1. GCOT-WT Meetings

This is a list of the current and previous meetings of the GCOT-WT.

Next Meeting: None scheduled at this time.

15 October Meeting:

Attendees:
Ray Fassett, Ron Andruff, Avri Doria, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Staff Support: Liz Gasster, Gisella Gruber-White, and Julie Hedlund

Action Items:

1. Declarations of Interest: Whether to Provide in Writing
The Work Team confirmed changes decided at the meeting on 13 October and provided in the draft (see below).

2. Statements of Interest: Suggested Language from Legal re: Staff
The Work Team agreed to include a new Section 5.2.3 Exemptions to provide an exemption for staff to provide individual SOIs as long as there was a blanket SOI for all staff. However, WT members agreed to obligate staff to provide DOIs.

3. Section 5.3.3 SOI Questions Relating to a List of ICANN Contractors
The Work Team agreed to modify the section to simplify it and to put the onus on respondents to ascertain entities with which they or their companies/organizations have a business relationship that may have contracts with ICANN. However, the Work Team agreed that the GNSO Council could take up the requirement for a list and Ron Andruff strongly urged that ICANN should be able to provide a list of all entities with which it has contracts.

ACTION: The Work Team asked staff to provide a revised draft for review in redline and clean versions. Staff distributed the documents on 15 October. See Revised Section 5.0 Redlined and Revised Section 5.0 Clean

Attendees:
Ray Fassett, Ron Andruff, Avri Doria, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Staff Support: Glen de Saint-Gery, Gisella Gruber-White, and Julie Hedlund

Action Items:

1. Declarations of Interest: Whether to Provide in Writing
After extensive discussion the WT agreed to modify the procedures to delete the requirement for written DOIs. The WT agreed specifically to delete the word "written" in the definition for DOIs in Section 5.1 definitions. In addition, the WT agreed to remove the requirement for polling individuals for their DOIs at the beginning of the meeting by deleting the second sentence in Section 5.4.2 Duty to Remind Participants and Speakers where polling is mentioned as a requirement. The Work Team asked staff to make the changes in the document and to send it to the WT for review and for submission to the OSC. They also noted that the PPSC has included the SOI/DOI procedures in its WG guidelines and that these would need to be amended to reflect the changes. It was agreed that the OSC Chair could send the revised procedures to the PPSC Chair for consideration and incorporation into the WG guidelines.
Actors: Staff
Due Date: 15 October -- DONE, See Revised Section 5.0

2. Statements of Interest: Suggested Language from Legal re: Staff
In the absence of language from ICANN Legal staff on the issue of staff providing SOIs, the WT discussed several alternatives. It agreed that staff and full-time exclusive ICANN contractors could be exempted from providing SOIs, but only if they were included in the requirement to provide DOIs and that Section 5.4.2 should be modified accordingly. However, they did not agree to exempt non-exclusive/non-full time ICANN contractors or how to address them. The WT strongly urged Legal staff to provide language relating to staff SOIs for consideration at the WT's next meeting on 15 October so that any changes could be incorporated into a revision of the procedures to be send to the OSC in time for review prior to the GNSO Council meeting on 28 October.
Action: OGC and Legal Staff
Due Date: 15 October

3. Section 5.3.3 SOI Questions Relating to a List of ICANN Contractors
The WT began discussion on this issue, but decided to revisit it at the meeting on 15 October. Staff agreed to send the suggested changes proposed by Legal staff in September.
Action: Staff and Work Team members
Due Date: 15 October -- DONE, See Suggested Changes to 5.3.3 for Discussion

29 September Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:
Ray Fassett, Ron Andruff, Eric Brunner-Williams, Avri Doria, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Staff Support: Liz Gasster, Glen de Saint-Gery, Rob Hoggarth, and Julie Hedlund

Action Items:

1. Statements of Interests: Suggested language from Legal re: Staff
The Work Team asked for clarification on the legal reason for staff to be exempted from providing a SOI. In particular, Ray noted that it would be useful to have from legal an opinion of their reason (if they have one) as it pertains to the ICANN organization (such as a liability concern, making this up) vs. a legal reason (such as the citing of any statue or law). Also, the Work Team asked Staff to provide relevant language concerning staff roles from the WG Guidelines. (DONE: With Clarification from Wolf-Ulrich) It was suggested that the language concerning staff roles should be consistent in both the SOI/DOI document and the WG Guidelines.
Actor: Staff
Due Date: 13 October

2. Declarations of Interest: Whether to Provide in Writing
The Work Team asked Staff to review transcripts of previous meetings where this issue was discussed to determine the origin of the requirement. Work Team members agreed to revisit the issue of a written requirement for DOIs after reviewing the information provided by staff, either on the list or at the next meeting on 13 October. Staff subsequently completed a review and found that the key discussions were held on 17 and 24 February 2010. See Transcript Excerpts. Staff also noted that the version of the document provided for discussion on 17 February does not include either in the definition or in section 4 Disclosures of Interest a requirement for these to be provided in writing. See SOI/DOI Draft Document 17 Feb 2010 . However, the draft produced following the meeting on 24 February 2010 includes a requirement for written SOIs and DOIs in their definitions. See SOI/DOI Draft Document 25 Feb 2010. It appears that the changes may have been based on the discussion on the meeting on the 24th for a need to have written SOIs/DOIs for reference.
Actors: Staff and Work Team members
Due Date: 13 October

22 September Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:
Ray Fassett, Ron Andruff, Avri Doria, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Staff Support: Ken Bour, Liz Gasster, Gisella Gruber-White, Rob Hoggarth, and Julie Hedlund

Action Items:

Topic -- Abstentions (action from 22 Sept)

The WT discussed the question of whether a GNSO Councilor can abstain during a GNSO meeting (without invoking a remedy). It was agreed that the Procedures allow for an abstention during a meeting, but that remedies must be invoked prior to a meeting. Staff agreed to clarify the Visual Procedures Map by changing the title to show that it refers to the procedures for remedies. The WT agreed that no further changes are needed to the Procedures with respect to abstentions, absences, and remedies at this time, although further changes may result during the implementation of these procedures. Further recommended changes could be considered by a Standing Committee, once the WT is completed with its work. The remainder of the time on the call was with Staff explaining the Procedures as they are presented in the Visual Procedures Map.
Actor: Staff
Due Date: 29 September

Topic – Issue of Need for Staff SOI's

Staff will draft language to attempt to address WT member concerns expressed on the call. Focus will start with potential definitional language changes to provide clarity on role of ICANN Staff and consultants not as policy decision makers, but as neutral supporters of Council, Working Group, Work Team, etc. efforts.
Actor: Office General Counsel (OGC)
Due Date: 29 September

Topic – List of ICANN Contractors, etc.

Staff will continue to investigate operational and logistical capability of developing a list. In meantime, without prejudging the continued need for creation of a list, WT Chair asked Staff to investigate/develop potential language revisions regarding SOI content requirements for community members.
Actor: OGC
Due Date: 29 September

Topic – Need For Written DOIs and recommendations for meeting processes to address DOI process requirements

Continued discussion at the meeting on 29 September.
Actors: WT Chair and members
Due Date: 29 September

15 September Meeting: Transcript and MP3.

Action Items:

Topic – Issue of Need for Staff SOI's

WT members and Staff discussed various impressions of the need for and value of Staff SOIs. Staff will draft language to attempt to address WT member concerns expressed on the call. Focus will start with potential definitional language changes to provide clarity on role of ICANN Staff and consultants not as policy decision makers, but as neutral supporters of Council, Working Group, Work Team, etc. efforts.
Actor: Office General Counsel (OGC)
Due Date: 29 September

Topic – List of ICANN Contractors, etc.

