OSC Constituency Operation Work Team Meeting Notes

01 October Meeting Notes/Action Items:

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Chuck Gomes – Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris – ISPCP
Apologies from Claudio DiGangi, Debra Hughes, and Michael Young.

Staff:
• Julie Hedlund

Task 2 Outreach The Work Team discussed the comments from the OSC and WT members on the document sent to the OSC on 10 September. They address several concerns as follows.
1) Need for a Committee: With respect to the concern about the need for a Committee and possible resulting bureaucracy, the WT suggested that a larger Task Force could be created, in lieu of a Committee, but with a smaller Steering Committee. The Task Force would be large enough to allow for diversity of membership, but the inclusion of a small Steering Committee could prevent the group from becoming bureaucratic. (This also relates to a comment provided by Ron Andruff.) In addition, the Steering Committee could include representatives from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies who are engaged in outreach efforts in those groups, to avoid duplication of effort.
2) Timing of the Committee: The Work Team also addressed the concern that the Task Force should be time-delimited but suggesting that it should be established for an initial term of 2 years followed by a review. If the review determines that the work of the Task Force should continue, its charter could be renewed annually.
3) Differences in Outreach Efforts/Principles: In addition, the Work Team suggested that to addresses concerns about differences in outreach efforts among the various stakeholder groups and constituencies, the Task Force should have some principles. These could include that 1) outreach to potential participants to the Commercial Stakeholder Groups is different from outreach to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups; 2) there are communities that are not well-represented in the GNSO and outreach efforts should target these communities; 3) outreach should originate from a variety of sources, not just from stakeholder groups and constituencies.
4) Accountability/Measurement: With respect to concerns about accountability mechanisms, the Work Team suggested that the first objective of the Task Force would be to conduct a survey of existing GNSO outreach activities by the stakeholder groups, constituencies, and ICANN, including the Fellowship program. The Task Force could analyze the effectiveness of existing efforts, such as whether they have increased membership and participation, and whether fellows have continued to be active in ICANN, and used these data to determine where there are gaps in order to develop recommendations for additional outreach activities. Concerning the issue of targeting outreach to Registrar's and Registries (the language suggested by Michael), these activities could be tied to the new gTLD process.
5) Balancing Outreach Efforts: Finally, concerning the necessity for balance, while the Work Team agreed that universities are under-represented in ICANN, it noted that there should be a balance with outreach to businesses, non-governmental, and other entities. However, the Work Team added that targeting outreach to universities could be an effective way to bring in other new participants.
ACTIONS: Olga agreed to edit the document and send it to Julie to review and edit. Julie will send it to the Work Team for review and Tony agreed to help with further edits. The Work Team will review the document on the list and decide whether an additional meeting is necessary on Friday, 08 October.

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
• Krista Papac – Registrar Stakeholder Group
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Apologies from Chuck Gomes and Tony Harris.

Staff:
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Julie Hedlund

Task 2 Outreach The Work Team discussed the 27 August document with edits from Krista, Chuck, and Michael. They reviewed the edits and inserted additional changes. Julie compiled a revised document with tracked changes for the Work Team to review by Wednesday, 08 September. See Global Outreach Program Recommendations Final Draft . Julie will incorporate any changes sent to the list in a final document to be sent to the OSC to consider by Friday, 10 September.

27 August Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See Transcript and MP3).

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Debra Hughes – NCSG

Apologies from Chuck Gomes, Krista Papac, Tony Harris, and Michael Young.

Staff:
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

Task 2 Outreach The Work Team discussed the 23 August document with edits from Krista, Chuck, and Michael. They reviewed and accepted edits through Section 2.1.2.1. They also inserted additional changes. Julie compiled a revised document with tracked changes for the Work Team to review for the 03 September meeting. See 27 August Revised Task 2 Working Document . Olga agreed to alert Philip that the Work Team will need more time to review the document.

20 August Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See Transcript and MP3).

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Apologies from Krista Papac and Tony Harris.

Staff:
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

Task 2 Outreach The Work Team agreed to have Julie clean up the draft document, incorporate any final changes from the Sub-Team, and then send the document to the full Work Team to review for discussion at the meeting on 27 August. See Draft Task 2 Recommendations 23 August 2010 .

13 August Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See Transcript and MP3.

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Apologies from Krista Papac and Debbie Hughes.

Staff:
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

Task 2 Outreach The Work Team discussed the edits provided by Rafik. Work Team members emphasized that it is important for outreach efforts to be coordinated with the activities of ICANN's Communications Team and noted that the document should include specific language emphasizing the need for this coordination. Julie agreed to edit the document based on the Work Team's discussion and to circulate a draft for further review and input. ACTION: Sub Team members should review the Revised Task 2 Working Document and provide comments via the tracking function to Julie not later than Noon EDT/1600 UTC on Thursday, 19 August so that she may incorporate them and provide a revised document for discussion at the meeting on Friday, 20 August.

06 August Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
• Tony Harris – ISPCP

Apologies from Krista Papac and Michael Young.

Staff:
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

Task 1 At its meeting on 05 August the GNSO Council approved a motion to approve the Work Team's report of Task 1 recommendations. The Constituency and Stakeholder Group Procedures have been included as a new Chapter 7 in the GNSO Council's Operational Procedures and will be submitted as a separate document to Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups.

Task 2 Outreach The Work Team discussed the need to have greater detail in the document with specific examples. Rafik noted that it would be helpful to highlight the specific sections that require additional input. Julie agreed to highlight the section and distribute the revised sections. See Revised Task 2 Working Document . Action: Work Team members should provide comments to Julie not later than 1200 Noon EDT on Thursday, 12 August.

23 July Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group
Apologies from Tony Harris, ISPCP, Victoria McEvedy IPC, and Krista Papac, Registrar Stakeholder Group

Staff:
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

Task 1 There was only one public comment and it was not substantive or related to the Work Team's report. The Work Team discussed a motion for Olga to submit to the Council. Rafik agreed to second the motion. Olga asked Julie to send a revised version of the motion to the list (DONE 23 July)

Task 2 Outreach The Work Team members discussed the structure, representation, and mission of the proposed Outreach Committee. Michael noted that the mission of the Committee is to examine and audit all outreach activities to look for overlapping efforts to achieve better results and factor in complimentary efforts. The Committee should focus on cost efficiencies and effectiveness, specific programs -- such as an annual workshop, and should work on a funding model with ICANN. The Work Team discussed whether the outreach recommendations should pertain to all of ICANN or to just the GNSO. Julie noted that the BGC recommendations pertained only to GNSO outreach efforts, but that coordination with other ICANN outreach activities would be important and a useful goal. The Work Team discussed changes to the draft document from Olga and Debbie on representation, structure, and membership. ACTIONS: Julie agreed to consolidate all of the comments into one clean document and to circulate it on 26 July. DONE: See OSC COT Task 2 Working Document 26 July 2010 . The Work Team members agreed to provide comments to Julie no later than noon on Thursday, 29 July. Julie will incorporate the comments into a document for discussion at a two-hour meeting on Friday, 30 July.

16 July Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group
Apologies from: Olga Cavalli, NCA, and Tony Harris, ISPCP

Staff:
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

Task 1 -- The Work Team's recommendations are posted for public comment ending 18 July. Julie will analyze and summarize the comments and present them to the Work Team to consider.

Task 2 Outreach -- Actions: Carried Over from 09 July. DEADLINE FOR INPUT: THURSDAY, 22 JULY, DEADLINE FOR FINAL DOCUMENT 15 AUGUST TO OSC
Background: ACTIONS: Debbie agreed to provide some edits with assistance from Julie.
General Document Changes: ACTIONS: The Work Team agreed to add more examples to the document and say why these programs or activities are useful examples. In addition, goals should be added to each activity. Tony noted that activities should be regionalized as much as possible, particularly to include regional events.
Section 2.1 Recommendations for a global outreach strategy: ACTIONS: Olga, Rafik, and Tony agreed to further explore more detailed recommendations via email prior to the next Work Team call on 23 July. Debbie and Michael agreed to provide examples of outreach programs.
2.1.1 Identifying Potential Members and Target Populations: ACTIONS: The Work Team will include information on universities and Rob and Julie will assist in coordinating with ICANN organizations.
2.1.2 Financial Resources for the Implementation of Global Outreach Strategy: ACTIONS: Olga and Julie agreed to work together with Julie assisting in identifying resources within ICANN. Debbie also offered to help.

09 July Meeting Notes/Action Items: See Transcript and MP3

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Tony Harris – ISPCP
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
Apologies from: Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Staff:
• Rob Hoggarth
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

Task 2 Outreach -- Summary and Actions:
The Work Team discussed the various sections of the OSC COT Task 2 - Working Document provided by Debbie Hughes. In particular, the Work Team discussed the additional work and information needed to complete the following sections of the document:
Background: Debbie suggested that this section could be edited to focus just on the background specific to the task and deleting the information concerning Work Team discussions. ACTIONS: Debbie agreed to provide some edits with assistance from Julie.
General Document Changes: ACTIONS: The Work Team agreed to add more examples to the document and say why these programs or activities are useful examples. In addition, goals should be added to each activity. Tony noted that activities should be regionalized as much as possible, particularly to include regional events.
Section 2.1 Recommendations for a global outreach strategy: Olga, Tony, and Rafik had agreed at the meeting on 20 June to form a sub team to discuss the composition, goals, and objectives of a Global Outreach Strategy Committee. ACTIONS: Olga had sent some ideas to the sub team and the sub team agreed to further explore more detailed recommendations via email prior to the next Work Team call on 16 July. Debbie and Michael agreed to provide examples of outreach programs.
2.1.1 Identifying Potential Members and Target Populations: The Work Team discussed the need to include more information on relationships with universities. In particular, Tony suggested that the Work Team could identify 2-3 universities per region. Olga emphasized that it is important to partner with universities, to identify professors as contacts, and students to mentor. In addition, Rob and Julie agreed to assist in notifying other ICANN organizations (ALAC, Board Participation Committee) that the Work Team is developing outreach recommendations and that these organizations may be contacted to provide information on their outreach efforts. ACTIONS: The Work Team will include information on universities and Rob and Julie will assist in coordinating with ICANN organizations.
2.1.2 Financial Resources for the Implementation of Global Outreach Strategy: Debbie suggested that a sub team could be formed to work on this section. ACTIONS: Olga and Julie agreed to work together with Julie assisting in identifying resources within ICANN. Debbie also offered to help.
Deadline: the Work Team agreed to meet weekly and set a goal of finalizing the document by mid-August, but to provide a firm deadline of 30 August to Philip Sheppard for the OSC.

20 June Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See: Audiocast Archive, Chat Transcript and Previous meeting Notes.)

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Chuck Gomes – Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris – ISPCP
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
• Krista Papac - Registrar Stakeholder Group
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Staff:
• Liz Gasster
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Julie Hedlund

Task 1: The final report was sent to the OSC for consideration. The OSC voted to approve the report and send it to the GNSO Council with minor revisions on 19 June. The GNSO Council approved a motion to put the report out for a 21-day public comment period at its meeting Brussels on 23 June. See: GNSO 23 June Motions and CSG Task 1 Recommendations Final Report

Task 2: The Work Team agreed to meet weekly beginning on Friday, 09 July to discuss outreach recommendations. Debbie noted that there are two questions to be addressed: 1) what is our outreach strategy? and 2) what are the specific documents and programs to recommend? With respect to 2.1 Global Outreach Strategy, the Work Team agreed that this was a good idea to recommend the formation of an outreach committee although they noted that it should not duplicate the work of other groups in the ICANN. In this regard the Work Team suggested that there should be a survey of ICANN's current outreach activities. Michael noted that the Work Team should include in its recommendations an initial task for the outreach committee. An example could be for the committee to develop outreach multiple-day workshops and Olga noted that orientation to ICANN could be a primary goal of these workshops. Debbie suggested the following committee tasks: 1) coordinate the various outreach efforts in ICANN; 2) focus point for receiving ideas for outreach; 3) orientation for new ICANN participants. Debbie asked how the committee should be structured. ACTION: Look at the ALAC model: A outreach committee charter drafting team was established with Tony, Olga, and Rafik. On Section 2.1.2 on resources, the Work Team recommended working with ICANN staff to know what exists, particularly what staff support exists. The Work Team also recommended looking at global outreach programs. With respect to Section 2.2 Global Outreach Programs, these could include workshops/training -- including engagement at universities. ACTION: Michael will work with Olga to suggest ideas for programs, coordinate with ICANN staff, budget process and priorities, global partnerships.

Next Steps: 1. Debbie to produce a revised draft document; 2. Establish an outreach committee charter drafting team: Tony, Olga, and Rafik; 3. Michael and Debbie to develop suggestions for outreach programs.

28 May Meeting Notes/Action Items:

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Chuck Gomes – Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris – ISPCP
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Staff:
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Julie Hedlund

Apologies:
Zahid Jamil – CBUC
SS Kshatriya – Individual
Victoria McEvedy - IPC
Krista Papac – Registrar Stakeholder Group

Notes/Action Items:
Task 1: The Work Team agreed on some corrections/additions to the Task 1 recommendations. Specifically, Debra Hughes was added to the list of Work Team members supporting the majority recommendations and a list of Work Team members with designations as to whether they were subtask leaders was added as Appendix B. The list included an indication of which members were inactive. In addition, the Work Team added the word "Recommended" to the beginning of the title, added a reference to Appendix A at the beginning of Section 2, and accepted all of the changes suggested by Victoria. Action: Julie will revise the document and Olga will send it to the Work Team members who have until Monday, 31 May, to provide any final comments. Olga will send the document to the OSC on Monday. See Common Operating Principles Participation Guidelines GNSO SGs Constituencies Recommendations re GNSO Database of Members FINAL TO OSC 28 May .

