AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
ALAC Liaisons and Representatives
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
...
Alan Greenberg served as the GNSO Liaison for the following terms: 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014.
...
Occasional News Updates.
Keith Drazek appointed as new GNSO Chair and Pam Little as new GNSO Vice Chair (Contracted Party House), at ICANN63 AGM. Rafik Dammak was returned as 2nd Vice Chair (Non-Contracted Party House) for a further term.
Any Notes of relevance to the ALAC / At-Large from GNSO Council Meetings will be highlighted at the top of any Agenda listed below in colour.
...
April 18th - 21:00 UTC - Notes or Action Items will be shown in italics until Draft/Final Minutes posted.
Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting
List of attendees:
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann (joined first 30 minutes)
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Darcy Southwell
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Rubens Kühl
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlos Raul Gutierrez
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, Paul McGrady, Flip Petillion
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Martin Silva Valent, Elsa Saade (absent, apology sent - proxy to Ayden Férdeline), Tatiana Tropina, Rafik Dammak, Ayden Férdeline, Arsène Tungali (absent, apology sent – proxy to Martin Silva Valent)
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Syed Ismail Shah
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison
Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC
Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer (first meeting as ccNSO liaison)
ICANN Staff
David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional
Marika Konings – Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO (apology sent)
Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement
Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
Steve Chan – Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant
Emily Barabas – Policy Manager (apologies sent)
Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist
Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager
Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations
Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator
Sara Caplis – Technical Support
Item 1. Administrative Matters
1.1 - Roll Call
1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
There was no update to Statements of Interest.
1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
The agenda was approved with the Approval of the Appointment of Janis Karklins as Chair for the Expedited Policy Development Process Team item removed from the Consent Agenda upon Ayden Férdeline’s request on behalf of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and placed in the main agenda to allow for Council discussion prior to the vote.
1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
Minutesof the GNSO Council meeting on the 4th March were posted on the 18 March 2019
Minutesof the GNSO Council meeting on the 13th March were posted on the 30 March 2019
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List
Keith Drazek, in the interest of time, updated the GNSO Council of the status of following Action Items:
An email has been sent to the Stakeholder Group (SG) and Constituency (C) Chairs reminding them that ICANN Travel deadlines for funded travellers have changed from 90 to 120 days. This will impact SG and C officer elections.
The IRTP Policy Status Report and PPSAI items are in progress. Pam Little provided an update on the Council draft response to the PPSAI letter sent by Cyrus Namazi and on the IPC-proposed edits to include certain “factual background”, including the Kobe GAC Communiqué on this topic, in the response letter. There were several views on whether PPSAI implementation should continue to pause within the Council. Regarding the IRTP Policy Status Report, Pam Little reminded Council that they were waiting for the updated Status Report to be provided by ICANN Org.
Cross Community Working Group Auction Proceeds item: Erika Mann, co-chair of the CCWG, said the group was reviewing the public comments received, with support from staff, and would appreciate additional face-to-face time during the Policy Forum in Marrakech. It was agreed the review effort would not be finalized in Marrakech, but the CCWG would provide a “zero paper” ahead of the meeting.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
There were three items for Council consideration on the Consent Agenda:
Motionto adopt theGNSO Council responseto theGAC Communique
Confirmation of the GNSO CouncilRecommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data PDP WG, Phase 1.
Approval of the suggested amendments to the GNSO’s Fellowship Selection criteria. (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/fellowship-application-criteria-13apr19-en.pdf)
Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board
Whereas,
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 Council 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 Council hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the coordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.
Resolved,
The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Kobe GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac-communique-18apr19-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Council Review of the Kobe GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
The GNSO Council voted unanimously in favour of the Consent Agenda.
Action items:
GNSO Chair to communicate the GNSO Council Review of the Kobe GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
GNSO Chair to inform GAC Chair of communication between GNSO Council and ICANN Board on the Kobe GAC Communiqué.
Staff to communicate EPDP P1 Recommendations Report to Board Ops
Staff to communicate approval of selection criteria to GNSO rep to the Fellowship Selection Committee
Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of the appointment of Janis Karklins as Chair for the Expedited Policy Development Process Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda by Ayden Férdeline’s request to discuss the appointment and next steps prior to the vote.
