discussion with the Council about this suggestion at one of its meetings. However, the GNSO Review WG only began discussion of the implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21 during today’s meeting, and that discussion is anticipated to continue at the meeting on 26 April. So, the issue would not be ready to bring before the Council at its next meeting, but could be ready for the May meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>I guess we can check the current charter for SCBO and its scop. It will be reviewed later (I think one of expected tasks from the committee) and it is possible to amend it. however, I am wondering if it is the right vehicle since we are talking about planning activities and which seems more a council remit (the council on its strategical meeting in LA this year clearly indicated the focus on managing workload and planning ahead). anyway we can discuss this option.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Thus, in the attached Work Plan staff has suggested that an update would be prepared for review by the GNSO Review WG at its meetings on 26 April and 09 May, to be submitted by 14 May by the document and motion deadline for the Council meeting on 24 May.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Furthermore, on the remaining recommendations relating to diversity (on hold pending the CCWG-Accountability diversity recommendations) and statements of interest (on hold pending GDPR) it is anticipated that the GNSO Review WG will be ready to provide an update to the GNSO Council at its 20 June meeting, so this also is noted in the Work Plan. Staff will determine if motions may be necessary for the implementation of those recommendations and will prepare them accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>for diversity recommendations, they were approved by CCWG in the plenary and the WG is currently discussing how to manage the implementation of all subgroups recommendations and possible workplan to be made by staff. I am wondering if we can resume the work on the charter related to diversity.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> earlier than planned.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Rafik<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>