On 22 September 2015, the ALAC re-appointed Olivier Crepin-Leblond to serve as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO. This term will be from the end of the ICANN 54 Meeting in October 2015 through the end of the 2016 AGM. 

Olivier Crepin-Leblond previously served as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council from March 7th, 2015, to the end of the AGM at the ICANN 54 meeting in Dublin 2015.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr  served briefly as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council from October 2014 through to End February 2015, when due to her continuing service within the ICANN NomCom, she was required to tender her resignation from this role.

Alan Greenberg served as the GNSO Liaison for the following terms:  2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014.


NEWS: 

 

 

 

14 April 2016GNSO Council Teleconference21:00 UTC

 

 (preliminary report pending addition of Recorded Action Items)

 

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

 

 

 

1.1 – Roll call

 

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

 

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

 

1.4  – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the meeting of the Special GNSO Council session 29 February 2016 will be posted as approved on 22 April  2016.

 

 

 

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes)

 

2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action List

 

 

 

 

 

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

 

 

 

 

 

Item 4: PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION – Possible Next Steps in Resolving the Issue of Permanent Protection of Certain Red Cross Identifiers (20 minutes)

 

 

 

In November 2013, the GNSO Council approved the final recommendations from its Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs. Subsequently, in April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s PDP recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice received on the topic. For the Red Cross movement, the protections adopted were for the full names Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun at the top and second levels, in the 6 official languages of the United Nations, with an Exception Procedure to be designed during the implementation phase for the affected organizations. However, with respect to the names and acronyms of the 189 national Red Cross societies and the names of the International Red Cross Movement (as noted by the GAC in its Singapore Communique), the Board requested more time to consider the GNSO’s recommendations as these are inconsistent with GAC advice received on the topic. In the interim period, the Board adopted temporary protections for the Red Cross national society and international movement names noted in the GAC’s Singapore Communique.  

 

 

 

At ICANN55, representatives of the Red Cross met with the GNSO Council leadership to discuss possible next steps. Here the Red Cross representatives will brief the Council on the scope of the Red Cross’ continuing request for permanent protections for those of its national society and international movement identifiers that are not currently covered by the policy recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

 

 

 

4.1 – Introduction (James Bladel)

 

4.2 – Presentation by representatives of the Red Cross (by invitation)

 

4.3 – Q&A / next steps

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: International Red Cross providing evidence as to why Red Cross should be given protection in the Red Cross / Red Crescent mark.

 

The Red Cross maintains that they do not fit in the IGO/INGO Protection.

 

 

 

 

 

Item 5: VOTE – Approval of Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations from the GNSO Review (10 minutes)

 

 

 

As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (now known as the Organizational Effectiveness Committee) appointed Westlake Governance as the independent examiner to conduct the current review of the performance and operations of the GNSO. A GNSO Working Party, chaired by former Councillor Jennifer Wolfe and comprising representatives of all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, was formed to consult with Westlake over the design and conduct of the review. Westlake's Draft Report was published for public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including from the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its Final Report on 15 September. The Working Party reviewed all the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board in relation to the implementability and prioritization of the recommendations. The Council received a written update from the Working Party chair on 29 January, and the Working Party’s proposed Implementation and Feasibility Analysis was sent to the Council on 28 February.

 

 

 

Here the Council will review the Working Party’s Implementation and Feasibility Analysis, and vote on its adoption as well as agree on next steps in the process.

 

 

 

5.1 – Presentation of the motion  (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
5.2 – Discussion

 

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

 

GNSO Liaison Notes:

Long discussion about several concerns which were expressed about how to go forward with some of the recommendations and what additional issues they may be raising as a consequence. Amr El Sadr expressed his concerns about what

 

Important to differentiate the output of the recommendations vs. the recommendations of a PDP working group. The Working Party is an unchartered group. During the WP deliberations there was a conscious decision to seek council endorsement of the assessment. Emphasis on “endorsing the recommendation” rather than “adopting the recommendation”.

 

Suggestion: vote to continue the work based on the comments that were received. “adopting” as in not actually endorsing it.

 

 

 

Adopted unanimously. (less Marilia Maciel who was absent)

 

 

 

Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Procedures Governing the Selection of the GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (10 minutes)

 

 

 

As part of a two-year pilot program initiated in June 2014, the GNSO Council and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) agreed, through its joint GAC-GNSO Consultation Group, to appoint a GNSO Liaison to the GAC. The purpose of the Liaison role was to facilitate more effective early engagement by the GAC in GNSO policy activities and to contribute toward better information flow between the two bodies. Following Consultation Group review of the pilot program, the Consultation Group recommended that the Liaison role be made a permanent one in March 2016. Here the Council will review and approve the scope of such a permanent Liaison role as well as the application, selection and confirmation process.

 

 

 

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

 

6.2 – Discussion

 

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

 

Applications are made confidentially. Candidates may share their application if they wish. An evaluation sheet will be used to decide on the candidate. Agreement that if there are more than one candidate there might be a balance between contracted & non-contracted parties house.

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: Approved unanimously. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of GNSO Input to the ICANN Board on the GAC’s Marrakech Communique (20 minutes)

 

 

 

Beginning in mid-2015 with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique, the GNSO Council developed a mechanism for reviewing and commenting on aspects of that Communique that are relevant to gTLD policy. The resulting GNSO input on both the GAC’s Buenos Aires and Dublin Communiques were approved by the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board and the GAC Chair (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/robinson-to-icann-board-gac-chair-29jul15-en.pdf and http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-gac-review-31dec15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the draft response to the GAC’s Marrakech Communique, drafted by a volunteer group of Councillors, and, if appropriate, approve its being forwarded to the ICANN Board and GAC Chair.

 

 

 

7.1 – Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
7.2 – Discussion

 

7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: Response approved. 

 

Item 8: COUNCIL APPROVAL – Public Comment on ICANN’s FY17 Proposed Budget (15 minutes)

 

 

 

On 5 March 2016, the draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan and Budget was published for public comment (closing on 30 April). The GNSO Council had previously provided public comments to the FY16 Operating Plan and Budget. At ICANN55, a small group of Councillors had volunteered to work on possible Council comments to the draft FY17 budget. Here the Council will review and, if appropriate, agree to send in the proposed comments.

 

 

 

8.1 – Update and summary of comments (Keith Drazek / Edward Morris / Carlos Raul Gutierrez)

 

8.2 – Discussion

 

8.3 – Next steps

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: Cut short. Taken to list.

 

 

 

Item 9: DISCUSSION – Implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan (10 minutes)

 

 

 

At ICANN55, community discussions were held concerning the upcoming implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan, including at a session on 7 March. Several GNSO community members voiced concerns about whether the proposed implementation plan would meet the requirements of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Proposal on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). On 25 March a Call for Volunteers was issued for additional CCWG participation, including for implementation of the adopted Work Stream 1 recommendations.

 

 

 

Here the Council will discuss the community concerns that have been raised, and review possible next steps in relation to the CWG-Stewardship and ICANN staff that have been charged with developing the implementation plan.

 

 

 

9.1 – Summary & update (James Bladel)

 

9.2 – Discussion

 

9.3 – Next steps

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: Briefly discussed. Follow-up on mailing list due to time running out.

 

 

 

Item 10: DISCUSSION – Planning for “Meeting B” (ICANN Policy Forum) (10 Minutes)

 

At ICANN55, the GNSO held several discussions, including with the ICANN Board, concerning the focus, duration and meeting schedule for the first designated ICANN Policy Forum, to take place in Helsinki as ICANN56 (i.e. the initial so-called “Meeting B”). Specific concerns were raised about the apparent lack of time for actual policy work in the overall Meeting B schedule when all the current draft SO/AC/Board proposals were put together, and about the lack of opportunity for different SO/AC/Board groups to interact with one another. A small group of SO/AC volunteers has been formed to address these concerns.

 

 

 

Here the Council will hear from its representatives to this group, and discuss further plans for finalizing the GNSO’s schedule for ICANN56 so as to maximize the policy focus for Meeting B. This includes confirmation of the PDP Working Group(s) to be invited to consider conducting a face-to-face working meeting in Helsinki, on a day either precedent or subsequent to the ICANN56 schedule.

 

 

 

10.1 – Update (Donna Austin / Volker Greimann)

 

10.2 – Discussion

 

10.3 – Next steps

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: Update that work is ongoing and preparations including the coordination with other SOs & ACs is ongoing.

 

 

 

Item 11: DISCUSSION – Status of Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (10 minutes)

 

 

 

The Charter for this Cross Community Working Group was ratified by the ccNSO Council (September 2014), the GNSO Council (October 2014), and the ALAC (April 2015). The CCWG Charter states its scope as doing “whatever it deems relevant and necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes”, with regular updates to be provided to its Chartering Organizations and a periodic Progress Paper where appropriate. The Charter also provides that the Chartering Organizations should review the Charter and CCWG deliverables in order to determine whether the group should continue or be dissolved, with the proviso that the CCWG will continue if at least two of its Chartering Organizations extend the Charter and notify the other Chartering Organizations accordingly.

 

 

 

During the CCWG co-chairs’ update to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils at ICANN55, there was some discussion over whether a CCWG format or other arrangement might be the most appropriate form for SO/AC interaction on Internet governance matters, especially given the expected forthcoming finalization of a Uniform Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs by the CCWG-Principles. Here the GNSO Council will continue that discussion, with a view toward agreeing on the appropriate next steps for the CCWG on Internet Governance.

 

 

 

11.1 – Introduction and summary (Carlos Raul Gutierrez)

 

11.2 – Discussion

 

11.3 – Next steps

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: Deferred to mailing list due to time having run out.

 

 

 

Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes)

 

 

 

12.1 – Proposed approach to Expert Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Final Report

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: Deferred to mailing list due to time having run out.

 



18 February 2016GNSO Council Teleconference12:00 UTC

 

 (preliminary report pending addition of Recorded Action Items)

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

 

1.1 – Roll call

 

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

 

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

 

1.4  – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Draft minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 21 January 2016 were posted as approved on 4 February 2016.