WT members and Staff discussed challenges of creating, publishing and maintaining a list of entities "with which ICANN has a transaction, contract or other arrangements." Staff will continue to investigate operational and logistical capability of developing a list. In meantime, without prejudging the continued need for creation of a list, WT Chair asked Staff to investigate/develop potential language revisions regarding SOI content requirements for community members.
Actor: OGC
Due Date: 29 September

Topic – Need For Written DOIs and recommendations for meeting processes to address DOI process requirements

WT members discussed possibility (but did not finalize or agree) that WT could recommend amending the GOP to remove the requirement of "written" DOIs. Discussion also suggested that verbal DOIs be the norm at GNSO meetings. Because of widespread impact of GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) to so many work teams and groups, the WT Chair will communicate this sense of the WT discussion to the GNSO Council Chair to head-off creation of any elaborate new processes that may be rendered moot by subsequent GOP amendment recommendations by the WT. The matter of translated DOIs was raised, but would appear to be moot if the written DOI requirement is removed. This discussion will continue at the next meeting.
Actors: WT Chair and members
Due Date: Next meeting 22 September

Topic – Next Meeting

The meeting went over by about 25 minutes and WT Members agreed to meet again next week to continue discussion of DOIs and to reach the Abstention agenda item.
Actor: The GNSO Secretariat will schedule and provide notice of the next call.
Next call: 22 September

19 May Meeting: (See MP3)

Attendees:
Ron Andruff, Avri Doria, Ray Fassett, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Staff Support: Gisella Gruber-White, Glen de Saint Gery, Ken Bour, and Julie Hedlund

Action Items/Discussion
1. ITEMS SENT TO OSC FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL: 2.1 Term Limits, 2.4 Board Seats, and 5. SOI/DOI: These sections were sent by Ray Fassett to Philip Sheppard for distribution to the OSC for review and approval. The OSC sent Sections 2.1 and 2.5 to the GNSO Council for consideration on 17 May. On Section 5.0, Philip Sheppard has proposed to the OSC the following recommendation: "The OSC recommends to Council: a) the immediate adoption of the attached operating procedures section 5 on disclosure of interest with the exception of parts 5.3.2 and 5.3.3; b) that Council request ICANN Staff to create and maintain a list as specified in 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of all "entities with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement (e.g. Registries, Registrars, Consultants,etc)" with appropriate considerations of privacy by XX date; c) that upon completion of this list, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 are automatically adopted." He asked OSC members to respond to his recommendation by 23 May.

2. SECTION 3.8 ABSENCES: The Work Team discussed section 3.8.4, paragraph c concerning how to address absences with respect to Nomination Committee Appointees (NCAs). They agreed that in the case of an absence, the vote should automatically go to to the non-voting NCA Council rep who also is a Council member for the vote, but that there also should be a process to notify the alternate NCA. Ken agreed to alter both Section 3.8 and Section 4.0 in any cases where this provision would be invoked.

3. SECTION 4 VOTING: The Work Team discussed the version of the document sent by Ken on 18 and agreed to the changes with some revisions noted, particularly those that concern the issue with NCA absences noted in Section 3.8.

4. DEADLINE: Ray Fassett requested Ken to make the changes as soon as he can and to send a redlined version of the documents. The Work Team will likely need not more than one business day i.e. deadline for comments being this Friday May 21 since we already have a good idea of what these are about. He suggested that there would not be a scheduled meeting in two weeks unless the Work Team decided it needed one. Upon approval of the final revised documents Ray will send them to the OSC to review.

4. DEADLINE: Ray Fassett requested Ken to make the changes as soon as he can and to send a redlined version of the documents. The Work Team will have a week to review and respond to the final changes. He suggested that there would not be a scheduled meeting in two weeks unless the Work Team decided it needed one. Upon approval of the final revised documents Ray will send them to the OSC to review.

05 May Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees:
Ray Fassett, Avri Doria, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Staff Support: Gisella Gruber-White, Glen de Saint Gery, Ken Bour, and Julie Hedlund

Action Items/Discussion
1. ITEMS SENT TO OSC FOR REVIEW/APPROVAL: 2.1 Term Limits, 2.4 Board Seats, and 5. SOI/DOI: These sections were sent by Ray Fassett to Philip Sheppard for distribution to the OSC for review and approval.

2. SECTION 3.8 ABSENCES: The Work Team discussed the need to avoid the term "consensus" to prevent confusion resulting from the possibility of differing definitions. Ken Bour agreed to revise the text accordingly and circulate a revision for final review.

3. SECTION 4 VOTING: The Work Team discussed the version of the document sent by Ken on 13 April and agreed to changes relating to the use of the phrase "appointing organization" as defined in Section 4.5.3. Ken agreed to revise the procedures to add a footnote to clarify the use of the phrase as it relates to Councilors who may be Nominating Committee appointees and to define the phrase earlier in the procedures. Ken will revise the text and circulate a revision for final review.

4. DEADLINE: Ray Fassett noted that the deadline for the Work Team to submit final documents to the OSC was 1 June. He suggested finalizing the documents by the next meeting, scheduled on 19 May.

21 April Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees:
Ray Fassett, Ron Andruff, Avri Doria, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Staff Support: Glen de Saint Gery, Ken Bour, and Julie Hedlund

Action Items/Discussion
1. Term Limits: Ron Andruff reminded the WT that Ray had agreed at the last meeting agreed that with the change suggested by Wolf Ulrich-Knoben and taking into consideration the discussion at the 24 March meeting this section is complete. Ken Bour noted that he had provided revised text for the WT on April 8. Julie Hedlund agreed to resend the final text to Ray for transmission to the OSC. See Revised Section 2.1-Term Limits .
2. SOI/DOI: The OSC sent suggested changes from Steve Metalitz for the WT to consider. The WT discussed Steve's suggestions and agreed to make changes to section 5.3.3. In addition, the WT discussed changes requested in the Public Comments. They agreed that the issue of the difference between a Statement of Interest and a Disclosure of Interest had been addressed by changes made to the document by Philip Sheppard, but they asked Julie to ensure that all references to "Declaration of Interest" had been eliminated. With respect to changes requested by INTA, they agreed to include for Statements of Interest a request for respondents to provide their declared country of residence, which may be determined by where they pay taxes. With respect to confidentiality, they noted that SOIs/DOIs are not confidential, but they agreed that ICANN should make it clear to respondents that the information they provide will not be treated as confidential so they should use discretion in determining what information they can provide under their countries' privacy laws. See Revised SOI/DOI Procedures
3. Remaining procedures: The WT asked Ken to consider the comments on the list to the document he had sent on the remaining procedures, make any necessary adjustments, and send the revised text: Section 2.4 – Board Seat Elections: sent to WT on 8 April; New Section 4-Voting and 3.8-Absences: sent to WT on 13 April.

07 April Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees:
Ray Fassett, Ron Andruff, Avri Doria; Staff Support: Glen de Saint Gery, Ken Bour, and Julie Hedlund

Action Items/Discussion
1. Report on Activities to OSC: Ray Fassett noted that Philip Sheppard had asked for updates on the activities to be completed by the WT by the ICANN Brussels meeting. Philip had sent a chart of OSC WT activities and dates, but Ray felt that the description for the GCOT was unclear. Action: Ray asked that staff should amend the chart to refect the following categories for work on the GNSO Rules of Procedures: 1) completed by the GCOT WT; 2) to be completed/date; 3) sections needing no additional work; 4) sections being considered by PPSC WTs.
2. Term Limits: Ray agreed that with the change suggested by Wolf Ulrich-Knoben and taking into consideration the discussion at the 24 March meeting this section is complete. Ken Bour agreed to provide revised text for the WT.
3. SOI/DOI: Ray sent this to the OSC for consideration. It will be considered complete unless changes are requested by the OSC.
4. Absentee Voting/Absentions: After some discussion the WT agreed to revised text to limit the availability of options for voluntary absences. Ken Bour agreed to provide revised text for the WT.
5. Board Seat Elections: Ken Bour has completed draft text and will send it to the WT for review.

24 March Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees:
Ray Fassett, Ron Andruff, Avri Doria, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Staff Support: Gisella Gruber-White, Glen de Saint Gery, Ken Bour, Julie Hedlund

Action Items:
1. Abstention Procedures: Ken Bour will provide language on vacancies.
2. SOI/DOI: Julie Hedlund to provide final version to Ray Fassett and the WT for Ray to deliver to the OSC. See GNSO OSC GCOT WT draft SOI-DOI Policy 07 March 2010
3. Section 2.1 Term Limits -- Special Circumstances: Ken Bour will provided revised draft language.
4. Remaining procedures changes: Ken Bour will provide draft text on Section 3.8 Absences, further revisions to sections in 4.0, and the new Board election procedures.

Summary:
1. Abstention Procedures: The OSC discussed the Abstention procedures at its Nairobi meeting on 07 March. During the discussion Steve Metalitz how the procedures addressed councillor vacancies. Ken Bour noted that in the case of a vacancy the Stakeholder Group could appoint a Temporary Alternate. However, the OSC noted that it was not clear whether a vacancy would alter the denominator for the purpose of voting. The OSC asked the WT to further discuss this issue. The WT decided that the denominator should not change. Ken Bour agreed to draft language and circulate it to the WT to review.

2. SOI/DOI: In its 07 March meeting the WT completed discussion on additional changes to the SOI/DOI document and agreed to submit the revised version to the OSC for review. At the 24 March meeting it agreed to have Ray Fassett send the document to the OSC.