Ayden Férdeline reassured councilors that the NCSG would vote in favour of the candidate, Janis Karklins, but that it had process questions about the GNSO Council & Selection Standing Committee (SSC) leadership teams’ selection of one candidate over the other and their notifying thereof prior to the motion vote. He also raised questions about the impartiality of the selected candidate regarding his involvement with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Governmental Advisory Committee, as well as the skill sets retained over others. He also suggested keeping the second candidate, Chris LaHatte, in a leadership position.
Keith Drazek reminded Council that the current leadership structure of the EPDP team was decided with the argument of member representation equality. He agreed that the vice-chair role may need to be re-visited. To consider a co-chair role would imply re-opening the EPDP charter.
Tatiana Tropina echoed Ayden’s concerns about the connections of Janis Karklins to WIPO and a possible conflict of interest, whilst insisting this would not hinder the NCSG vote. She reminded councilors about a previous conversation on resources, and that Chris LaHatte is a professionally qualified mediator.
Keith Drazek shared Tatiana’s thoughts about resources and services when triggered by needs, as outlined in the list of preliminary resources requested by the EPDP team which would need to be confirmed by the incoming Chair. He also confirmed that Janis Karklins had mentioned his WIPO connection in his EPDP Phase 2 Chair application, and asked for further clarification about conflict. He also reminded councilors that most community members come from a known group, and have potential conflicts of interest, but are expected to be neutral when taking on a Chair role.
Maxim Alzoba added that the historical experience is to be taken into account also, regarding Chris LaHatte’s previous role as ICANN Ombudsman.
Pam Little explained to councilors that the GNSO Council and SSC leadership teams did discuss potential conflicts of interest, but did not come to any negative conclusion given the near impossibility of finding a candidate with no potential conflict interest. Council needed to discuss what perceived or actual conflicts are of concern, and the EPDP team will, moving forward, be able to communicate any related issues to the GNSO Council.
Paul McGrady asked whether the EPDP team should be addressed the question as to how Chris LaHatte could be of service with a reminder of the charter restrictions and what next steps should be.
Keith Drazek suggested giving the new Chair, Janis Karklins, the space to get the new EPDP team work started, whilst being available to assist if need be. He also clarified that the emails sent to both candidates, which informed them of the recommendation made by both leadership teams, which would then be voted on by the GNSO Council during this session.
The GNSO Council voted unanimously in favour of the motion.
Keith Drazek thanked his fellow councilors for providing the opportunity for a productive discussion prior
to the vote.
Action items:
GNSO Chair to inform Janis Karklins of his approval
Rafik Dammak, EPDP Interim Chair to announce the new chair to EPDP team and finalize with staff the handover letter to Janis Karklins
Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms
Keith Drazek reminded Council that this item had been under discussion since the Final Report was published ten months ago. Councilors would be voting here to approve the first four recommendations to the ICANN Board and refer recommendation 5 to the Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) by re-chartering the WG, or creating a sub-group chartered by the Council under PDP3.0 guidelines. This was proposed by Council leadership in December 2018. Keith Drazek admitted that there were many diverse views on the topic within the Council but that this proposal would be a good compromise. He also mentioned that the GAC had sent a letter on the matter on the 17th April 2019 expressing surprise and disappointment at the direction chosen by the GNSO, preferring a standalone structure without the GNSO Council approving the first four recommendations. He reminded Council that ICANN Board could still reject the GNSO Council’s recommendations.
Paul McGrady requested clarification on what the Council vote would imply for all five recommendations. An approval vote would concern approval of 1-4 recommendations only, not recommendation 5. A vote against the motion would imply none of the recommendations would be approved.
Carlos Gutierrez expressed his support of a single motion whilst understanding the GAC position given the previous simple solution found for the Red Cross discussion.
Keith Drazek acknowledged the challenge before the Council taking into account the GAC reaction, but reminded councilors that the GNSO Council needed to follow procedures. He asked that if the effort were to be referred to the RPM PDP WG that the GNSO Council provide all the assistance required to see the work through to completion.
Tatiana Tropina reminded Council of GNSO procedures and the PDP specifically, and that there had already been compromises made since ICANN63 in Barcelona, in not voting for recommendation 5.
Philippe Fouquart stated that he understood the difficulty of the situation, but insisted that the position of the Council be one of process management and not substance management, by highlighting that the reason for not approving recommendation 5 was because it was out of scope.
Marie Pattullo thanked Keith Drazek for the information provided, and the solution suggested, given the complexity of recommendation 5.
Keith Drazek added that creating a small team within the RPM PDP would benefit from the experience and knowledge of the existing PDP membership.
