Content Comparison

GNSO Working Groups
Operating Model Guidebook (OMG)

(Proposed Alternative Title: Working Group Guidelines)
(ad. better to use elipses since they do not create alternate pages)



Table of Contents
1.	GENERAL	2
1.1.	BACKGROUND	2
1.2.	PURPOSE	2
1.3.	INTENDED AUDIENCE	2
1.4.	REVISIONS	2
2.	ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES	2
2.1.	INTRODUCTIONS AND TEAM FORMATION	2
2.2.	TEAM MEMBER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES	5
2.3.	USE OF SUB-TEAMS	6
3.	NORMS	6
3.1.	PARTICIPATION	6
3.2.	REPRESENTATIVENESS	6
3.3.	PROCESS INTEGRITY	7
3.4.	INDIVIDUAL/GROUP BEHAVIOR AND NORMS	7
3.5.	RULES OF ENGAGEMENT	8
3.6.	STANDARD METHODOLOGY FOR MAKING DECISIONS	9
4.	LOGISTICS & REQUIREMENTS	10
4.1.	SESSION PLANNING -- GENERAL MEETING LOGISTICS	10
4.2.	COMMUNICATION/COLLABORATION TOOLS	11
4.3.	TRANSLATION	11
4.4.	BRIEFINGS AND SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS	12
5.	PRODUCTS & OUTPUTS	12
6.	CHAIR CHECKLIST	12

1.	GENERAL

1.1.	Background

Cite various references including the OSC and Working Group Team efforts to create the document (to be completed).

1.2.	Purpose

The objective of this document is to assist Working Groups to optimize  productivity and effectiveness by providing a set of guidelines,  checklists, templates, and other 'best practice' materials that they can  consider and/or utilize, as appropriate, in the process of establishing  the WG and throughout its life cycle.

1.3.	Intended Audience

This document is intended to inform the (potential) members of GNSO  Working Groups that have been created or are in the process of being  created by a Chartering Organization (e.g. GNSO Council) to achieve or  accomplish one or more objectives or outcomes.

1.4.	Revisions

As further experience is developed in the management, operation and  practice of Working Groups, it is intended that this document will be  updated when appropriate. Any proposals for updates or changes should be  submitted to the Appropriate committee

{(Question for the WT: Should a Standing Committee be set up following  completion of all WT tasks that would be responsible for reviewing /  approving any proposed changes to WT products?})


for consideration (please contact the GNSO Secretariat for further information).

2.	ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

Introductions and Team Formation

2.1.1.	Announcement of a Working Group

After a decision has been taken to form a Working Group, it is important  to circulate a ‘Call For Volunteers’ as widely as possible in order to  ensure broad representation and participation in the Working Group.  Depending upon the scope of the Working Group and its intended subject  matter, the following avenues could be explored:

•	Publication of announcement on GNSO and/or ICANN web site.
•	Distribution of announcement to GNSO Stakeholder Groups,  Constituencies, and/or other ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory  Committees.
•	Circulation of announcement to organizations that are considered to  have expertise/knowledge in relation to the subject matter of the  Working Group.

Ideally, the ‘Call For Volunteers’ announcement should include the  following types of information about the Working Group: its  objective(s), expectations concerning activities and timeframes, links  to relevant background information including its charter, details on how  to sign up as a participant, and the requirement to submit a Statement  of Interest (SOI). In addition, a CO might want to include some  statement as to the importance of the activity, that is, why the effort  is being undertaken, its criticality, context, and perceived usefulness  to the GNSO. While a WG may not "need to know" these elements in order  to complete their tasks, it could help in recruitment and sense of  purpose.

2.1.2.	Membership Applications

The GNSO Secretariat will be tasked to gather membership applications.  Following the submission of a request for membership in a WG, the GNSO  Secretariat will send a confirmation of receipt together with a request  for a Statement of Interest (SOI), using the model below, and any  additional guidance as to whether a Disclosure of Interest (DOI) is  expected to be submitted.