3. Term Limits -- Special Circumstances: The WT discussed draft language for a new section 2.1 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures on special circumstances for exceptions to term limits. The WT agreed to the following changes: To make it more difficult to gain approval for an exception, the percentage for approval in Section 2.1.1 was raised from greater than 50% to greater than 60%. In Section 2.1.2 it was raised from greater than 50% to greater than 75%.

4. Work Plan Priorities: The WT discussed the fact that the OSC has directed the all of its WTs to complete their work by 01 June for approval at the ICANN Brussels meeting. Given this deadline, the WT agreed to prioritize the remaining items accordingly. Ken Bour agreed to provide draft text for the WT to review, including incorporating changes as necessary into Section 4.0, voting.
--New Section 3.8 on Absences to include allowing Temporary Alternate for long-term illness
--Recording the reasons for a vote in addition to just abstentions
--Absentee voting
--New generalized Board Seat Elections procedures

07 March Meeting in Nairobi, Kenya: (See: Transcript and MP3

Summary:

1. Abstention Procedures: The Work Team noted that it has completed its work on the Abstention procedures for recommendation into the Council Rules of Procedure. These have been submitted to the OSC with the recommendation for GNSO Council to review.

2. SOI/DOI: The Work Team completed discussion on additional changes to the SOI/DOI document and agreed to submit the revised version to the OSC for review. See GNSO OSC GCOT WT draft SOI-DOI Policy 07 March 2010

3. Term Limits: Special Circumstances: The Work Team discussed draft language for a new section 2.1 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to address Bylaws language, Article X, Section 3(2), which specifies that the GNSO Operating Procedures shall define the meaning of a "special circumstance" in relation to GNSO Council member term limits. After some discussion the Work Team agreed to make this topic a priority for discussion at the next meeting.

4. Tentative Work Schedule — Additional GNSO Operating Procedures Changes:
--New generalized Board Seat Elections procedures
--New Section 3.8 on Absences to include allowing Temporary Alternate for long-term illness

24 February Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:
Ray Fassett, Ron Andruff, Avri Doria, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Staff Support: Gisella Gruber-White, Glen de Saint Gery, Ken Bour, apologies from Julie Hedlund and Rob Hoggarth

Action Items:
1. Section 4-Voting: Ken will provide Ray language to include that asks the OSC for advice concerning Sub-Section 4.4-Absentee Voting (COMPLETED). Ray will send the latest Section 4-Voting ("Legal Review") version and 2009 Abstentions Analysis to the OSC along with an introductory email.
2) SOI/DOI: Ken agreed to make the necessary modifications to Section 5 (per above summary) and, at the team's request, to clean-up all of the earlier comments and edits. He also agreed to format the document for inclusion in the GNSO Operation Procedures including a recommendation as to section. Ken was asked to send the new document directly to the list in the interest of expediency. Work Team members to review the new SOI/DOI document and provide final comments no later than 3 March 2010 at which point that version will be sent to the OSC by Ray.
3) Next items on the GCOT agenda (Nairobi):
--Permanent procedures for Board Seat #13 and #14 Elections: A transitional procedure was approved by the Council on 28 Jan 2010 specifically for Board Seat #13 (as Annex 1), but it needs to be replaced. Ken previously agreed to create the first draft; however, that language has not yet been written (TBD).
--Section 2.1-GNSO Council Term Limits: This procedure needs to address the "special circumstance" referenced in the Bylaws. Ken has already drafted proposed language and will send to Ray for review and forwarding to the team as appropriate. It has not been submitted to Legal as yet; however, it has been reviewed by ICANN Policy Staff members.
--Section 4.4-Absentee Voting: TBD pending OSC advice concerning whether this language should be redrafted per Staff's recommendation.
4) Remaining Action Items: Ray requested that Julie/Rob provide a complete list of remaining action items pertaining to GCOT's mission so that it can both determine when its work is completed and also prioritize remaining activities.

Meeting Summary:
--The team discussed the most recent version of Section 4-Voting, including the new abstentions procedures, that has now cleared Legal review as of 19 Feb 2010. Ray asked for the team's approval to send the document to the OSC. All members present concurred.
--The team grappled with Wolf-Ulrich's question about redacting the Councilor names from Staff's 2009 Abstentions Analysis. After deliberating the pros/cons, a consensus was reached that the document should be sent in its present form with the names/affiliations listed. Ray noted and GCOT members assented that, in providing Staff's Abstentions Analysis to the OSC, the team explicitly concurs with all of the opinions, interpretations, and assessments included in the report. Ken offered to make any modifications deemed necessary; none were requested.
--The team then resumed its work on the SOI/DOI document using the version sent by Julie on 18 Feb 2010. The work prior to Section 5 was reviewed and approved in its present form with thanks to Julie for making the appropriate changes.
--With respect to Section 5, a consensus was reached that "truthfulness" should be replaced by the term "accuracy." It was agreed that paragraph 5.1 should be specifically modified as follows:
1)Remove references to "truthfulness"
2)Reorder the provided remedy to: Relevant Party > Chair > Vice Chair (if Chair not available)
--The team also reached consensus to modify paragraph 5.2 as follows:
1)Replace "truthfulness" with "accuracy" and remove references to "completeness" (covered in 5.1).
2)Change the remedial procedure to reference the appeal process that has been developed as part of the Working Group Guidelines. Ken will research and include the appropriate language.

17 February Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:

Ron Andruff, Avri Doria, Ray Fassett, and Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Staff: Ken Bour, Glen de Saint Gery, Gisella Gruber-White, Julie Hedlund, and Rob Hoggarth.

Action Items/Summary of Discussion:

1. Statements/Disclosures of Interest:

--Work Team members should review changes to Sections 3 and 4 in the Revised Draft SOI/DOI 12 February Word or Revised Draft SOI/DOI 12 February PDF . The Work Team members discussed changes to Sections 3 and 4. In particular, they asked Julie Hedlund to revise format of the questions in Section 3.3 to solicit "yes" or "no" answers and specific responses.
--Work Team members should review Section 5 of the document. In particular, Work Team members questioned the requirement in Section 5 for ICANN staff to evaluate Statements of Interest for "truthfulness."

2. Abstentions: The Work Team members asked Ken Bour to alert ICANN Legal Staff to the fact that the Work Team wished to send a final version of the revised procedures to the OSC as soon as possible so that the OSC can consider the document at its meeting at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi on 07 March.

10 February Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3)

Attendees:

Ray Fassett, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, and Ron Andruff; Staff: Ken Bour, Glen de Saint Gery, Gisella Gruber-White, Julie Hedlund, and Rob Hoggarth.

Action Items:

1. Statements/Disclosures of Interest: Work Team members should review the following draft document and provide comments to the list in preparation for a discussion on the call scheduled for 17 February. In particular, Work Team members should complete the questions in Section 3.3 and consider whether they are comfortable with them with respect to confidentiality. Refer to Ron's comments on Section 3.2/3.3 in the following document: SOI/DOI Draft Document with RA Comments
2. Abstentions: Ken will revise the procedures in coordination with ICANN Legal Staff.
3. Nairobi Meeting: Ray will send a message to the Work Team and copy Glen announcing that there will be a face-to-face meeting in Nairobi and requesting assistance from Glen to schedule it.

Summary of Discussion:
1. Nairobi meeting: Work Team members agreed to hold a meeting in Nairobi. Ray will notify the team/Glen.
2. Statements/Disclosures of Interest: Work Team members briefly discussed the version of the document with Ron's comments. (See above.) They suggested that to determine the acceptability of the questions in Section 3.3, Work Team members should answer them as a test to determine whether they present confidentiality/privacy issues. Given that there were only three Work Team members attending, it was determined that the next call would be scheduled for Wednesday, 17 February.
3. Abstentions: The Work Team members asked Ken to revise the procedures in coordination with ICANN Legal Staff.

27 January Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:

Ray Fassett, Avri Doria, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Staff: Ken Bour, Glen de Saint Gery, Gisella Gruber-White, Julie Hedlund

Action Items:

1. Abstentions: The following recommended changes to Section 4.0 of the Operating Procedures were agreed to by the Work Team members on the 27 January call. Work Team members should review the recommended changes. If no member objects to the recommendations by Monday, 01 February, they will be forwarded to ICANN Legal for review and then to the Operations Steering Committee. See "Revised Section 4.0 -- Abstentions" GNSO Ops Procs Section 4-Voting & 4.5-Abstentions (KBv1).pdf
2. Statements/Disclosures of Interest: Work Team members should review the following draft document and provide comments to the list in preparation for a discussion on the call scheduled for 10 February. See SOI/DOI Draft Document
3. Vice Chair: The Work Team members are requested to respond to the nomination of Avri Doria to be the Vice Chair of the Work Team.