 

 

 

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)

 

2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action List

 

 

 

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 minutes)

 

3.1 – Approve Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group

 

3.2 – Approve appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chairs for the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services PDP Working Group

 

 

 

 

 

Item 4: COUNCIL ACTION – Vote on Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) for the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs, and Discussion of Proposed Charter for the PDP Working Group (30 minutes)

 

In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS). The Final Issue Report was published on 11 January 2015 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf).  Based on public comments received in response to the publication of the Preliminary Issue Report, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP), with the first phase focused on a review of the RPMs developed for the New gTLD Program and, the subsequent, second phase on a review of the UDRP. Here the Council will review the report and vote on whether or not to initiate the recommended PDP. The Council will also discuss the proposed draft Charter for the PDP Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf).

 

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

 

4.2 – Discussion of the motion

 

4.3 – Council vote on the motion (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

 

4.4 – Council review and discussion of draft charter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf)

 

4.5 – Next steps

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: a long discussion took place about disagreement on the order in which the issues will be addressed in the PDP:

 

  • Whether the review of the RPMs is performed first, followed by a review of a UDRP
  • Whether the review of the UDRP is performed first, followed by a review of the RPMs

 

It was strongly added that this decision should not be left to the Working Group itself to work out.

 

With the Council ready to hammer out the Charter in advance of Marrakech, the Motion was passed unanimously.

 

 

 

Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Marrakech Meeting Planning (10 minutes)

 

During the Dublin meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr volunteered to work with the GNSO Council Leadership on the development of the proposed agenda for the GNSO Weekend Session in Marrakech. Here the Council will receive a status update on the planning for Marrakech and any action that may be required from the GNSO Council.

 

5.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr / Donna Austin)

 

5.2 – Discussion

 

5.3 – Next steps

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: update performed, noting that the new ICANN CEO has been invited by GNSO Council Staff to come meet the GNSO Council at his convenience.

 

 

 

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 minutes)

 

 

 

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As the US government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

 

 

 

In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published for public comment on 30 November 2015.

 

 

 

Concurrently, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) – the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue – announced after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. In this regard, the CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment to the CCWG-Accountability which, while noting that several of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points that in its view merited further attention.

 

In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team to review all the public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council held a special meeting on 14 January 2016 to discuss the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team, and, following updates made as a result and further discussion at the 21 January Council meeting, the Council approved a letter setting out its response to the recommendations in the Third Draft Proposal that was sent to the CCWG-Accountability on 22 January. The CCWG-Accountability is currently expected to circulate a Supplemental Proposal, following which the GNSO Council will hold a Special Meeting on 29 February to discuss the updated proposals in detail. Here the Council will discuss its timeline and necessary actions for approval of the CCWG-Accountability’s final recommendations , which is scheduled to take place at ICANN55.

 

6.1 – Update (James Bladel)

 

6.2 – Discussion

 

6.3 – Next steps

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: A discussion on the next steps for the GNSO Council yielded concern from some Council members that they will not have enough time to ask the opinion of their own members. It was agreed that a call should process on 29th February that would be open to both GNSO members but also members of their communities, where an open and frank discussion would take place. The Council would then take up the lessons learnt from this discussion to Marrakech, with a better idea of where their communities stood. A ratification vote will then take place at ICANN 55 in Marrakech.

I shared the process that the ALAC is going to use. (community calls on 24th & 25th February 2016; 1/2 day face to face meetings on Saturday 5 and Sunday 6 March 2016 at ICANN55 and ratification in an ALAC vote later in the week, potentially Tuesday)

 

 

 

ITEM 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – GNSO Review (10 minutes)

 

As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (now known as the Organizational Effectiveness Committee) appointed Westlake Governance as the independent examiner to conduct the current review of the performance and operations of the GNSO. A GNSO Working Party, chaired by former Councillor Jennifer Wolfe and comprising representatives of all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, was formed to consult with Westlake over the design and conduct of the review. Westlake's Draft Report was published for public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including from the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its Final Report on 15 September. The Working Party has been reviewing the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board’s consideration in relation to the implementability and prioritization of these recommendations. The Council received a written update from the Working Party chair on 29 January. Here the Council will receive a further update, following the Working Party’s meeting in early February where it is expected to finalize its recommendations that are to be sent to the GNSO Council for approval and submission to the Board’s Organizational Effectiveness Committee for its consideration.

 

7.1 – Update (Jen Wolfe)

 

7.2 – Discussion

 

7.3 – Next steps

 

 

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: the call ran out of time before addressing this issue, thus to be continued at a future date.

 

 

 

Item 8: BRIEFING & DISCUSSION – RDAP Implementation (10 minutes)

 

Building on previous advisories, ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) had recommended the replacement of the longstanding WHOIS protocol in SAC051 (see https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf). In October 2011, the ICANN Board directed staff to produce, in consultation with the community, a roadmap for the coordination of the technical and policy discussions necessary to implement the recommendations outlined in SAC 051. The Roadmap was published in 2012 (see https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-roadmap-04jun12-en.pdf). Also in 2012, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) chartered the WEIRDS (Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Services) working group, which concluded its work in early 2015 with the publication of several specifications defining the behavior of the Registry Data Access Protocol (RDAP), a standardized replacement for WHOIS. ICANN-accredited registrars subject to the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), registry operators from the 2012 New gTLD round and several other gTLD registries are contractually obligated to deploy RDAP.

 

In February 2014 the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO Council’s recommendations for a new Consensus Policy that would require the provision of “thick” WHOIS services for all gTLD registries. The GNSO Implementation Review Team that was formed for the Thick Whois Policy Implementation agreed with the proposal of ICANN staff to synchronize implementation of the policy with the adoption of RDAP. On 3 December 2015 ICANN staff published a draft RDAP Operational Profile for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en). Public comments will be received through 15 February 2015.

 

Some concern has been expressed as to the policy implications of adopting RDAP in view of a number of other parallel efforts with potential cross-cutting impact, such as the recent initiation by the GNSO Council of a PDP for a Next-Generation Registration Directory Service to Replace WHOIS (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201511). Here the Council will discuss the concerns that have been raised, in preparation for a discussion with GDD staff at ICANN55 about the policy bases for RDAP, the linkage to Thick WHOIS, and the RDAP Operational Profile requirements (including timeline).

 

8.1 – Discussion

 

8.2 – Next steps

 

 

 

GNSO Liaison Notes: the call ran out of time before addressing this issue, thus to be continued at a future date.

 

 

 

Item 9: Any Other Business (5 Minutes)

 

None.

 




22 January 2016GNSO Council Teleconference21:00 UTC

 

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

 

1.1 – Roll call

 

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

 

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

 

1.4 – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of the GNSO Council on 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on 27 January 2016

 

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)

 

2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action List

 

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

 

 

 

Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (20 minutes)

 

This PDP had been requested by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN's implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Consideration of this item was deferred from the 17 December meeting. Here the Council will review the Working Group's Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it.

 

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

 

4.2 – Discussion

 

4.3 – CCouncil vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House)

 

 

 

Motion Passed Unanimously

 

 

 

Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes)

 

In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO's policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. During its meeting on 17 December, the Council initiated the PDP but deferred consideration of the Charter for the PDP Working Group to this meeting. Here the Council will review the revised charter for adoption.

 

5.1 – Presentation of the motion (Donna Austin)

 

5.2 – Discussion

 

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

 

 

 

Concern by Paul McGrady to avoid collision of other PDP that has been deferred regarding Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs). The concern is that RPMs would be treated in both PDPs when they should be addressed separately.

 

 

After small friendly amendment, Motion Passed Unanimously.

 

 

 

Item 6: Vote on motion: Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (15 minutes)

 

In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS. The Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures was published on 11 January 2015 at http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/rpm. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) in order to the review Rights Protection Mechanisms in the new gTLDs and, in a subsequent, second phase, review the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the review topics are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter.

 

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (Amr Elsadr)

 

6.2 – Discussion

 

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

 

 

 

Withdrawn

 

 

 

Item 7: Vote on motion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 minutes)

 

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

 

In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published for public comment on 30 November 2015. The comment period closed on 21 December 2015, with all Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt the recommendations in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016.

 

Concurrently, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) – the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue – announced after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. In this regard, the CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment which, while noting that several of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points that in its view merited further attention.

 

In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team that was to review all the various public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council had an initial discussion on the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team during its meeting on 14 January, following which an updated version of the proposed response was circulated [include link when available]. Here the Council will discuss the updated proposed response developed by the Sub Team, and if appropriate vote on whether to submit this response to the CCWG-Accountability.

 

7.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

 

7.2 – Discussion

 

7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

 

 

 

There was no vote. Action Item is to have a final version circulated to the GNSO Council, with a consensus call.

 

Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion – Marrakesh Meeting Planning (10 minutes)

 

During the Dublin meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr volunteered to work with the GNSO Council Leadership on the development of the proposed agenda for the GNSO Weekend Session in Marrakech. Here the Council will receive a status update on the planning for Marrakesh and any action that may be required from the GNSO Council.

 

8.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr)

 

8.2 – Discussion

 

8.3 – Next steps

 

Item 9: Any Other Business (10 Minutes)

 

 




14 January 2016GNSO Council Teleconference12:00 UTC

 


This was a special meeting of the GNSO Council on a single topic: CCWG Accountability Final Report.

The Council went through each recommendation and feedback was received from Councillors. James Bladel, GNSO Chair, will produce a concerted document over the week-end 16-17 January.

