The GNSO Review Working Group Meeting will be on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 Paris CEST

For other places:


1. Review agenda
2. SOIs
3. Draft Implementation Status Report for OEC/GNSO Council
4. Charter Discussions
5. Meeting Schedule: Next meeting is in one week -- 19 October
6. AOB


For the latest status see: Status of Draft Documents and Consensus Calls


Attendees: Kris Seeburn, Lori Schulman, Rafik Dammak, Sara Bockey, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

On Audio Only: Lawrence Olawale-Roberts

Apologies: Jen Wolfe

ICANN staff: Emily Barabas, Julie Hedlund, Berry Cobb, Julie Bisland

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:


Draft Implementation Status Report:

  1. Move key points on status to the beginning of the Executive Summary;
  2. As the report will be provided in November, any recommendations finalized in October should be marked as completed;
  3. On the timeline, create a separate section in the Executive Summary and include a WG judgement that the work is expected to be completed within the original timeline, but if there are any issues that could adversely affect the timeline these will be brought to the attention of the OEC;
  4. Produce slides for the GNSO Council update.


Charter for Recommendations 10/11:

  1. Include pointers to relevant sections of the Working Group Guidelines that could address issues where there are strongly convergent opinions in a PDP WG;
  2. Provide suggested text for a WG determination.




1. SOIs: No updates


2. Draft Implementation Status Report for OEC/GNSO Council:


Staff summary of the report:

-- OEC has asked that this WG transmit final report to the OEC. The OEC will review over email. No formal presentation is needed. This report can form the basis of the update to the GNSO Council on 1 Nov at ICANN60.

-- OEC support staff will clarify if the GNSO Council will need to make a formal approval of the report through a motion. It is likely that formal approval will not be needed.

-- Question: How much time do we have to update the Council? Can we ask Council for any feedback or objections during this update? We are not expecting a big discussion or any major issues raised. Response: Draft schedule is not yet available, but likely no more than 15 mins.

-- The wording in the original Board resolution approving the plan notes updates from the WG to the OEC, not from the Council, indicating that there is likely no official approval needed. Transparency is still a priority.

-- Status summary: 9 out of 11 of the Phase 1 recommendations had already been implemented through previous work.

-- OEC is asking for implementation status. With work underway, those approved as implemented have been implemented through previous work. The timeline antiicipated additional work would be needed, but this was not the case.

-- The final two recommendations 10 and 11 may be able to be resolved later on this call.

-- Phases 2 and 3: The Working Group has reviewed and discussed the implementation charters for the 5 Phase II Recommendations and 2 charters for recommendations moved from Phase 1 to Phase 2.  Staff is combining recommendations 6, 33, (Phase 2) with 36 (Phase 3) as these all relate to diversity and thus are pending the recommendations from the Cross-Community Working Group Work Stream 2 Diversity Sub Team recommendations.  The Working Group will begin discussion of Phase 3 recommendations in November 2017.

-- Dependencies with WS 2 Diversity Sub Team are discussed explicitly because the OEC has expressed interest in this issue.

-- Timelines for Phase 1, 2, and 3 are included in the report.

-- The Phase 3 recommendations have been grouped by priority in the chart, reflecting priorities expressed by OEC staff.

-- Dates have been adjusted to reflect progress. No end dates have been extended beyond final targets identified earlier.

-- Draft slides for Council presentation will be available next week for WG review.

-- Suggestion: Single chart in the presentation for all phases.


From the Chat:

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: sounds good

Lori Schulman: Sounds practical


-- Comment: Consider changing "GNSO2 Review" on page 1 to "GNOS Review 2".  Response - this is how the OEC refers to this report -- "GNSO2 Review" - This title was included in template provided by OEC staff.

-- Main message of exec summary is in the last paragraph. Shift this to the beginning of the exec summary.


Section 1: Recommendations Implemented To Date:

-- We will send report after ICANN60. Can we adjust language that currently reads ". . . are expected to be completed in October 2017."

-- First paragraph on 2nd page of exec summary: should we add a judgment from our group about the recent timeline? For example, that we are confident in our ability to keep with the timeline until the end of next year, or if there are any indications that would weaken this judgment. Staff response -- in addition to add a single graphic, staff would like to add timeline as another section of the executive summary with an intro paragraph stating that the WG is confident it will be able to meet the timeline.  We can also say that if anything comes up that will impact the timeline that the WG will make the OEC aware.