Summary of Discussion:
1. Nairobi meeting: Work Team members determined that it was not necessary to hold a face-to-face meeting at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi, Kenya in March.
2. Board Seat 13: The Work Team members discussed the fact that the GNSO Council Chairs have decided to draft revised interim procedures and a motion for approval for the 28 January Council meeting to address the need to have procedures in place to hold an election for Board Seat 13. The Council and OSC will determine how to address the need for general procedures for the election to Board seats 13 and 14, to be incorporated in the GNSO Operating Procedures.
3. Abstentions: Work Team members accepted the draft recommended procedures for handling abstentions and decided that they should be incorporated into Section 4.0 -- Voting as a new subsection 4.5. Ken Bour agreed to revise the procedures and Julie Hedlund agreed to send the procedures to Work Team members for review. Ray Fassett agreed to forward Julie's message along with the document Steve Metalitz and Kristina Rosette for reference of the Work Team's actions. If no Work Team member objects to the procedures by 01 February, they will be sent to ICANN Legal staff for review and, when that review is complete, they will be sent to the OSC for consideration along with a draft motion, with the goal to have the GNSO Council approve the procedures in their meeting on 10 March in Nairobi, Kenya.
4. Vice Chair: The Chair and the Work Team members on the call nominated Avri Doria to be Vice Chair of the Work Team. Avri accepted pending approval by the full Work Team. Ray Fassett agreed to ask the full Work Team to respond.

06 January Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.)

Attendees:

Tony Holmes, Ray Fassett, Avri Doria, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Ron Andruff; Staff: Rob Hoggarth, Ken Bour, Glen de Saint Gery, Gisella Gruber-White

Discussions, Action Items, and Work Team Decisions

"Conflict of Interest" Terminology

After much discussion, the team is prepared to acknowledge, at least for the present, that the term "Conflict of Interest (COI)" has special meaning and, according to ICANN Legal, should be reserved for use under narrowly drawn circumstances. Specifically, in the case of the GNSO Council, its elected members do not have a fiduciary obligation to ICANN; therefore, they cannot technically have a COI under this interpretation. In the next draft of the procedures, Ken will include a statement defining COI in this narrow context and explaining that, as a result, the term will not be explicitly cited as a reason for an abstention. Instead, we will substitute other nomenclature which recognizes the fact that, under certain circumstances, individual Councilors can and do have professional, ethical, or other non-financial obligations requiring an abstention (and possible recusal) even if such conditions do not rise to the level of an ICANN COI.

"Proxy" Voting

In his earlier summary email (18 Dec 2009), Ken noted that Bylaws Article X, Paragraph 8 appears to prevent the possibility of a "proxy" as currently drafted: "8. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, each member of a voting House is entitled to cast one vote in each separate matter before the GNSO Council."

In response to the question as to whether the above paragraph should be considered an immovable constraint, Ken suggested that the clause "Except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws" might easily be extended to add "...or the GNSO Operating Procedures" because such language is used in other sections of Article X. Ron offered an intriguing interpretation that a "proxy" does not really violate the spirit of paragraph 8 because there is still only one vote being "cast" by each member. One Councilor's vote is simply being registered by another Councilor (via proxy) as directed by the Constituency or SG. The proxy Councilor is, in effect, casting only one vote (his/her own) and declaring, by written statement from the C/SG, the other Councilor's vote, which would be recorded as having been proxied (to avoid the recused member from being attached to that vote). At the appropriate juncture, Ken and Rob will clarify that interpretation with Legal.

In response to constraints itemized by Legal/Staff in 2007 concerning the use of proxy voting, Ken emphasized that he will attempt to tie down the rules to include such restrictions as:

Incidental and specific to a motion/action of the Council
Time bound (not open-ended)
Any Councilor may only exercise 1 proxy at a time (as directed by C/SG)
Proxies do not influence quorum calculations
Et al.

The team also discussed and reached an understanding that the introduction of proxy voting at the Council level does not specifically require that the C/SGs have Charter provisions that restrict their Councilors to vote consensus positions. It only requires that, in the event that a Councilor comes forward with a need to abstain, the C/SG would be asked if it can produce a consensus position as a prerequisite to executing a proxy remedy. If the C/SG cannot produce a consensus, then it would seek other available remedies (see discussion below).

GNSO Operating Procedures: Construct

Ken walked through his proposed construct for handling this topic within the GNSO Operating Procedures. The basic outline is as follows:

Section 1 – Duties (establishes the principle that the C/SGs ultimately own each vote; everyone is duty-bound to participate responsibly; and conditions should be avoided where any vote is not exercised)

Section 2 – Preventions (recognizes that there are circumstances which can/do prevent Councilors from fulfilling their duties)

Section 3 – Remedies (itemizes a series of actions, in sequential order, that are available to remedy conditions described in Section 2)

Ken highlighted the 5 currently documented remedies labeled (a)-(e); see 18 Dec 2009 email and the team discussed them and their sequential order. The underlying premise behind this construct is that a C/SG, under most (if not all) circumstances, would prefer to have its votes exercised and would choose to remedy any cases that would otherwise result in an abstention.

Ken originally recommended that, for remedy "(d)" (alternate), there would be no explicit obligation that the C/SG bind the Councilor to a particular vote (via consensus) although nothing in the procedures would prevent the organization from providing such instructions to the "stand in" party. After discussing the pros/cons, the team agreed that the procedures should be silent on requiring consensus for this particular option. Remedy "(c)" (proxy) would require that a consensus position exist within the C/SG.

There was considerable discussion concerning how to ensure that all of the sequential remedies are, in fact, exercised. As Ray expressed it, what would prevent a C/SG from defaulting through the available remedies to an abstention and reduction of the denominator? That discussion resulted in a consensus to remove remedy (e) – abstention. Avri wondered if that decision would reintroduce the very problem raised by IPC members (Kristina Rosette and Steve Metalitz) who provided their input to the team in an earlier session. Ray offered his impression that those individuals would be OK as long as remedies were available that did not result in an abstention and a de facto "No" vote being recorded. By removing the abstention option (and denominator reduction), gaming would be eliminated and there would be no need to create enforcement rules concerning the remedies. On the other hand, Ken noted that, by removing the default option, there is an implicit recognition that EVERY abstention case can and will be remedied. To Avri's point, the team must still prevent the circumstance that a Councilor faces an obligatory abstention and, if the C/SG does not remedy the problem (e.g. proxy or alternate), the resultant abstention would be recorded as a de facto "No" vote – something that the IPC representatives were not prepared to accept in principle. Perhaps the rules now have to be drafted to require a remedy in every case of an obligatory abstention. Open question: is it possible that there could be a set of conditions under which a C/SG would not be able to avail itself of one of the 4 remedies?

Based on team discussion, Ken will add "recusal" as a necessary step in cases where an obligational abstention is registered.

On behalf of the Policy Staff, Ken agreed to draft a set of procedures based upon this recommended construct and to submit to the team for review.

C/SG Charter Provisions

There was considerable sentiment expressed, although not unanimous, that C/SG Charters should constrain their Councilors to vote in accordance with consensus positions established by the organization. The GCOT agreed that it would ask the CSG WT to consider this question/issue since commonality of C/SG procedures is one of its assigned tasks. Ray agreed to pursue this matter via the email list.

Vice-Chair

Ray raised the issue that the team should address electing a Vice-Chair. Ray nominated Avri as a candidate and she agreed to consider it. This agenda item will be taken up at the team's next meeting.

Prepared by: Ken Bour

16 December Meeting: (See MP3 and Transcript.)

Action Items:

1. Ken Bour will revise his draft document (see the document in .doc GNSO Ops Procedures-COI & Proxy Voting-REVISED REDLINE (KBv1).doc and in .pdf GNSO Ops Procedures-COI & Proxy Voting-REVISED REDLINE (KBv1).pdf ) to include language to make material conflicts of interest broader than for financial or economic reasons. He also will follow up with ICANN Legal staff on their comments on the draft.
2. The Work Team will consider the draft of the Statement of Interest/Declaration of Internet document with comments from ICANN Legal staff for discussion at the next meeting. (See the document in .doc GNSO OSC GCOT WT Draft SOI-DOI Policy--ICANN Legal Edits.doc and .pdf GNSO OSC GCOT WT Draft SOI-DOI Policy--ICANN Legal Edits.pdf

Discussion Summary:

The Work Team continued discussion on abstentions and, in particular, the issue of when abstentions are allowed, what is a material conflict of interest, and when would an abstention warrant a change in the denominator in the case of a vote. The Work Team also discussed the issue of proxy voting and determined that it may be possible to include in its recommendations procedures for when proxy voting may be allowed. The discussion centered on the definition of a material conflict of interest and whether the examples in the draft document circulated by Ken Bour (see above) were too narrow as they only addressed economic or financial conflicts. Work Team members agreed that there could be other reasons for a material conflict of interest. Ray asked Ken to adjust the language in the draft document to broaden the definition and possibly include further examples. Ken agreed to try to provide a revised draft prior to the meeting on 30 December and also to follow up with ICANN Legal staff on their comments.