ACTION ITEMS:

  • Letter explaining GNSO Council response - James to prepare draft for Council consideration before 21 January, assisted by Keith and Ed
  • Rec 5, 11 - James to draft additional language along the lines of what was discussed/agreed on the call, assisted by Ed and Paul
  • Rec 1 - reinsert BC note about strong right of inspection (perhaps with cross-reference in/to Rec 3?)
  • Rec 2 - change "unanimous support" to "broad support"
  • Rec 3, 4 - no change
  • Rec 6 - remove last sentence; add note that certain questions remain to be resolved in WS2
  • Rec 7 - no change
  • Rec 8 – further elaboration needed on note about timeliness (including replies and deadlines)
  • Rec 9 - Review whether IPC comment on AOC section 8(b) and direct constituency participation in review teams should be included; review generally for accuracy
  • Rec 10 - emphasize need for it to be a community-led effort
  • Rec 12 - no change



18 DecemberGNSO Council Teleconference18:00 UTC

 

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

 

1.1 – Roll call

 

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

 

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

 

1.4  – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings of 19 November have been posted as approved on 5 December 2015

 

 

 

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)

 

2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action List

 

 

 

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

 

 

Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION – Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes)

In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO’s policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter.

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Donna Austin)

4.2 – Discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

 

Liaison Notes:

In the discussion about this motion there was concern that this PDP could be linked to the completion of the PDP on Rights Protection Mechanisms to be complete before this PDP can complete.

It was mentioned that this was not the case.

Vote was unanimous. 100% both houses.

 

Item 4b: Again the question of Rights Protection Mechanisms came up and some confusion was present as to whether these were to be included in the Chartering. It was decided to defer this motion for a month until this issue is clarified.

NOTE: Check Charter which is at the end of the Final Report of the Issues as drafted by Staff.

 

ACTION ITEMS:

 

  • Vote on Motion #1 (initiation of PDP) – PASSED
  • Vote on Motion #2 (adoption of Charter) – DEFERRED
    • Susan Kawaguchi, Philip Corwin and ICANN staff to work on appropriate language to clarify scope of Charter vis-à-vis rights protection mechanisms (which is the subject of a separate Issue Report on which the Council is expected to consider in January 2016) and circulate to Council list prior to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting


 

Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes)

 

This PDP had been requested by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN’s implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Here the Council will review the Working Group’s Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it.

 

5.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

 

5.2 – Discussion

 

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House)

Liaison Notes:

Due to a crowded schedule, volunteers are currently overwhelmed and the proposal was to put this off for a few more weeks.

 

ACTION ITEMS:

Vote on Motion - DEFERRED

Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique (10 mins)

Following discussions at the Council level in late 2014 to develop a means for the GNSO to provide input to the ICANN Board regarding gTLD policy matters highlighted in a GAC Communique, a template framework to review each GAC Communique was created by a group of Council volunteers assisted by ICANN staff. The Council agreed that while it would review carefully each GAC Communique issued at an ICANN meeting, it would not always provide input to the Board unless it also agreed that such feedback was either necessary or desirable, on a case-by-case basis. The first GNSO Review of a GAC Communique was of the GAC’s Communique from ICANN53 in Buenos Aires. That Review document was sent to the ICANN Board in July 2015 and acknowledged by the Board in October. At its last meeting, the Council discussed an initial draft of a possible review document to be sent to the Board in response to the GAC’s Dublin Communique. Here the Council will review an updated draft document and vote on whether to adopt it for forwarding to the ICANN Board.

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (Stephanie Perrin)

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

 

Liaison Notes:

The response to the GAC communiqué was presented and voted on. The response was fairly non-controversial.

 Motion passes unanimously.

 ACTION ITEMS:

Vote on Motion – PASSED (James Bladel to ensure that actions outlined in the motion are followed through i.e. communicate to Board followed by communication to GAC Chair and GAC-GNSO Consultation Group - COMPLETED)


Item 7: VOTE ON MOTION – Endorsement of GNSO Candidates for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (20 minutes)

Under ICANN’s Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with the United States government, ICANN is mandated to review the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT Review). The CCT Review Team is expected to also assess the effectiveness of the application and evaluation processes, as well as the safeguards put in place by ICANN to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion of new gTLDs. A Call for Volunteers to the CCT Review Team closed on 13 November 2015, and twenty-six (26) applicants indicated that they wished to be endorsed as representatives of the GNSO to the Review Team. ICANN staff has since followed up with all these applicants for further information to assist the Council in its decision on endorsements (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw). Here the Council will discuss and determine which of the applicants to endorse for the CCT Review Team.

7.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

Liaison Notes:

A lot of candidates were presented, with much discussion on all of the individuals that are proposed. (all 18 of them)

There is some concern that it was understood that the proposals were to be undertaken at SG level whilst some have provided names at Constituency level.

Plenty of time was used to discuss the selection process itself, with some proposing that all names should be sent to the ICANN process, letting the selection being taken by the people in ICANN making the selection. It was also suggested that along with the names sent out, a reminder be made that this is a review of a GNSO policy, hence there should be much involvement from participants from the GNSO.

Final decision is that the whole list will be sent over to the ICANN CEO & GAC Chair with a note that the GNSO component should be an important part of the resulting Review Team as this group will be reviewing GNSO policy.

Motion approved unanimously.

 

ACTION ITEMS:

 

  • Vote on Motion - PASSED; candidates named in the motion are endorsed by GNSO Council (Calvin Browne, Gregory DiBiase, Ben Anderson, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Nacho Amadoz, Carlos Gutierrez, Jonathan Zuck, Waudo Siganga, Michael Graham, Greg Shatan, David Taylor, Stacie Walsh, Viktor Szabados, Cecilia Lee Smith, YJ Park, Jeremy Malcolm, Kinfe Michael Yilma Desta)
  • Actions outlined in motion to be carried out by GNSO Secretariat (i.e. inform Review Team selectors including specific advice (see below) - COMPLETED; inform endorsed candidates as well as candidates that did not obtain endorsement -COMPLETED)
  • Susan Kawaguchi to assist staff in drafting specific advice concerning GNSO role in New gTLD Program implementation and need to ensure representation of all relevant GNSO stakeholders - COMPLETED
  • NPOC & NCUC to send specific candidate lists (if wished) directly to selectors, but to note that these are not candidates endorsed by the GNSO Council


Item 8: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (25 minutes)

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN’s historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders’ expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability has made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published for public comment on 30 November 2015.

Following ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) – the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue – announced that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send the consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. Public comments on these latest recommendations closes on 21 December 2015, with all the Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt them in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016.

Here the Council will discuss its review and adoption of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, including the timeline and consideration of any input from its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.

8.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert)

8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Liaison Notes:

Thomas Rickert provided a good summary of where the process is at the moment, including the needs for the various SOs and ACs to file their comments. The debate was however curtailed due to lack of time and some people needing to drop off.

 

IPC (Paul McGrady) explained there is an unrealistic comment deadline. Also concerned with the events in Washington DC. Asking for extension to 35 days, possibly 60. Also concerned about issue of Board to vote on GAC advice with the threshold being too high.

Recommendation #5 is another issue because it appears that this is not enough for ICANN to enforce its contracts.

Recommendation #9: AoC incorporation missing that ICANN needs to remain a US not for profit. Needs to be a fundamental bylaw.

 

BC (Phil Corwin): not enough time to get approval today on how to vote any comments. Question: how is the CCWG going to handle the comments from the Board which were described in an earlier cll with the Board as having Full Consensus on the Board?

Thomas Rickert: the charter foresees that the Chartering Orgs need to agree to charter. A concern regarding the Global Public Interest. We are not in the wordsmithing yet of the bylaws drafting and a lot of the concerns could be addressed, including the Board comments, at implementation.

 

ISPCP (Wolf Ulrich Knoben): only open concern is wrt Rec. 11 with the Board needing to Vote on Issues. Not wanting to impose a specific threshold.

NCSG having huge problems in receiving responses from people in China and far away places  because the comment period is way too crunched.

1, 10, 11 are the recs they have problems with.

1 + 11 give more power to governments and they do not believe this process was started to enhance government

If there is any kind of backtrack on inspection, Human Rights & extending the remit of ICANN they will not be ratifying.

 

I updated the Council on the ALAC's progress in this area.

 

James Bladel summarising: the GNSO Council will not be able to send consolidated comments due time running out.

 

ACTION ITEMS:

 

  • Council to develop process to document support for CCWG-Accountability from GNSO SG/Cs and synthesize into a consolidated, GNSO position
  • Council to work on appropriate resolution for adoption


Due to time running out, Agenda Items 9 & 10 will be taken to the GNSO Council mailing list.

Item 9: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION – New gTLD Auction Proceeds (10 minutes)

 

ACTION ITEMS:

Council to discuss on mailing list (COMPLETED)


Item 10: Any Other Business (10 Minutes)

10.1 – Confirming schedule of GNSO Council meetings for 2016

10.2 – Marrakech meeting planning (note: weekend session planning being led by Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr)


GNSO Election results for 2015-2016:

GNSO Council Chair: James Bladel
GNSO Council Vice Chair (Contracted Parties House): Donna Austin
GNSO Council Vice Chair (Non-contracted Parties House): Heather Forrest



19 NovemberGNSO Council Teleconference15:00 UTC

 

 

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

 

1.1 – Roll call

 

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

 

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

 

1.4  – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings of 24 June, 23 July 2015 and 24 September and 21 October will be posted as approved on xxxxxx 2015

 

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)

 

2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action List

Action Items

Besides the regular updates that will be done before the next Council call, the following require further action from the Council:

  • Council response to Board letter on exclusive registry access – draft circulated to the Council list on 18 November, feedback requested by 23 November:  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17670.html 

  • Council response to Board letter on replacement of registrar insurance requirements – draft to be circulated to the Council by 19 November, feedback to be provided by 24 November.

  • Dublin meeting survey – Councillors to respond as soon as possible:  https://s.zoomerang.com/s/PR55KC2 

  • IETF follow up - Council to consider next steps, including possibly inviting IETF representatives to a meeting in Marrakech to discuss the most effective ways of ensuring there is regular communication/liaison

 

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

 

 

 

Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of the Charter for PDP Working Group on Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS (15 minutes)

 

In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently, the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the Board’s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf).