-- Recommendations Implemented to date - Phase 1 - Work already underway. Going through example of Recommendation 8.

-- OEC asked for links to reports for each of the items. These are included in the green section at the bottom of each recommendation summary.


Section 2: Upcoming Recommendations to be Completed:

-- If we can resolve recommendations 10 and 11, we move these to Section 1.

-- Phase 2: High Priority Items - each item in this section includes Proposed Implementation Steps

-- Recs 6,33,26 - staff will work to complete the consolidation of these three items into a single charter. Dependencies are called out in the text. Based on WS2 SubTeam on Diversity timeline, we are anticipating addressing this one around June 2018.

-- Recs 26-29 - work is underway. We discussed in 28 Sept meeting. We have some additional work on each of these recommendations to do. This will be updated in the report if progress is made on action items.

-- Staff will send a revised version of the report today and leave open for comments into next week.

-- Item to fix: Header on medium and low priority items (page 21) should say Phase 3, not Phase 2.

-- Medium priority items are listed followed by low priority items. Groupings are consistent with grouping presented in implementation plan.

-- Text comes directly from implementation plan for this section.

-- Timing: We can give the report to the OEC as soon as we have reported to the GNSO Council (early November). Anything scheduled for completion in October should be marked as complete.

-- Review of the report may not need to go through a consensus call. Suggestion to finalize by 19 Oct to make the document deadline for Council meeting at ICANN60.

-- Feedback - This seems like an appropriate approach. Not sure if the OEC is diving into recommendations for the time being. But good to have the details available in case they need additional information.


From the chat:

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i think we may need a more clearer discussion with oters on this because i seem to find that in many policies the work is stalling

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i suggest that that be on the agenda clearly stated


3. Charter Discussions:


-- No updates to items 26-29. Next items will be Phase 3. Staff needs to look at how these items should be grouped. There are a couple of items on hold

-- Recommendations 10-11 related to using a facilitator -- was on hold pending Geographic Names Session at ICANN59. Staff can provide an update.

-- Pilot project is complete, survey was published, we have the results.

-- The WG discussed whether there should be guidelines. Concern was raised that it would be difficult or inadvisable to mandate use of facilitation. Ad hoc funding is available and was most recently used for geographic names sessions at ICANN59. There is a report from the facilitator with recommendations.

-- Suggestion: adjust charter to make use of these recommendations. Staff can provide a summary of the outcomes of the ICANN59 sessions, noting the specific reasons why a facilitator was brought in for this session.

-- Potential text stating that that current system of selectively bringing in facilitators is working.

-- Staff can proposed revised text and then the group can proceed with a consensus call.

-- Where are we in terms of the relationship between the outcome of these facilitated sessions and the work product we are working on? In the end does it help us to cover what was expected in these recommendations?

-- Is this an overall working concept for any facilitated meeting? Beyond the geographic names sessions, there are a lot of big challenging issues with polarized views in the major PDPs. Any recommendations related to facilitation should be something we should support.

-- These recommendations would be relevant to any WG considering facilitation. Our evaluation is that groups can request facilitations during or outside of a meeting. Rec 11 refers to the Pilot Program. Staff is suggesting that we indicate, looking at the current status using the example of SubPro being able to get facilitation at ICANN59, demonstrates that WGs can get this assistance if they need it. We can recommend not using formal guidelines because needs vary, and that this recommendation has been met as there is already a process for meeting needs in the future.

-- Perhaps the guidelines should be guidelines about when you should ask for facilitation, as opposed to guidelines about how to proceed if facilitation is requested. This will help ensure that WGs do request assistance when they need it.

-- Mandated piece is out of scope of these recommendations. The recommendations are about making sure there is an opportunity for facilitation, not a requirement.

-- What does staff need from the WG on this recommendation?

-- Staff will incorporate a suggested WG determination and look at WG guidelines and look at whether there are guidelines about how to proceed if there are diverging views about whether facilitation is needed.

-- We can also revisit Recommendation 18. If we do this, we will have completed all Phase 1 work, which can be reflected in the OEC Report.


From the Chat:

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: thanks for the appraisal...i think it has it's weight and support the idea

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: but i think a good briefing for the group onlist would be important

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: i would like to know the impact from the objectives and real outputs


4. Meeting Schedule: Next meeting is in one week -- 19 October


  • No labels