3.1 (Consent agenda) Motion – Confirmation of GNSO Appointed Co-Chair and Members to the CCWG-Auction Proceeds
Made by: James Bladel
Seconded by: Donna Austin
1.The GNSO Council adopted the charter for the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds during its meeting on 7 November 2016;
2.As a Chartering Organization, the GNSO can appoint a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 Members to the CCWG. Members are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.
3.The Charter specifies that a chair may be appointed by each Chartering Organizations. Chartering Organizations that do decide to appoint a chair should make reasonable efforts that the proposed chair / co-chair has the necessary experience to manage an effort of this nature by, for example, having actively participated as a member in at least one CCWG or ICANN Working Group throughout its lifecycle in order to have relevant or related experience of the different tasks that come with chairing a CCWG. Prior leadership experience (chair / co-chair / vice-chair) is desirable.
4.The GNSO Council notes that that best efforts have been to ensure that GNSO appointed members:
Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
1.The GNSO Council appoints [Jonathan Robinson] as the GNSO Appointed Co-Chair and Member to the CCWG – Auction Proceeds.
2.The GNSO Council confirms [include names] as GNSO appointed members to the CCWG-Auction Proceeds.
3.The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Appointed Co-Chair and the GNSO appointed members to ensure that the GNSO community is kept up to date on the progress of the deliberations as well as making sure that input from the GNSO community is sought on a regular basis.
4.The GNSO Council encourages other interested in this topic to join this effort as a participant or observer.
- 4.Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board
(Motion deferred to 15 December 2016 from 1 December 2016)
Made by: Paul McGrady
Seconded by: Donna Austin
- The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
- The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
- The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
- The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.
- The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Hyderabad GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-15dec16-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Hyderabadi GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
- Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
3. 5. Motion – Adoption of GNSO Review Working Group Implementation Plan
(Motion deferred to 15 December 2016 from 1 December 2016)
Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Seconded by: Rafik Dammak
1. The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014.
2. The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future.
3. The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority).
4. On 25 June, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32).
5. Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations. An implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution.
6. The GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews. This discussion paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 20 June 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discussion-paper-20jun16-en.pdf).
7. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed next steps during the ICANN meeting in Helsinki where it was proposed to repurpose the SCI as a Working Group to develop the requested implementation plan as outlined in the staff discussion paper.
8. On 21 July 2016 the GNSO Council approved a motion to adopt the charter for the GNSO Review Working Group and directed the Working Group to submit the proposed implementation plan to the GNSO Council for approval at the latest by the ICANN57.
1. The GNSO Council adopts the implementation plan.
2. The GNSO Council directs staff to submit the implementation plan to the ICANN Board for its consideration.
3. Following approval of the implementation plan by the ICANN Board of Directors, the GNSO Council directs the GNSO Review Working Group to execute and oversee the implementation of the recommendations as specified in the implementation plan, and to provide the GNSO Council with regular status updates (at a minimum prior to every ICANN meeting) on the status of implementation, including an overview for which recommendations implementation is considered complete. As part of this status update, the GNSO Review Working Group should also identify any questions and/or concerns that may have arisen during the implementation that would require further guidance.