 

At its October meeting in Dublin, the Council agreed to defer voting on chartering the Working Group for this PDP till its next meeting. Here the Council will review and vote on a revised motion to approve the charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated PDP.

 

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)

 

4.2 – Discussion

 

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

 

 

Amended motion passed: call for volunteers to form the PDP Working Group to be launched at the latest by 4 January; Councillors to update their respective SG/Cs on how the amendment affects the Working Group’s handling of SG/C feedback provided during the public comment period on the Preliminary Issue Report.

Note that the deliberations around this motion, including on the spot word-crafting, took much more time than the allocated time provided in the agenda - hence affecting other order of business items.


 

Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – New Referral Request to the Standing Committee for GNSO Improvements Implementation (10 minutes)

 

The GNSO Council identified a number of procedural issues during the most recent round of elections for the GNSO Chair. These arise mainly from the fact that the GNSO Operating Procedures do not currently contain express provisions for an election timetable and a method for prescribing the specific terms to be served by the Chair and Vice-Chairs. The Procedures also do not seem to permit new incoming Council members to stand for the Chair position. Here the Council will discuss and vote on whether to refer these matters to the GNSO’s Standing Committee for GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI), and the scope of such a referral request.

 

5.1 – Presentation of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)

 

5.2 – Discussion

 

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

 


 

 

Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique (15 mins)

 

Following discussions at the Council level in late 2014 to develop a means for the GNSO to provide input to the ICANN Board regarding gTLD policy matters highlighted in a GAC Communique, a template framework to review each GAC Communique was created by a group of Council volunteers assisted by ICANN staff. The Council agreed that while it would review carefully each GAC Communique issued at an ICANN meeting, it would not always provide input to the Board unless it also agreed that such feedback was either necessary or desirable, on a case-by-case basis. The first GNSO Review of a GAC Communique was of the GAC’s Communique from ICANN53 in Buenos Aires. That Review document was sent to the ICANN Board in July 2015 and acknowledged by the Board in October. Here the Council will review a draft of a possible review document to be sent to the Board in response to the GAC’s Dublin Communique.

 

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (Stephanie Perrin)

 

6.2 – Discussion

 

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

 

Deferred to the next meeting; Council to further discuss and finalize the draft most recently circulated on the mailing list:  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17693.html

 

Item 7: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (25 minutes)

 

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN’s historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders’ expectations. Considering that the US Government (through the NTIA) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

 

In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published some initial proposals surrounding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability has made further adjustments to its draft recommendations. As a result, a third public comment period will be held in November, with the aim to submit a report to all the Chartering Organizations for adoption in January 2016.

 

At ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) – the community group that was formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue – announced that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send the consolidated proposal to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that its accountability requirements have been met by Work Stream 1 recommendations currently being finalized by the CCWG-Accountability. The CCWG-Accountability therefore hopes that completion and timely approval of its Work Stream 1 recommendations by all its Chartering Organizations will mean minimal disruption of the IANA stewardship transition timeline.

 

Here the Council will receive an update on the progress of the CCWG-Accountability, and determine how best to ensure that its comments, as well as input from its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, are submitted and considered in a coordinated and timely fashion.

 

7.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert)

 

7.2 – Discussion

 

7.3 – Next steps

 

 

Councilors to begin consultations with their respective SG/Cs based on the 15 November Formal Update provided by the CCWG co-chairs:  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stream-1-recs-15nov15-en.pdf (pending the release of the full Third Draft Proposal on 30 November).

Councilors to consider next steps in relation to input to be provided to the CCWG by the end of the public comment period as well as consideration of the Final Report.

 

Item 8: COUNCIL ACTION – GNSO Candidates for ICANN’s Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (15 minutes)

 

As part of its Affirmation of Commitments with the United States government, ICANN is committed to conducting periodic community-led reviews of four key objectives, one of which is the promotion of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. This review team is currently being formed, to “examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion.” The Call for Volunteers to serve as a Review Team member representing a particular ICANN Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee closes on 13 November. SO/ACs are expected to confirm their endorsements of their representatives by 13 December, following which the ICANN CEO and the GAC Chair will select the members of the Review Team, which is expected to begin its work in January 2016. Here the Council will discuss which of the volunteers who have indicated a wish to represent the GNSO to endorse.

 

8.1 – Presentation of the candidate list (Volker Greimann)

 

8.2 – Discussion

 

8.3 – Council decision and next steps

 

Deferred to the next meeting; Councilors to review the proposed process (see  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17695.html) for endorsing a certain number of applicants as GNSO representatives for consideration by the selection team (ICANN CEO and GAC Chair), and to continue discussions on the Council mailing list (see  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17686.html for the updated list of candidates).

 

Item 9: UPDATE – Issue Report for a Potential PDP on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (10 minutes)

 

In June 2015, the GNSO Council had requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO’s policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the comment period closing on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. Here the Council will receive an update from ICANN staff on the expected timeline and next steps following the close of the public comment period.

 

9.1 – Update (Steve Chan)

 

9.2 – Discussion

 

9.3 – Next steps

 

ICANN staff to send a written update to the Council mailing list.

 

Item 10: BRIEFING – Ensuring Attendee Security at ICANN Meetings (15 minutes)

 

At its meeting in Dublin the GNSO Council had expressed an interest in getting early information about security arrangements for forthcoming ICANN meetings, starting with the next meeting scheduled for Marrakech. The intention is to make this briefing a standard agenda item for all future ICANN Public Meetings, so that the community will have up to date information regarding the security arrangements ICANN is making for each Public Meeting.

 

10.1 – Informational briefing (Nick Tomasso / Geoff Bickers / Chris Clark)

 

10.2 – Discussion / Q&A

 

ICANN staff to forward the following questions to Nick Tomasso and his team:

  • With the posting publicly of the location of where the security details will be at the venue, should we be concerned that others may gain access to this plan?

  • Can we have the details about the firm Chris works for sent to the Council? [ NOTE: full details of the gentleman's credentials have been forwarded to the Council list ]

  • Can we get an update from the Moroccan authorities about security enhancements outside the venue, e.g. the airport?

  • Can ICANN staff provide updates about concerns that the rooms in Marrakech are: (1) non-refundable/changeable; (2) to be prepaid; and (3) not available on Thursday night? Apparently the hotel is also asking people to email a scanned copy of the front and back of their credit cards – all these are very discouraging and difficult for attendees, especially business travelers.

 

Item 11: QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION – GNSO Chair Elections (30 minutes)

 

Following the close of the second nomination period on 5 November, one nomination for GNSO Chair for the term AGM 2015-AGM 2016 was received from the Contracted Parties House. The Non-Contracted Parties House has since confirmed that it will not be nominating a candidate for Chair. Here the Council will have a chance to ask questions of the sole candidate, Mr James Bladel, prior to the distribution of the ballots on 20 November. Balloting will close on 23 November, with results to be announced on 24 November.

 

11.1 – Introduction of candidate (James Bladel)

 

11.2 – Q&A

 

11.3 – Next steps (Marika Konings /Glen de St Gery)

 

Councilors to follow up on James Bladel’s latest email invitation if so desired:  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17694.html; ICANN staff to distribute electronic ballots on 20 November.


 

Item 12: Any Other Business (5 Minutes)

 

  • Proposed meetings for 2016: Councilors to provide input on the proposed schedule of meetings as well as potential changes to the rotation of time zones.

  • CWG-Stewardship Letter concerning role in implementation: Councilors to provide feedback on whether there are any concerns in relation to the approach proposed by the CWG-Stewardship for dealing with implementation oversight.

  • DNS Entrepreneurship Center: Julf to circulate message concerning DNS Entrepreneurship Center to Council mailing list.




24 SeptemberGNSO Council Teleconference18:00 UTC

 Action Items


 

2.1 – Review of Projects List and Action List
Action Items:

Item 3: Consent agenda

3.1 – Approve addition to the GNSO Operating Procedures of a proposed process for the selection of Board seat #13 by the Contracted Parties House (per current rules in the Operating Procedures concerning the selection of Board seats by each House)

 

Action item: Staff to update and post GNSO Operating Procedures accordingly.

3.2 – Approve transmission of Recommendations Report to ICANN Board following public comments on the Council’s recommendation that the Board adopt the Final Report from the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Data Working Group

 

 

 Action item: Staff to submit Recommendations report to the ICANN Board.

 

Item 4: MOTION – Public Comment Period for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report

Action Item: Staff to consider request from the GNSO Council to extend the public comment forum from 40 to 60 days. 


Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Exploring the Public Interest within ICANN’s Remit 

Action Item: Nora Abusitta to share with the GNSO Council further information on resources and references in relation to the research that has been undertaken on this topic.

Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Discussion Paper on New gTLD Auction Proceeds

Action Item: All encouraged to provide input to the public comment forum. 

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Final Report of the Independent Examiner on GNSO Review  

 

Action Item: The GNSO Review Working Party to communicate to the OEC that there are concerns with Recommendation 23 and these are being discussed within the GNSO at present noting that a full expression of those concerns may be forthcoming in the near future. 

Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

Action Item: Everyone is encouraged to participate in and provide reasonable input to their respective groups in relation to this topic noting the current state of discussions.

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – New ICANN Meeting Strategy

Action Item: Item deferred to the next meeting.

Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes)

10.1 GNSO Council appointment to the Leadership Training in Dublin.

Action Item: Candidates for the GNSO Council slot for the Leadership Training in Dublin should be submitted to the GNSO Council list as soon as possible. Note, the candidate does not need to be a Council member.


3 SeptemberGNSO Council Teleconference15:00 UTC

 

 

GNSO Council Call

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call
1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest
Donna Austin
1.3 – Review/amend agenda
1.4. – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings of 24 June and 23 July 2015 will be posted as approved on xxxxxx 2015.

 

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)

2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action List
2.2 – Comments or questions arising

 

NOTES: project list has been updated.