{(Question for the WT: Should there be any scrutiny of membership  applications by the CO (or other body), especially in cases where  volunteers are not members of a GNSO Constituency or Stakeholder Group?})

{(ad.  One method that has been used before it to check and see whether the  applicants are currently under suspension on many other ICANN list. that  plus ascertaining that they are indeed a real person - which often  means at least having someone communicate with them by phone at least  once.})



Statement of Interest Template:

{(As developed by the OSC GNSO Operations Work Team. To be  cross-referenced and updated once Operations Work Team has finalized the  language})



1.	Current vocation, employer and position
2.	Type of work performed in #1 above
3.	Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership  interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested  parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a  transaction, contract, or other arrangement.
4.	Identify any type of commercial or non-commercial interest in ICANN  GNSO policy development processes and outcomes. Are you representing  other parties? Describe any arrangements/agreements between you and any  other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your  nomination/selection as a work team member. Describe any tangible or  intangible benefit that you receive from participation in such  processes. For example, if you are an academic or NGO and use your  position to advance your ability to participate, this should be a part  of the statement of interest, just as should employment by a contracted  party, or a business relationship with a non\- contracted party who has  an interest in policy outcomes.

Disclosure of Interest Template:

Relevant Parties shall provide a Disclosure of Interest setting forth  any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party’s  judgment, or be perceived to affect a Relevant Party’s judgment on an  issue that is under review, consideration or discussion.

The GNSO Secretariat shall post all SOIs, DOIs, any other self-selection  disclosures or other related team member documents that have been  received to the WG’s workspace (or alternate).

If a member of the Working Group still has not submitted a SOI after  three reminders from the GNSO Secretariat, that member shall be removed  from the WG mailing and membership list, unless the Chair of the WG  decides that there are extenuating circumstances that allow for  additional time for the member in question to submit the missing  documents. Once the member in question has submitted the missing SOI,  his or her membership will be reinstated.

{(Proposed procedure for review by the WT})

{(ad. chair and secretariat should be able to handle it.})



2.1.3.	Planning the First Meeting

The responsible ICANN Staff member will coordinate with the Chair,  Interim Chair or Chartering Organization (as appropriate) on the timing  and proposed agenda for the first meeting of the WG. In addition, the  ICANN Staff member is expected to provide the members of the WG with the  relevant background information and recommended materials for review  prior to the first meeting.

Once a date and time has been identified, the GNSO Secretariat will send out the call-in details to all the members of the WG.

2.1.4.	First Meeting of the Working Group

2.1.4.1.	Introductions

For team-building purposes, to understand its resources and capabilities  and, potentially, to help with prospective assignments, members of the  Working Group should be provided with the opportunity, at the start of  the first meeting, to share information regarding interests, background,  skills, experience, especially as related to any requirements in the  Charter,

Members of the Working Group should be informed that all GNSO Working  Groups are expected to operate under the principles of transparency and  openness, which means, inter alia, that mailing lists are publicly  archived, meetings are normally recorded and/or transcribed, and SOIs  are required from Working Group participants.

2.1.4.2.	Election of the WG Chair

Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization,  normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until  that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfil the role of  interim Chair. A Working Group can elect to have co-chairs, vice-chairs  or request ICANN Staff to perform the role of Chair. Once selected, a  Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering  Organization (CO). If there are any objections to the selected Chair,  the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is majority  support for the selected Chair. If there is no majority support, the  Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and  return to the CO with a new proposal.

{(Question for the WT: This is the current practice used by the GNSO  (although there have never been any objections as far as I recall).  Should the same procedure be included here, or are there other proposals  / practices to be considered?})



2.1.4.3.	Items for Review

At the first meeting of the WG or as soon thereafter as practicable, the  following documents should be reviewed in order to ensure all members  have a common understanding of the WG’s mission, goals, objectives,  deliverables and timeframes: WG Charter, WG Operating Model Guidebook  (OMG) and any other documents relevant for the WGs discussion (e.g.  Policy Development Process Guidebook, Issues Paper). It is advisable  that WGs develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and  expected timing in order to achieve the milestones set out in the WG  Charter.

2.2.	Team Member Roles and Responsibilities

The following is a description of standard WG roles. Typically the  Charter will outline the desired qualities and skills a WG Chair should  possess, the role and name of the official liaison to the Chartering  Organization, and any key Staff or other experts assigned to the WG. Any  additional roles that are not included here should be listed in the WG  Charter, including a description and minimal set of functions / duties  to the extent that the chartering organization might wish to specify  them.