25 November Meeting: (See MP3 and Transcript.)

Action Items:
1. The Work Team agreed that Ken Bour would amend the Material Conflict of Interest Procedures (DONE - See "Draft Document" GNSO Ops Procedures-Abstentions & Conflict of Interest DRAFT (KBv1).pdf ) suggested by ICANN Staff to provide additional detail in the following areas: 1) guidelines for Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies on what constitutes a material Conflict of Interest (COI); 2) procedure for a Council member to express a COI that differentiates recusal from discussions versus recusal from votes; 3) the mechanism for how to make a reduction to the denominator after a Councilor announces a material COI (as determined by the Council guidelines) as the basis for an abstention. The Work Team also asked Ken to share the language with ICANN Legal staff.
2. Ray Fassett agreed to notify Chuck Gomes that the Work Team would need an extension on the 25 November deadline to devise procedures for abstentions.

Discussion Summary:
Steve Metalitz and Kristina Rosette joined the meeting to discuss details concerning abstentions arising from material COIs. Ray Fasette suggested that the Council Operating Procedures should not dictate how a Stakeholder Group or Constituency decides what is a material COI, although Avri Doria suggested it would be helpful for the procedures to provide guidelines. Ray empasized that the primary issue for the Work Team to decide was whether the denominator should be reduced in a case of an abstention for reasons of a material COI. Kristina suggested that if she had a material COI she did not think that her Constituency would be able to resolve it for her (such as, to require her to vote in any case). She also emphasized that a Stakeholder Group or Constituency should not be penalized for a Councilor who has a material COI, that is, the denominator should be reduced so that the abstention does not count as a "no" vote. Avri noted that it would be helpful to have ICANN Legal staff review any language the Work Team is devising early in the process. No Work Team member thought it should be required for one House to rule on a COI presented by a Councilor in the other House. Avri noted that she was not comfortable with the idea of allowing a substitute or alternate to vote in the case of a material COI. She added that the Work Team should devise guidelines for a Stakeholder Group or Constituency to follow in determining a material COI. She added that the Operating Procedures also should include a description of how a Council member should express a material COI, while differentiating the procedures for recusal from a discussion versus recusal from a vote. Also, Avri suggested the Operating Procedures should include a mechanism for reducing the denominator in the case of a material COI. The Work Team asked Ken Bour to revise the Material Conflict of Interest Procedures suggested by ICANN Staff to provide additional detail in those areas. Ray Fassett agreed to notify Chuck Gomes that the Work Team would need an extension on the 25 November deadline to devise procedures for abstentions.

11 November Meeting:

Action Items:
1. The Work Team approved the corrections to the version of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that was posted for Public Comment and approved by the Council so that the latest document reflects those changes suggested by the ICANN Legal Team and agreed to by the Work Team at its meeting on 16 September. See Revised GNSO Council Operating Procedures
2. The Work Team agreed that Ray Fassett should invite Kristina Rosette and Steve Metalitz to join the next call to provide insight on their view of the handling of abstentions. Ken Bour agreed to send to Ray/Julie amended text on the Material Conflict of Interest Procedures suggested by ICANN Staff and provided as part of the Public Comment process for the GNSO Council Operating Procedures (DONE). See ICANN Staff Document on Abstentions In addition, the Work Team agreed that the 25 November time frame for completing a new abstention/vote recommendation would not be met.

Discussion Summary:
1. The Work Team approved the corrections to the version of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that was posted for Public Comment and approved by the Council so that the latest document reflects those changes suggested by the ICANN Legal Team and agreed to by the Work Team at its meeting on 16 September.
2. The Work Team discussed the issue of how to handle material and immaterial abstentions. The team did not reach clarity on what is an example of a material conflict of interest at the Council level and decided to invite Kristina Rosette and Steve Metalitz to the next call to learn their thoughts on this issue. However, the Work Team agreed that if it can be determined that there is a material conflict of interest at the Council level the resulting abstention would alter the denominator for tallying the vote. However, the team also agreed that the process for allowing such an abstention -- and a possibility for a proxy vote -- should be an onerous one. In that respect the Work Team asked Ken Bour to excerpt from the ICANN Staff document on Abstentions section 5 dealing with Material Conflicts of Interest and include a bullet allowing for a proxy vote and to send the language to Ray (DONE).

25 October Meeting: (See MP3)

30 September Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3)

16 September Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3):

Action Items:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure: The Work Team considered comments received on the Rules of Procedure from the OSC and ICANN legal staff. The team agreed to a final draft of the Rules of Procedure and forwarded the document to the GNSO Council for consideration. See GNSO Operating Procedures Rev090916 Final Draft .

2. Proposed GNSO Structure: Julie has collected and compiled the comments. See GNSO Structure Input , GNSO Structure Input in PDF , ISPCP Comments in PDF and RC Comments in PDF .

3. SOI/DOI Document: Under review by ICANN legal staff.

09 September Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3):

Action Items:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure: Review latest version of document and comment on the Work Team email list by Friday, 11 September. See Revised Document Latest Version .

2. Proposed GNSO Structure: Julie has collected and compiled the comments. See "GNSO Structure Input"
GNSO Structure Input.xls , GNSO Structure Input in PDF , ISPCP Comments in PDF and RC Comments in PDF .

3. SOI/DOI Document: Under review by ICANN legal staff.

02 September Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.):

Action Items:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure: Review beginning with Section 5.2 to the end of the document.

2. Proposed GNSO Structure: Julie has collected and compiled the comments. See "GNSO Structure Input"
GNSO Structure Input.xls , GNSO Structure Input in PDF , ISPCP Comments in PDF and RC Comments in PDF .

3. SOI/DOI Document: Under review by ICANN legal staff.

26 August Meeting: (See MP3 and Transcript)

Action Items:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure: Sections: 4.1, 5.8, 16, and 17.

2. Proposed GNSO Structure: Julie is collecting comments.

3. SOI/DOI Document: Reviewed by ICANN legal staff.

19 August Meeting: (See MP3 and Transcript):

Action Items:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure: URGENT: Prior to the meeting on 19 August Work Team members should review the document GNSO Operating Procedures Sections: 4.1, 5.8, 16, and 17 and provide comments concerning changes to the list. THESE SECTIONS ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. See Wolf-Ulrich's amended document with comments/changes

2. Proposed GNSO Structure: Julie is collecting comments.
3. SOI/DOI Document: Julie will check on the status of the document with ICANN legal staff.

Discussion Summary:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure:
The Work Team revised sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5a, 5.6 and 5.7. They agreed that Work Team members could, if they wished, circulate a document with just these revised sections to their Constituency's GNSO Council representatives to give them a chance to see recommended changes thus far and to see if they might have suggestions or questions. Ray agreed to circulate the document to Chuck Gomes, Chair of the OSC. See GNSO Council Operating Procedures Recommendations as of 120809. For next week's meeting, the team decided to address sections 4.1, 5.8, and 16. Wolf-Ulrich noted that there is some language that has been proposed to be deleted from the bylaws on absentee voting that should be included in the revised procedures. He provided the language to Julie and she included it in the revised document. After the meeting Julie also noted that there is language pertaining to observers that has been deleted from the Bylaws that also should be added to the procedures and she included it as a new Section 17 Observers.

05 August Meeting: 1600 UTC (See MP3):

Action Items:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure: URGENT: Prior to the meeting on 05 August Work Team members should review the document "GNSO Operating Procedures"Sections: 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7 to determine whether any changes need to be made to these sections. At the 05 August meeting it was suggested that these sections may not need to be changed. THESE SECTIONS ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. Those sections that reference the Bylaws DO NOT need to be addressed by the Work Team.
2. Proposed GNSO Structure: Julie will collect comments in the form of a chart for easy reference.
3. SOI/DOI Document: Julie will check on the status of the document with ICANN legal staff.