 

Item 3: Consent agenda (10 minutes)

3.1 – Adoption of timeline for election of the next GNSO Chair

3.2 – Approval of transmission of Recommendations Report to ICANN Board following public comments on the Council’s recommendation that the Board adopt the Final Report from the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Data Working Group

Notes: Unanimously agreed.

 

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION & DECISION – Public Comment Period for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report (15 minutes)

At its July 2015 meeting, the GNSO Council approved the staff request for an extension of the deadline for publication of the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures. The extension was viewed as necessary given the number of potential topics that had been identified by the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group and the need to develop a proposed framework for handling those topics in a possible PDP. The Council had also discussed briefly the possible benefits of having an extended public comment period in view of the community interest in this matter. Here the Council will discuss the ramifications of extending the public comment period and decide whether or not to recommend moving forward with the idea.

4.1 – Update and presentation of possible timelines (Steve Chan)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council decision and next steps

Notes: 147 page report / summarised by Steve Chan. Right now the public comment is set at 40 days, closing a few days before ICANN 54.

I expressed the preference of the ALAC to have this comment period be a longer public comment period (67 days) in the interest of openness and giving the ability for all stakeholders to carefully consider the report and to contribute to the process as early as possible. This makes it a closing date for Staff account of public comments to be 6th Dec, ahead of 7th December document deadline for the December GNSO Council call.

Longer public comment period referred by IPC, BC, NCSG (Some preference for 60 days comment period was made). Current comment period preferred from RySG, RrSG, and possibly ISPC. It was decided that the Council should vote on this matter at its next call on 24 September. It was noted that ICANN staff could, at their discretion, decided to make the comment period longer in any case.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Letter from ICANN Board Chair on Exclusive Registry Access for gTLD Terms representing Generic Strings (10 minutes)

On 27 July 2015 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter to the GNSO Chair requesting that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program. The GNSO was also asked to inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to progress on the issue. Here the Council will discuss the letter and decide on its response.

5.1 – Council discussion

5.2 – Next steps

Notes: I expressed the ALAC’s lack of consensus on the matter with very different points of view between ALAC members, some finding closed generic strings to be absolutely fine. As a result I expressed that some ALAC would say linking this to the public interest would be a waste of time whilst others would support it.

 

Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Protection for IGO Acronyms at the Second Level in All gTLDs (15 minutes)

 

At the July 2015 Council meeting, PDP Working Group co-chair Philip Corwin outlined for the Council certain concerns that the WG co-chairs shared regarding the timing and mechanisms for interactions between the WG and the IGO “small group” (comprising IGO and GAC representatives) that had been formed to formulate a substantive proposal for discussion with the GNSO. The final proposal is expected to be based on the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) initial March 2014 proposal to the GAC, and as such is expected to address both so-called “preventative” (i.e. pre-registration) as well as “curative” (i.e. post-registration) protections for IGO acronyms. In respect of preventative protections, the NGPC had previously requested that the GNSO Council consider amending those of its adopted policy recommendations that are inconsistent with GAC advice. Following discussions with the NGPC, the Council had put the matter on hold pending further details regarding possible amendments from the NGPC.

 

Here the Council will receive an update on the status of the WG, GAC and IGO interactions on the topic if IGO protections, and discuss what, if anything, it might wish to do at this stage to facilitate progress in resolving any issues arising therefrom.

6.1 – Update (Philip Corwin / Mason Cole / Mary Wong)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Notes: very slow progress / none / since Buenos Aires meeting. 

 

 

Item 7: UPDATE ON EXPECTED COUNCIL ACTION – Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (5 minutes)

The Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group was chartered to explore opportunities to review standard methodologies of reporting and metrics that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision-making, including how the community can collaborate with Contracted Parties and other service providers in the sharing of metrics and data. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 July 2015, and the public comment period will close on 7 September 2015. Here the Council will receive an update on the expected timeline for delivery of the WG’s Final Report and note potential issues for Council consideration in the Final Report.

7.1 – Update (Jonathan Zuck)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Notes: Jonathan Zuck has provided a full update and explanation of the recommendations on today's GNSO Council call.

Slides: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-dmpm-03sep15-en.pdf

Recommended for any ALAC member who wishes to catch up quickly on the contents of the report.

 

Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability – CCWG Accountability (15 minutes)

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN’s historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders’ expectations. Considering that the US Government (through the NTIA) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

On 3 August, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second round of public consultation concerns significant changes made by the CCWG to its first proposal. The changes focus on outstanding issues, add details to the Work Stream 1 proposal(s), and include revisions to the original proposal(s) arising from the feedback received in the first public comment consultation period. Public comments may be sent in through 12 September. Here the Council will review the CCWG’s status and progress, and discuss any specific issues that need to be addressed in view of the timeline of the CCWG and the connection between its work and the IANA stewardship transition.

8.1 – Summary and status update (Thomas Rickert)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Notes: update from Thomas Rickert about the CCWG’s progress, including process recommendations about treatment of the Board’s point made on the call a few hours ago.

There was concern expressed from BC about the forthcoming possibly proposed F2F meeting in Los Angeles turning into a face to face negotiation.

There was concern from RrSG with the whole process potentially grinding to a halt due to the late arrival of input from the Board.

Item 9: DISCUSSION - Preparation for ICANN54 (15 minutes)

During the regular GNSO weekend working sessions at each ICANN Public Meeting, the GNSO Council and community meet with the ICANN Board, the GAC, staff from ICANN’s Global Domains Division, and senior ICANN management. Here the Council will discuss suggested topics for those meetings at ICANN54, as well as receive an update on scheduling and planning for the meeting generally.

9.1 – Update (Volker Greimann / Marika Konings / Glen de St. Gery)

9.2 – Council discussion

9.3 – Next steps

Note: due to time running out, this item was deferred to the mailing list. 

Item 10: Any Other Business (15 minutes)

10.1 – Post-ICANN53 progress of the Cross Community Working Group on Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs

Note: due to time running out, this item was deferred to the mailing list. 

10.2 – Brief update on the implementation of the new ICANN Meeting format particularly with regard to Meeting B.

Note: due to time running out, this item was deferred to the mailing list. 

 

 


AugustNo GNSO Council Conference Call due to Summer Recess

 

 

 GNSO Council Call 

 

Agenda Wiki page (where the latest updates can be found):
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+23+July+2015

Motions are posted on page:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+23+July+2015

GNSO Council is having an induction day on Friday, at the end of the ICANN Week for all new Councillors to be brought up to speed on GNSO matters. This is likely to become a permanent fixture to help new Councillors be more quickly effective in their new position.

 


Action Items:

 

  • ·        Arrange for a facilitator for the Council Development and Induction session in Dublin on Friday 23 October 2015.
  • ·        Formally communicate to parting councilors that they are welcome to attend the Council Development and Induction.

 

 

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 minutes)

 

2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action List

All projects are going according to plan.

 

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Motion to Approve GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué from Buenos Aires (15 minutes)

 

The GNSO Template for responding to the GAC Communiqué is to be presented to the Board, with a copy to the GAC Chair and Secretariat.

Approved unanimously.

GNSO Liaison Recommendation: the ALAC needs to watch out that this use of a Template for responding to GAC Communiqués does not turn into a box ticking exercise.

Action Items: 

  • ·        GNSO Council Chair to communicate the GNSO Review of Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board
  • ·        GNSO Council Chair to inform the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. 

Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Purpose of New gTLD Registration Data Policy Development Process (PDP) (20 minutes)

 

Concerns from NCSG about Privacy Issues in regards to Registration Data. This might contravene basic human rights. Suggestion that this goes in the Public Comment.

 

 Action Item:

  • Encourage GNSO SG  & C’s to provide input to the public comment forum.

Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability – CCWG Accountability (15 minutes)

 

Update from Thomas Rickert, reporting that great progress was made at the recent Paris meeting of the CCWG Accountability group.

Action Items:

  • ·        Encourage GNSO SG and C’s to review the notes from the Paris meeting.  
  • ·        Encourage GNSO SG and C’s to provide input to the public comment forum.

Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Proposed Cross Community Working Group On New gTLD Auction Proceeds (15 minutes)

 

GNSO Staff are preparing a discussion paper based on the discussions that took place in Buenos Aires sessions. All points of view will be taken into account at this stage – which is the stage where the PROCESS of decision will be proposed, and not the actual way to use Auction Proceeds. It is recognised that during the BA disussions, some people did not understand this and already attempted to pull the discussion into the actual topic, making suggestions on how to use the funds. We are not there yet. There first needs to be a debate about who should participate in the debate - whether ICANN GNSO, ICANN Communities, or outside Communities unrelated to ICANN.

 Action Item:

  • Encourage GNSO SG and C’s provide input to the public comment forum.

Item 8: COUNCIL ACTION – GNSO Chair Election Timetable (10 minutes)

 

No specific change to the already agreed schedule/timetable are foreseen.

Action Item:

  •  Publish the proposed GNSO Chair Election Timetable. Place on agenda for formal consideration and approval at September Council meeting. 

Item 9: Any Other Business (15 minutes)

 

9.1 - Staff has requested for a time extension in preparing the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report.

 

Councillors are not happy about this but did say they had forecast this and had asked for additional Policy Staff at the GNSO Comment on Budget. 2 more FTEs have been added and Staff as announced that the first FTE allocation will be soon made to the GNSO.

 

Councillors were told they have no choice but to accept that new timetable.

 Action Item

  • ·        Accept request for time extension in preparing the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report 
  • ·        Note Council discussion – some councilors expressed concern about the delay 
  • ·        Council to further discuss and resolve the length of the public comment period

 


9.2 – Discuss appointment of three experts from the GNSO to join new Working Group to review IDN Guidelines: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en (due 3 August 2015)

 

Some volunteers needed. Communication out ASAP.

 Action Item

  • GNSO Council Chair to follow up in writing with Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Councilors to work with Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies seeking suggested names of experts.

 


9.3 – Selection of a PDP Working Group for facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN54. Part of the continued GNSO Council Pilot Project to improve PDP effectiveness.

 

Process on its way.
 