Task 2: The Work Team agreed to use the regularly scheduled Friday calls to meet to discuss Task 2. Debbie noted that there were two areas of focus: outreach to current constituency members and outreach to potential constituency members. Michael offered to work on specific objectives for the proposed ICANN Committee for Outreach. In particular, Michael thought that the Committee could develop a Workshop in coordination with the ISOC to be held in developing countries. The materials for the workshop could include an "ICANN for Dummies" guide along with other materials. He added that outreach efforts could include NGOs and business development organizations. Tony suggested adding knowledge management, Internet governance, and chambers of commerce. Olga offered to help with Latin America, particularly for Internet governance and universities. Rafik agreed to help and suggested working with ICANN's Global Partnerships. Debbie agreed to coordinate with other groups within ICANN to determine how best to establish the Outreach Committee. Action: Prior to the next meeting on Friday, 11 June, Task 2 sub team members should provide input to Michael via the list on the workshop, outreach areas, and any other suggestions. Sub team members also should send any ideas on the Committee concept to Debbie.

14 May Meeting Notes/Action Items (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Claudio Digangi – IPC
• Chuck Gomes – Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris – ISPCP
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Staff:
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Rob Hoggarth

Apologies:
Zahid Jamil – CBUC
SS Kshatriya – Individual
Victoria McEvedy - IPC
Krista Papac – Registrar Stakeholder Group

Action Items:
Task 1: A new version including changes suggested by Claudio and the minority report sent by Victoria and SS will be sent to the list. WT members should make a last revision of the whole document by next Friday. It will then be submitted to the OSC for its consideration. Please if there are other minority reports to be included send them to our list ASAP. Here is the Revised Recommendations Document

Task 2: Debbie will propose some next steps in relation with possible useful contacts and other WT may join her in this effort. She will also circulate into our list a new version of the document. Many WT members will send more detailed information related with outreach, to be included in the document.

Next conference call: Please note that we agreed not to have a confeence call next Friday. So our next meeting will take place on Friday 28 May, 13 UTS.

07 May Meeting Notes/Action Items

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Claudio Digangi – IPC
• Chuck Gomes – Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris – ISPCP
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Staff:
• Julie Hedlund
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Rob Hoggarth

Apologies:
Zahid Jamil – CBUC
SS Kshatriya – Individual
Victoria McEvedy - IPC
Krista Papac – Registrar Stakeholder Group

Action Items:
Task 1: Actions: 1) Olga asked Julie to make the changes and to circulate the revised document (Done, See Revised Task 1 Recommendations 07 May ; and 2) Work Team members are requested to review the document and to provide any final comments and minority reports, if any, by Friday, 14 May.
Task 2: Debbie will revise the framework document based on comments received from Work Team members and circulate the revised document for review.

Discussion:
Task 1: The Work Team discussed the changes requested from the 30 April meeting and additional changes suggested by Claudio. They agreed on all of the changes. In addition, the Work Team discussed the comments provided by Chuck Gomes in Section 2.3.2. With respect to Paragraph c, Chuck asked whether the term "inactive" needed to be defined (as in "inactive member"). Rafik suggested that whether to define an inactive member would depend on the Constituency or Stakeholder Group. Claudio suggested the following wording be appended to paragraph c after the word "inactive" preceded by a comma: "as provided for in the Group's Charter." The Work Team members agreed. With respect to paragraph d, Chuck asked for clarification on the meaning of the sentence "The Operator should perform the updates to those holding an Executive Position in an ICANN community." The Work Team members agreed that it did not make sense and could be stricken.
Task 2: Scott Pinzon, Director, Policy Communications/Information Services, joined the call and provided an overview of some outreach activities at ICANN, including 1) Barbara Clay, Vice President of Communications, has recently joined ICANN with a mandate to promote outreach activities; 2) Enhancing the GNSO website: Work is proceeding from recommendations approved by the GNSO Council by the OSC Communications and Coordination Work Team, including a sectino for newcomers that includes videos on various issues; 3) ICANN as a certifying body: ICANN will provide continuing professional education credits for Information Security Systems Professionals; 4) the ICANN Policy Team is supporting outreach efforts through webinars for newcomers, updates on policy issues, orientation materials, and podcasts -- all on the e-learning page accessible from the ICANN main page. Olga and Rafik emphasized that although these are good efforts there needs to be more focus on outreach to developing countriess and non-commercial organizations. Scott noted that it would be helpful for the Work Team to develop recommendations encouraging translations. Rob noted that an important element would be clarity on the roles and expectations for ICANN staff, Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, and other volunteers. Debbie asked if there was any specific guidance from the OSC on outreach activities and Julie responded that the guidance is contained the the BGC WG's report and it is fairly broad. Rob added that the Work Team had an opportunity to define outreach goals and activities. Claudio noted that the website participation page should consolidate elements on one page.

30 April Meeting Notes/Action Items

Attendees:
• Claudio Digangi – IPC
• Tony Harris – ISPCP
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Staff:
• Julie Hedlund
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Glen de Saint-Gery

Apologies:
Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Chuck Gomes – Registries Stakeholder Group
Zahid Jamil – CBUC
SS Kshatriya – Individual
Victoria McEvedy - IPC
Krista Papac – Registrar Stakeholder Group

Discussion/Action Items:
Task 1: Work Team members agreed with the minor textual changes made by Julie Hedlund to clarify the organization of the recommendations. They also asked Julie to insert a reference to the BGC WG Report to clarify the origin of the specific recommendations to address any question concerning the difference between the use of "principles" versus "operating procedures" in the text. In addition, the Work Team members agreed to change the word "shall" to "should" throughout the recommendations, but to insert a definition prior to the recommendations section that "should" means "mandatory" unless otherwise specified. Finally, the Work Team members decided to delete Appendix A "Detailed Analysis of Group Operating Principles" since many of the recommendations in this section are inconsistent with those agreed to in the recommendations contained in the main body of the document. The Work Team noted that in the absence of a lengthy discussion of the recommendations in the "Detailed Analysis" section to make them consistent with the recommendations in the body of the document the section should be deleted. However, the Work Team noted that Work Team members could include any of these details, if desired, in a Minority Report that would be attached as an Appendix to the document. During the meeting Claudio noted that there were remaining comments from Chuck and Rafik that had not been discussed. Julie said they had all been discussed, but noticed after the call that she was in error. There are a couple of comments from Chuck in Section 2.3 that need to be discussed as follows: 1) 2.3.2 Storing and Updating Membership Records, paragraph c -- need a definition of an "inactive member"; and 2) 2.3.2 paragraph d -- What is the meaning of the sentence, "The Operator should perform the updates to those holding an executive position in an ICANN Community." ACTIONS: Julie will make the requested changes as redlines -- DONE: See "Task 1 Recommendations Revised 30 April" OSC Constituency Stakeholder Group Work Team Task 1 Recommendations Rev 30 April 2010.pdf ; 2) Work Team members are requested to review the revised document and provide comments and/or minority reports no later than 14 May.
Task 2: The Work Team began a discussion of comments received from Olga, Chuck, and Rafik on the framework document. Michael asked whether the BGC WG Report provided details concerning outreach and Julie agreed to review the document. She also suggested that Chuck and the OSC could provide guidance. Michael added that it would be useful, for example, for the Work Team to recommend the development of a guide to ICANN for those unfamiliar with the organization. Julie noted that the Policy Update document as revised by Scott Pinzon had been designed to be understood by someone not familiar with ICANN and GNSO Policy and she suggested that it could be helpful for Scott to join for a Work Team call to discuss current and planned activities that could assist with outreach efforts. ACTIONS: 1) Julie will invite Scott to the call on 7 May (DONE -- he has agreed to join at half past the hour); 2) Michael will send an email to the list with his ideas on specific outreach tools; 3) Julie will review the BGC WG Report for guidance on outreach activities.

23 April Meeting Notes/Action Items (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG
• Claudio Digangi – IPC
• Chuck Gomes – Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris – ISPCP
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Staff:
• Julie Hedlund
• Gisella Gruber-White

Apologies:
Victoria McEvedy - IPC
SS Kshatriya – Individual
Zahid Jamil – CBUC
Krista Papac – Registrar Stakeholder Group

Discussion/Action Items:
Task 1: The WT members discussed the consolidated document and agreed that the format was good. However, they noted, as Chuck had suggested, that it would be helpful to have introductory paragraphs of a sentence or two prior to each new section of recommendations. Julie also suggested it would be helpful to have a introduction with an explanation of the arrangement of the recommendations at the beginning of Section 2 Recommendations. In addition, the WT members discussed whether the words "shall" should be changed to "should" for ease of readability. However, some members noted that the meanings of the two words are not interchangeable. In particular, "shall" indicates an imperative, but "should" does not. Thus, if "shall" is changed to "should" some readers could perceive this to suggest that the recommendations in the document are optional, not required. However, WT members noted that there may be some instances when it is not preferable to make a recommendation a requirement and in these instances it might be better to use the word "should." The WT members agreed to change all instances of "should" to "shall" to help determine whether this terminology was appropriate in all cases. ACTIONS: 1) The WT members asked Julie to accept the edits made by Chuck, then to show as tracked changes the additional edits, including the introductory paragraphs and changes to terminology. See Task 1 Recommendations Rev 23 April ; 2) Work Team members are requested to review the revised document and suggest any final changes and provide minority reports, if any, no later than 14 May.*
Task 2: The WT members agreed that the document provided by Debbie Hughes provided a good framework for the discussion. (See Task 2 Framework with Edits by OC .) They also agreed that when the sub team develops its recommendations it should follow the format as in the Task 1 consolidated document. The WT agreed that it was not necessary to schedule a separate call of the sub team members at this time, but that sub team members should provide their comments on the framework document to Debbie for discussion at the next meeting on 30 April. ACTION: WT and sub team members should review the framework document and provide their comments to Debbie. Julie will circulate a document with all comments prior to the meeting on 30 April.

16 April Meeting Notes/Action Items (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli – NCA – Work Team Chair
• Claudio Digangi – IPC
• Chuck Gomes – Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris – ISPCP
• Debra Hughes – NCSG
• Rafik Dammak – NCSG

Staff:
• Julie Hedlund
• Glen de Saint Géry

Apologies:
Victoria McEvedy - IPC
SS Kshatriya – Individual
Zahid Jamil – CBUC
Krista Papac – Registrar Stakeholder Group

Discussion/Action Items:
1. Organization and Formatting of Task 1 Recommendations: The WT members discussed the organization of the Task 1 recommendations (subtasks 1-3) into one document. Olga suggested that the recommendations should be put together in one section and duplicates (such as those in Subtask 2 Part IV Analysis) should be reconciled with the recommendations in Subtask 2 Part II. Rafik noted that it was important to include the analysis and background and Chuck suggested that these could be summarized in an executive summary with the details retained as an appendix or annex. The WT members on the call agreed to the following organization 1. Executive Summary with background 2. Recommendations 3. Summary of Minority Reports 4. Annexes/appendices with detailed analysis and including the text from Subtask 2 Section IV Subsection 3.12 Dealings with Staff: A Code of Practice. Olga asked Julie Hedlund to produce a combined document.
2. Task 1, Subtask 2, Part II, Section 1 Term Limits: There was extensive discussion on term limits. Claudio noted that the latest version did not include previous language he had suggested. Rafik noted his concern that term limits should be applied to both Stakeholder Group and Constituency Executive Committees. The WT members on the call agreed to address the concerns by separating the term limits into three sections applying to 1) councilors; 2) officers; 3) executive committee members. The WT members asked Julie to provide revised language to be included in the combined set of recommendations.

09 April Meeting Notes/Action Items (See MP3.)

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff:
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

Discussion/Action Items:
1. Deadlines: Olga noted that the deadline for submitting the WT's recommendations for Task 1, Subtasks 1-3 to the OSC is 01 June. She asked Julie to compile the Subtask recommendations into one document once they all are approved.
2. Task 1, Subtask 2: The WT members discussed language for term limits and agreed to an option suggested by Chuck and modified by Tony that would apply term limits to GROUP Councilors and Officers, and to Stakeholder Group Executive Committee members. Olga asked Julie to draft language for a new section on Term Limits for the WT to review. With respect to Section II, Subsection 8 Policy, Olga asked Julie to include the language suggested by Mary Wong for the WT to review. On Annex B, Tony suggested deleting the section and the WT members on the call agreed, noting that there was agreement among WT members at the meeting in Seoul, South Korea also to delete Annex B. Olga asked Julie to produce a Word document of Task 1, Subtask 2 including the changes agreed to thus far and indicating additions and deletions using tracked changes. ACTION: WT members should review Revised Task 1, Subtask 2 Document and recommend any further changes. In particular, WT members should note the following 1) new Part II, Section 1 Term Limits; 2) Mary Wong’s proposed language for Section 9c (previously 8c) Policy, and 3) Section 10 GNSO Working Group through to the end of the document.
3. Task 1, Subtask 3: Olga noted that no WT members had suggested changes to Subtask 3. Julie suggested resending the document to the WT to confirm that there are no changes and that the text is approved. ACTION: Work Team members should review Task 1, Subtask 3 Document and either recommend any further changes or indicate that they agree to the text.
4. Task 2: ACTION: Debra Hughes is preparing preliminary thoughts.