•	Chair - The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over team  deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have the  opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working Group  to the Chartering Organization. The Chair should underscore the  importance of achieving representational balance on any sub-teams that  are formed. The Chair should always encourage and, where necessary,  enforce the ICANN Standards of Behavior (see 3.0 Norms).
•	Co-Chairs or Vice-Chairs -- Appointing a co-chair(s) or vice-chair(s)  can facilitate the work of the Chair by ensuring continuity in case of  absence, sharing of workload, and allowing the Chair to become engaged  in a particular debate.
•	Secretary - Note taker and recorder of the WG’s activities (Note: this role could also be fulfilled by ICANN Staff).
•	Liaison - A Member of the Chartering Organization (CO) can be  appointed to serve as a Liaison to the Working Group. The role of the  Liaison consists of reporting to the CO on a regular basis on the  progress of the Working Group; assisting the Chair as required with  his/her knowledge of WG processes and practices; taking back to the CO  any questions or queries the WG might have in relation to its charter  and mission; and, assisting or intervening when the WG faces challenges  or problems. The liaison is expected to play a neutral role, monitor the  discussions of the Working Group and assist and inform the Chair and  the WG as required.
•	Staff -- ICANN Staff can perform the following distinct roles for a WG:

{(ad. suggest change to: ICANN Staff can perform the following distinct roles for a WG as requested and appropriate:})



\-	Expertise (technical, legal, economic, etc.)
\-	Secretariat (fundamentally a support function covering both logistics  and drafting assistance in a neutral manner reflecting faithfully the  deliberations of the Working Group)
\-	Operational/Implementation (facilitation with the framework of existing policies and rules)
\-	Scoping (for policy matters, internal role of the General Counsel, but  possibly distinct, guaranteeing respect of the procedures and  competencies of the different structures)

A suggested procedure to conduct elections can be:
•	Nominations or self-nominations;
•	Vote by simple majority;
•	Notification of and confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions.

{(ad. note, is has been more of a review then approval. i.e. the chair  can take over immediately and does not need to wait until the CO  approves it. otherwise there may be long delays. the council has never  been explicit, but i think we do more review then prior approval.})



2.3.	Use of Sub-Teams

The WG may decide to employ sub-teams as an efficient means of  delegating topics or assignments to be completed. Sub-team members need  to have a clear understanding of issues they work on as well as the  results to be achieved. The members of sub-teams report their results to  whole team for review and approval. The WG should indicate whether or  not it would like to have meetings of the sub-team recorded and/or  transcribed.

Any member of the WG can serve on any sub-team; however, depending upon  the specific tasks to be accomplished, the Chair should ensure that the  sub-team is properly balanced with the appropriate skills and resources  to ensure successful completion.

Decisions made by sub-groups should always be shared with the larger  team and a call for consensus must be made by the entire WG.

3.	NORMS

3.1.	Participation

Members of a WG are expected to be active participants, either on the WG  mailing lists and/or in the WG meetings, although some might opt to  take an observer approach (monitor mailing lists and/or meetings). The  WG Chair is expected to make an assessment at the start of every meeting  whether a ‘quorum’ has been reached to proceed with the meeting and  discussions. A quorum has not been defined in exact numbers in this  context, but should be understood as having a representative number of  WG members present. For example, the Chair may decide that there is no  quorum to make decisions, but that there is a quorum to have initial  discussions on a certain issue and following those initial discussions  encourage members on the mailing list to share their views before a  decision is made at a subsequent meeting.

If there is lack of participation resulting in meetings being cancelled  and/or decisions being postponed, the Chair is expected to explore the  reasons (e.g. issues with the schedule of meetings, conflict with other  activities or priorities) and attempt to address them (e.g. review  meeting schedule). If there is no obvious way to address the situation,  the Chair should approach the Chartering Organization, GNSO Stakeholder  Groups, or Constituencies for assistance (e.g. request for additional  volunteers to the WG) on whether there is enough / sufficient interest  from the community / delay work.

3.2.	Representativeness

Ideally, a Working Group should mirror the diversity and  representativeness of the GNSO community by having representatives from  most, if not all, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and/or Constituencies. It  should be noted that certain issues might be more of interest to one  part of the community than others. The Chair, in cooperation with the  GNSO Secretariat and ICANN Staff, is expected to assess whether the WG  has sufficiently broad representation, and if not, which groups should  be approached to encourage participation. Similarly, if the Chair is of  the opinion that there is over-representation to the point of capture,  he/she should inform the Chartering Organization.