Action Item

  • GNSO Council Chair to communicate to the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP working group that, based on the analysis by staff, the working group would benefit from a face to face meeting in Dublin and ask for confirmation that the working group would like to take up the offer.


9.4 – Discuss possible Council action regarding IETF proposed standard for .onion as a Special Use Domain Name: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/ (due 11 August 2015)

 

Avri Doria reported on the work of the IETF in creating a Special Use TLD .ONION but there is concern that there is very little communication with ICANN about this. Council is to consider the path through the ICANN Board (IETF Liaison?) and also through their own informal link. Does the GNSO Council need its own IETF Liaison?

Action Item

Council needs to consider whether there is scope for future co-operation between the GNSO Council and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).


9.5 – Planning for ICANN54

Action Item

  •  GNSO Council Vice Chair (Volker Greimann) to assist Chair and staff in Dublin meeting preparations 

More AoB

 

Response to letter to Board on IGO/INGO. (Phil Corwin)

"In respect of the ongoing discussions between the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) and the GAC on protection for IGO names and acronyms, please see the following letter, just sent by the Secretary-General of the OECD to ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gurria-to-chehade-20jul15-en.pdf. Note that the letter refers to positive developments in this process that are expected to result in the delivery to the GNSO of an updated proposal. Given the GAC’s recent Buenos Aires Communique calling for this to occur by the Dublin meeting, the Council may wish to note this as a possibility. "

The concern is that the ICANN response points to the GAC, Staff and ICANN Board would produce a response re: IGO/INGO *without* taking into account the GNSO’s working group work on IGO/INGO. The Working Group is bogged down due to lack of help on legal matters whilst the ICANN Board and GAC are engaging directly with IGOs. A real concern from the IGO/INGO GNSO Working Group.

Action Item

  •  WG chair’s concern on the process and substance of the letter is noted by the Council. Phillip Corwin to report back to the Council at or before the next Council meeting

 

 GNSO Council Call

4 & 5: Updates on IANA Stewardship & ICANN Accountability

 

Item 5: DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability – CCWG Accountability


Action Item
Councillors and members of the respective groups are encouraged assist their groups to provide comments and questions during the public comment period on Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) (All)


 

Item 6: UPDATE FOR COUNCIL DECISION – Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance

GNSO has conducted a consensus call on the interpretation of the Charter of the CCWG on Internet Governance. No objections to the interpretation that opens the group to all participants.

 

Action Items:

 

·        Convey to the Cross-Community Working Group Internet Governance that no objections were recorded to the interpretation of the section on observers in the CCWG IG charter (Staff)

·        Communicate on the mailing list that Carlos Raúl Gutierrez is the appointed Council liaison to the Cross-Community Working Group Internet Governance (Staff)


 

 

Item 7: UPDATE FOR COUNCIL GUIDANCE –Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs

 

 Registry SG has had issues with the use of Country Codes at the second level referring to GAC advice. There is some concern that this is such a small, target issues, a CWG is a bit of an overkill.

 

Action Items:

 

 

  • The gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group to talk directly to the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs (RySG Councillors)
  • Council to discuss the issue with the GAC – Council leaders commit to commence the communication with the GAC leadership (Chair / Staff)
  • Request guidance from the Council by posting the substantive issues to the Council list (Heather Forrest)
  • Heather Forrest to track the outcomes of the discussion and ensure that the Council is responding to the request (Heather Forrest)

·        Call for additional GNSO participation to the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs (Staff)



Item 8: UPDATE FOR COUNCIL GUIDANCE  –IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group

INGO has now been removed from the scope of the working group as they are already using UDRP.

Problem in determining the scope of immunity for IGOs. Additional legal input is sought.

It was pointed out by Philip Corwin that there were, by extension, concerns over the renewal of .TRAVEL which appear to be introducing Charter Amendments in a private manner rather than subjecting them to ICANN Community deliberation.


Action Items: 

 

  • Determine the scope of  GNSO GAC related issues which could be worked through by the Council leaders and Staff as agenda topics for the joint GAC GNSO meetings in Buenos Aires (Chair / Vice Chairs / Staff)
  • Topic for future Council discussion:

 

            Introduction of changes to Registry agreements through private negotiations relative to the Policy Development Process and whether this is appropriate (Philip Corwin).

 

 

 

Item 9: UPDATE FOR SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL ACTION –New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group

 

 https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables

Draft Deliverables ready in case a PDP WG was to be created.

Registries asked whether if there were amendments made to the program this would mean the drawing up of new Registry agreements - and if so, a question was raised as to whether it would be fair to have different Registry agreements than the original ones. Registrars are already noting that this would raise competitive considerations so as to have some degree of inertia and therefore not deviate from this so as to have different Registry Agreements for the new round.

 

Action Item:

Review documentation before Buenos Aires for discussion at the working group meeting (All).


 

Item 10: UPDATE  & DISCUSSION – GNSO Drafting Team on New ICANN Meeting Strategy

GNSO is building its agendas for all of the meetings, with help from Staff.

Action Item: 
Urgent
request to provide drafting team with feedback on the initial proposal especially with regard to Meeting B before the proposals go the other Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees for comments and input (URGENT – All).


Item 11: UPDATE – Progress on GNSO Review (10 minutes)

 

Progress is happening with Westlake monitoring feedback on a per comment basis and all of the process update is available on the GNSO Review Web pages.
https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Home

Public Consultation starts on June 1st and will remain open throughout June.

 

Action Items:

 

  • Councillors are encouraged to review the GNSO Review report (All)
  • Inform Staff if Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies wish to meet with the Westlake team and the GNSO Review Working Party during Constituency Day in Buenos Aires so that time slots can be arranged.(All)

 

 

 




The agenda was reorganised due to the need for some participants to leave early.

 


Item 4 - MOTION TO AMEND THE CHARTER OF THE IGO-INGO ACCESS TO CURATIVE RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS PDP WORKING GROUP

 

The charter is to be amended:

 

Where, under “Mission and Scope”, the current Charter reads:

 

“For purposes of this PDP, the scope of IGO and INGO identifiers is to be limited to those identifiers previously listed by the GNSO’s PDP WG on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs as protected by their consensus recommendations (designated by that WG as Scope 1 and Scope 2 identifiers, and listed in Annex 2 of the Final Issue Report).”

 

It is hereby amended to read:

 

“For purposes of this PDP, the WG shall take into account any criteria for IGO or INGO protection that may be appropriate, including any that may have been developed previously, such as the list of IGO and INGO identifiers that was used by the GNSO’s prior PDP WG on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs as the basis for their consensus recommendations and the GAC list of IGOs as provided to ICANN in March 2013.”

 

 

OCL comment: this is in order to be able to make use of rights protection mechanisms already in place for IGOs/INGOs outside of ICANN.

 

Item 8 - Progress of Work on GNSO Council Template for Feedback on GAC Communiques

 

Template presented taking each GAC Communiqué item into a table with comments on whether this relates to GNSO policy and what policy this relates to. Staff will follow-up with another version following on the Council's comments.

 

Item 6 - CCWG Accountability

Simple update by Thomas Rickert.

 Item 5: DISCUSSION – Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions

 

Simple update by Jonathan Robinson.


Item 7 - DISCUSSION – Proposed ICANN FY16 Budget

 

 David Olive mentioned the Pilot Project for community support helping with drafting, especially for non contracted communities.

 

 It was felt that GNSO policy work was not likely to decrease and concerns were expressed regarding the low figure in the budget for GNSO policy development work. David Olive explained the sharing of resources which are not directly reflected in the policy budget allocation for GNSO.

 

The GNSO will express its concern about being properly covered for FY16 policy work.

 

Item 10

 

10.1 Cross Community Working Group has been proposed by GNSO. Board Chair has responded with another scenario involving outside organisations. It felt like a top-down response. The GNSO Council will consider its response but a general state of unhappiness about this response was expressed by Councillors.

 

10.2 Will report in the future once work has progressed by email.

 

10.3 Appointment of a Liaison will proceed forward.

 

10.4 N/A

 

 

 

19 MarchGNSO Council Teleconference18:00 UTC

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)

2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action List.

2.2 - Comments or questions arising.

Outcome: projects are on track with nothing exceptional to note.

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins)

3.1 – Confirm selection of Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Working Group for facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN53 in Buenos Aires

Outcome: Council confirmed the selection of the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Working Group for a facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN53 in Buenos Aires.


Item 4: MOTION – GAC/GNSO Consultation Group (15 mins)

The GAC-GNSO Consultation Group (CG) was formed to develop proposals to facilitate the GAC’s ability to engage more productively and effectively with the GNSO on relevant issues in the GNSO’s Policy Development Processes (PDPs). At ICANN52 in Singapore, the CG presented its preliminary recommendations concerning specific mechanisms intended to facilitate early engagement by the GAC in a PDP, during the Issue Scoping phase. Here the Council will consider a proposed motion on adopting these preliminary recommendations

Outcome: - Follow-up on GAC Communiqué - GNSO currently working on a response

- Motion to implement the recommendations of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group in relation to Issue Scoping on a trial basis

Concerns that Trial basis has no deadline and could remain "trial" for a long time.

Motion Carried.

1.               The GNSO Council agrees to jointly implement with the GAC, the preliminary recommendations by the CG concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP as outlined here http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-cg-issue-scoping-27jan15-en.pdf on a trial basis for a minimum of 3 consecutive GNSO PDP’s immediately following the adoption of the motion.


2.       Following the end of this trial period, the CG is expected to report back to the GAC and GNSO Council on the effectiveness of these recommendations as a result of the experiences gained during the trial period. Furthermore, the CG is expected to make a recommendation as to whether or not the preliminary recommendations concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP should be permanently implemented, either in their current form, or with possible modifications based on the further work of the CG including experience gained during the trial.

Item 5: DISCUSSION  – Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (10 mins)

The CWG-Transition was chartered to develop a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. The original January 2015 target date was driven by the request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).