Martin Silva Valent reminded councilors that the RPM PDP WG is a review working group, which would be very different from creating an effort from scratch, which would be warranted for recommendation 5 where mechanisms would need to be created.
Keith Drazek agreed that the subgroup would need to be able to take into account impacts in diverse areas, and that the chartering effort would be key in setting up the group to succeed.
Carlos Gutierrez asked whether a narrowly chartered RPM subgroup could deal with issues like a protection list similar to the Red Cross case.
Mary Wong reminded the Council that previously the IGO INGO WG was focussing on a list of GAC IGOs (192) and then asked the Council to amend their charter to broaden it to all eligible IGOs. Regarding recommendation 5, it is therefore focussing on a wider list that the original GAC list. But if the new subgroup were to come to the conclusion that the better rationale may be a more limited list, this would still be possible.
Rafik Dammak agreed that there would be flexibility from the Council regarding how to deal with recommendation 5.
Martin Silva Valent agreed that the RPM charter would need to be adjusted, but warned that Phase 2 of the RPM work would be difficult, and that any adjustment could be of negative impact.
Keith Drazek recognized the sensitivity of the subject and thanked councilors for their time and effort on the subject. He acknowledged that cooperation with the GAC to construct a path forward would be key moving forward as all interested parties would need to be able to contribute.
For the Contracted Party House there were 7 votes in favour, no vote against and no abstention. For the Non Contracted Party House, there were 11 votes in favour, 2 against and no abstention. The motion passed with 100% in the Contracted Party House and 84,62% in the Non Contracted Party House. (Rationale for objections from Flip Petillion and Paul McGrady can be found here)
Keith Drazek admitted this had been a difficult topic with no perfect solution, especially as ICANN Board could reject the recommendations, and there is still work to be done on recommendation 5.
Action items:
GNSO Chair to prepare communication to GAC/IGOs to explain rationale for vote and demonstrate how they will be able to participate
Staff to prepare recommendations report IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report
Council leadership/staff to prepare draft changes to RPMs Charter
Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Managing IDN Variants TLDs
Sarmad Hussein, ICANN Org, presented to the GNSO Council latest updates on the IDN Variant Top Level Domains (TLDs) (slide deckand presentation comments: pg 50 - 55 of the transcript) and helped councilors better understand the responsibilities of the ICANN IDN Program as dispensed by the ICANN Boardresolutionof 14 March 2019.
Sarmad Hussein provided background information for context and then listed the possible next steps the GNSO could take.
Maxim Alzoba asked what had happened to IDN tables for the current TLDs which were approved by IANA, as during the GDD conversations, it was mentioned they would be considered legacy and not be changed. He also raised that historically, similarity between “1” and”l”, “0” and”O” caused many issues in English ASCII script, were they any investigations?
Sarmad Hussein replied that as far as IDN tables are concerned, they are relevant for second level domains, not top level domains. The IDN tables currently approved are already being applied, moving forward there are changes proposed to re-evaluate them.
Rubens Kuhl noted thatIDN guidelines are similar to policy guidelines, so could need policy effort both from the GNSO and ccNSO.
Sarmad Hussein replied that IDN guidelines are developed by the community and are focused on reducing consumer confusion and therefore revised on community request, for example, the GNSO review request during the ICANN London meeting.
Keith Drazek suggested a small group of councilors work on providing further questions to Sarmad and thanked Sarmad for his participation. He reminded that this was just the beginning of a difficult and technical conversation which will need tight collaboration with the ccNSO.
Action item:
Small group of Councilors to convene and then coordinate with ICANN to get further understanding, and potentially propose next steps for IDN TLD Variants. Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE – Status of the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 1 Informal Implementation Review Team
Russ Weinstein, ICANN Org, standing in for provided an update on the EPDP Temp Spec Informal Implementation Review Team. The Implementation Project Team (IPT) , a cross functional team of ICANN staff, has been established to coordinate across all Implementation Reviews. The IPT is currently reviewing all recommendations, trying to define what the required deliverables are and creating the implementation plan with the February 2020 deadline in mind. Having a target date is a new feature in an IRT. A call for volunteers for a pre-IRT has been circulated, and the work is focussing on clarifications, with membership from the EPDP team. A Council liaison to the IRT is not mandatory but is possible if requested. For the moment, there are 12 community members signed up, all part of the EPDP Phase 1 team, and an observer mailing list. The team has agreed to meet up bi-weekly on Wednesdays.