3.3.	Process Integrity

WGs are encouraged to focus and tailor their work efforts to achieve the  identified goals of the Charter. While minimum attendance and  participation requirements are not explicitly recommended, a Chair is  expected, as outlined above, to take the necessary measures to ensure  that all WG members have an opportunity to provide their input on issues  and decisions. WG members should be mindful that, once input/comment  periods have been closed, discussions or decisions should not be  resurrected unless there is group consensus that the issue should be  revisited in light of new information that has been introduced.

Members should be encouraged to consider whether, if they cannot  participate faithfully in the WG’s process (e.g. attending meetings,  providing input, monitoring discussions), they should formally withdraw.  It should be noted that there are no rules or requirements as to what  constitutes sufficient or adequate ‘participation’; this is an  assessment that each WG member should make individually.

3.4.	Individual/Group Behavior and Norms

ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior, as outlined in the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Framework, are:

“Those who take part in ICANN multi-stakeholder process including Board,  staff and all those involved in Supporting Organization and Advisory  Committee councils undertake to:

•	Act in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws. In particular, participants  undertake to act within the mission of ICANN and in the spirit of the  values contained in the Bylaws.
•	Adhere to the conflict of interest policy laid out in the Bylaws.
•	Treat all members of the ICANN community equally, irrespective of  nationality, gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs,  disability, age, or sexual orientation; members of the ICANN community  should treat each other with civility both face to face and online.

{ad. The civility criterion is really fuzzy. There are no objective  standards and it allows people in authority to condemn as uncivil anyone  they disagree with. I think the next points in this doc, define a  better standard of behavior. Especially if you include the Liverpool  stmt. later.}



•	Act in a reasonable and informed manner when participating in policy  development and decision-making processes. This includes regularly  attending all scheduled meetings and exercising independent judgment  based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users  and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique  identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the  entity to which an individual might owe their appointment.

{(ad. attending all scheduled meetings This standard contradicts earlier  statement about being able to join a group to just monitor. In that  case, reading the list and listening to the recordings is sufficient.  Also, given timings of meeting, it may be difficult for all people to  make all meetings.})



•	Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy  issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take  part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all  stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view.
•	Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find  solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's  responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus  driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN  process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model  by trying to build consensus with other participants.
•	Act in accordance with ICANN policies.
•	Protect the organization's assets and ensure their efficient and effective use.
•	Act fairly and in good faith with other participants in the ICANN process."

All of these principles of behavior, when used in communication between  members of the global ICANN community, will help to ensure that we're  all given the chance to be heard, and to listen, in a respectful,  cooperative manner that will move the community towards dialogue and  productivity”.

{(The WT should discuss whether it wants to add additional principles to  these ‘expected standards of behavior’ that might be of particular  relevance to WGs})



In addition, it might be worth pointing to the ‘Statement on Respectful  Online Communication’, drafted jointly and agreed to by consensus April  20, 2007 at the 5th International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution in  Liverpool, England - held in collaboration with the United Nations  Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific:

”While information and communications technologies (ICT) enable  unprecedented interactions between individuals around the world, they  also introduce some dynamics that can degrade dialogue. ICT enables  people to communicate immediately and anonymously, often without  moderation, and in some circumstances this encourages behavior (such as  threats or insults) that most individuals would never engage in  face-to-face. This behavior may make people feel unwelcome,  disrespected, or harassed in their online interactions. Ultimately,  individuals may be dissuaded by these dynamics from participating, which  undermines the vibrancy of our global conversation.

As a result, we encourage individuals to:
•	communicate online with respect
•	listen carefully to others in order to understand their perspectives
•	take responsibility for their words and actions
•	keep criticism constructive
•	respect diversity and be tolerant of differences

We embrace full and open communication and recognize the unique  opportunity for expression in the online environment. We support freedom  of speech and reject censorship. These principles are not intended to  address what ideas can be expressed, but rather the tone with which  communications take place.”

If a WG member feels that any of the above standards are being abused,  the affected party should appeal first to the Chair and Liaison and, if  unsatisfactorily resolved, to the Chair of the Chartering Organization.  It is important to emphasize that expressed disagreement is not, by  itself, grounds for abusive behavior.