26 March Meeting Notes/Action Items (See MP3.)

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Debra Hughes - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff:
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

Action Items:
1. Task 1, Subtask 2:
CHANGES THROUGH SECTION 8 (DISCUSSED THUS FAR):
--Work Team members should review all changes through Section 8. Policy and provide comments to the list not later than Friday, 01 April. It will be assumed that all changes are agreed to if no comments are received.
--Rafik Dammak agreed to ask Mary Wong if she had suggestions for alternative language for Section 8. Policy, paragraph b. "Committee meetings should be open for attendance by all Constituency

members --- and at the election of the Constituency -- to the public." On Task 2, Olga asked for volunteers for a Task Sub Team. Debbie Hughes agreed to be the leader of the Sub Team and the other volunteers were: Olga Cavalli, Rafik Dammak, Claudio DiGangi, Chuck Gomes, and Michael Young.

**

07 March Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Debra Hughes - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
• Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - Internet Service Providers Constituency (OSC member)
• Stéphane Van Gelder - Registrar Stakeholder Group (OSC member)
• Jaime Wagner - Internet Service and Connection Providers (GNSO Council member)
• Mary Wong - Non-Commercial Users Constituency (OSC member)

Staff:
• Liz Gasster, Senior Legal Counsel
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

Action Items:
1. Work Team members are requested to review the Revised Language in Task 1, Subtask 2 through the end of Part II, Section 8 and provide any comments by the next meeting on Friday 26 March.
2. Section 4 Elections Paragraph a: Krista Papac agreed to suggest alternate language.
3. Section 5 Voting:
--Paragraph a and b: Mary Wong and Zahid Jamil will review the revised language.
--New paragraph d: Work Team members are requested to consider and comment on the language.
4. Section 8 Policy:
--Paragraph a: Victoria McEvedy to provide clarification on the meaning of the statement.
--Paragraph d: Mary Wong to provide alternate language for Work Team consideration.

Summary:
Task 1, Subtask 1: Work Team members agreed to the final version of the revised recommendations.
Task 1, Subtask 2: Work Team members reviewed and discussed changes through Part II, Section 8 Policy.

19 February Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees:
• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Debra Hughes - Non-Commercial Users Constituency

Staff:
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

Actions/Summary:
Task 1, Subtask 1: Work Team members agreed to revised language presented by Rafik on Section 2, paragraph f and by Claudio on Section 3, paragraph 2. ACTION: Work Team members are requested to review the Revised Language in Task 1, Subtask 1 as indicated in all caps and strikeout by Friday, 26 February. If no comments are received by that date the recommendations will be considered accepted by the Work Team.
Task 1, Subtask 2: Work Team members reviewed and discussed changes through Part II, Section 3 Communications. ACTION: Work Team members are requested to review the Revised Language in Task 1, Subtask 2 through the end of Section 3 and provide any comments by Friday, 26 February.

12 February Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees

• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

Actions/Summary:
Task 1, Subtask 1: There was discussion on Section 2, paragraph f. Work Team members suggested new language based on changes suggested by Rafik, with some modifications. In addition, Claudio suggested alternate language for Section 3, paragraph 2 during the meeting.
--Work Team members are requested to comment on the list on the following suggested changes:
Section 2, para. f: "IN CASE OF UNFAIR TREATMENT RESULTING IN THE REJECTION OF AN APPLICATION OR A DISPUTE, THE APPLICANT MAY LODGE A COMPLAINT WITH THE ICANN OMBUDSMAN

. THE PROCESS FOR LODGING A COMPLAINT WITH THE OMBUDSMAN IS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE V OF THE ICANN BYLAWS AND IN THE OMBUDSMAN FRAMEWORK, AVAILABLE AT http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/documents/ombudsman-framework-26mar09-en.pdf".
Section 3, para. 2: "

. t

he use of voting

should be minimized as much as possible." 7

Task 1, Subtask 2: The Work Team discussed Subtask 2 through Part II, Section 4 Elections.
--Work Team members: *review the changes (in ALL CAPS and curly brackets {}) on the Wiki Page.
--Section 1.5 Process Issues: Discuss further with Victoria on 19 February.
--Claudio: Review Section 2 Committees, paragraphs c and d.
--Section 3 Communications, para. b: (1) Michael: check the Registries Stakeholder Group Charter; (2) Julie: check the BGC recommendations, and also with respect to paragraphs c-f re: Constituency Disclosure Policy.
--Section 4 Elections, para. b: Claudio: review the language.

05 February Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• SS Kshatriya - Individual
• Victoria McEvedy – Intellectual Property Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

Actions/Summary:

The Work Team agreed to meet at the same time next Friday -- 1300 UTC -- as this accommodates the majority of Work Team members, while realizing that it is a less convenient time for Chuck and Krista.

Task 1, Subtask 1
1. Work Team members are requested to review the text of Task 1, Subtask 1 and provide final comments by Friday, 12 February.
2. Claudio and other Work Team members will suggest alternate language for Section 3 Policy and Consensus, Second Paragraph and will post suggestions and comments to the email list.
3. Rafik will provide comments on Section 2f (language suggested by ICANN Legal staff).

Task 1, Subtask 2
1. Victoria and Work Team members are requested to review suggested changes to Task 1, Subtask 2 Part 1, and Part 2, through Section 2 Committees.
2. Work Team members request clarification from Victoria on the meaning of Section 1.5 Process Issues.
3. Work Team members asked Julie to confirm the citation for the quote "unacceptably high information costs" in Section 1.2 Improvements. Julie confirmed that the quote, as noted in Victoria's original document, is from the LSE Report on page 9.
4. Work Team members asked Julie to confirm the link to the "best and worst practices" document in Section 1.4 Methods. Julie corrected the link and notes that the reference is to the "Revised Constituency Analysis" document.

29 January Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees

• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Debra Hughes - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial Business Users Constituency
• SS Kshatriya - Individual
• Victoria McEvedy – Intellectual Property Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
• Glen de Saint-Gery

Actions/Summary:

1. Julie Hedlund will circulate language from Task 1, Subtask 1, Section 2f to ICANN legal staff for review and suggested approaches.

2. Work Team members completed the discussion of Task 1, Subtask 1. Julie Hedlund incorporated changes in the wiki document (reflected in ALL CAPS and strikeout) at: Task 1, Subtask 1

3. The Work Team agreed to meet weekly for the next four weeks beginning at 1300 UTC for 90 minutes. The next meeting will begin with a discussion of Task 1, Subtask 2.

15 January Meeting Notes/Action Items: Transcript and MP3

Attendees

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial Business Users Constituency
• SS Kshatriya - Individual
• Victoria McEvedy – Intellectual Property Constituency

Staff
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
• Glen de Saint-Gery

1. Section 1, paragraph b: Victoria, Krista and Olga will elaborate a text based on our discussion and will propose it to the group.

2. Section 2, paragraph d1: Victoria and Claudio will elaborate a text based on our discussion and will propose it to the group.

3. All changes made to the text will be incorporated to the wiki, Julie will circulate the link to the working team.

4. For those not present in the call, please review the new version of the text and made comments as soon as possible.

5. The following text still needs to be reviewd by the whole working team, I suggest that we exchange comments and suggested edits to this part, which is the only text left to finish Subtask 1.1 draft document revision:

Section 2j. No legal or natural person shall be entitled to join more than one Constituency or Stakeholder GROUP as a voting member.

Section 3. Policy and Consensus

All members of GROUPs shall be eligible to participate in the Policy work of the GROUP and to join Committees formed to deal with policy issues and other GROUP issues, including eligibility of membership in the GROUP’s committees.

GROUPs shall function on the GNSO WG model for the purpose of reaching consensus and the use of voting should be minimized as much as possible. 7

08 January Meeting Notes/Action Items: (For previous meetings see MP3 and Transcript)

Attendees

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial Business Users Constituency
• SS Kshatriya - Individual
• Victoria McEvedy – Intellectual Property Constituency

Staff
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
• Glen de Saint-Gery

1. The Work Team revised the text prepared by Subworking Team 1, Leader: SS.

2. The Work Team agreed to changes to the text that will be reflected in its new version in the wiki page at Task 1 Subtask 1 up to paragraph Section 1b. Documents and comments sent by Krista were considered.

3. With respect to Paragraph Section 1a Victoria suggested that the following language should be appended to the paragraph: "FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, WHILE COMMONALITY IS ENCOURAGED IN THE INTERESTS OF SIMPLIFICATION, GROUPS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE IDENTICAL RULES AND VARIATION BETWEEN GROUPS IS ACCEPTABLE, AS APPROPRIATE." This change is reflected in the document on the wiki page referenced above.

4. With respect to Paragraph Section 1c, this new version detailed here includes a text suggested by Victoria (THE CHANGE IS IN ALL CAPS). "c. All GROUPs shall improve inclusiveness and representativeness and shall explore the possibility to have differential fee structures based on ability to pay, in order to encourage increased representation from those living in less developed economies. ALL GROUPS SHOULD HAVE A MECHANISM FOR ANY POTENTIAL MEMBER TO APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP RELIEF FROM THE NORMAL FEE SCALE." This change also is reflected in the document on the wiki page referenced above. The Work Team did not agree on a final text, so Work Team members should contribute additional comments to the list.

5. The Work Team agreed to meet next week on Friday, 15 January, for two hours to continue this discussion. There will not be a meeting on Friday, 22 January.

18 December 2009 (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Debra Hughes - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial Business Users Constituency
• SS Kshatriya - Individual
• Krista Papac - gTLD Registrar Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
• Glen de Saint-Gery

Meeting Notes/Action Items:

1. The Work Team will review Task 1 draft documents 1.1 and 1.2, in their respective order.
2. The Work Team will send comments and issues to be reviewed to the Work Team email list.
3. Julie Hedlund will coordinate with the Subteam leader to prepare a list of issues and concerns.
4. At the meeting on 08 January the Work Team will discuss the Task 1, Subtask 1 document using the wiki.
5. Julie will incorporate revisions from the discussion as agreed to by the Work Team.
6. Each Task 1 subteam leader will actively participate in the call during which the document is reviewed. If he or she cannot make the call they should communicate this in advance to the list so we can decide how to proceed.

^^ 04 December 2009 (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees

• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Debra Hughes - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial Business Users Constituency
• SS Kshatriya - Individual
• Victoria McEvedy – Intellectual Property Constituency
• Krista Papac - gTLD Registrar Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
• Glen de Saint-Gery

Meeting Notes/Action Items:

1. Subtask 1.1: SS sent the final draft document to the full Work Team for review. He will incorporate comments from the Work Team and will work with Chuck concerning additional language to be complete by 18 December.

2. Subtask 1.2: Victoria sent a revised document to the Sub Team to review. She will set up a call with the Sub Team to address any final changes. She will send a final document to the full Work Team to consider before 18 December.

3. Subtask 1.3: Krista will work with Michael concerning the recommendations relating to the database administration. She will send a final document for the full Work Team to consider before 18 December.

06 November 2009 (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Krista Papac - gTLD Registrar Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff
• Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Glen de Saint-Gery

Meeting Notes/Action Items:

1. Subtask 1.1: SS sent the final draft document to the Sub Team for review. Claudio provided comments that SS included in the final draft. The Work Team should review the final draft. The deadline for responses is Friday, 13 November.

2. Subtask 1.2: Victoria sent the final draft document to the Sub Team for review. The Work Team reviewed the draft document. Some members expressed objections to "Annex B - Code of Practice for ICANN Staff" and also noted that there was no corresponding recommendation in the BGC report. Several members suggested that this section should be stricken. Michael Young also noted that his comments were missing from the final draft. "The Work Team members suggested that Victoria should revise the draft to include Michael's comments and should confirm which sub team members agree with the recommendations and which do not, before circulating the final draft to the full Work Team. In addition, the sub team should provide additional comments by Friday, 06 November.*

3. Subtask 1.3: Krista agreed to incorporate sub team comments and circulate a final draft to the full Work Team, which she did on 25 October. The deadline for responses from Work Team members is Friday, 13 November.

25 October 2009

Attendees

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
• Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

Meeting Notes/Action Items:

1. Subtask 1.1: SS sent the final draft document to the Sub Team for review. Claudio provided comments that SS included in the final draft. The draft now is ready for circulation to the full Work Team. The deadline for responses is Friday, 13 November.

2. Subtask 1.2: Victoria sent the final draft document to the Sub Team for review. The Work Team reviewed the draft document. Some members expressed objections to Annex B - Code of Practice for ICANN Staff and also noted that there was no corresponding recommendation in the BGC report. Several members suggested that this section should be stricken. Michael Young also noted that his comments were missing from the final draft. The Work Team members suggested that Victoria should revise the draft to include Michael's comments and should confirm which sub team members agree with the recommendations and which do not, before circulating the final draft to the full Work Team. In addition, the sub team should provide additional comments by Friday, 06 November.

3. Subtask 1.3: Krista agreed to incorporate sub team comments and circulate a final draft to the full Work Team, which she did on 25 October. The deadline for responses from Work Team members is Friday, 13 November.

16 October 2009 (See MP3)

Attendees

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Glen de Saint Géry, Secretariat

Meeting Notes/Action Items:

1. Subtask 1.1: SS sent the final draft document to the Sub Team for review. Claudio noted that he will circulate his comments on the final draft to SS. The deadline for all Sub Team members to send comments to SS is Monday, 19 October. SS will circulate a revised final draft of the recommendations to the full Work Team by Wednesday, 21 October. Chuck requested that the names of the Sub Team members should be included with the draft recommendations including whether each Sub Team member assented or dissented on the recommendations.

2. Subtask 1.2: Victoria sent the final draft document to the Sub Team for review. Final Sub Team comments are due to Victoria by Monday, 19 October. Victoria will circulate a revised final draft of the recommendations to the full Work Team by Wednesday, 21 October. She agreed to include minority opinions.

3. Subtask 1.3: Krista sent the final draft document to the full Working Team for review. She received comments from Chuck. She will incorporate Chuck's comments along with any that she might receive from Claudio and will recirculate the document to the full Working Team for review by Wednesday, 21 October.