Keith Drazek thanked Russ Weinstein and Council will discuss the need for a Council liaison.
Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE – Status of the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 1 Informal Implementation Review Team
Russ Weinstein, ICANN Org, standing in for provided an update on the EPDP Temp Spec Informal Implementation Review Team. The Implementation Project Team (IPT) , a cross functional team of ICANN staff, has been established to coordinate across all Implementation Reviews. The IPT is currently reviewing all recommendations, trying to define what the required deliverables are and creating the implementation plan with the February 2020 deadline in mind. Having a target date is a new feature in an IRT. A call for volunteers for a pre-IRT has been circulated, and the work is focussing on clarifications, with membership from the EPDP team. A Council liaison to the IRT is not mandatory but is possible if requested. For the moment, there are 12 community members signed up, all part of the EPDP Phase 1 team, and an observer mailing list. The team has agreed to meet up bi-weekly on Wednesdays.
Keith Drazek thanked Russ Weinstein and Council will discuss the need for a Council liaison.
Action Item:
Council Chair to confirm that Rubens Kuhl has volunteered to serve as the Council liaison to, at a minimum, the informal IRT for the EPDP phase 1.
Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Updated Timeline for the PDP on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDS
Keith Drazek noted that in Kobe, the GNSO Council and RPM PDP WG leadership teams met, the outcome was a request for an updated timeline for Phase 1 recommendations. The new deadline is the 26th April, after the RPM co-chairs asked for an extension.
Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS
9.1 - Reminder for funded travelers to book their travel for ICANN65
9.2 - GNSO Council - Input to Establish IRP Standing Panel
These items were postponed to the GNSO Council mailing list due to lack of time.
Keith Drazek adjourned the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 18 April 2019 at 23:07 UTC.
...
March 13th (ICANN64 Kobe)
...
Minutesof the GNSO Council meeting on the 13th March were posted on the 30 March 2019
Local time in Kobe: 13:00 JT Coordinated Universal Time: 04:00 UTC: http://tinyurl.com/y3nkmj82
(Thursday) 21:00 Los Angeles; 00:00 Washington; 04:00 London; 09:00 Islamabad; 13:00 Tokyo; 15:00 Melbourne
List of attendees:
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann
Contracted Parties House
Registrars Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Darcy Southwell
Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Rubens Kühl
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlos Raul Gutierrez
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa (apologies, proxy to Philippe Fouquart) , Paul McGrady, Flip Petillion
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Martin Silva Valent (apologies, temporary alternate, Amr Elsadr), Amr Elsadr, Elsa Saade, Tatiana Tropina, Rafik Dammak, Ayden Férdeline, Arsène Tungali
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Syed Ismail Shah (apologies, proxy to Rafik Dammak)
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison
Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC
Adebiyi Oladipo – ccNSO observer
ICANN Staff
David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager
Marika Konings – Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO
Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement
Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
Steve Chan – Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant
Emily Barabas – Policy Manager (apology)
Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist
Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager
Sara Caplis – Technical Support
Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations Support
Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator
Item 1. Administrative Matters
1.1 - Roll Call
1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
There was no update to Statements of Interest.
1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
Agenda was approved without objection.
1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 21st February were posted on 7 March 2019
Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 4th March will be posted on the 18 March 2019
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List
Keith Drazek reviewed the Projects list and brought the following points to councilors’ attention:
Several Policy Development Process (PDP) items were part of the main agenda and would be discussed further into the call.
The GNSO Council had received updates from the co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on Auction Proceeds, the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP, the PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in all gTLDs during the GNSO Working Session on Sunday 10 March 2019.
There is an ongoing discussion around the PDP for curative rights protections for IGOs and INGOs, with an exchange on the topic held during the joint GNSO & Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) meeting on Sunday 10 March 2019. Keith Drazek confirmed that he expected a resolution of the issue during the 18 April 2019 GNSO Council meeting following updated recommendations to be circulated to the GNSO Council mailing list shortly.
Keith Drazek then reminded the GNSO Council of the status of following Action Items:
An outstanding action item for Heather Forrest and Susan Kawaguchi to provide a report on the 3.7 appeal process in relation to the IGO INGO Curative Rights PDP Working Group. Keith Drazek updated Council on the joint GNSO GAC meeting outcomes. The GAC indicated interest in, should the GNSO Council not vote on recommendation 5 or all recommendations of the Final Report, taking part in re-engaging in the effort.
Keith Drazek to send communication to the CCEG IG regarding the GNSO not taking part as a Chartering Organization.