Discussion Summary:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure:
Work Team members discussed the latest draft of the revised procedures and decided to divide the sections into those that may need few, if any, changes and those that are more complex and will require detailed discussion. It was agreed that in order to complete the changes to the document the team would meet weekly in the month of August. For the 12 August meeting, the group decided to address those sections that may not require changes and to ask team members to review them ahead of the meeting. These are Sections: 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7. Those sections that are more complex and require additional discussion are: 5.3, 5.4, 5.5a, 5.8, and 16. Ray asked what would be the process for recommendations. Rob and Julie noted that they would first go to the OSC, which would review them and then forward them (with any changes) to the GNSO Council for review/approval. Tony noted that the OSC and Council both will need time for substantive discussion of the document.
2. Proposed GNSO Structure:
Julie has received several responses and is forwarding them to the Work Team members. She also will put them into a chart per Ray's request. Ray sent the request on 30 July and allowed 3 weeks for a response. The team agreed to discuss the responses once the deadline for receiving them was past.
3. ICANN Meeting at Seoul
The team members decided it would be useful to have a meeting on Sunday morning, 25 October. Julie noted that Chuck Gomes is planning to hold a meeting of the OSC Sunday afternoon the same day.

22 July 2009, 1600 UTC (See Transcript and MP3)

Action Items:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure: Julie Hedlund will distribute to the Work Team for consideration an amended and redlined version of the Rules of Procedure including proposed Bylaws changes, edits relating to the work of the PPSC PDP and WG Work Team, and proposed language on absentee voting in Section 16 by 29 July.
2. Proposed GNSO Structure: Ron Andruff will reformat the document and Ray will send it out to the constituency members for comment.
3. SOI/DOI Document: Ray will check on the status of comments from ICANN Legal Staff who are reviewing the document.

Discussion Summary:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure:
Several Work Team members said that it would be helpful to see a version of the Rules of Procedure document that indicated changes resulting from the proposed Bylaws changes as well as any recommendations currently proposed by the PPSC PDP and WG Work Teams. Julie agreed to amend the document accordingly and to send it to team members for consideration by 29 July. In addition, members said it was important to define in more detail how absentee voting would be conducted. Julie agreed to suggest some language as a starting point for discussion. Ken noted the problem of multiple membership in constituencies with respect to voting and circulated some ideas relating to this issue in a message to the team.
2. Proposed GNSO Structure:
Ron agreed to reformat the document and Ray will send it to constituency members. Glen confirmed that the Work Team email list could not be used for responses since only people on the list can send messages to the list. She recommended using the GNSO Secretariat email.
3. SOI/DOI document:
Ray agreed to check on the status of comments from ICANN Legal Staff who are reviewing the document.

10 July 2009, 1600 UTC See Transcript and MP3

Action Items:
1. The team discussed final non-substantive text and formatting edits to the New GNSO Organizational Structure "Kite" document and agreed that the document will be sent out to GNSO Constituency leaders on 20 July.
2. The Chair and Staff will process text and formatting edits discussed on the call today and circulate a final version of the document to work team members no later than next Friday 17 July.
3. In transmitting the "kite" document, the Chair will ask Constituency leaders to specifically encourage individual community members to make comments on the document concept and to also provide Constituency-wide comments if desired. Final edits to the document will also reflect that desire.
4. The Work Team agreed to set a three-week comment deadline of 10 August for community feedback.
Staff will set up or otherwise assign a specific email address to accept comments on the kite document.
5. The Chair will examine comments filed in the current Bylaw Amendments Public Comment Forum , specifically comments by AIM regarding GNSO Council quorum rules, to determine if further work team dialogue, or comments in the forum itself are necessary and he will advise the group of his recommendation in that regard.

21 June 2009, Sydney, Australia See Transcript

Action Items:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure: Julie Hedlund will distribute to the Work Team for consideration an amended and redlined version of the Rules of Procedure indicating the changes agreed to at the meeting on sections 3.5 Quorum and 3.6 Votes and highlighting the next possible priority sections for discussion (Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, Section 4, and Section 5) (See GNSO Operating Rules of Procedure Working Document 210609 )
2. Proposed GNSO Structure: Ron Andruff will revise the document based on the recommendations received from the OSC at the Sydney meeting and circulate the revised version to the Work Team.
3. SOI/DOI Document: ICANN Legal Staff are reviewing the document and will provide comments to the Work Team.

Summary:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure:
--Section 3.5 Quorum: Agreed to new draft language, as follows: "In order for the GNSO Council to initiate a meeting a quorum must be present. A quorum is a majority of voting members, which includes at least one member of each stakeholder group. At the time of a vote there must be a quorum."
--Section 3.6 Votes: Chuck Gomes noted that under the changes considered for the Bylaws all votes are taken in both Houses and the criteria for passing is defined in each House. Julie agreed to amend the language based on changes proposed to the Bylaws by the GNSO Council.
2. Proposed GNSO Structure -- Meeting with OSC Members
--The OSC members recommended several changes to further clarify certain points in the document, including changing references from Constituencies to Stakeholder Groups to reflect the new bicameral structure and to make it clear that the split in duties between policy and admin refers to the GNSO as a whole, and not to a split of the GNSO Council. Ron Andruff agreed to make the changes and to send the revised version to the Work Team. In general, the OSC members present agreed that with these changes the Work Team should circulate the document to the Constituencies for consideration.
3. SOI/DOI document -- Meeting with OSC Members
--Some OSC members suggested the approach was too complex, but agreed that providing an SOI needs to be timely and that this should be the focus of the document. Ray Fassett explained that the IS Legal staff also were reviewing the document and that the next step would be for the Work Team to consider their recommendations.

10 June 2009, 1600 UTC See MP3

27 May 2009, 1600 UTC See Transcript and MP3

13 May 2009, 1600 UTC See Transcript and MP3

29 April 2009, 1600 UTC See Transcript and MP3

23 April 2009, 1500 UTC

Primary Team Members in Attendance:

Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
Ray Fassett - gTLD Registries Constituency
Tony Holmes - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
Yoav Keren – Registrar Constituency
Eric Brunner-Williams – Registrar Constituency
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency

ICANN Staff in Attendance:

Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MEETING AGENDA

1. Call to order / roll call

2. Discuss suggestions for high-level GNSO Council operating principles: Ideas for a new GNSO structure (draft document provided by Ron Andruff):

Tony Holmes – In the draft document, does the Council or do the working groups assume the proposed GNSO functions (policy and administration)?
Ron Andruff – The document proposes two bodies responsible for the activities: the Policy Council and the Administrative entity, both of which would be comprised of members selected by constituencies.
Tony – If you look at the BGC report, the recommendation is to move the Council from being a developer of policy to a manager of policy development to reduce its size. However, it appears this proposal would increase the size/work of the Council.
Ron – This document proposes creating a group within the GNSO to address the GNSO's administrative activities, including outreach to other groups, face-to-face meetings, how to be more effective, and how to do more quality work with less time. This new administrative group could be comprised of two people from each constituency.
Tony – I agree that some of the administrative activities do need to be addressed by the GNSO. It would be helpful to have a bulleted list of these administrative functions.
Wolf-Ulrich – Question concerning wording:First the document refers to the GNSO, but also to "the GNSO Council."Which is it?
Ron – It should be "GNSO" not "GNSO Council."We'll change this in the next draft.
Tony – Will the new administrative group be a sub-team of Councilors?
Ron – This group will NOT be made up of Policy Councilors. It is a sub-team that mirrors the Council, but dealing with administration only.
Tony – I agree that outreach doesn't need to fall under the GNSO Council; it could be another group.
Ray – It appears that the Work Team members on this call agree on the description of the Policy Council, but not on the other two groups without understanding of their roles.
Ron – Here is the organization of the proposed GNSO structure: 1) – first box; GNSO Chair; 2) GNSO Policy Council and GNSO Administration 3) Executive Committee Chair with oversight of Policy Council and Administration. The Policy and Administrative groups would elect the Chair of the Executive Committee.
Ray – I recommend that the revised document should include an organization chart.
Tony – I am not sure that that it is appropriate to elevate administrative functions to the level of the Policy Council.
Ron – Why does it matter that these groups have equal standing?
Tony – Some may be concerned with the concept of creating a new body within the GNSO. This also would require changes to the Bylaws.What would be the membership of the administrative body?
Ron – You could have two members from each constituency – 14 total – or we could decide that one is enough from each constituency. If we had at least one from each constituency that would provide for equal representation; two would provide for alternate members to participate.
Ray – Do we need an administrative group or do we just need one person?
Tony – We need to have people with the right skills in the working groups and we already lack the resources to do this.Under this proposal it appears we will need more resources.
Ron – This document recommends that the Policy Councilors will oversee the working groups, but also will be looking for the right people for the working groups.
Ray – Who will decide whether an issue is for the Policy Council or the Administrative Group?
Ron – The decision is made by the Executive Committee and flows down.
Wolf-Ulrich – In my point opinion the administrative functions are services to the GNSO that need to be done but they are not the same priority as policy.
Ron – We should send this out to the constituencies to initiate a dialogue. Once we get some feedback from the community we will know where to go from here.
Ray – We agree on the notion of a policy council and we agree that there should be a separation between policy and administration. We do not agree on manning the administrative area. This proposal could be interpreted as moving away from what the BGC has recommended.
Tony – I think we can agree that these functions need to be dealt with, but we need to decide if we need another body to do this. We should add a chart and list of functions.
Ray – We also could send the revised document to the OSC Chair as a courtesy.