4. Subtask 1.4: Minority reports were due by Friday, 16 October. SS and Victoria submitted minority reports on the issue of whether the Subtask 1.4 recommendation document should be sent to the OSC ahead of the other subtask recommendation documents. Rafik also had dissented from sending the recommendations forward, but as of 16 October he had not sent a minority report. Chuck noted that in order for the recommendations to be considered by the OSC at its meeting on Sunday, 25 October, he would need to be able to send the document with the minority reports by Sunday, 18 October. Olga agreed to extend for one day the deadline for receiving minority reports to Saturday, 17 October. Julie agreed to incorporate the minority reports with the recommendations and to indicate which Work Team members assented/dissented on sending the document forward. Olga agreed to review past emails and document to ensure that forwarding the document to the OSC was in accordance with the Work Team Chater.

5. Deadlines for Submitting Recommendations: Olga asked whether there were deadlines for sending the remaining recommendations to the OSC. Chuck noted that there is not set deadline and that although it was important to be able to move forward on the recommendations, the process should not be rushed and there should be time to develop consensus and thoroughly consider all points of view.

09 October 2009 (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees

• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Michael Young - Vice Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Glen de Saint Géry, Secretariat

Meeting Notes/Action Items:

1. Task 1, Subtask 4, Tool Kit of Services: Due date for minority reports is Friday, 16 October.
2. Task 1, Subtask 1, Update from SS: Sub team members provided comments to Draft 3 of the recommendations. SS will incorporate the comments and welcomes language concerning the issue of uniformity in membership.
3. Task 1, Subtask 2, Update from Victoria: The sub team is developing a compromise draft of the recommendations, although some points are still under discussion. The final draft may be completed by the next meeting.
4. Task 1, Subtask 3, Update from Tony: There were no further comments on the latest draft. Tony will circulate the latest draft to the full Work Team for comments.

25 September 2009 (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Glen de Saint Géry, Secretariat

Meeting Notes

1. SS will provide an amended version of the recommendations considering comments received.

2. Victoria held a sub-team call on Friday, 25 September and will incorporate comments received into an updated draft document.

3. Tony Harris asked Work Team members to review her revised draft document incorporating the most recent comments received from Work Team members.

4. Julie revised the text of the subtask 4 document and circulated it to the Work Team for review.

The Work Team should start thinking about how to merge all draft documents into one single outcome for Task 1, and approaches for Task 2.

04 September 2009: (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency

Staff

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry, Secretariat

Meeting Notes from Olga

1. SS shared his draft document with us, Chuck and myself made comments. The rest of the working team members are welcome to send theirs.

2. Victoria will send to the Work Team a new version of her document and we will comment it during next conference call on Friday 11 September.

3. Krista will share her draft document during next week, we will comment on it also during next conference call.

4. Julie is revising the text of sub task 4 document, and will update it after consultations with ICANN staff.

The Work Team agreed to have a conference call next Friday 11 September and after it keep the biweekly schedule.

The Work Team should start thinking about how to merge all draft documents into one single outcome for Task 1, perhaps we can discuss this in our next conference call if we have the time.

04 September 2009, 1300 UTC (See MP3 and Previous Meeting Agendas )

Attendees

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry, Secretariat

Meeting Notes from Olga

First I want to thank all of you for your hard work. Although we decided not to rush to finish our draft recommendations document for next Thursday, the experience has been very good and brought a new dynamic to our team.

In relation with sub task draft documents:

1. SS shared his draft document with us, Chuck and myself made comments. The rest of the working team members are welcome to send theirs.

2. Victoria will send to the working team a new version of her document and we will comment it during next conference call on Friday 11 September.

3. Krista will share her draft document during next week, we will comment on it also during next conference call.

4. Julie is revising the text of sub task 4 document, and will update it after consultations with ICANN staff.

The Work Team agreed to have a conference call next Friday 11 September and after it keep the biweekly schedule.

The Work Team should start thinking about how to merge all draft documents into one single outcome for Task 1, perhaps we can discuss this in our next conference call if we have the time.

28 August 2009, 1300 UTC (See MP3 and Previous Meeting Agendas .)

Meeting Notes from Olga:

First let me commend all of you for all the work done so far.

We have made a great progress and we still have some more work to do in order to reach our gol in finishing a recommendations draft document by the end of next week.

In this sense let me summarize what was discussed in our conference call today:

1. WT should look and comment SS document.
SS will add background and additional information and will circulate new version of the document. Chuck Gomes commented: Has the subtask team finished its work? If so, then it makes sense to me for the full WT to review SS's document. If not, shouldn't we wait until then to avoid redundent work.

2. A due date for sending comments to Victoria´s document is set for next Tuesday, members of subworking team are welcome to comment and the rest of the wt also can comment.

3. Krista and Tony will send to the list their draft recommendations document, Victoria will join them in doing this task. WT should review and comment the document once sent to the list.

4. Julie: is it possible to consider / include Claudio´s suggestions to your draft document about subtask 4? Comment from Julie: Yes, but I will need to have ICANN staff review it first.

5. Formatting of the final draft recommendations document: my suggestion is to use the same format that Julie and Chuck use in theirs: references, introduction, background, recommendations and add a general conclusion. I volunteer for preparing the general draft once we have the different parts ready.

6. Timing: we should define the due date for sending our draft document to the OSC.
Chuck, could you please help us defining this date? Considering that the document must be approved by the OSC and by the GNSO council and next conference call of GNSO are Sept 3 and Sept 24. Comment from Chuck: If the OSC receives recommendations NLT 10 September, that would give a few days for the OSC to consider them and hopefully allow submission NLT 17 September to the Council. Earlier of course would be better.

21 August 2009, 1300 UTC (See Transcript, MP3, and Previous Meeting Agendas .)

Attendees

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

Staff

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Gisella Gruber-White, Secretariat

Agenda

1. Report about Board activities, if any. ICANN Staff.

Julie reported an update from Rob Hoggarth that ICANN staff will be going back to community leaders of the existing GNSO Constituencies for some basic charter changes in the next week or so. Specifically the Constituencies will be asked to update their charters to reflect the new SG structures approved by the Board and are the minimal changes necessary to keep all the charters consistent with the Bylaws. More substantive changes will likely await recommendations from this Work Team.

Victoria asked why these changes wouldn’t be timed to occur with the recommendations from this Work Team. Chuck noted that the next Board meeting is the 27 of August and at that meeting the Board will act on Bylaws changes and it has already approved the SG charters. He added that the changes to the Constituency charters may not all be minor, particularly for the NCUC, but they all should be anticipated changes. Victoria asked if the Work Team should expedite our work so that the recommendations could be combined with the next round of changes. Olga noted that it depends on when we can show something. Chuck said it may be unrealistic to complete all of our work but perhaps we could flag items that we may recommend that could affect the constituency charters we could focus on them and try to get them done. Olga emphasized that this is a very important comment and could change the present dynamic of work since the Work Team would need to determine the specific recommendations on which to focus. Victoria emphasized that our work goes fundamentally to those charters. Krista agreed with Chuck that it is nearly impossible to finish all of our recommendations in time. She suggested that the team could pick a couple of things or just work to finish all recommendations as quickly as possible. Chuck noted that there will be significant changes after Seoul, including Bylaws changes. He didn’t think we need to feel that things we don’t get done now won’t be considered. They will be considered after Seoul. Olga said that she sees the outcome of the work of this team as fitting into the process and she didn’t think it is efficient for the team to focus in the next two weeks on specific items rather than proceeding with our current dynamic of work. Chuck noted that if the subgroups think they can pull something together he would support that. Victoria emphasized that the subtask teams should expedite our work. Olga asked how much time do we have? Chuck said he thought that we have no more than two weeks. Michael asked if we schedule a meeting for next week and Olga said that would be a great idea. She asked Gisella to set up a call at the same time for next Friday, 28 August. Michael noted that he can assist any of the sub teams if they need it. Olga asked how the teams should organize their work and Chuck suggested that the sub teams should decide what they can do to expedite their work. The sub team leaders all agreed to expedite their work.

2. Status of Task 1 Work Plans: Subtask leaders SS, Victoria, Krista, Julie.

Subtask 1: Develop a recommended framework for participation in any ICANN constituency that is objective, standardized, and clearly stated. Leader: SS

SS circulated a document to subtask members. He is working on the membership clause and will be sending it soon. He will circulate the document to the full Work Team. Team members are encouraged to comment.

Subtask 2: Develop recommendations for clear operating principles for each constituency to ensure that all constituencies function in a representative, open, transparent and democratic manner. Leader: Victoria

Olga suggested that we should review the document Victoria sent. Victoria noted that this is a very preliminary draft. She hopes to receive initial comments from the members of the subtask group and to have a preliminary call to discuss their feedback. She said that we will aim to try to reflect all views in the document and try to reach a consensus.

Subtask 3: Develop recommendations for creating and maintaining a database of all constituency members and others not formally a part of any constituency that is up-to-date and publicly accessible. Leader: Krista

Krista noted that she has a call with the NCUC on Monday and then will try to pull together the documents.

Subtask 4: Develop a “toolkit” of in-kind staff support and/or services for all constituencies. Leader: Julie

Julie has circulated the draft recommendations for Work Team review. The next steps are: 1) Feedback and approval from the Work Team; 2) distribution to the full OSC for review, comment, and approval; distribution to the GNSO Council for review and action; and 4) implementation. Olga asked whether this means that in the future all working teams will have support from ICANN staff and whether this was feasible. Chuck said the issue of staff support does not come under this document, which was not intended to address staff services to support Working Groups. Julie asked for feedback in four weeks.

3. Status of identification of Best & Bad Practices. Pending task: New version of the Constituency Analysis Document revised by Krista and merged version with the document prepared by Julie.

Julie circulated for review a draft analysis of the current Stakeholder Group charters.

4. Exchange of ideas about how to organize next steps. Task 2: Develop outreach program to broaden participation.

Address in a future meeting.

07 August 2009, 1300 UTC (See MP3, Transcript, and Previous Meeting Agendas )

Attendees

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency

Staff

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Glen de Saint Géry, Secretariat

Agenda

Although it was not on the original agenda, Olga noted that Zahid had joined the Work Team and she thanked him for his participation. She asked Julie to schedule a call with him to go over the relevant documents and answer any questions he might have. Julie agreed to send him the documents and to schedule a call (scheduled for Tuesday, 11 August at 1400 UTC).

1. Report about Board activities, if any. ICANN Staff.

Julie reported that at its 30 September Board meeting, the Directors considered a number of issues related to GNSO Improvements, and made significant progress towards seating the new GNSO Council in Seoul. Specifically, the Board adopted resolutions that: (i) approved all of the Stakeholder Group Charters as recommended by the Structural Improvements Committee, and (ii) approved the ability of the Contracted Party House to select Board Seat #13, and the ability of the Non Contracted Party House to select Board Seat #14. In addition, Julie noted that the Board also discussed pending new Constituency applications, and acknowledged that Staff is posting a complete set of Bylaws Amendments for public comment. Victoria noted that these Bylaw Amendments (Version 2), specifically the transition Article XX, address a number of issues that impact the work of the Work Team and she asked if Julie or Rob could send the relevant links as well as explanations concerning the changes to the Bylaws. Julie agreed to send the information following the meeting.

2. Status of Task 1 Work Plans: Subtask leaders SS, Victoria, Krista, Julie.

Subtask 1: Develop a recommended framework for participation in any ICANN constituency that is objective, standardized, and clearly stated. Leader: SS

SS said he was preparing a document and hoped to circulate it to the Work Team on 10 August.

Subtask 2: Develop recommendations for clear operating principles for each constituency to ensure that all constituencies function in a representative, open, transparent and democratic manner. Leader: Victoria

Victoria noted that she had received information from Claudio, which she will incorporate into the document she is preparing. She also noted that she had not received information from Rafik, but she thought she would be able to use the information Julie had previously provided. She hoped to circulate a document to the Work Team next week.

Subtask 3: Develop recommendations for creating and maintaining a database of all constituency members and others not formally a part of any constituency that is up-to-date and publicly accessible. Leader: Krista

Krista said that she was having difficulty scheduling time to talk to Robin Gross, Chair of the NCUC. Olga offered to get in touch with members of the NCUC who are on the GNSO Council, such as Mary Wong, Bill Drake, and Carlos Soza. Krista agreed to send to Olga the latest email exchange she had with Robin, for reference.

Subtask 4: Develop a “toolkit” of in-kind staff support and/or services for all constituencies. Leader: Julie

Julie noted that she and Chuck have developed draft recommendations. Rob Hoggarth is reviewing them. After his review Julie will send them to the Work Team to review.

3. Status of identification of Best & Bad Practices. Pending task: New version of the Constituency Analysis Document revised by Krista and merged version with the document prepared by Julie.

Julie prepared a revision of the Constituency Analysis document that included additional analysis provided by Victoria and Krista. Claudio noted that he had separately send comments to Victoria to address questions in her analysis. Victoria agreed that she needed to incorporate these as well as comments received from Chuck. She agreed to revised the Constituency Analysis document and send it to the Work Team and to Julie to post on the Wiki. Krista asked about the status of the Stakeholder Group Charter analysis document and Julie noted that it now is out of date since the Board has approved the new Stakeholder Group charters. Julie agreed to revise the document based on the new charters as these may have elements that are useful to the work of this team. Victoria asked whether the new version of the document should be reviewed by the Constituency representatives on the Work Team and Olga and others agreed that this would be helpful.

