Attendees: Jennifer Wolfe, Kris Seeburn, Rafik Dammak, Sara Bockey, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Pascal Bekono
ICANN staff: Emily Barabas, Julie Hedlund, Berry Cobb, Andrea Glandon
Notes/ Action Items
Action Item 1: Add text to timeline in Status Summary to reflect the fact that the Council still needs to provide approval
Action Item 2: On page 6, second paragraph, change the date of the Board approval of the recommendations to June 2016 instead of June 2017.
Action Item 3: Staff will fix formatting on the top of page of the report.
Action Item 4: Staff will produce a slide outlining decisions for the Council to make regarding next steps for this group.
Action Item 5: In the draft motion, staff will update Resolved 4 with "The GNSO Council shall decide to disband the WG after the Final Report has been approved by the ICANN Board."
1. Review agenda/SOIs: No updates
2. Discussion: GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report:
-- Wolf-Ulrich provided some edits to the report.
-- New elements of the report have been added since the update.
-- Much of the text of the report is the same.
-- The recommendations on diversity were deemed to be implemented by consensus, they now show as having been implemented in the report.
-- Executive Summary - the last sentence has been updated to reflect that all recommendations have been deemed to be implemented by consensus.
-- The Status Summary has been updated to reflect the work completed.
-- May be worth mentioning in the timeline the caveat that the Council still needs to provide approval.
-- Timeline diagram has been updated to reflect update regarding diversity recommendations.
-- Background has been updated with additional background from the Implementation Plan.
-- Implementation Details: Charter on recommendations relating to diversity are now reflected in this section.
-- No additions suggested from the group.
3. GNSO Council Motion for adoption of the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report:
-- There is time before the motion deadline of 06 August before the August GNSO Council meeting.
-- Wolf-Ulrich provided feedback about the resolved clauses and raised a question about when the WG would be disbanded.
-- Staff response: the WG will not likely disband until the OEC and the Board accept the final report. This would allow the WG to address any final questions for the OEC.
-- The resolved clauses do not specifically state that the WG will be disbanded. Can the text remain as it is, or is any additional text required?
-- No additional text is required, but there should be clarity about when the group is disbanded. At that point in time, the Council can officially provide notice that the group is disbanded. This point should be covered when the Council discusses the motion.
-- Agreement that OEC approval should trigger disbanding the group.
From the chat:
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Maybe an additional Res 5: The GNSO Council shall decide to disband the WG after the Final Report has been approved by the ICANN Board.???
-- Staff will circulate the motion and Rafik will send the motion to Council by 30 July.
-- This WG was also chartered to replace the SCI, so delivering the report is not the only task for the WG. The task of replacing the SCI still exists and is included in the Charter.
-- The other item in the motion is to do a new call for volunteers for that group, but this may be premature. If this group is not being disbanded until OEC consideration of the report, it may be appropriate to delete the clause about the call for volunteers.
-- Instead of tweaking the motion, perhaps it is helpful to send a note to Council with issues that might be discussed by the Council in considering the motion.
From the chat:
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Charter: The GNSO Review Working Group will also be responsible for considering any new requests1 by theGNSO Council concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council, or a group charteredby the GNSO Council, as needing discussion. However, the first priority of the Working Group will be the development of an implementation plan and the subsequent implementation so any such1 For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the GNSO Review WG expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. See request template.~ 2 ~requests should be reviewed to determine urgency and/or linkage with the GNSO review recommendations to determine the appropriate timing for dealing with such requests.
-- This charter is only for the current WG and the current task.
-- This implies that the charter is going to be fully revised as many of the current provisions are not relevant for future work.
-- If you do a general call for volunteers for future work without identifying specific tasks or needs, you may not be able to get volunteers.
-- Are there expected items for this group in the near future? If not, it may be better to wait and then do a call for volunteers when the need arises.
-- Question: By call for volunteers, would this be an open call or a request for SG/Cs to reconfirm members?
-- It would be a call for SG/Cs to either reconfirm or put forward new candidates and alternates.
-- It may make sense to hold off on a call for volunteers. The PDP 3.0 discussion may result in proposed changes to WG guidelines section 3.7. There might be some work coming in the next couple of months, at which point a call for volunteers may be appropriate.
-- Agreement that the charter should be revised, but it may not need to be revised to consider any proposed changes to GNSO Operating Procedures and WG Guidelines.
-- Should the WG take on the task of proposing revisions to the charter/make a recommendation about the path forward or should it be left to Council to determine next steps?
-- The report should be considered separate from consideration of additional items. Therefore, replace existing resolved 4 with "The GNSO Council shall decide to disband the WG after the Final Report has been approved by the ICANN Board."
-- The person introducing the motion should present the options for next steps to the Council, including the option of having a new call for volunteers.
-- Staff could provide a slide covering these points to share with Could along with the motion and the report for Council to consider. The slide will include options for next steps for this WG.
4. Review Assessment re: Long Term Options paper to adjust timelines of reviews. Questions:
a. How much time should there be between reviews? (The Options paper suggests that the next one will start no later than June 2021); and
b. What if, anything, could be done to make the process more efficient and effective?
-- The GNSO Council is preparing comments regarding timeline of reviews and options to adjust timelines.
-- Donna Austin is leading the effort of drafting comments. She is interested in any feedback from this group based on its experience with the GNSO Review.
-- The section on organizations reviews talks about this WG.
-- Are there are efficiency improvements that can be derived from the experience of this WG.
-- The next GNSO review is scheduled to begin in 2021 per the Bylaws.
From the chat:
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: I thought the next GNSO review is going to start 2019, 5 years after the last one.
Julie Hedlund: @Wolf-Ulrich: That's a good point. I'll check that with Donna.
-- Noting that there was a considerable amount of time taken by some of the interim steps, might there be an opportunity for the evaluator to work concurrently with the Working Party to improve efficiency.
-- One of the issues of working in parallel is that there have been problems with the work of the independent examiner in some reviews.
-- The four year, 8 month cycle derived from our experience indicates that there are possibilities to discuss, perhaps timelines could be shortened. Perhaps the implementation could be undertaken by staff with some checkpoints where the results can be discussed by Council.
From the chat:
Rafik Dammak: there is time to be allowed to see how implementation work and that should be factored in the timeline
Rafik Dammak: @Wolf some recommendations concerns SG/C directly, staff cannot make implementation plan on that area
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: @Rafik: Agreed. So it could be distinguished between different types of work; more staff related vs more community related
Pascal Bekono: Concerning the question “What if, anything, could be done to make the process more efficient and effective?”. I would like to know if there are mechanisms which have been used in the past, so a similar efficient approach could be implemented
Kris Seeburn: i think points to be noted and have in hindsight and we see how things move..
-- Is it possible to use ICANN meetings to have concentrated strategic discussions to save time on the reviews?
-- These could be discussed further on the GNSO level.
-- A lot of time was spent in the beginning reorganizing and sorting the recommendations. Some of that work could be done by the independent examiner or by Staff.
-- A lot of the work of this group has been organizational/administrative. There may be a way to leverage volunteer time more efficiently, the process could be streamlined, by putting more of this work on the consultant of staff.
-- Even if we have an independent examiner or consultant do the work, we may find that the work is not in sync with what is happening in the GNSO or the current situation. So we need the community involvement.
-- It is helpful to examine if the Working Party is the right vehicle.
-- Examining resource management is useful, but the impact of this work is important and the community needs to be closely and directly involved.
5. AOB: Next meeting will be scheduled as needed.