3. Discuss Charter

Ron noted and Julie Hedlund confirmed that the fourth bullet: "Develop curriculum for training Council members, constituents, facilitators and others" could be a task that the Work Team directs the ICANN staff to initiate and provide a draft for Work Team review and consideration.
The Work Team recommended a revision to the first section, Team Charter/Goals: Change "prepare clear rules" to "review rules."

4. Discuss SOI/DOI

The Board Governance Committee is in the process of reviewing the Conflict of Interest Policy.We will resume discussion of pending further guidance from the Board in this area that likely will be released soon.

5. Next meeting: 29 April, 1600 UTC

15 April 2009, 1500 UTC

Primary Team Members in Attendance:

Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
Ray Fassett - gTLD Registries Constituency
Ken Stubbs - gTLD Registries Constituency
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency

ICANN Staff in Attendance:

Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MEETING AGENDA

1. Call to order / roll call 2. Discuss suggestions for high-level GNSO Council operating principles

Ron Andruff

Submitted for Work Team consideration recommendations for high-level GNSO Council operating principles.
Worked with colleagues from the community and began to circulate the document among members of the Commercial and Business Users Constituency.
One of the thoughts behind the idea of dividing the work of the GNSO Council based on responsibilities comes from the amount of work that has to be done and the few individuals to do it, which makes it difficult with others in the constituency to keep up.
The recommendations in the document describe policy officers or councilors working in an environment of management and coordination. Another group – constituency representatives – would work with the day-to-day management and administration.
Thus, the recommendation is for a division between the people who handle policy and those who handle management and administrative details.
The third group is a gathering of people from both sides – the executive committee.
The recommendations in the document endeavor to explain the nature of the individuals working on the activities. There is the mandate for the GNSO Council to be a manager of the policy process – transitioning from voting on policy development to managing policy development.
Then there is the Board recommendation to define and develop the scope of other standing committees – such as benchmarking and trends analysis. The question for this team is how do we set up groups that address issues that are on the horizon, before we have to deal with them as an organization?

Ray Fasset:

Much of what Ron presents in his recommendations relates directly to the team charter.

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – Questions:

1. What is the status of the paper? Is it your personal opinion or your constituency's?
2. How do the content and tasks of the future Council as described in your recommendations fit into what has been already begun to be established regarding the bicameral structure?

Ron – Answers:

1. The Commercial and Business Users' Constituency has not reviewed this document. I posted it yesterday to the constituency and have begun to receive some comments.
2. The document could lead to a new structure for the Commercial and Business Users' Stakeholders group; it could help to encourage participation from new people in leadership positions; and it may provide a basis for thinking about the stakeholder groups and constituencies and how they will intersect with the structure of the Council.

Wolf-Ulrich:

The main message of the recommendations appears to be that in the future we should focus on the primary responsibility of the GNSO Council, that is, management of policy development. The load of the administrative work as been increased more and more. We should find a solution on how to separate these two responsibilities.

Ron:

One recommendation is to assign the administrative tasks to the ICANN staff. This could allow Councilors to focus on policymaking and establishing the work teams.

Wolf-Ulrich:

Is it the best solution to separate the work of the GNSO Council by establishing new bodies within the GNSO? Or could this be managed in a different way?

Ron:

This is a valid point. Anyone who is doing the work as a Councilor recognizes that there are not many Councilors to share the work. With this reform we are reshaping ourselves. For example, what if we had constituency representatives from each constituency that are solely focused on outreach for meetings, such as what is ICANN and why is it important? We don't have anyone doing this now.
In addition, there is no concerted effort to look at these horizon issues and to find the people with the skill sets to address them. Also, if we adopted this new structure for the GNSO perhaps we would see it reflected in the constituencies and stakeholder groups.

Ray:

A question concerning the division of responsibilities: Is this different from who does what? While I like the concept of defining the responsibilities of the GNSO and dividing them up, whether we need different people doing different things (and where do we get them) is another question. I see this as a way for the GNSO to be more efficient.

Ron:

The point is to choose people with the appropriate skill sets. Choose a policy person to work on policy. Make sure the skills sets are appropriately applied to appropriate tasks.

Ray:

I think the division of responsibilities is useful, but do we have to define them first?

Ron:

We could provide these recommendations to the Council first, or we could get input from the stakeholder groups and constituencies first.

Ken:

From a practical standpoint we've had the division of responsibilities in our procedures in the past, but some people haven't wanted delegate responsibility.
One of the most important things is to acknowledge the need for a division of labor. However, from a practical standpoint we may need to let the Council address this. We could look at what the Council has been doing in the last two years.
For example: with respect to travel subsidies there have been more emails on this issue in the Council than on the new gTLD PDP. Instead of getting each person involved in this, the Council could ask someone to coordinate a recommendation and response.

Wolf-Ulrich:

Could you avoid this by establishing a new body that deals with funding issues?

Ken

The Council needs to be operating at a much higher level and to delegate functions to use resources more efficiently.

Ron:

Policy officers should be focusing on policy functions; they should not be in dialogue on travel funding. That should be an administrative function that is dealt through constituency representatives. The key is to move to a division of responsibilities.
I suggest circulating these recommendations to our constituencies.

Wolf-Ulrich – Questions:

1. How would the Board interact with the Council if it adopted this structure? Would it look to an executive committee or two different groups?
2. Also, should the structure of policy representatives and administrative representatives be reflected at the Board level?

Ron – Answers:

1. The Board would see one Council, but for policy issues they would hear from the policy person, and for administrative issues they would hear from the administrative person.
2. The structure of the Board and Council remains the same as it is today, but with a division of responsibilities.

Ray – Action items:

Julie Hedlund should prepare an executive summary of Ron's recommendations document, circulate it to Ron for review, and then to the Work Team for consideration.
The Work Team members should circulate the document among their constituency members for comment.

3. Discuss suggested draft of SOI/DOI procedures

Ron:

No preference on the alternate language options for the SOI and DOI definitions.
Need to add that work teams and other groups should ask for any updated DOIs at the beginning of each meeting.
Need to have stronger enforcement. People need to know this is a serious issue.
Need to indicate to whom the GNSO Council members should provide their SOIs.

Wolf-Ulrich:

Could provide additional details concerning the consequences of noncompliance based on a person's level of interest.
Need greater enforcement.
Does this apply only to GNSO Council members? Glen de Saint Géry – Yes.

Ken:

The ICANN Board has spent a significant amount of time on conflicts of interest.
Request that the staff circulate the final report that was prepared for the Board and the Board conflict of interest forms.

4. Next meeting: 23 April, 1500 UTC

----

01 April 2009, 1400 UTC

Primary Team Members in Attendance:

Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
Ray Fassett - gTLD Registries Constituency
Yoav Keren - Registrar Constituency
Ken Stubbs - gTLD Registries Constituency
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency

ICANN Staff in attendance:

Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
Robert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MEETING AGENDA

1. Call to order / roll call

2. Review draft charter and prioritize action items

General Comment

Yoav – Very helpful for the Work Team to get an email of all the relevant links to current papers already written, and published comments relevant to the team's work.

GNSO Council as Manager of the Policy Process

Ray asked Ken to provide some thoughts on this issue and background on the Council.

Ken:

Still very difficult for the Council to deal with an environment that is open for immediate change.
Needs to be more consideration of the difficulties for some constituencies to get together and take the time to discuss new material presented to the GNSO Council.
Ensure that non-discriminatory technologies that are available for participation.
More flexibility for the Secretariat – provide a discretionary budget to increase flexibility to support the Council

Prioritizing Work Team Goals/Tasks

Ron – The Work Team has some very difficult tasks; needs to determine manage them.
Ray – Consider what are the operating principles to enable the Council achieve this goal.The Work Team could start with the Statements of Interest.Other issues, such as the standing committees, are more difficult.
Ken – The Work Team could stratify these tasks and tackle the things that could be done quickly.ICANN policy staff also could help the Work Team get a better idea of what we can tackle in a reasonable time period versus where we need additional clarification.