4. Exchange of ideas about how to organize next steps. Task 2: Develop outreach program to broaden participation.

Olga noted that she thought that the wiki was missing certain points about Task 2 that had been included in the presentation at the Kick-Off meeting in Mexico City. Julie agreed to add these points to the wiki.

---

24 July 2009, 1300 UTC

Primary Team Members in Attendance

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency

ICANN Staff in Attendance

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
Gisella Gruber-White, Secretariat

Agenda

1. Concerns raised by Victoria and Rafik re: document revision and transparency

• Rob – re: question concerning the document “Suggested Additional Stakeholder Group Charter Elements to Ensure Transparency, Openness, Fairness and Representativeness Principles.” This was an attempt by staff to suggest some additional elements for discussion.
• Olga – Suggest we look at the comments to see what you might want to incorporate in our work plans. For example, publishing member names, working in stakeholder groups, could be relevant for our plans.
• Victoria – What will happen to his document?
• Rob – Any number of things could happen. It depends on how the SIC treats it and there also are public comments. This team could also consider it. We submitted it to the public comments forum and we will need to summarize the comments. But the Board will decide what to do with those comments. The Board could conceivable agree to adopt these, but it doesn’t really change the work of this team. Regardless of what happens in the first phase this team is tasked with looking towards the future. On important point is that on the non-contracted party side the Board has decided that the charters for those SGs will be transitional.
• Victoria – Is this a new approach?
• Rob – This is a completely new structure for ICANN and at ICANN nothing is permanent.
• Olga – We need to focus on some guidelines for the future. I would like to review the comments and to get some sense of them. On the next call we could have feedback from the Board Meeting and the analysis of the public comments.
• Victoria – What governs staff with reference to the neutrality of document preparation? Are there regulations?
• Rob – There are none at this time, but at Sydney the Board directed the CEO to develop a code of conduct for staff.

2. Status of Task 1 Work plans

• Subtask 1 – SS was not on the call.
• Subtask 2 – Victoria: I am producing a draft report and then we need to extract the policy recommendations. Claudio – I will get you some more details.
• Subtask 3 – Await a report from Krista and Tony.
• Subtask 4 – Move forward with recommendations.

3. Identifying Best and Bad Practices

• Olga – I could provide some best and bad practices based on my experiences. Victoria – I am concerned that there could be duplication.
• Julie – I will merge the documents from Krista and Victoria.

4. Task 2 – Exchange Ideas

• Olga – We should proceed with considering ideas for Task 2, but this needs to be clear on the wiki.
• Julie – It is on the wiki in the charter, but I will list it on the main wiki page.
• Chuck – It would be helpful to have all of the tasks laid out on the wiki.
• Julie – I will list all tasks on the main page.
• Chuck – If we have any ideas for best and bad practices we should be pointing them out here.
• Victoria – We could make a suggestion for minimum best practices.
• Chuck – This is exactly our task.

---

10 July 2009, 1300 UTC

Action Items and Thoughts: (See Transcript and MP3)
--ICANN Staff will summarize latest news exchanged during the conference call and send it to the Work Team mailing list.
--ICANN Staff will share with the group documents they prepare about transparency, openess and representativeness.
--Work Team members should keep the original timetable for the work to be done.
--The Work Team members should review public comment forums and other sources of information in relation with the GNSO improvement process.
--Each subtask working team will continue with its activities described in each workplan.
--Julie, Victoria and Olga will work on merging different versions and imputs of the Constituency Analysis Document.

---

21 June 2009, Face-to-Face Meeting in Sydney, Australia at 1515-1645

See Transcript

Primary Team Members in Attendance:
· Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
· Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency (attending remotely)
· Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
· Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
· Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
· S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India) (attending remotely; had to leave early)
· Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
· Michael Young – gTLD Registries Constituency

ICANN Staff in Attendance:

· Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
· Rob Hoggarth – Senior Policy Director
· Glen de Saint-Géry – GNSO Secretariat

MEETING AGENDA

1. Results of the Doodle poll related with procedures for informing our working group about Board activities and other news

There were five votes in favor of ICANN staff and/or the Chair providing reports on relevant activities of the ICANN Board prior to each meeting and three votes for such information to be provided as available. Staff agreed to provide updates prior to each meeting, but noted that in some cases there may not be new information to report.

2. Status of identification of Best & Bad Practices

Michael Young suggested that subtask members should look at the Constituency and Stakeholder Group charter analysis provided by Julie Hedlund, or the charters themselves, to determine if there are any elements that could form a part of the draft recommendations for best or bad practices as these relate to the criteria listed in the Work Plans. The Work Team agreed to extend the deadline for this task until the next meeting, tentatively scheduled for Friday, 10 July 2009 at 1300 UTC.

3. Status of Task 1 Workplans

Claudio DiGangi noted that, with respect to Task 1, Subtask 1, he was unaware of any updates from the subtask leader, S.S. Victoria, leader of Subtask 2, was unable to attend the meeting to provide an update. With respect to subtask 3, Krista Papac and Tony Harris noted that they had some concerns with respect to establishing a member database relating to privacy. However, they added that they would be meeting with Julie Hedlund and Ken Bour from ICANN Staff on Monday, 22 June to discuss ideas for a database. Following that meeting, Krista and Tony added that they planned to meet with Constituency representatives to discuss ideas for a membership database. Olga and Michael agreed to speak with S.S. and Victoria to discuss next steps for their subtasks.

4. Status of the Tool Kit Draft Request letter

With respect to Subtask 4, the tool kit for Constituencies, Julie Hedlund and Chuck Gomes agreed that it might be useful to send a reminder at some point after the Sydney meeting.

5. Exchange of ideas on how to produce outcome documents

Olga Cavalli noted that the Work Team needs to begin to build its outcome document. She suggeted that one way forward might be to extract some relevant sentences from the analysis documents. Michael noted that the Work Team needed to make more progress and to find a way forward. He agreed that it might be useful to develop some recommendations for each subtask, which could come from the charters or from other best practices. Chuck noted that the Work Team’s task was not to evaluate Constituency or Stakeholder Group charters, but to identify elements that are good practices related to the Board recommendations.

05 June 2009, 1300 UTC

Link to: MP3

Primary Team Members in Attendance:
· Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
· Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
· Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
· S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
· Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
· Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
· Michael Young – gTLD Registries Constituency

ICANN Staff in Attendance:
· Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
· Glen de Saint-Géry – GNSO Secretariat

MEETING AGENDA

1. Call to order/roll call
2. Check with Gisella results of the Doodle, face-to-face meeting in Sydney.

According to the results of the Doodle, the face-to-face meeting will be held on Sunday, 21 June from 1515-1645 Sydney (0515-0645 UTC).

3. SS request of clarification about staff support

Chuck noted that it is important for the Work Team to realize that the “staff support” is Julie and she has two other teams as well as other projects to support in addition to the work of this team. SS emphasized that Julie should have used the existing analysis provided by ICANN staff to the constituencies in preparing her analysis for the Work Team. Julie noted that she did use the analysis but that it was in a different format and did not address the criteria identified by the team as it was produced for a different purpose. Victoria said that the Staff should have told the Work Team that they could not release to the Work Team the analysis for the Constituencies and that it was inappropriate for it to be hidden from the team. She added that the Staff did not handle this appropriately and it was a serious failure. Olga said that she was expecting that the Work Team members would use the information already existing in their Constituencies. Victoria said that the Constituencies are not making the material available. Claudio noted that his Constituency had initial conversations with Staff following the IPC recertification report and then drafted a response to the analysis, which was recently posted to the list for comments after Victoria put in a request for it. Victoria reiterated that she would have liked to have seen the analysis and the Constituency’s response to it earlier. Claudio agreed with Julie that the documents Staff produced for the Constituencies were for a different process; they were produced to initiate an informal discussion. Chuck said he was disappointed that we have spent 50---70 percent of our time discussing these issues and he hoped the Work Team can move forward on the task before us. He noted that while it is useful to look at existing documents and to learn about Constituencies, in his role as Chair of the OSC he wanted to encourage the group to be creative and to think differently in how to fulfill the Board’s recommendations. Victoria said she thought that the Work Team had been delayed due to the lack of transparency.

4. Project plans revision: goals achieved, what is missing, next steps.

Olga asked about the status of the Tool Kit Request document for Subtask 4, developed by Julie and Chuck. Julie said it had been sent to existing and proposed Constituencies and that a response had been received from S. Subbiah, the petitioner for the IDNgTLD new Constituency. Chuck noted that it also was received by the Registries Constituency, sent out to Constituency members, and will be reviewed in Sydney. Olga asked Krista to provide estimated start and due dates for the items in Subtask 3 and suggested that she could work with Tony on next steps. Julie offered to support Krista and Tony on the subtask and in setting up meetings in Sydney. Chuck also suggested that Krista could review and comment on Julie’s analysis with respect to the Registrar Constituency. Claudio asked whether any of the Board’s recommendations are optional. Michael also wondered whether the recommendations can have a different emphasis. Chuck clarified that there are Board’s recommendations but that the Work Team members can discuss how those recommendations may be fulfilled.

5. Best and bad practices: already received information, next steps.

Olga said she was not sure the information we received from Rob is useful for best and bad practices. She also noted that although the due date for identifying best and bad practices was 05 June, she recommended extending the deadline one week until 12 June. Michael said he thought that subteam members would be providing some sort of document. He also offered to help with Subtask 2 and other subteams. Victoria emphasized that the Work Team should think about the bigger question: do we start from the templates or start fresh? Chuck asked to which Board recommendations Victoria was referring. Victoria said she was referring to the operating principles. Chuck suggested that there isn’t a one-size-fits all approach, but that the Work Team could consider making recommendations on whether and where it might make sense to have common operating principles.

6. Additional criteria for reviewing the existing information: exchange of ideas.

Olga asked whether there are additional criteria and how to extract some relevant concepts. She suggested that the Work Team members could look at Julie’s analysis and decide what met the Board recommendation criteria and what did not. Victoria asked whether the subteams should have separate meetings or submit their questions back to the full team. Olga mentioned that the subteams could use the Wiki to organize their work and Julie agreed to assist in setting up Wiki pages for subteams that request them. Chuck agreed that each subteam can decide whether they need a Wiki.

7. Any other business.

Victoria said it would be very helpful for Staff or the Chair to make a formal report to the group about relevant and related developments. She suggested that this could be added to each meeting agenda. However, Krista noted that there were already so many items on the meeting agendas and that it might be better to simply provide updates to the list as they are available. Olga agreed to request suggestions from other team members on this matter.

---

22 May 2009 1300 UTC

Link to Transcript and MP3

Primary Team Members in Attendance:

· Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
· Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
· Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
· Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
· Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
· S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
· Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
· Michael Young – gTLD Registries Constituency

ICANN Staff in Attendance:

· Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
· Gisella Gruber-White - GNSO Secretariat
· Glen de Saint-Géry – GNSO Secretariat

MEETING AGENDA

1. Call to order/roll call.
2. Review the status of pending issues:

2.1 Letter to OSC

Michael sent a draft letter to the Work Team email list for review and consideration. Olga asked whether the Work Team should delay sending the letter considering the information sent by Denise Michel to the GNSO Council that suggests that the schedule for seating the new Council may be delayed. Michael suggested that until the schedule is clear we should delay sending the letter. Victoria agreed that we should wait and see until we have seen the Resolution. Chuck noted that after Denise had posted her message to the Council list some Council members raised the question as to whether there will be specific direction concerning the new timetable. In particular, Tony Harris mentioned that the restructured Council should be seated at an in-person meeting, at Seoul. Chuck further emphasized that the Council have asked that this timetable be specifically stated. He also noted that concerning the stakeholder group charter approvals the Board has asked Staff to come back with specific recommendations, which Julie confirmed.

2.2 Project Plans

Olga noted that subtask leaders were to have developed a preliminary project plan by 22 May suggesting the timing for completing their subtasks and that the Work Team has received the plans for Subtask 2 from Victoria and Subtask 4 from Julie and Chuck. She asked Work Team members to confirm when they would submit their plans, adding that she had spoken with Krista who promised to complete hers shortly. Both S.S. and Tony agreed that they could submit their plans by a new due date of 26 May.

2.3 Identification of Best & Bad Practices

The Work Team agreed to continue to work towards the due date of 05 June to complete the identification of best and bad practices for each of their subtasks.

3. Comments to the letter drafted by Julie "Draft Toolkit Feedback Request for Documents."

Olga suggested to change the order of the information in the request document. Julie will make the changes and send a revised version to Olga, who will send out the revised request.

4. Comments on how to enhance constituency participation in our working team: Should we have a conference call on Friday May 29th?

Tony would not be able to attend on the 29th. Olga suggested that Krista and Claudio could review the minutes from this call and follow the discussion on the list rather than scheduling an additional call. Tony noted that to enhance participation from constituencies it would be helpful to know which team members will be at the Sydney meeting. Olga agreed to send an email to the list to determine who would not be going to Sydney to be able to schedule a Sydney Work Team meeting at the appropriate time to accommodate various time zones.

5. Comments in relation with base documents for our work prepared by staff:

· Constituency analysis
· Proposed Stakeholder group charter analysis
· So far we have recieved comments from RyC and IPC, so there is a new version that incorporates these inputs. Are there any other comments about these tables? Could we consider these documents completed as a reference for the continuation of our work?

Olga asked Tony and Zahid to review the analysis documents provided by staff for their constituencies and to suggest changes or deletions. Tony noted that when the constituency charters were developed there was some leeway to do things differently in each constituency. Chuck agreed that the Work Team will find that there are areas where there should be consistency and others for flexibility as we consider the Board recommendations. Tony emphasized, for example, that the ISPCP web site doesn’t reflect how the constituency does outreach, which is probably an omission of information, but not of action.