{(ad. suggest adding something like: It is also important to understand  that often, cultural differences and language barrier may make  statements that appear disrespectful or somehow outside the norms of  behavior well within those bounds. In determining what is or is not  appropriate behavior tolerance of different perspectives and personal  capabilties is always required.})



3.5.	Rules of Engagement

This section contains procedures for handling any member that is  perceived to be persistently and continually obstructing the Working  Group’s efforts.

The Chair, in consultation with the Chartering Organization liaison(s),  is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously  disrupts the Working Group. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the  Chartering Organization. Generally, the participant should first be  warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is  put into place. In extreme circumstances, this requirement may be  bypassed.

{(This language is currently being used in most WG charters. The WT will  need to review whether it would like to use the same language here.})



Appeal Process: any WG member that believes that his/her contributions  are being systematically ignored or discounted should first discuss the  circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be  resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to  discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization.

{(ad. While this is a good reason for a participant to appeal, it really  does not pertain directly to the suspension or removal from the list as  described above. I think we need an appeal stmtstatement like: The suspension or  removal of a participant from a list or group must be reviewed by the  CO. The suspended/emoved participant will be given an opportunity to  present arguments in his or her own defense before any detemrinationdetermination is  made.})



3.6.	Standard Methodology for Making Decisions

The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:
•	Unanimous consensus
•	Rough consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree
•	Strong support but significant opposition
•	Minority viewpoint(s)

{(possible clarification to be added: a minority viewpoint can occur where there is rough consensus as well as strong support})



•	No consensus

If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a  position by the Chair or any other rough consensus call, they can  follow these steps sequentially:
1.	Send email to the Chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.
2.	If the Chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the CO  liaison(s). The Chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response.  If the liaisons supports the Chair's position, forward the appeal to  the CO. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the  response.
3.	If the CO supports the Chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the Board report.

This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in  the appeals process and should include a statement from the council.

{(Current language used in WG charters, but seems to be missing elements such as what if liaison does not agree with Chair})

{(ad.  exactly. rest of process: If the council supports the chair and  liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board  report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all  steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the  council. (or in this case CO)})



Based upon the WG's needs and/or the Chair’s direction, WG participants  may request that their names be associated explicitly with each  view/position (optional).

If a chartering organization wishes to deviate from the standard  methodology for making decisions or empower the WG to decide its own  decision-making methodology it should be affirmatively stated in the WG  Charter.

Consensus calls should always involve the entire Working Group.

{(WT should decide whether they would like to include examples of what  constitutes voting labels such as consensus and rough consensus, or  whether the description above is sufficient and designation should be  left to the Chair’s discretion})

{(ad. note is it not really  chair's discretion the chair must announce his or her proposal to  announce consensus to the Wg and the group is allowed to argue against  it. So while the chair intitiates such a call, the call is really made  at the group's sufferance. Or else there is an appeal})



4.	LOGISTICS & REQUIREMENTS

4.1.	Session Planning -- General Meeting Logistics

The Chair will normally work with ICANN Staff and/or the GNSO  Secretariat to coordinate the logistics for the WG meetings. Online  tools are available that can be used to find a day and time that is  convenient for most WG participants. It should be noted, however, that  scheduling tools should follow the preference of the majority and  accommodate those that are in different time zones. Alternating meeting  times should be considered as an option if the same members of the WG  are always ‘inconvenienced’ by a standing meeting time. WGs should  decide how often they would like to meet (e.g. weekly, every two weeks)  and for how long (e.g. 1 hour, 1.5 hours).

The GNSO Secretariat is responsible for communicating the timing and  dial-in details for meetings that take place by conference call.  Universal Standard Time (UTC) is used as a standard reference (local  times can be found using www.timeanddate.com). For most countries, toll  free dial-in numbers will be provided. The GNSO Secretariat will also be  able to assist with providing dial-out support if required by a WG  member(s). As described above, meetings are normally recorded and  transcribed. To facilitate remote participation and sharing of  documents, WGs can make use of various online connect services.

WGs can opt to organize face-to-face meetings during ICANN meetings to  take advantage of those members attending and to open its session to the  broader ICANN community. It should be noted that not all WG members may  attend an ICANN meeting, a factor that should be weighed in deciding  whether to arrange a face-to-face session. Remote participation  facilities might be available for those not attending an ICANN meeting  in person.

Apart from face-to-face sessions during ICANN meetings, WGs might decide  that it is vital for its deliberations and/or reaching consensus to  meet in person for a certain amount of time (e.g. day, two days). If  funding is required to organize such a meeting (e.g. travel expenses), a  request should be made to the Chartering Organization for approval.