Prepare clear rules for the establishment of new constituencies

Wolf-Ulrich – Question: What about operational rules for new constituencies – how they are brought into the team's work?
Rob – Answer: The Bylaws allow for approval of these, but there is a subset of issues that this team would need to address on how they operate in the structure.Suggest that the Work Team may want to address this item later in its work and coordinate this effort with new constituencies re: Bylaws provisions.
Ron – Question: With respect to new constituencies, could we also review what the ICANN policy staff have already produced?
Rob – Answer:

--Staff has done a lot of preliminary work, which we can provide to the Work Team to assist and support it, for background, and as recommendations or suggestions. At the appropriate point the Work team could review, change, or modify these documents.

--Suggest that the Work Team start with the GNSO Council Operating Rules and Procedures.Perhaps certain work team volunteers might step forward to do a straw man document while a number of efforts are ongoing.

Statement of Interest (SOI)/Declaration of Interest (DOI) Forms:

Ken – Suggest that the Work Team should start with the SOI/DOI forms. Circulate to Work Team for review the current ICANN SOI standard forms.
Ray – Agree that this is a good place to start.Need to define when each is used.For example, an SOI is provided prior to starting an activity; a DOI prior to a vote.
Ken-- Could use the Board guidelines as a starting point.
Ron – Recommend that ICANN policy staff prepare definitions for SOIs and DOIs, including a template, using the GNSO Council example.Then the Work Team could consider how to assimilate this into a standardized format.
Rob – The staff also could suggest how this process is enforced.
Ron – Could look at this from the point of view of any time a meeting commences the chair asks if there are any updates to the Statements of Interest.
Ray – Request that staff should provide draft documents in 1 week for the Work Team to comment on and review via email, prior to the next meeting.

GNSO Council Operating Principles

Ray – The Work Team needs to develop high-level operating principles that govern how the Council is to act and tailored to its purpose and mission.
Rob – ICANN policy staff could collect Work team ideas and format them.
Ray – Each team member could suggest 5-10 principles to discuss on the list.Ray will draft a suggested format and send to the Work Team email list.
Ron – Suggest the Work Team will begin with the following two goals from the checklist 1) Develop SOI/DOI forms and 2) Ideas for high-level operating principles.

3. Action Items:

SOI/DOI forms: ICANN policy staff will draft definitions, templates, and processes and circulate to the Work Team for consideration not later than 08 April 2009. The Work Team will review and circulate comments prior to the next meeting on 15 April 2009 1500 UTC.
Work Team members will circulate to the email list suggestions for high-level GNSO operating principles. The Work Team Chair will begin the process with his suggestions.
ICANN policy staff will draft suggested changes to the GNSO Council Rules of Principles (see existing rules) and provide to the Work Team for consideration.

4. Next meeting: 15 April, 1500 UTC.

25 March 2009, 1400 UTC

Primary Team Members in Attendance:

Ray Fassett - gTLD Registries Constituency
Yoav Keren - Registrar Constituency

ICANN Staff in attendance:

Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
Robert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MEETING AGENDA

1.Call to order / roll call

2.Work Team Participation

The Work Team needs more participation; How do we get others involved?Work on our purpose and goals that others can identify with and get involved.

ACTION 1: Ray Fasset will ask Chuck Gomes to announce the need for additional Work Team volunteers at the next GNSO Council Meeting on 26 March.

3.GNSO Council Rules of Procedure: General Discussion (SeeGNSO Council Rules of Procedure)

Question: What does the Work Team need to do to tie the existing GNSO Council Rules of Procedure to the revised Bylaws to reflect the GNSO Council restructure?

Answer: Although it is the Work Team's responsibility to ensure that the GNSO Council Rules of Procedure track to the Bylaws as revised to reflect the new GNSO Council structure, the work of other Work Teams will produce changes to some sections of the Rules of Procedure (such as Section 6 GNSO Policy Development Process).

Question for the Work Team: How much detail to put into the Rules of Procedure to reflect what is already in the Bylaws.Link to Bylaws or duplicate Bylaw wording?

ACTION 2: Work Team members should review the draft charter and provide their input on which items should be prioritized.Ray and Yoav also will send suggestions re: issue prioritization to the Work Team email list.

ACTION 3: Ask Work Team members to consider what needs to be in the Bylaws vs. in the Rules of Procedure.

ACTION 4: Julie Hedlund update the Wiki as follows: 1) add a link to the diagram of the new GNSO bicameral structure and 2) create a new link to a Wiki page where the Work Team can review, revise, and track changes to the GNSO Rules of Procedures in coordination with draft documents developed by Ken Bour.

Section 1. Background

This section states that the Council will operate under Rules of Procedure for the old DNSO Names Council.The Work Team needs to look at these old rules to make sure it is doing due diligence.
ACTION 5: Rob Hoggarth will look into the relationship between these old rules and the existing GNSO Council Rules.

Section 2. The Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") constituencies

Concerning the Work Team's Draft Charter/Goals one of the main issues is defining how to allow new constituencies.While the Work Team can discuss this, is preferable to get input from other groups.

Current Bylaws describe how new constituencies petition to be recognized by the Board, but how they come into being and interact with the Council is an important point that the Work Team should consider.

It is important to note that there is the potential for significant disagreement in the community concerning the issue of the role of constituencies versus stakeholder groups that ultimately will be considered at the Board level.**

ACTION 6: Rob Hoggarth, Julie Hedlund, and Ken Bour will pull together the current process that the three petitioning constituencies have already used and provide it to the Work Team as a straw man/starting point to consider.

Section 3.1 GNSO Council Responsibilities

Question: Does the Work Team have the authority to revise this section?**

Answer: The Work Team can consider what the Rules and Procedures are intended to do within the general parameters of the Board's recommendation for the GNSO Council to be the strategic manager of the policy development process, but this item ultimately involves broader collaboration with the ICANN community.**

This could be a combination of an itemized list of responsibilities and suggestions for others to consider, but this item may not be a top priority for the Work Team to address.**

The Work Team could look at superficial changes, such as selections to fill ICANN Board Seats 13 and 14 – for which the Board is evaluating a process.**

ACTION 7: Staff should revise Section 3.1 (3) ICANN Board Seats 13 and 14 to reflect the new process under consideration by the Board as a starting point.

3.2 Council Composition

ACTION 8: Staff should revise Section 3.2 to reflect changes in the Bylaws relating to the GNSO Council Restructure.

Section 3.3 Terms of Council Members

Term limits have been approved by the Board but not yet implemented.

Will go into affect at the end of the annual meeting this fall but need minor changes.

The issue will be related to the Restructure Drafting Team – how are terms staggered, how are selections made in view of the new stakeholder groups.

The Work Team will be working with other groups on this section.**

Section 3.4 GNSO Council vacancy

On this item the Work Team will likely be getting input from another source.

3.5. Quorum

This section should be redrafted to reflect the new structure.
During the last two years the concept of absentee voting was developed: If an individual is not present that individual is given a period of time in which to caste a vote via email even if they were not at the meeting and didn't participate in the discussion.
Now that absentee voting is allowed the Work Team may want to consider what is a quorum and its purpose.For example, one question is whether a quorum is really a quorum if one constituency has no representative at the time of voting.
It will be important for the Work Team to enumerate how many people and representation makes up the quorum, particularly if there are more than 6 constituencies.

Next Meeting: 1 April 2009 1500 UTC

Meeting adjourned 1522 UTC.

Content

Space Tools

1. GCOT-WT Meetings

This is a list of the current and previous meetings of the GCOT-WT.

Next Meeting: None scheduled at this time.

15 October Meeting:

29 September Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.)

22 September Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.)

15 September Meeting: Transcript and MP3.

19 May Meeting: (See MP3)

05 May Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3)

21 April Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3)

07 April Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3)

24 March Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3)

07 March Meeting in Nairobi, Kenya: (See: Transcript and MP3

24 February Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.)

17 February Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.)

10 February Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3)

27 January Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.)

06 January Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.)

16 December Meeting: (See MP3 and Transcript.)

25 November Meeting: (See MP3 and Transcript.)

11 November Meeting:

25 October Meeting: (See MP3)

30 September Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3)

16 September Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3):

09 September Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3):

02 September Meeting: (See Transcript and MP3.):

26 August Meeting: (See MP3 and Transcript)

19 August Meeting: (See MP3 and Transcript):

05 August Meeting: 1600 UTC (See MP3):

22 July 2009, 1600 UTC (See Transcript and MP3)

10 July 2009, 1600 UTC See Transcript and MP3

21 June 2009, Sydney, Australia See Transcript

10 June 2009, 1600 UTC See MP3

27 May 2009, 1600 UTC See Transcript and MP3

13 May 2009, 1600 UTC See Transcript and MP3

29 April 2009, 1600 UTC See Transcript and MP3

23 April 2009, 1500 UTC

15 April 2009, 1500 UTC

----

01 April 2009, 1400 UTC

25 March 2009, 1400 UTC

MEETING AGENDA