Victoria wondered whether it might make sense to bifurcate the work to focus on the constituency charters first and hold off on analyzing the stakeholder group charters until the staff makes its recommendations concerning changes. Chuck asked if the staff would make their recommendations soon and Julie agreed that they would be completed soon. Chuck added that since the staff work would be done soon it should not be a problem for the Work Team to delay analysis of stakeholder group charters. Victoria agreed that the team could do the work in two stages and Tony also thought this was a good idea. Chuck noted that as far as the work plans go the Work Team can adjust our dates to be flexible. Olga agreed that the Work Team would have different dates in the Work Plans for analysis of constituency and stakeholder group charters.

6. Next steps: analysis of the existing information and expected outome format

· SS has made an excellent analysis of the documents produced by staff.
· Should a similar detailed analisys be produced for all the base documents when the working team has agreed on their content? How should we organize this work?

Olga asked what the Work Team should be doing as we prepare our recommendations and how to produce a recommendation document. Victoria noted that until the subgroups have done some work and we see the various formats it might be too early to try to decide on the format for a recommendations document. Chuck and Michael agreed. S.S. emphasized that the question that he asked in his email was different than what Olga was asking. Specifically, he was wondering if staff could make a comprehensive analysis and also whether such an analysis had already been completed for the Board. Victoria noted that any analysis the staff may have produced at the Board’s request would be confidential and not available to the team. Chuck asked S.S. to clarify what he was asking staff to do. S.S. added that there are six constituencies and documents and that instead of each team member going through the documents, could staff take all possible criteria to see what each constituency is doing. Victoria noted that she found the staff analysis to be conclusory and that it might be helpful to merge the analysis S.S. and she have provided into a master table. Olga suggested that the team could exchange ideas on the email list for additional criteria to be analyzed and that this would help Julie to understand what needs to be done. Tony agreed and asked team members to indicate which criteria should be added. Victoria agreed to provide some ideas.

7. The formal status of the COT as a constituent part of the OSC and the role of the OSC in relation with our work product (Suggested by Victoria)

Victoria noted that it was her understanding that people are reporting out of the various OSC Work Teams to the OSC and she wanted to make sure that there was no duplication between the efforts of the OSC and the Constituency Operations Work Team. From the information she received from Julie, it appeared to her that the OSC has an oversight role. Chuck agreed that is correct and that the OSC is overseeing the tasks of the various work teams and then informing the Council of the activities.

8. Any Other Business

Victoria asked if Chuck and Olga could share information that might be relevant to the work of the team. Chuck agreed to do this and Olga asked him to send any items of interest to the Work Team email list.

9. Action Items

1. Project Plans: Each subtask leader should develop a preliminary project plan suggesting the timing for completing the subtask. New due date: Tuesday, 26 May
2. Identification of Best & Bad Practices: Subtask leaders and their team members should identify best practices as well as bad practices, as they relate to their subtasks, using as a starting point the preliminary analysis of constituency/stakeholder charters, but also information on constituency web pages, and directly from constituencies. Due date: Four weeks – by the meeting on Friday, 05 June
3. Draft Toolkit Feedback Request Document: Julie will make the changes Olga has suggested and send a revision to Olga and the team. Due date: Tuesday, 26 May
4. Additional Criteria for Constituency Charter Analysis: Work Team members will provide suggestions for additional criteria to the email list.

---

08 May 2009, 1300 UTC

Links to: Transcript and MP3 Recording

Primary Team Members in Attendance:
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

ICANN Staff in Attendance:
• Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
• Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MEETING AGENDA

1. Call to order/roll call. 2. Comments and inputs in relation with the documents drafted by Staff: Constituency and proposed stakeholder group charter analyses:

Claudio, Victoria, and S.S. will post additional comments to the Work Team email list concerning the documents. Chuck encouraged further comments and clarifications to make sure that the data are as accurate as possible. Michael suggested that each of the subtask teams should go through the documents and determine some examples that meet the Board recommendations.

3. Timing with Respect to Seating of the New GNSO Council

With respect to timing and impact on the team’s tasks, Victoria asked about the seating of the new GNSO Council and the Board's approval of constituency renewals and stakeholder group charters. Chuck pointed out that the timing of the seating of the new GNSO Council does not impact the work of the team. He noted that some changes to the Bylaws and to the Council Rules and Procedures need to be completed and that these may delay the seating of the new Council beyond the deadline of the ICANN meeting in Sydney in June. He added that at its next meeting in May the Board likely would address this issue. Michael suggested that the team should determine the right scope of work and schedules rather than constrain the scope in anticipation of an uncertain schedule. Chuck agreed that the team should do best job possible and if that takes a little longer that is accepted and expected.

4. Timing with Respect to Board Approval of Constituency and Stakeholder Group Charters

Chuck pointed out that the Board’s approval of constituency renewals, new constituency charters, and stakeholder group charters might take longer than expected. As this approval needs to occur before the new GNSO Council can be seated, as well as the changes to the Bylaws, he noted that the current Council had sent a message to the Board alerting them to the concern that the June deadline might not be met. S.S. asked for clarification concerning the impact on the team’s work. Chuck noted that there probably would be elements in some of the subtasks that may be dependent on the constituency and stakeholder group charters and that the team members may have to flag them and go on to other items.

After some discussion the Work Team members agreed that it would be helpful for the team to send a formal request to the OSC as a matter of record expressing concern with possible conflicts with respect to the work of the team and the timing of the Board approval of constituency and stakeholder group charters. Michael agreed to take that as an action item and will draft a letter for the team to review.

Chuck added that ICANN staff has discussed the proposed charters with the Board and gave them an overview. The next step is for staff to work with the Board’s Structural Improvement Committee to determine where changes may need to be made in constituency and stakeholder group charters. Victoria asked for clarification concerning the timing of this parallel process and Chuck said that the GNSO Council also has addressed this question to the Board and that the Board likely would address it at their next meeting. Victoria suggested that the team could express concerns with this process in the letter to the OSC and Michael agreed to add that to his action item.

5. Scheduling and Next Steps

Michael suggested that for the next meeting the subtask leaders should develop a project timeline indicating how much time they need to complete their subtasks and provide reports at each meeting. Chuck noted that he and Julie had begun work on Subtask 4 and that we may have some estimated timeframes in a week or so. S.S. agreed to send an email to the other participants in his group to seek their opinions on work he has already completed in order to develop ideas on a timeframe. Victoria also agreed that this was feasible for Subtask 2.

Chuck noted that there might be elements in each subtask that the team could work on now, but the team may identify other items that may have some key dependencies with the constituency/stakeholder charter approval process. Michael suggested that the Work team was engaging in a parallel, but separate, process to what the constituencies and stakeholder groups are doing. Chuck added that the team should look at best practices, or those that best meet the Board recommendations, and should look beyond the charters to get input from constituencies. Michael suggested that the subtask leaders and their team members review the analysis documents and pull out what they think are potential best practices. Victoria added that it would be important to identify bad practices and Chuck agreed that it could be useful to note those that don’t comply with the Board recommendations. Michael suggested alloting four weeks for this activity.

Victoria asked about other information that might be available on constituencies and stakeholder groups. Julie noted that information is linked to the GNSO Improvements website and also on the constituency websites, but Chuck emphasized that much of the information is not on the web and that is why the team members may need to go to their constituencies for additional information. Michael suggested that team members could post questions about specific information to the email list so that team members from other constituencies can assist. Victoria suggested looking at other organizations’ practices, such as WIPO, and Michael agreed that was a very good idea.

6. Action Items:

1. Michael will draft and circulate to the team for review a letter to the OSC expressing concern with possible conflicts with respect to the work of the team and the timing of the Board approval of constituency and stakeholder group charters, as well as concerns with the constituency renewal process.
2. Each subtask leader should develop a preliminary project plan suggesting the timing for completing the subtask. Due date: Two weeks – by the next meeting on 22 May.
3. Subtask leaders and their team members should 4 identify best practices as well as bad practices, as they relate to their subtasks, using as a starting point the preliminary analysis of constituency/stakeholder charters, but also information on constituency web pages, and by going directly to constituencies for additional information. Due date: Two weeks – by the meeting on 05 June.

---

24 April 2009, 1300 UTC

Links to: Transcript and MP3 Recording

Primary Team Members in Attendance:

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi -Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris -Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Krista Papac – Registrar Constituency

ICANN Staff in Attendance:

• Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
• Robert Hoggarth – Senior Policy Director
• Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MEETING AGENDA

1. Call to order/roll call.

2. Staff support

• S.S. – I asked via email for a completed statement of rules and operating procedures in a tabulated summarized form, but received no reply from the Chair. This information is available; staff should provide it.
• Olga – Apologized for not responding immediately. It also would be helpful to understand what we can expect from staff.
• Chuck – If the Chair cannot respond to a request from a Work Team member, the Vice-Chair can respond. With respect to staff support, if the request is for a more significant task, the Work Team needs to agree on a procedure that allows for prioritization.
• Victoria – In this case, it would appear to be a simple task of gathering and compiling information. The staff should do it.
• Chuck – It wasn't my understanding that the staff said they would not do it.
• Rob – As described in the Work Team Charter, the staff supports the team as directed by the Chair. The process that seems to work best for Work Teams is to have a discussion among the Work Team members and to have the chair make the determination.
• Olga – The Work Team members volunteered to be on the team in order to contribute. The Work Team needs to do the work if there are questions on the task’s content.
• Chuck – The staff should be able to do the work if it is a simple cut and paste.
• Julie – To clarify my response to the request from S.S., I was seeking direction from the Work Team because the task of compiling information from constituency charters could be combined to address not only subtask 1, but also subtasks 2 and 3.
• Michael – It could help to create a consolidated document. We should decide what should go into the list.
• Julie – I suggest using the Task 1 Work Plan table as a format and filling in the information from constituency and stakeholder charters for subtasks 1-3.
• Olga – I think this is a good approach. S.S., is this acceptable to you?
• S.S. – I agree that Julie should do a table.

3. Discuss Text for Work Plan Task 1 - Subtask 1

• Chuck – The text should refer to both participation and membership. It is more than just membership.
• Victoria: Look, as I said at the beginning of the call I think the email exchanges have been really interesting and I think I just want to make the overall point again. I mean, because I think we’re quite lucky in the scenario that we find ourselves in in the sense that we have the report of some board governance committee’s work. Which is actually very detailed. And they give us sort of the background context and what have you and then they’ve given us those bullet points. I mean, the staff workplan is basically derived, pretty closely, from the bullet points. I think it’s on Page 43 of that report.
• Chuck) - Yeah, the detail actually is easier to find on Page 45 and 46.
• Victoria: Okay, yeah. That’s true. But what I just wanted to make - I wanted to make a general point here. I mean, if you look at Page 43, for example, which is just what I was working from. What I’ve asked us to do is, is there a need for - for example, and this is the second paragraph on the page, there are a number of specific areas that must be addressed. The first is the need for constituency developed participation rules for all constituencies, okay that encourage open (unintelligible). The rules must adhere to the following provincials. Now, the principles, the bullet points, okay? And they include those principles have come into our workplan. Now, the point that I’m trying to make about this is that the innumerate items in our workplan, they’re minimum. They’re not maximums, okay? They’re floors, not ceilings in a sense. I mean, we’ve been asked to come up with some rules and the rules must adhere to those principles. So, I’m just - my concern is that the work plan, in other contexts it’s also very important. But I think where we have all this guidance and the floor discussion in this report. Our workplan is less significant, perhaps, in another context and I don’t think we should regard ourselves as being locked down to us because it encompass the bigger points which are fully discussed in Section 6 of the document. And I think this participation versus sort of membership criteria’s are actually pretty clear example of how there’s a danger of missing the overall point. And I went through the preparation for the (unintelligible) to try and convey what I’ve been doing so badly at conveying over the Internet, the emails. Some of the - the report uses words like - it’s talking about constituency structures which need to adapt to reflect the movement to the working group model. Reducing various participation in (unintelligible) stakeholders. Greater consistency across constituency structures. So, these are the bigger points. I mean, we’ve got all that background context and I just don’t - I think this is the kind of working team where we don’t need to be so locked down to our workplan. That’s what I wanted to say.
• Chuck: Totally agree.
• Olga: I agree with you. I also want to thank you because your email; it made me review my comment and made me note my mistake. So, thank you for that. And thank you for this comment. So, I would ask you, how - I mean, we need to some guides to make our work and to move forward as we are a team we are not together, we are not face to face meeting very frequently, maybe at least three times a year if we can. So, how would you suggest that we can be more open and more flexible in not missing any point about our main task? And, also, having a feasible workplan which is clear and which is not difficult to follow for all of the team members that we are volunteering our time for this working group.
• Victoria: Well, my own thought is that we should just really leave - I mean, not worry so much and now just move on from the workplan, quite frankly. It’s taken up - it’s taken probably enough of our time. We all know where we’re going and just leave it as it is pretty much. I just don’t think we need to engage in detailed semantics about it when we’re really working from a (unintelligible) much bigger reference point which is so (unintelligible) and clear. But, I think it’s a point that we need to be - I mean, we need to entrench this in some way so that we don’t keep getting dragged back to it and dragged to us, I think. We’d have to decide just to use it as a reference and not a particularly useful one.
• Michael: I think your comments are excellent and I agree with them. I think we also need to (unintelligible) check and balance of. So, almost what I would say is, yes, let’s push ahead as your suggesting. Let’s let the work teams - the folks have come together to work on a sub-task, let them have a little freedom and if they expand beyond how far we’ve specified some of these sub-tasks and tasks, that’s okay. Let them, I think. And then as we come back and view the results of their work then I think what we need is an agreement that we’re going to - whatever’s brought back in those sub-tasks or those things we just need to check on each piece of work produced and make sure it still fits within the confines of the intent of what we’re supposed to be doing and validate it more on the return rather than trying to have an overtly tight controlled on defining what they’re going to work on. I think a little bit of creativity here is appropriate as well.
• Chuck: As far as wording the task, Olga, why don’t we just go back to the word participation understanding that there’s some flexibility there. Membership is too restricted.
• Olga: I agree. I think participation is wider and participation is included in it. Victoria, I think your comments are really very helpful and also I agree with Michael. So, I think that I would suggest that we take your ideas as the basis for starting our work using the workplan as kind of a guide but not stick to the wording in the workplan.