A WG may request additional tools or applications if considered necessary to achieve the objectives set out in its Charter.

The Chair, with support of ICANN Staff, if required, is expected to  circulate the agenda to the WG preferably one day in advance. At the  start of a meeting, the Chair can review the agenda and WG members can  propose items to be added or changed.

{(ad. Is one day before the meeting sufficient. If so should be something like "at least one day in advance if not earlier"})



Following the meeting, an MP3 recording and transcript will be made  available for those who were not able to attend and/or other interested  parties. In addition, a WG can consider using action items and/or notes  from the meeting to record the main decisions or follow-up items from a  meeting. The action items or meeting notes should be circulated in a  timely manner in order to allow for sufficient preparation or response  ahead of the next meeting.

4.2.	Communication/Collaboration Tools

Each Working Group will have a dedicated mailing list. Working Group mailing lists are publicly archived on the GNSO web site ([http://gnso.icann.org|http://gnso.icann.org/]). In addition, WGs can make use of collaborative workspaces such as Wikis (see [https://st.icann.org/|https://st.icann.org/]).  WGs are free to make use of different document formats, but it might be  helpful to come to an agreement, in advance, to ensure that all members  are able to work with them.

{(Further information might be added based on OSC Communications Team recommendations, if applicable})



4.3.	Translation

ICANN uses the following translation principles:

ICANN will provide timely and accurate translations, and move from an  organisation that provides translation of texts to one that is capable  of communicating comfortably with a range of different languages. The  translation framework comprises a four-layer system:
\-	The bottom layer contains those specific documents and publications  that address the organisation’s overall strategic thinking. They will be  translated into an agreed block of languages.
\-	The next layer contains a class of documents that ICANN undertakes to  provide in different languages to allow interaction within ICANN  processes by non-English speakers.
\-	The third layer comprises documents suggested by ICANN staff as being  helpful or necessary in ongoing processes; and documents requested by  the Internet community for the same reasons. These documents will be run  through a translation approval system.
\-	The top layer is where the community is encouraged to use online  collaborative tools to provide understandable versions of ICANN  materials as well as material dynamically generated by the community  itself. ICANN will provide the technology for community editing and  rating, and a clear and predictable online location for this interaction  to occur. It will also seek input from the community to review the  tools.

English will remain the operating language of ICANN for business consultation and legal purposes.

Every effort will be made to ensure equity between comments made in  languages other than English and those made in English. If it is not  possible to arrange the release of particular documents in the agreed  languages at the same time, then each language will be provided with the  same time period in which to make comments.

ICANN will adopt the International Organisation for Standardisation’s  639-2 naming system for identifying and labeling particular languages.

{(Further information might be added based on OSC recommendations, if applicable})



4.4.	Briefings and Subject Matter Experts

If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings  occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should  identify its specific requests to the CO including subject matter(s),  type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If additional costs are  involved, prior approval must be obtained from the CO.

5.	PRODUCTS & OUTPUTS

The products and outputs of a Working Group may be prescribed by the  Charter such as a report, recommendations, guidelines or defined by the  process under which the WG operates (e.g. Policy Development Process).  In addition, the Working Group might decide that additional products or  outputs are required in order to carry out its Charter in an efficient  and productive manner such as a statement of work or a project plan.  Working Groups should be encouraged to review products and outputs from  other WGs and/ or consult with ICANN Staff to decide with additional  products or outputs would be advisable to develop. Links to some  examples of products and outputs produced by other GNSO Working Groups  can be found hereunder:

•	Initial Report -- IRTP Part A WG Initial Report
•	Final Report -- GNSO Final Report on Domain Tasting
•	Public Comment Review Sheet -- Fast Flux Public Comments Review
•	Recommendations / Guidelines -- New gTLDs Principles, Recommendations & Implementation Guidelines
•	Constituency Statement Template -- IRTP Part B Constituency Statement Template
•	Public Comment Announcement Text -- Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Public Comment Announcement

{(Other examples to be added as deemed appropriate})

{(Placeholder  for description of PDP WGs once PDP-WT has finalized its activities, if  any products or timelines are prescribed by by-laws})



6.	Chair Checklist

{(Question for the WT: What should be foreseen in this checklist?})