<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;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle30
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle31
{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><a name="_MailOriginalBody">Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Per action item 3 below, please see the attached revised slides for the GNSO Review Working Group Update to the GNSO Council on 24 May. This revised version includes the following changes:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Slide 2: Corrected to reflect that there are 8 recommendations with dependencies.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Slide 3: Revised the language under recommendation 20 to reflect the agreed approach from today’s call, and to make it consistent with the language in the implementation charter that is out for a consensus call.<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><i>Please note: Because the slides are due not later than, and ideally before, the document and motion deadline of Monday, 14 May, we ask that you provide comments if any by <u>1600 UTC tomorrow, Friday, 11 May</u>.<o:p></o:p></i></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'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Julie<o:p></o:p></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<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b> </b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b>Action Items and Notes GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 10 May 2018 at 13:00 UTC </b><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>Action Items:</b><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'><u>Action Item 1: implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3</u>: Staff will circulate the implementation charter on the mailing list for a two-week consensus call.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><u>Action Item 2: revised implementation charter for recommendations 20 and 21</u>: Staff will amend the charter based on the discussion on today’s call and circulate it for a two-week consensus call.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><u>Action Item 3: GNSO Council Update</u>: Staff will circulate the revised version of the slides for a 24-hour review, and then send the update to the GNSO Council on behalf of the GNSO Review WG on Friday, 10 May.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><u>Action Item 4: Diversity Recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36</u>: Staff will draft an implementation charter for review.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b>Notes:</b><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'>1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates to SOIs.<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. Discussion of the revised implementation charter for recommendations 1, 2, & 3: Staff notes that there were no further comments on the revised charter, so staff will take the action to send this version out for a two-week consensus call.<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. Discussion of the revised 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'>-- Staff notes comments on the list raising concerns about expanding the SCBO charter and the need for the GNSO Council to take ownership of this activity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- SCBO: There is a review of the charter to see if it will continue. As to best practices coming out of the SCBO – we were more focused on the actual budget and the numbers behind that budget. What we didn’t do and didn’t have the time to do was to review in detail the changes to the strategic plan for that fiscal year. Each fiscal year each one of the 5 objectives remain the same and the goals under them remain the same. What does change is the portfolios and projects that feed into that plan. These are more dynamic from one fiscal year to the next. When the SCBO reconvenes we will offer for the group to consider how those projects meet those goals.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Thinking about a way of how to review the strategic objectives. In the Council usually if there is something to be done that may take something more time to prepare it is trying to put it on a kind of team. It is clear that it is the Council in the end who is responsible to review in the end. The question is how to make it practical, how to do that? Does the staff do preparatory work and then finalized in a strategic meeting? Or that there is some preparatory work to be done by the community or a working team out of the Council. If a team is needed why not use the SCBO to do that because it is representative – but we could invite other people who are interested. The Council should have a discussion whether we should go this way or not. Shall we come up with that recommendation? We could recommend it and also put in some arguments that have been discussed here in our group.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Reserved about the idea of using the SCBO. For this year they drafted two comments. We cannot really try to expand or add more tasks to a standing committee. The Council needs to take the ownership. There is more discussion about strategic planning. There is a focus to do better planning. There will be outlook planning in Panama. It is up to the Council to delegate such a task, but the GNSO Review WG should not try to push a particular direction. We could suggest alternatives – pros and cons.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Bring up pros and cons in the charter and reflect the discussions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- And while not directly related to this exercise, I will also remind the group that ICANN Or and the community will be starting its NEW 5 Year Strat Planning cycle. The GNSO and Council should anticpate to be heavily involved to help shape the objectives and goals for the organization.....and as here ensure they fit the policy development mandate for the GNSO.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- from Rafik Dammak to All Participants: the trends outlook exercise managed by MSSI is involving council and SG/C separately.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- The new cycle is to pave the way for the Council to follow what is going to happen with the 5-year cycle.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- The charter could just indicate that the Council will undertake an annual review of its – see several ways on how to do it 1) existing team like the SCBO; 2) or at Council level; 3) staff preparation and addressed by Council and MSSI.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Staff will update the determination in the charter to reflect the discussion on today’s call (see above).<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'><span style='color:black'>4. Recommendations 6, 33, 35, and 36 on Diversity and Links to CCWG-Accountability Recommendations</span><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'>-- Recommendation 35 – would be duplicative of what was done in the CCWG-Accountability. We really tried to consult thoroughly with the SOs/ACs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Recommendation 8 from the CCWG-Accountability – creating diversity section of the ICANN web site. Not sure if we should create something on the GNSO web site. Need to see how we can link to this. Maybe at some level the work needs to be done at the whole ICANN.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- CCWG-Accountability final report needs to be approved by the GNSO and by the Board.<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 update to the GNSO Council on 24 May:<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'>-- Edits: Correct slide 2 to reflect 8 recommendations with dependencies and slide 3 on Recommendation 20 to reflect the discussion on today’s call.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Send revised version for final review and send to the GNSO Council by Friday, 11 May. <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: 24 May 1300 UTC: Staff will send implementation charters for recommendations relating to diversity (6, 33, 35, 36) and Statements of Interest/GDPR (26, 27, 28, 29)<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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>