A draft proposal was published for community comment on 1 December 2014, following which a revised timeline and update was provided for discussion at ICANN52 in Singapore.

Given that the GNSO is a chartering organisation of the CWG-Transition and will need to approve the CWG’s ultimate proposal, this is an opportunity for the Council to review and discuss the CWG’s work and to determine what, if any, issues arise from a GNSO or Council perspective at this stage.

Outcome: none specific in addition to the briefing

Item 6: DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (10 mins)

In discussions around the IANA stewardship transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability given its historical contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. The community concerns indicate that the level of trust regarding existing ICANN accountability mechanisms does not yet meet some stakeholders’ expectations. Considering that the NTIA has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations could be a possible impediment to timely progress of the transition.

The GNSO is one of the chartering organizations for this CCWG, having adopted the charter in November 2014. The CCWG developed two work streams, of which the first is intended to align with the timing of the CWG-Transition work and the overall NTIA objectives and timeline. Here the Council will have the opportunity to consider how it can continue to facilitate the progress of this CCWG, especially in view of the work and timelines of the CWG-Transition.

Outcome: none specific in addition to the briefing

Question/discussion on 5 & 6 - a concern about the time being taken, especially with regards to using the Legal Advice


Item 7: UPDATE  – Progress of the PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections (10 mins)

This WG was chartered by the GNSO Council in June 2014 to consider whether or not existing curative rights protection mechanisms should be amended to address the needs and concerns of international governmental and non-governmental organizations (IGOs and INGOs). The WG’s charter directed the WG to consider only those IGOs that appear on the GAC’s list of protected IGOs (sent to ICANN in April 2013). Here the Council will receive a report on the progress of the WG, including a request for guidance from the WG as to appropriate next steps concerning the WG’s consideration of the scope of the IGO list.

Outcome: Propose a motion for the next Council meeting on 16 April 2015 seeking to modify the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Working Group’s charter to accommodate the request as detailed in the explanatory email sent to the Council list on 16 March 2015. 

Item 8: UPDATE – Progress of the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (10 mins)

This DG was created by the GNSO Council in June 2014 to develop a list of issues for consideration as part of the GNSO’s preparation for the next round of new gTLDs. The DG has also provided the GNSO Council with input for the Council’s 28 January 2015 letter to the ICANN Board responding to the Board’s enquiry concerning planning for the next round. Here the Council will receive an update from the DG on its further progress.

Outcome:  Bret Fausett committed to send to the Council mailing list the chart which lists the issues for future work so that the different groups can provide their input.

Staff to provide the necessary information, on the Council mailing list, as to how participants can join the New gTLD Discussion Group.

 

Item 9: UPDATE: GNSO Review (15 minutes)

The Independent Examiner commissioned by the ICANN Board to conduct the GNSO Review presented its initial findings to the GNSO Review Working Party at the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore. Here the GNSO Council will discuss these findings and consider further direction (if any and if needed) to be provided to the GNSO Review Working Party.

Outcome:

Progressing - although with a small delay to collect more input. Plenty of opportunity to provide input and engage further in future ICANN meetings. Concerns over who was interviewed. First draft is just out

Action Items:
Comments are still welcome and be sent directly to Jennifer Wolfe or through a constituency/stakeholder group representative on the GNSO Review Working Party.

Update on the GNSO Review Progress be added to the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 21 May

 

Item 10: DISCUSSION: Working Group Self-Assessment Survey (10 mins)

The GNSO’s Working Group Guidelines allow a WG’s chartering organization to request feedback from the WG about its inputs, processes and outputs. The GNSO’s WG Self-Assessment Tool was tested by the Thick WHOIS PDP WG and the first formal survey has just been completed by the IRTP Part D PDP WG. Staff has prepared a report on the survey results. Here the Council will consider the feedback provided and appropriate next steps for this input.

Outcome: 

Action Item:

Send the report to the GNSO Review Working Party for the attention of the Westlake Review team.

 

Item 11: DISCUSSION – Issues for Possible Referral to the SCI (5 minutes)

 

At its January 2015 meeting, the GNSO Council placed on hold two items it had identified previously as possibly meriting referral to the GNSO’s Standing Committee for Improvements (SCI) for review. Following discussion with the SCI at ICANN52 in Singapore, the Council liaison to the SCI agreed to complete a template request form for these items. Here the Council will discuss whether or not to refer these items to the SCI for further work.

Outcome:

Action Item:

Defer this item to the next Council meeting on 16 April 2015 for Council to decide whether or not to refer these items to the SCI for further work.

 

Item 12: DISCUSSION – Remaining Items from the GNSO’s Strategic Discussion Session in Singapore (15 minutes)

 

At ICANN52 in Singapore, the GNSO engaged in an open and strategic discussion concerning the effective functioning of the GNSO Council and the community as a whole. Here the Council will aim to conclude the discussion, with the emphasis on reviewing its goals and performance based on the objectives and priorities identified during its Development Session at ICANN51 in Los Angeles in October 2014.

Outcome: no specific outcome at this time.

Item 13: Any Other Business (5 mins)

13.1 – CWG on Auction Proceeds

 Outcome:

Action Item:

Call for participants to form a Drafting Team to develop a charter for a working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds.

 

Mar 2015:  ALAC has appointed Olivier Crepin-Leblond as the new ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council to serve from March 7th, 2015, to the end of the AGM at the ICANN #54 meeting in Dublin 2015.

 

Jan 2015:

  • Policy Update Webinars are being presented as preparation for ICANN #52 Meeting see  icann.org/new/announcement-2015-01-14-en

  • Policy work of the GNSO; in a bid to provide for easier access to the different information sources that are currently available as well as further direction on what information is provided to guide both newcomers as well as veterans, staff has created a new one-stop information web-page (http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm). As of  end January, the new page is linked from the GNSO home page (gnso.icann.org) – either via the ‘quick link’ button at the top or via the quick links in the left-hand column. 

  • Additionally there is now a new page that centralizes important GNSO-related information for the upcoming ICANN52 meeting that we hope will assist attendees in their preparation for the meeting (http://gnso.icann.org/icannmeeting). Updates to this page will be made for all future ICANN meetings.


The Next Meeting of the GNSO  Council will be held on March 19th, 2015

19 MarchGNSO Council Teleconference18:00 UTC

Last Meeting of the GNSO Council was a Face to face Meeting during the ICANN #52 Singapore Meeting see http://gnso.icann.org/en/icannmeeting

11 FebruaryGNSO Council Public meeting Singapore
Date: 
Wed, 11 February 2015 - 13:00 to 15:00 SGT Room:  Canning

 

 


 

29 JanuaryGNSO Council Teleconference

12:00 UTC

Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference on 29 January 2015 at 12:00 UTC

GNSO Council meeting audio cast

To join the event click on the link: 
http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u

 

Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 29 January 2015 is published on page:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-29jan15-en.htm 

 

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 mins)

1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)

Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics

Include review of Projects List and Action List.

Comments or questions arising.

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins)

3.1 – Approve request for extension of timeline for Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms

3.2 – Approve formation of informal community group to review IDN Implementation Guidelines and approve draft GNSO Council letter in response to these.

Item 4: UPDATE  – Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (30 mins) 

The CWG has been chartered to develop a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and has been meeting for 2 hours every week since its creation with a goal of delivering a final proposal by the end of January 2015. The January 2015 target date is driven by the request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). It is by now clear that the January target date will not be met and that a new target needs to be agreed.

A number of sub-groups were formed to progress work on the different elements of the ICG Request for Proposals and a face-to-face meeting was run in mid-November 2014. A draft proposal was published for community comment on 1 December 2014 and the public comment period has since closed. An intensive work weekend followed on 10 & 11 January 2015 which attempted to systematically review inputs from the public comment.

Given the deadlines and associated intensity of the work of the CWG as well as the need for the GNSO as a chartering organisation to approve the proposal, it is relevant for the Council, and through it the GNSO, to receive a full update and to have the opportunity to discuss the work of the CWG. This item will provide an update, create the opportunity for discussion and empahsise the need for the GNSO to be informed about the work of this important group.

4.1 – Update (Jonathan Robinson)
4.2 – Discussion
4.3 – Next steps

Item 5: Update: Planning for ICANN meeting in Singapore – key direction & themes (10 mins)

5.1 Update – Volker Greimann
5.2 Open issues / Discussion
5.3 Actions arising

Item 6: Any Other Business (5 mins)

 


Past Meetings in 2015 


15 JanuaryGNSO Council Teleconference18:00 UTCAgendaTranscript
Chat Transcript
Mp3

Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference on 15 January 2015 at 18:00 UTC.

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 mins)

1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 11 December 2014 will be posted as approved on 29 January 2015.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)

Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics

Include review of Projects List and Action List.

Comments or questions arising.

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins)

  • Approve the GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board concerning IRTP Part D 

 

Note: The outcome of the vote on the Council input to the public comment forum on theBoard Working Group Report on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom). 

Item 4: UPDATE  – C
ross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (20 mins)

The CWG has been chartered to develop a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and has been meeting for 2 hours every week since its creation with a goal of delivering a final proposal by the end of January 2015. The January 2015 target date is driven by the request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).

A number of sub-groups were formed to progress work on the different elements of the ICG Request for Proposals and a face-to-face meeting was run in mid-November. A draft proposal was published for community comment on 1 December 2014 and the public comment period has since closed. An intensive work weekend is planned for the CWG on 10 & 11 January 2015, following which it is anticipated that a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition will be drafted and then distributed to the chartering organisations.

Given the deadlines and associated intensity of the work of the CWG as well as the need for the GNSO as a chartering organisation to approve the proposal, it is timely for the Council to receive a full update and to discuss the work of the CWG.

4.1 – Update (Jonathan Robinson)
4.2 – Discussion
4.3 – Next steps

Item 5: UPDATE - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (15 mins)

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN “convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role” with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management (see item 4 above). 

 

During discussions around the transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability given its historical contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN accountability mechanisms does not yet meet some stakeholder’s expectations. Considering that the NTIA has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent the transition to proceed.