Further steps regarding the seating of the IANA functions review team will be taken once ICANN Board and the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) communicate input on the matter.
The Technical Study Group has finished its work, GNSO Council would need further information regarding its next steps.
Action Items:
Council leadership to look into the status of existing action item related to 3.7 appeal after action report.
Council Chair to follow up on the existing action item regarding the drafting of a response to CCWG/EG on Internet Governance.
ICANN Staff to mark EPDP/TSG as complete
Council leadership to confirm expectations of TSG are well understood, next steps. Reach out to find out next steps of TSG.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
There were two items for Council consideration on the Consent Agenda:
Reappointment of Becky Burr to seat 13 on the ICANN Board. The CPH has re-appointed Becky Burr for Seat 13 on the ICANN Board of Directors. This agenda item is intended to acknowledge the selection and confirm that the notification process as outlined in Section 7.25 of the ICANN Bylaws will be completed subsequently.
Adoption of the CSC Effectiveness Review TeamFinal Report.
Approval of the final report of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review
WHEREAS,
The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) was established as one of the post IANA Transition entities and conducted its first meeting on 6 October 2016.
The ICANN Bylaws, Section 17.3 (b) states, "The effectiveness of the CSC shall be reviewed two years after the first meeting of the CSC; and then every three years thereafter. The method of review will be determined by the ccNSO and GNSO and the findings of the review will be published on the Website."
On 27 September 2018, the GNSO Council approved the process for the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review and appointed GNSO representatives (motion 20180927-1) https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201809.
On 16 January 19, the Initial Report for the CSC Effectiveness Review prepared by the CSC Effectiveness Review Team was published https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/csc-effectiveness-initial-16jan19-en.pdf.
The public comment on the Initial Report on CSC Effectiveness opened from 16 Jan 2019 to 25 Feb 2019 and comments were received. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-csc-effectiveness-initial-16jan19/
On 5 March 2019, the final report of the Customer Standing Committee Effectiveness Review was published athttps://community.icann.org/x/VQpIBg, as a revision of the initial report in light of the comments received.
Resolved,
The GNSO Council adopts the final report of the Customer Standing Committee Effectiveness Review https://community.icann.org/x/VQpIBg.
If ccNSO Council also adopts the Report and supports finding and recommendations contained in it:
The review process is closed and CSC Effectiveness Review team is dissolved.
In accordance with the terms of CSC Effectiveness Review Template, the Chair of the GNSO Council and the Chair of the ccNSO Council are requested to recommend report to IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFRT) as soon as that is established.
The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to share the results of this motion with the CSC.
The GNSO Council expresses its sincere appreciation to the members of the CSC Effectiveness Review Team, the liaison, expert advisors and support staff who contributed to the review.
GNSO Council voted unanimously in favour of the Consent Agenda. Keith Drazek, on behalf of the GNSO Council, thanked the CSC Effectiveness Review Team and staff support for their efforts. He then thanked Becky Burr for her first term as Contracted Party House (CPH) appointed Board member, and noted that despite not working for a registry anymore, the CPH had no issue with her re-appointment for a second term.
Action items:
In accordance with the terms of CSC Effectiveness Review Template, the Chair of the GNSO Council and the Chair of the ccNSO Council are requested to recommend report to IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFRT) as soon as that is established.
The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to share the results of this motion with the CSC.
Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team (PPSAI IRT)
The PPSAI IRT is currently paused at ICANN Org’s direction because of concerns about interrelation with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ongoing work of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) replacing the Temporary Specification and potentially into phase 2.
Darcy Southwell added that the IRT had received a communication from Global Domains DIvision (GDD) recommending that they remain on hold. Several factors enter into consideration, such as limited resources and risk of duplication of EPDP Phase 1 Implementation.
Keith Drazek confirmed the receipt of a letter on the 4th of March from Cyrus Namazi, head of GDD recommending that the IRT continues to be on hold or delay the reinitiation of this effort until such time the EPDP concludes its work.
Pam Little informed councilors that this letter also seeks input from the Council regarding the transfer policy issue involving change of registrant process for proxy/privacy registrations. Registrars encountered some problems when implementing that new change of registrant process policy in the transfer policy but given that the transfer policy PDP working group didn't really consider the proxy and privacy issue, it was actually deferred to the IRT.
Paul McGrady provided a statement and background information to the PPSAI and reminded councilors that the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) was very keen that the IRT resume its work as it does not agree with the interdependency with EPDP conclusions.