4. Constituency Representation on the Work Team

• Olga – Are we getting active participation from all constituencies?
• Chuck – I think we have every constituency represented.

5. Letter Proposed by Victoria "Clarification on the Timing of Board Approvals"

• Victoria – The constituency charters have all been resubmitted. These deal with all the operations of a constituency. I am afraid that our work, if approved, would end up in charters for the constituencies.
• Michael – I want to clarify that we should change the language to include stakeholder groups.
• Victoria – That is not what the BGC report says; it doesn’t change the constituency structure.
• Michael – It does with respect to voting.
• Chuck – In February of last year the structure of the stakeholder group had not been developed. We need to emphasize constituency operations, but in the OSC we added the concept that the same tasks apply to stakeholder groups.
• Victoria – We need to study this further as it raises real issues.
• Chuck – I think there will be a lot of overlap. These principles need to apply to both areas. There may be some details that we can highlight as we get into the recommendations.We anticipate the charters may need to change/evolve.
• Michael – The constituency charters may follow some of the stakeholder group charters. If our recommendations contradict those charters, they may need to be amended.
• Victoria – All we can do is make recommendations, it is not in our scope to direct changes to charters. I think the stakeholder groups and constituencies need to know that our work might cause some changes.
• Olga – Great point. How would we do this?
• Rob – You have the unique advantage of the OSC Chair on your team, who also is the Vice-Chair of the Council. The work of this team funnels into the OSC, then to the Council, which then will approve recommendations to the Board. Communicating via the OSC may be a more efficient than a direct communication to the Board.
• Chuck – If we do communicate to the OSC, I think a little more specificity would be helpful. As each of the sub teams start to delve in, one of the things we could focus on is whether there are certain rules or principles that we will consider that may have more impact in terms of what constituencies and stakeholders are doing in their charters. A communication that identifies specific examples is more useful than a general one. Also, as stakeholder groups and constituencies are reviewing their charters they should be keeping in mind the Board recommendations.
• Olga – I suggest that we move on with our work and see if we need to communicate to the OSC.
• Chuck – More specifically, those of us that are working on the sub tasks should see if we can early on identify particular areas of concern.
• Victoria – I think it is a great idea. I would note that we bring different perspectives to this discussion. I also note that my reading and understanding of the BGC report is very much about common rules that apply across all constituencies.
• Chuck – The constituencies and stakeholder groups have the Board recommendations and to the extent that they are not followed they may conflict with our recommendations.
• Olga – We should look to develop feedback on possible areas of conflict with each of our constituencies.
• Julie – I suggest that the Work Team members could use the table I will develop to flag areas of concern.
• Chuck – Good idea.
• Rob: Many of you are perhaps familiar with - because you were in Mexico City are aware of the award resolution with respect to constituency renewal. Also as members of various constituencies you may be aware that as a follow-up to that resolution the staff has been having informal discussions with constituency leaders to talk about their renewal submission. The board set up a process by which staff would give some feedback to the board about potential changes that the board may want to ask individual constituencies to make to adjust their charters to compile with the principles and the bylaws of transparency, openness and fairness. What I will commit to do, as a staff member, as we prepare that information for the board I will alert them and remind them of this work teams jurisdiction and efforts so that they at least have that insight into the GNSO operations that these discussions are taking place.
• Victoria: Robert, could I just jump in there for a second and ask you just to clarify this? Does the board resolution authorize this information procedure?
• Rob: Yes, the resolution specifically says it is resolved if the board acknowledges and thanks the distinct constituencies for their submissions and awaits completion of the following activities; one, staff analysis and constituency submissions and public comment and identification of changes that the board may want to request each constituency to make over the coming months. To ensure that their charters and subsequent activities comply with the principles contained in the bylaws. And expanded upon in the GNSO improvements report and subsequent GNSO improvements report and subsequent GNSO restructuring resolutions approved by the board last year. Number 2, follow-up submissions from constituencies as needed provided to the board no later than at June 2009 meeting to confirm those constituencies have implemented recommended changes. We had informed the board that we were going through an analysis charter document that had been submitted and they agreed not formally in this resolution but got a useful process where as for us to provide some initial feedback to existing constituencies to give them a sense of our efforts. And so we are doing that with their blessing but that was not an official part of the resolution.
• Victoria: Well, I have to say I’m really astonished to hear this and to hear it so late given that it goes directly to the heart of our work. And it’s actually (unintelligible) exactly what I feel. I think I’m afraid of exercising going through the motions.
• Chuck: See, I don’t see that at all. So tell me why - can you give me an example of anything that we would be doing that would be going through the motions?
• Victoria: I’d very much like to have a look at that board resolution and I’d also like to have a look at those staff analysis and I think the committee should have a chance to review the work that’s already been done and then perhaps discuss this on our next call.
• Rob: I would be perfectly happy to, momentarily here, I shoot the resolution link. I’m pulling it up here on my laptop. I can circulate that to the group and we’ll certainly do so.
• Chuck: Again, I make my request that let’s talk about specific examples where we think that we’re wasting our time?
• Victoria: Well, I’d like to read that board resolution and I’d also - as I say, thank you Robert for offering to send it over.
• I mean, I think it’s very important that I’d like to be fully informed before we have, what I think, is a very, very important discussion and I haven’t seen any of these documents. Now, Robert, can I ask you then, while we’re on this topic, what analysis of the charters has already been done by the staff?
• Rob: The staff has gone through the charters that were submitted that have been posted in the public comment forum. We are also going through the process and have been and - and actually went through the process of analyzing and summarizing the public comments that were made with respect to the charters. We have put together some preliminary documentation as we have gone through the various charters to try to get some general assessment as to whether there are areas of commonality between different charters than the rest that might be useful for other groups to investigate or share. The process that we outline to the board is that we’ve had some initial informal discussions with the existing constituencies, tell them what the status of our work was generally as we prepare to provide a report to the board. That’s still in its real preliminary stages, I must confess, given other recommendations and requirements that the board has asked us to do. But, that’s generally where we are at this point.
• Victoria: Robert, is there any work products that would be - would obviously, because obviously there’s a lot of crossover with the exercise that (Julie)’s been tasked with? I mean, it sounds like that exercise has already been undertaken.
• Rob: I’ll ask (Julie) because I don’t know if that’s true, and I must confess, I don’t know the specific work product that you guys have been talking about for her to generate. Clearly we don’t want to duplicate effort. So, that’s something that I’ll talk directly with her about. We have, in general talked; let’s see, with two or three constituencies in general about our observations. I’ll check and see what the specific documentation is that we have. The initial approach that the board suggested was just to have some informal discussion but I can’t see myself any reason why we couldn’t share that documentation with this work team to help you guys in your efforts.
• Victoria: That’s great. And can I just ask you, were are going to send us the board resolution, can you also refer us to the board meeting authorizing this procedure?
• Rob: Sure.
• Victoria: That would be great. I’d just like to see -I’d just like to fully understand the background and how the exercise is working and just...I’d like to see all the constitutional documents etc., etc. So, that would be helpful and then we can talk about it on the next call.
• Olga: Thank you Rob and (Victoria). If you receive this information and you can share with us your concerns that, at least for me, would be very helpful and I think for the working group also.

  ---

  10 April 2009, 1300 UTC

Links to: Transcript and MP3 Recording

Primary Team Members in Attendance:

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris- Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency

ICANN Staff in Attendance:

• Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
• Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MEETING AGENDA

1. Call to order/roll call.

2. Discuss charter and priority of tasks/vote on Charter.

• S.S.Kshatriyanoted that the language in Section III Work Team Rules and Procedures, Decision Making, was unclear. Chuck Gomes suggested deleting the words “of stakeholders” so that the amended sentence would read: “In all cases, the Chair will include the names and affiliations of those in support of each position and for participants representing a group(e.g., constituencies, stakeholder groups, other groups) will indicate if their support represents the consensus view of their group.”
• The team agreed to vote on the draft charter. To allow those unable to participate in the conference call to vote, the vote will be held open until the end of the day on Monday, 13, April. If no dissenting comments are received by that time the charter will be considered to be approved.
• ACTION ITEM: Work Team members are requested to review the draft charter and to indicate their approval/disapproval by the end of the day Monday, 13 April.

3. Report on ICANN staff outreach to new constituencies.

• The ICANN staff have reached out to the following proposed new constituencies: The CyberSafety Constituency, the new City TLD Constituency, and the Consumer Constituency. Julie Hedlund will report to the Work Team of any member of these proposed new constituencies asks to participate. Julie noted that these are proposed constituencies that have yet to be approved by the Board. Information concerning the new constituency process including petitions and charters may be found here
• Olga Cavalli asked whether all constituencies were participating in this Work Team. Chuck noted that all constituencies were represented.
• VictoriaMcEvedyasked if there was an authorization procedure for participation from constituencies. Chuck said that it is for each constituency to decide who is the appropriate liaison and whether there should be alternate liaisons to the Work Team.

4. Discuss draft work plan for the substasks of the "enhancing constituencies" task.

• Olga noted that the background information that Rob Hoggarth sent to the team, and on which S.S. commented, would be useful to provide further information for these subtasks: (Link to SS Kshatriya Comments Constituency Materials.doc )

1.GNSO Improvements Information Page – Constituency Renewal Process http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/renewal-process-en.htm 2.ICANN Public Comment Forum – GNSO Constituency Renewals 2009 http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-constituency-renewals 3.ICANN Staff Analysis of Public Comments:Analysis of Public Comments http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-constituency-renewals/msg00005.html 4.Constituency Survey Report - http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-constituency-survey-report-28jan09-en.pdf

• S.S. agreed to take lead on subtask 1 and suggested that it would be helpful to have information concerning current constituency operating procedures.
• Victoria noted that in Subtask 1, item 1 the recommendation was for a “template.”She suggested that the language should be changed from “template” to “guidelines. ACTION ITEM: Julie will make the change in the revised document.
• Chuck suggested formatting changes: 1) add a column for participants, and 2) put each listed item in each subtask in its own row for ease of tracking.
• Chuck noted that it is important to have people from various constituencies participating on each subtask.Victoria volunteered to participate in subtask 1 and to be the lead on subtask 2.
• Victoria and Tony Harris noted that some aspects of subtask 3 may raise privacy concerns.Chuck agreed that this is something the lead and participants working on that subtask would need to discuss.
• Tony added that a “GNSO Discussion List” had been tried before as the “General Assembly” list and that there were some problems with this approach.Chuck agreed but noted that recently the idea of creating a “cross constituency” list had been proposed and that the team members working on this item may need to consider this idea.
• Tony agreed to participate in Subtask 3, but not as the lead.
• ACTION ITEMS: 1. Julie will develop a revised document including the changes agreed to during this conference call meeting.She will send the revised version to Work Team members and post it on the Wiki. 2.Work Team members will review the revised version: 1) comment on the text, 2) indicate if they would lead Subtask 3 and/or Subtasks in which they will participate.

Meeting adjourned 1400 UTC

---

27 March 2009, 1300 UTC

Links to: Transcript and MP3 Recording

Primary Team Members in Attendance:

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi – Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Hector Ariel Manoff - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar c.
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

ICANN Staff in Attendance:

• Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
• Robert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
• Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MEETING AGENDA

1. Call to order/roll call

2. Review agenda

3. Announce results of leadership poll (J. Hedlund)

Poll Results:

Total votes = 9
For Chair: Olga Cavalli – 6 votes; Krista Papac – 3 votes
For Vice-Chair: Michael Young – 6 votes; S.S.Kshatriya – 2 votes; Rafik Dammak – 1 vote
Results:Chair – Olga Cavalli; Vice-Chair: Michael Young

4. Discuss schedule for recurring meetings

• Next meeting, 10th April. Every two weeks thereafter.

5. Discuss draft Work Team charter

The team discussed and agreed to the following changes:

Minor edits to two sub-bullets in Section I Team Charter/Goals under “Enhance existing constituencies”

• Change the title of Section II to “Team Membership Guidelines."
• In Section II, #2 change the number of councillors from “three” to “four”

• In Section II add #8 describing the election and duties of the chair/vice-chair
• Change the title of Section III to “Work Team Rules and Procedures”
• In Section III minor textual changes to the Statements of Interest section
• In Section III, Decision Making, changes to the description of Rough Consensus and Strong Support two make these more precise; change “Minority viewpoints” to “No majority position”
• In Section III, Restricting participation, Recordkeeping, and Milestones: minor textual changes
• Change the title of Section VI to “Action Items and Deliverables”
• In Section VI replace action items with a revised “list of preliminary deliverables” as follows: 1. Election of Chair and Vice Chair; 2. Schedule for recurring meetings; 3. WT Charter; 4. Regular Reports to the OSC (at least biweekly); 5. Identification of Key Projects; 6. Work Plan; 7. Calendar; and 8. Final Implementation Plan.
• In Section VI append the checklist table of suggested projects and subtasks

6. Team Membership

• After some discussion, the team determined that it meets the guidelines in the charter for team membership; although the team does not have representatives from the ALAC and GAC, both groups were invited to send representatives.
• Agreed that the team should strive to keep the membership balanced in its representation.
• It was noted that some OSC team members may be on too many committees, which may prevent them from being active.
• Michael Young suggested that wording could be added to the charter to define the roles of “active” versus “non-active” members.He agreed to suggest language.
• Chuck Gomes noted that in the case of working groups the Board recommended moving away from voting and to a rough consensus model as described in Section II Work Team Rules and Procedures.Olga Cavalli noted that this is the best way to work with a group that is not too large.

