Page History
...
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/yc7fufw9
| Info |
|---|
PROPOSED AGENDA 1.Welcome and Chair Updates a. Action Item update: registries to re-confirm if BTAPPA recs are acceptable for publishing 2.Review consolidated Draft Initial Report a. Discuss layout options 3.Introduce plan for ICANN80 session 4.Review Initial Report Recommendations Google Doc a.Action Item: WG will have two weeks to identify any CANNOT LIVE WITH items (focus on Group 1b and Group 2 recs) 5.AOB BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |
| Tip | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Prudence Malinki (RrSG), Owen Smigelski (RrSG) Alternates: Essie Musailov (RrSG) |
| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
| Note |
|---|
Notes/ Action Items Action Item: WG to review initial impact assessment rating in Initial Report Recommendations Google Doc [docs.google.com] and propose changes if needed answers to charter questions. Action Item: WG will have two weeks to identify any CANNOT LIVE WITH items (focus on Group 1b and Group 2 recs) Deadline: 3rd of June
i.At this stage it seems, like all of the recommendations, are ready for inclusion in the comprehensive initial report which will include all of the groups, charter questions, deliberations, and policy recommendations. ii.Staff explained currently, WG will probably have a couple of additional annexes to include in the report that will need to be updated. iii.Current draft of initial report is at 121 pages. iv.Staff opened the discussion on “how to make the report digestible” for public comment. v.Staff introduced the Initial Report Recommendations Google Doc [docs.google.com] and explained the doc is “missing” the deliberation, rationale and impact assessment of each recommendation. vi.Each recommendation would have an anchor link to an annex in the report that would go over that more detailed deliberation of the working group for those that are interested. vii.Staff has gone in and put in a draft policy impact rating as well as a short sentence on why, the policy impact might be low versus high versus medium. viii.Legend Options [LOW MEDIUM HIGH]: An example of a LOW impact would be a definitional change, e.g., “Change of Registrant” to “Change of Registrant Data.” An example of a MEDIUM impact would be a change to an existing requirement or a new requirement. An example of a HIGH impact would be removing a previous requirement, such as the removal of the Post Change of Registrant 60-day transfer restriction. Criteria to consider when gauging impact: Degree of change from existing requirement? [No change or confirm existing; Modification to existing req.; or New req.] Security enhancement or detraction Level of technical change (impact to CPs) ICANN Contractual Compliance enforcement capability RNH impacts (such as increased or reduced protections; level of confusion) ix.A high impact doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad. And a low impact doesn't necessarily mean it's good. It's just to serve as an indication to the reader that this is a big change from the status quo. Action Item: WG to review initial impact assessment rating in Initial Report Recommendations Google Doc [docs.google.com] and propose changes if needed. i.Once the feedback from WG is received, staff will update the initial report format so that the body of the report will have a shorter explanation of the recommendations and rationals, and then the Annex will include all of those detailed answers to charter questions. ii.Then the WG would have time to review all of the the text of the deliberations and provide any edits or things that might make the group uncomfortable. iii.Staff will will likely reorder the recommendations to make it more readable and logical. 3.Introduce plan for ICANN80 session
4.Review Initial Report Recommendations Google Doc [docs.google.com] Action Item: WG will have two weeks to identify any CANNOT LIVE WITH items (focus on Group 1b and Group 2 recs) 5.AOB |