As a result, a DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO, GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees on 3 November 2014 and the charter was adopted by the GNSO Council during its meeting on 13 November.

Here the Council will receive an update on status and activities of the CCWG to date.

5.1 Update (Thomas Rickert)

5.2 Discussion

5.3 Next steps


Item 6: UPDATE  – Prospective policy work on “name collision” (10 mins)

On the 30 July 2014, the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board directed staff to "provide information to, and work with the GNSO to consider whether policy work on developing a long-term plan to manage gTLD name collision issues should be undertaken."

ICANN Staff submitted this paper to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2014 and it was presented to the Council during the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. Council members agreed in Los Angeles to discuss with their respective group what further action, if any, should be taken on this topic and report back accordingly during this meeting.

Furthermore, a letter was received from Cyrus Namazi offering any additional information or assistance that ICANN Staff can provide to further assist the Council in its deliberations.

The GNSO Council discussed the topic during previous meetings following which it was agreed to draft a response. Here the Council will receive and update and provide any additional input needed.

6.1 Status update (Donna Austin)

6.2 Discussion

6.3 Next steps

Item 7: DISCUSSION - Board resolution concerning future gTLD Application Rounds (10 mins)

On 17 November 2014 the ICANN Board adopted a resolution the planning for future gTLD application rounds. As part of its action, the Board acknowledged the effort and progress within the GNSO to identify areas where the GNSO believes that policy advice can be clarified or where it wishes to provide additional policy advice applicable to future application rounds. Furthermore, as requested in the GNSO Council’s June 2014 resolution, the Board provided input into the GNSO Council’s discussion to identify areas that the Board believes may be appropriate for discussion in an evaluation of the current gTLD application round and for possible adjustments for subsequent application procedures.

A draft letter of response has been prepared, distributed to the Council and commented on. This is an opportunity for the GNSO Council to review the draft and ideally agree to send the letter as drafted or with any agreed modifications.

7.1 - Update

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: UPDATE – GNSO / GAC Consultation Group and related work (15 mins)

Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear about the work of the GNSO / GAC Consultation Group and from the GNSO Liaison to the GAC including any initial input and feedback derived following the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles.

In addition, there will be an opportunity to further discuss ideas put forward during the GNSO Council Development Session in relation to potential GNSO work in response to the GAC Communiqué from ICANN meetings.

8.1 – Update on GAC/GNSO Consultation Group (Mason Cole)

8.2 – Update on draft process for dealing with GAC Communique (Volker Greimann)

8.3 – Discussion

Item 9: Update: Planning for ICANN meeting in Singapore – key direction & themes
9.1 Update – Volker Greimann
9.2 Discussion

Item 10: Any Other Business (10 mins)

10.1 - Correspondence with NGPC on IGO & RCRC. Any update?

10.2 – Consideration of a CWG to deal with new gTLD auction proceeds

10.3 – Note that the Translation & Transliteration PDP WG Initial Report is out for public comment – Update Amr Elsadr

10.4 - Request for extension of time for Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms


 





PAST REPORTS

GNSO Liaison Reports 2014

GNSO Liaison Reports 2013

GNSO Liaison Reports 2012

GNSO Liaison Reports 2011

ARCHIVES

GNSO Liaison Reports 2010

GNSO Liaison Reports 2009

GNSO Liaison Reports 2008

GNSO Liaison Reports 2007

 MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference held on Thursday, 11 December 2014 at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20141211-en.mp3 

 

as well as the Adobe chat transcript  at :

http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-11dec14-en.pdf 

 

all on page

http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec

 

GNSO Council Call

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call
1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest
Donna Austin
1.3 – Review/amend agenda
1.4. – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings of 24 June and 23 July 2015 will be posted as approved on xxxxxx 2015.

 

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)

2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action List
2.2 – Comments or questions arising

 

NOTES: project list has been updated.

 

Item 3: Consent agenda (10 minutes)

3.1 – Adoption of timeline for election of the next GNSO Chair

3.2 – Approval of transmission of Recommendations Report to ICANN Board following public comments on the Council’s recommendation that the Board adopt the Final Report from the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Data Working Group

Notes: Unanimously agreed.

 

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION & DECISION – Public Comment Period for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report (15 minutes)

At its July 2015 meeting, the GNSO Council approved the staff request for an extension of the deadline for publication of the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures. The extension was viewed as necessary given the number of potential topics that had been identified by the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group and the need to develop a proposed framework for handling those topics in a possible PDP. The Council had also discussed briefly the possible benefits of having an extended public comment period in view of the community interest in this matter. Here the Council will discuss the ramifications of extending the public comment period and decide whether or not to recommend moving forward with the idea.

4.1 – Update and presentation of possible timelines (Steve Chan)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council decision and next steps

Notes: 147 page report / summarised by Steve Chan. Right now the public comment is set at 40 days, closing a few days before ICANN 54.

I expressed the preference of the ALAC to have this comment period be a longer public comment period (67 days) in the interest of openness and giving the ability for all stakeholders to carefully consider the report and to contribute to the process as early as possible. This makes it a closing date for Staff account of public comments to be 6th Dec, ahead of 7th December document deadline for the December GNSO Council call.

Longer public comment period referred by IPC, BC, NCSG (Some preference for 60 days comment period was made). Current comment period preferred from RySG, RrSG, and possibly ISPC. It was decided that the Council should vote on this matter at its next call on 24 September. It was noted that ICANN staff could, at their discretion, decided to make the comment period longer in any case.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Letter from ICANN Board Chair on Exclusive Registry Access for gTLD Terms representing Generic Strings (10 minutes)

On 27 July 2015 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter to the GNSO Chair requesting that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program. The GNSO was also asked to inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to progress on the issue. Here the Council will discuss the letter and decide on its response.

5.1 – Council discussion

5.2 – Next steps

Notes: I expressed the ALAC’s lack of consensus on the matter with very different points of view between ALAC members, some finding closed generic strings to be absolutely fine. As a result I expressed that some ALAC would say linking this to the public interest would be a waste of time whilst others would support it.

 

Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Protection for IGO Acronyms at the Second Level in All gTLDs (15 minutes)

 

At the July 2015 Council meeting, PDP Working Group co-chair Philip Corwin outlined for the Council certain concerns that the WG co-chairs shared regarding the timing and mechanisms for interactions between the WG and the IGO “small group” (comprising IGO and GAC representatives) that had been formed to formulate a substantive proposal for discussion with the GNSO. The final proposal is expected to be based on the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) initial March 2014 proposal to the GAC, and as such is expected to address both so-called “preventative” (i.e. pre-registration) as well as “curative” (i.e. post-registration) protections for IGO acronyms. In respect of preventative protections, the NGPC had previously requested that the GNSO Council consider amending those of its adopted policy recommendations that are inconsistent with GAC advice. Following discussions with the NGPC, the Council had put the matter on hold pending further details regarding possible amendments from the NGPC.

 

Here the Council will receive an update on the status of the WG, GAC and IGO interactions on the topic if IGO protections, and discuss what, if anything, it might wish to do at this stage to facilitate progress in resolving any issues arising therefrom.

6.1 – Update (Philip Corwin / Mason Cole / Mary Wong)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Notes: very slow progress / none / since Buenos Aires meeting. 

 

 

Item 7: UPDATE ON EXPECTED COUNCIL ACTION – Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (5 minutes)

The Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group was chartered to explore opportunities to review standard methodologies of reporting and metrics that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision-making, including how the community can collaborate with Contracted Parties and other service providers in the sharing of metrics and data. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 July 2015, and the public comment period will close on 7 September 2015. Here the Council will receive an update on the expected timeline for delivery of the WG’s Final Report and note potential issues for Council consideration in the Final Report.

7.1 – Update (Jonathan Zuck)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Notes: Jonathan Zuck has provided a full update and explanation of the recommendations on today's GNSO Council call.

Slides: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-dmpm-03sep15-en.pdf

Recommended for any ALAC member who wishes to catch up quickly on the contents of the report.

 

Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability – CCWG Accountability (15 minutes)

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN’s historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders’ expectations. Considering that the US Government (through the NTIA) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

On 3 August, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second round of public consultation concerns significant changes made by the CCWG to its first proposal. The changes focus on outstanding issues, add details to the Work Stream 1 proposal(s), and include revisions to the original proposal(s) arising from the feedback received in the first public comment consultation period. Public comments may be sent in through 12 September. Here the Council will review the CCWG’s status and progress, and discuss any specific issues that need to be addressed in view of the timeline of the CCWG and the connection between its work and the IANA stewardship transition.

8.1 – Summary and status update (Thomas Rickert)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Notes: update from Thomas Rickert about the CCWG’s progress, including process recommendations about treatment of the Board’s point made on the call a few hours ago.

There was concern expressed from BC about the forthcoming possibly proposed F2F meeting in Los Angeles turning into a face to face negotiation.

There was concern from RrSG with the whole process potentially grinding to a halt due to the late arrival of input from the Board.

Item 9: DISCUSSION - Preparation for ICANN54 (15 minutes)

During the regular GNSO weekend working sessions at each ICANN Public Meeting, the GNSO Council and community meet with the ICANN Board, the GAC, staff from ICANN’s Global Domains Division, and senior ICANN management. Here the Council will discuss suggested topics for those meetings at ICANN54, as well as receive an update on scheduling and planning for the meeting generally.

9.1 – Update (Volker Greimann / Marika Konings / Glen de St. Gery)

9.2 – Council discussion

9.3 – Next steps

Note: due to time running out, this item was deferred to the mailing list. 

Item 10: Any Other Business (15 minutes)

10.1 – Post-ICANN53 progress of the Cross Community Working Group on Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs

Note: due to time running out, this item was deferred to the mailing list. 

10.2 – Brief update on the implementation of the new ICANN Meeting format particularly with regard to Meeting B.

Note: due to time running out, this item was deferred to the mailing list. 

 

  • No labels