7. Discuss Action Items and Deliverables

• Olga noted that it would be useful to have background documents concerning current constituency participation rules and operating procedures to assist the Work Team in its task to “Enhance existing constituencies by developing recommendations on constituency participation rules, operating principles, and database of members.”Rob Hoggarth agreed to send to the teambackground information regarding existing GNSO constituencies.
• Chuck noted that this particularly work team will be dependent on constituency input, but that the team needs to be sensitive to constituencies – we can’t tell them what they should be doing but there are some common elements that should be true for all constituencies.
• Olga added that the team’s challenge is to define a base group of information or best practices that any constituency could follow.
• S.S.Kshatriyasuggested that the team could develop questionnaires to send to constituencies and use the information gathered to develop guidelines.
• Rob said that the ICANN staff had sent out a questionnaire to constituencies at the end of 2008 and promised to circulate the results to the team.
• After discussion of the prioritization of its tasks based on the Board’s recommendations, as described in the draft checklist the team decided to develop draft work plans for the subtasks of the “enhancing constituencies” task while considering whether also to begin work on an outreach plan.Olga, Michael, and Julie agreed to develop a draft work plan for the team to consider.
• Chuck emphasized that it would be helpful to reach out to the new constituencies to see if they want to send representatives to work with the team.Rob and Julie agreed to initiate this effort.
• The work team also agreed that those team members who are representing constituencies should act as liasons to communicate the activities of the team with their membership.

Action Items:

1. Review the revised charter and provide comments or edits.

2. Review background information regarding existing GNSO constituencies.

3. ICANN staff to assist in reachingout to new constituencies to see if they want to send representatives to work with the team.

4. Vote on the revised charter including the priority of tasks and implementation plan at the meeting on April 10.

5. Develop draft work plan for the subtasks of the “enhancing constituencies” task.

6. Chair and Vice-Chair provide biweekly reports to the OSC.

Meeting adjourned at 1400 UTC

---

28 February 2009

Link to: MP3 Recording

The initial meeting of the GNSO OSC Constituency Operations Team was held in Mexico City, Mexico in-person with remote teleconference capabilities on 28 February 2009 @ 1500 UTC. Interim Chair Olga Cavalli called the meeting to order.

In addition to Interim Chair Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee Appointee) the following Work Team members participated in all or part of the meeting: Sophia Bekele (Individual)(by phone), Fred Felman (MarkMonitor), Chuck Gomes (gTLD Registries Constituency), Tony Holmes (Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency), S. S. Kshatriya (Individual - India)(by phone), Hector Ariel Manoff, (Intellectual Property Interests Constituency), Steve Metalitz (Intellectual Property Interests Constituency), and Michael Young (gTLD Registries Constituency).T he following Work Team members were not present on the call: Zahid Jamil (Commercial and Business Users Constituency), Victoria McEvedy (Intellectual Property Interests Constituency), Hector Ariel Manoff (Intellectual Property Interests Constituency), and Dr. Shahram Soboutipour (Individual – Iran).

Also, the following ICANN Staff participated in the meeting: Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director; Julie Hedlund, Policy Consultant.

The main reference document for the meeting was the slide presentation entitled “GNSO OSC-CSG Work Team Kickoff (FINAL),” which was provided to all Work Team members prior to the meeting.

Introductions

Olga Cavalli initiated the meeting with brief introductions from each meeting participant. In his introduction, Chuck Gomes, GNSO Council Vice-Chair, emphasized that the work of the team was critical to the GNSO improvements process, and in particular, in balancing the uniqueness of the constituencies while standardizing some aspects of constituency rules and procedures. He also noted that the Work Team would develop recommendations that are very important not only for constituencies but for stakeholder groups as well.

Agenda

Next, Olga Cavalli reviewed the meeting agenda as follows:

1. Call to order and introductions
2. Review agenda
3. Review and discussion of the Work Team charter (delineation of current problems, desired outcomes and deliverables)
4. Timeline for interim Work Team chair and procedures for selection of permanent chair; select vice-chair
5. Procedures for finalizing Work Team charter, including proposed timeline
6. Agree to regular teleconference meeting times
7. All other business

In reviewing the agenda, Olga Cavalli noted that the priority task for the team to undertake is review, editing, and approval of the Work Team charter. She reminded team members that the draft Charter appears on the Work Team Socialtext Wiki workspace and she asked ICANN staff to circulate this link to the team members following the meeting.

Also, in the context of the discussion of the meeting agenda, Olga Cavalli emphasized that an early priority for the team was to identify and organize the Work Team projects and timelines so that they could be included in the Charter.

Another agenda item that was briefly discussed by the team was the “Timeline for Interim Work Team chair and procedures for selection of permanent chair; select vice-chair.” On this matter, Olga Cavalli noted that she had volunteered as the Interim Chair and invited other team members to indicate whether they were interested in putting themselves forward for position of Chair or Vice-Chair/Co-Chair. Further, she suggested that the team might decide to approve the position of Chair and other possible positions during this initial meeting.S he invited comment on this issue.In his comments, S.S. Kshatriya recommended devoting more discussion to this issue later in the meeting.

Work Team Goals and Charter

Next, in order to show the connection between the ICANN Board recommendations and the work of the team, particularly its goals and charter, Olga Cavalli briefly referenced the Five Main Areas of Improvement as identified by the ICANN Board (slide 4): (1) GNSO Council Restructure; (2) Revise the Policy Development Process; (3) Adopt a Working Group Model; (4) Enhance Constituencies; (5) Improve Communications.Moving on to the Work Team Draft Charter Goals (slide 5), in reviewing the goals that correlate to the Board’s recommendations, she emphasized the outreach aspects of the team’s work. In particular, she suggested that the Work Team could decide to go further in this respect by promoting new constituencies in the GNSO.

As an aid in the discussion of the Work Team Draft Charter Goals, Olga Cavalli referred to the draft Charter as it appears in the Work Team Wiki. She noted again that a Work Team priority is to identify the tasks or projects, prioritize them, and develop timelines for them in order to incorporate these into the Charter.To assist the Work Team in this objective, she asked ICANN Staff to revise the draft Charter to include the Selected Work Team Projects as they correlate to the Board Recommendations (and as detailed in the meeting slide presentations, slides 7-8). In addition, she asked Staff to include, by reference, the “Draft OSC-CSG WT Board Recommendation Checklist” table to aid the Work Team in identifying its projects and priorities.

ICANN Board Recommendations

In her discussion of the ICANN Board Recommendations on enhancing constituencies (slide 6), Olga Cavalli emphasized that a key goal will be for the Work Team to determine how best to reach out to developing countries and non-English speakers.

At this point, S.S. Kshatriya commented that one aspect of reaching out to developing country ICANN participants is to make information more accessible on the web sites. In particular, he said it was particularly difficult to find documents and other information on the GNSO Improvements web site. Chuck Gomes noted, in response, that various past reviews identified the shortcomings of the ICANN web sites and other communications and, as a result, the ICANN Board had adopted specific recommendations, which the OSC Communications Work Team will address. To ensure that the Constituency Operations Work Team members have access to the information they need to begin their work, Olga Cavalli asked ICANN Staff to send to the team the relevant links from the Wikis and the GNSO Improvements web sites.

Suggested Work Team Projects

Next, Olga Cavalli initiated discussion on the Suggested Work Team Projects (slide 7) that correlate to the ICANN Board’s Recommendations.The first of theseis to “enhance existing constituencies by developing recommendations on constituency participation rules, operating principles, and database of members.” With respect to this task, she suggested it could be useful to work with existing constituencies and look at their best practices and lessons learned. On this point, Chuck Gomes noted that because the constituencies were broadly represented on the Constituencies Operations Work Team it might be best to rely on the expertise of the Work Team members rather than initiating a review of constituency procedures. He added that, whatever the constituency rules are, the key point with respect to the Board Recommendations is that they must be clearly communicated. Olga Cavalli concurred, but asked if it might be possible to have as reference the rules of the current constituencies. S.S. Kshatriya agreed and proposed that each constituency should report its rules and the Work Team could determine whether there are commonalities among these rules. Steve Metalitz noted that some of this work already has been done with the GNSO Constituency Renewal Process recently completed in February 2009. He suggested that ICANN Staff should prepare a chart comparing the constituency’s rules. Rob Hoggarth agreed that there already is a good knowledge base, but that comparing the rules could be useful. Steve Metalitz noted that the Work Team might have to wait to address this issue after the ICANN Board acts on the constituency re-certifications. Rob Hoggarth agreed and suggested that the Work Team may wish to address this issue later in the work of this particular ICANN Board Recommendation (enhancing constituencies).

Contituency Database

Olga Cavalli next noted that one of the proposed tasks is for the Work Team to develop and maintain a database of all constituency members and she asked if such a database did not already exist in some form. Chuck Gomes responded that one does not exist but added that each constituency generally keeps a list of its members but that these are, however, not necessarily public. Krista Papac asked for clarification concerning the reason for the Board’s requirement for a constituency member database, given that such a concept could generate concerns over privacy. Rob Hoggarth responded that the impetus for the Board’s recommendation was the need for transparency. Olga Cavalli noted that the issues for the Work Team to consider will be who gets access, what will be its design, and – in particular – how specific the database needs to be. She agreed that there are likely to be privacy issues, but she added that the database could be useful for reaching out to potential ICANN participants in developing countries by helping them to identify useful contacts within ICANN.

At this point Chuck Gomes suggested that it could be useful for the Work Team to have minutes prepared for this meeting. He noted that the Work Team members might decide that they do not need formal minutes for each meeting, but that some type of summary is important to provide transparency. Olga Cavalli agreed and requested that ICANN Staff should take the minutes.

Constituency Toolkit

Chuck Gomes noted that another Board Recommendation concerning enhancing constituencies was for the Work Team to develop a toolkit to offer to each constituency. He suggested that this task might be one of the easier of the Work Team’s tasks. He added that the Work Team may decide that there are types of administrative support and services that could be offered to all constituencies, such as support for setting up teleconferences and briefings.

Initial Work Team Activities

Identify Internal Skill Sets and Select Team Leaders

Olga Cavalli asked the Work Team to consider the Initial Work Team Activities (slide 9). In particular, she asked the team members whether they wished to decide in this meeting the positions of Work Team Chair and/or discuss whether the team also should select a Vice-Chair or Co-Chair. In response, S.S. Kshatriya suggested that it might be useful for the Work Team to select a Vice-Chair in addition to a Chair. He also proposed that Olga Cavalli should remain in the position of Interim Chair and that the Work Team should allow a period of time to determine if there are other team members who might volunteer themselves – or for nominations to be presented – for the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair. Olga Cavalli agreed and proposed that the Work Team should allow two weeks for this process, at the conclusion of which the Work Team would decide the position of Chair and decide whether to select a Vice-Chair.

Establish Time and Meeting Call Frequency

Next the Work Team discussed how frequently to meet via teleconference. Olga Cavalli first asked for clarification concerning the deadline for completing the Work Team’s tasks. Rob Hoggarth said that the Board recommendations suggested that most tasks should be complete in 6 months, recognizing that some may require more or less time to complete. He noted that the recommendations were originally approved by the Board in June 2008.

In the subsequent discussion, team members presented two proposals for meeting frequency. Some team members, including Chuck Gomes, Krista Papac, and Olga Cavalli recommended holding meetings every 2-3 three weeks. Tony Holmes noted, however that more frequent meetings could create difficulties for members who are on more than one Work Team and/or who have duties as members of the GNSO Council. He suggested that the Work Team might have to meet less frequently and – more importantly – coordinate meetings with those of other Work Teams and of the GNSO Council. Chuck Gomes agreed that coordination was important and recommended that ICANN Staff should develop a schedule that takes into consideration potential conflicting meetings. Staff then should establish a “Doodle” to determine what dates and times can accommodate the majority of Work Team members. Olga Cavalli agreed and also proposed initially that the Work Team should plan to meet every 2 weeks.

Establish Procedures to Finalize the Work Team Charter

Rob Hoggarth noted that another task the Work Team might wish to consider is establishing a plan to comment on, and confirm, the Charter. Olga Cavalli agreed that the Work Team needed to review the Charter and she thought that to assist the team in this task it would be helpful – as she previously mentioned – to incorporate into the draft Charter the“Draft OSC-CSG WT Board Recommendation Checklist” table. She also urged Work Team members to review the draft Charter once the table and suggested projects were included and add their comments to the Wiki.

Action Items

Prior to adjourning the meeting, Olga Cavalli detailed the following actions items:

1. ICANN Staff should distribute to Work Team members via the email distribution list, a list of links to key web sites and documents, and the link to the GNSO Constituency Renewal 2009 Public Comment Forum.
2. ICANN Staff should draft the meeting minutes and circulate them to Work Team members.
3. ICANN Staff should revise the draft Work Team Charter on the Constituency Operations Team Wiki to include the Board Recommendations and incorporate, by reference, the draft project checklist table (e.g. slide 11 discussed at the meeting).
4. ICANN Staff should review the schedule of upcoming GNSO meetings and establish a “Doodle” scheduling tool to determine the best days of the week to target for future regular Work Team meetings.
5. Work Team members should volunteer and/or submit nominations for candidates for Work Team Chair and Vice-Chair by March 14, 2009.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at approximately 1630 UTC.