2017-06-22 GNSO Review WG

Dear all,

The next GNSO Review Working Group Meeting will be on Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 12:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

05:00 PST, 08:00 EST, 13:00 London, 14:00 CET

For other places: http://tinyurl.com/yc4lgfcf

 Draft Agenda:

1. Review agenda 
2. SOIs 
3. Consensus Call for Recommendation 24/25 Charter – Opened on 19 June; Closes on 03 July (2 weeks)
4. Continue discussion of Charter for Recommendations 10/11
5. Begin discussion on Charter for Recommendation 13
6. Meeting Schedule: Next meeting 06 July
7. AOB

GNSO Review Implementation Charter Rec 10-11 v1 07 June 2017

GNSO Review Implementation Charter Rec 13 v1 20 June 2017

Mp3

Adobe Connect Recording

Transcript

AC Chat

Apologies: Marika Konings (staff) 

Attendance: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary), Jennifer Wolfe (RySG Primary), Heath Dixon (RrSG Primary), Lori Schulman (IPC Primary), Lawrence Olawale-Roberts (BC Primary), Rafik Dammak (NCSG Primary)

on Audio only: None

Staff: Julie Hedlund, Amr Elsadr, Berry Cobb, Michelle DeSmyter

Action Items:

1. Charter for Recommendations 24/25: 1) Revise the charter determinations to correct item 1 and to add a new item 3 recommendation; 2) send out for a new extended Consensus Call to end on COB Monday, 10 July.
2. Charter for Recommendations 10/11: Evaluate Geographic Names facilitated sessions at ICANN59 in a brief survey.  Place this charter on hold until Geographic Names session results are evaluated.
3. Charter for Recommendation 13: Look at what ICANN may be developing for a document management system.
4. Next Meeting: Propose on the list moving the 06 July meeting to 13 July and if there no objections reschedule.

Discussion Notes: 

1.  Consensus Call for Recommendation 24/25 Charter:

-- Suggestion to add a recommendation that current and historic information be consolidated in one web page.

-- Staff suggests to accept edits from Wolf-Ulrich - that current processes address recommendation 24, and that they are effective and accessible, but notes that to be more clear the wording should mirror that for Recommendation 25 as follows: “That the current processes address Recommendation 24 and that they are effective and accessible.”

-- Question: Should the consensus call be extended, following circulation of track changes by staff?   The Working Group agreed to extend the Consensus Call on the revised document to COB 10 July.

2. Charter for Recommendations 10/11:

-- Pilot Project -- not sure it was helpful to have a F2F facilitated meeting.  Pilot was conducted twice for the PPSAI PDP, and once for the IGO/INGO access to curative rights PDP.  The link to the results is contained in the charter.  Results of the survey were mixed -- not conclusive that the F2F sessions were helpful.

-- Hard to say in future if there will be a need for a facilitator.  If we leave it as it is what could be done if it comes up?  Could we establish a framework or do we leave it as it is?

-- Suggestion: Evaluate Geographic Names facilitated sessions at ICANN59 in a brief survey -- were they helpful?  Should there be guidelines?

-- Perhaps if we have criteria they could be very broad.

-- Place this charter on hold until we can evaluate the Geographic Names session results.

3. Charter for Recommendation 13:

-- Note that access to Google Doc is not universal - some might not have access (example: because of geo blocking), while access to Microsoft Word could also be challenging due to licensing costs.

-- Question: The SSAC conducted research on a tool.  What were the results? Answer: Decided to use Google Docs and Microsoft Word.  Using Google Docs for drafts and Microsoft Word for final drafts.

-- Question: Are there access issues?  What if there are public interests?  Answer: Access can be moderated -- to edit, comment, etc. based on who has the link.  Access also depends on if someone has a Google account or if one can afford Microsoft.  Google Drive is not accessible in China.

-- Maybe need criteria to have in mind.  There is the issue of user acceptance for new tools.

-- One thing that works for those in the developing region is what you have with Microsoft Word where you can work offline.  Google Docs has its own advantages to see comments in real time.  Both platforms have advantages.  If ICANN is looking at a document management system it must have the ability to work offline.

-- Action: Look at what ICANN may be developing for a document management system.

4. Next meeting:

-- Propose on the list moving the 06 July meeting to 13 July and if there no objections reschedule.