- Motion for Approval of a the Data & Metrics Working Group Recommendations (non-PDP)
Made by: Volker Greimann
Seconded by: Avri Doria
On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on metrics and reporting (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf).
On 16 May 2013 the GNSO Council deliberated a recommendation on the Uniformity of Reporting from the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) and approved a non-PDP Working Group to consider metrics and reporting:
“The GNSO Council further approves the creation of a drafting team to develop a charter for a non-PDP Working Group to consider additional methods for collecting necessary metrics and reporting from Contracted Parties and other external resources to aid the investigation.” (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20130516-1).
On 23 Jan 2014 the GNSO Council approved the charter for a Data and Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (DMPM WG) (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20140123-1).
The Data and Metrics for Policy Making WG (DMPM WG) deliberated the issues as defined in its charter and published an Initial Report for public comment on 29 July 2015 for the required 40 day period (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29-en).
The DMPM WG reviewed the input received (see public comment review tool) and updated its report accordingly.
On 9 October 2015 the DMPM WG submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council. [LINK TO DOCUMENT]
The GNSO Council adopts all the consensus recommendations in the Final Report and instructs ICANN staff to begin implementation of the seven recommendations.
The GNSO Council thanks the DMPM WG for its efforts and recommends that the WG be formally closed as a result of the adoption by the GNSO Council of the WG’s recommendations.
The WG nevertheless requests that the WG remain available to provide input to the GNSO Council and ICANN staff should any questions or issues arise in relation to implementation of its recommendations prior to the formation of an Implementation Review Team.
The GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to prepare an evaluation report for the GNSO Council shortly after the conclusion of implementation of this pilot effort.
2. Approval of a charter for the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS (Next-Gen RDS) PDP WG
Made by: Susan Kawaguchi
Seconded by: Carlos Raúl Gutierrez
- Following submission of the WHOIS Policy Review Team’s Final Report, the ICANN Board passed a resolution on 8 November, 2012, launching an Expert Working Group on gTLD Registration Directory Services (EWG) to (1) help redefine the purpose of gTLD registration data and consider how to safeguard the data, and (2) propose a model for gTLD registration directory services to address accuracy, privacy, and access issues.
- Upon publication of the EWG’s Final Report in June, 2014, an informal group of Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Councilors and ICANN Board members collaborated to propose a Process Framework for structuring a GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) to successfully address these challenging issues.
- On 26 May, 2015, the ICANN Board adopted that Process Framework and reaffirmed its 2012 request for a Board-initiated PDP to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations in the EWG’s Final Report as an input to, and, if appropriate, as the foundation for a new gTLD policy.
- In accordance with the PDP Rules, a new Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 13 July 2015. Following review of the public comments received, the Staff Manager updated the Issue Report accordingly and included a summary of the comments received (see Annex D), which was submitted as the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration.
- The GNSO Council has reviewed the issues raised in the Final Issue Report as well as the draft PDP Working Group Charter that was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and updated reflecting the input received in the Final Issue Report final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf
- The GNSO Council approves the Charter and appoints Susan Kawaguchi as the GNSO Council liaison to the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS (Next-Gen RDS) PDP WG;
- The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for the PDP WG no later than ten days after the approval of this motion but the call for volunteers should remain open until the WG convenes for the first time; and
- Until such time as the WG selects a chair(s) for the WG and that chair(s) is confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council liaison to the WG shall serve as the interim chair.
3. LATE MOTION Process and Participation in CCWG-Accountability
Made by: Avri Doria
Seconded by: Heather Forrest
On 13 November 2014 the GNSO approved the charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability);
On 3 August the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2ndDraft Proposal was initiated, which ended on 12 September 2015;
The CCWG-Accountability has analyzed the comments received in the review of the 2nd draft and is working toward updating its reference
implementation taking into account the concerns expressed in those comments;
and The CCWG-Accountability is working in a considered and collegial manner to achieve a consensus solution to ICANN Accountability;
the superb and continuing leadership of CCWG-Accountability by the team which includes the GNSO appointed co-chair Thomas Rickert, to whom we
are grateful for his time and consistent effort;
The GNSO reiterates its support for the process that is ongoing in CCWG-Accountability,
its commitment to participating in continuing discussions with the goal of finding solutions with broad agreement for ICANN accountability in
preparation for IANA transition, and
to working through the process as agreed upon in the charter before declaring support or opposition to possible outcomes.