Göran Marby, ICANN Org, intervened to thank the GNSO Council and the Contracted Party House in particular for the letter they sent during ICANN63 for triggering the idea of the Technical Study Group.
Returning to the topic of the PPSAI IRT, Michele Neylon stated that he would oppose the PPSAI IRT moving forward without taking into account recent GDPR related developments.
Marie Pattullo, on behalf of the Business Constituency (BC), supported the IPC’s statement to continue the implementation work, given that privacy and proxy issues are still present.
Rubens Kühl asked in the Adobe Connect chat if there was a way to split the IRT’s work into EPDP dependent and non-EPDP dependent parts and find a path forward.
In response to Michele, Paul McGrady confirmed that in his point of view that there had been GDPR awareness in the PPSAI IRT.
Elliot Noss, Tucows, RrSG, came to the microphone to remind councilors that many practical developments were taking place in regards to GDPR: registrars creating facility to allow registrants actively to make their WHOIS data available and work on data accessibility. Elliot Noss agreed that parts of the PPSAI IRT such as the accreditation process could resume as were not impacted by GDPR.
Jennifer Gore, Winterfeldt IP Group, IPC, mentioned that information relating to the PPSAI IRT and to this matter specifically was visible on the IRT’s wiki page. She raised that work of the IRT had been put on hold in 2018 for a legal review to take place and that the IRT had always planned to discuss the change of registrant when the privacy/proxy agreement went to public comment.
Pam Little nuanced the previous intervention stating that Council had deferred the change of registrant transfer issue to the IRT for consideration after the Public Comment period, not during the IRT.
Action items:
Council to prepare response to letter from Cyrus, considering whether the PPSAI IRT should remain on hold and whether the transfer policy referral needs to be continued and consider trying to parse out EPDP related items versus non-EPDP related.
Item 5: COUNCIL UPDATE – GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 Implementation
Rafik Dammak updated councilors on recent developments from the PDP3.0 Implementation plan. A small group of councilors is working on implementing PDP3.0 recommendations whilst providing Council with regular updates, with an aim to completion by the Annual General Meeting (AGM). Maxim Alzoba volunteered to take part representing the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG).
Keith Drazek encouraged all to understand and acknowledge the importance of the PDP3.0 effort.
Paul McGrady commented on PDP3.0 in regards to how consensus was built, in light of the recent EPDP Final Report which was approved by the GNSO Council when the BC and the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) councilors voted against. He cited the significant financial weight of industry contributions represented by the BC and IPC members and called for better acknowledgment and representation in future PDPs. This was disputed by Michele Neylon as being against the multistakeholder model. Ayden Férdeline agreed that consensus building was in need of a discussion, he also argued the NCSG participation and stakes in the multistakeholder model being as important as those moving forward without taking into account recent GDPR related developments.
Keith Drazek agreed that better understanding PDP and EPDP representation moving forward was key. However, questions of consensus and assessing consensus were defined in the GNSO Operating Procedures and were at the discretion of the Chair’s assessment. Keith reminded councilors that PDP 3.0 focuses on improvement Council management of the PDPs and not on substantive changes to the PDP operating procedure.
Paul McGrady confirmed his support of the PDP3.0 effort.
Pam Little encouraged IPC councilors to join the PDP3.0 effort as the deadline is tight and it will be important to move the small group to completion by November 2019.
Amr Elsadr mentioned that the NCSG appreciated the positive impact that PDP3.0 had on non-commercial representation in PDP WGs. He also raised that any change to the GNSO Working Group guidelines regarding representation would need to be approved by the GNSO Council.
Action items:
Small group of Councilors to ensure that recurring update are provided to the Council (e.g., on no less than a quarterly basis)
Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Policy Status Report (PSR)
Brian Aitchison, ICANN Org, presented to the GNSO Council latest updates on the IRTP Policy Status Report. (slide deckand presentation comments: pg 61 - 67 of the transcript). The Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) requires that after a certain period of Policy Implementation, a Policy Status Report (PSR) be produced. The PSR was built according to the three overarching goals of the IRTP: domain name portability, transfer-related abuse prevention, and transfer-related information provision. After outlining the most recent developments, Brian Aitchison then asked Council for their input and feedback regarding next steps.
Michele Neylon provided comments on transfers, the Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC), and the CPH Tech Ops group working on transfers and post-GDPR situations. He encouraged Brian and his team to take the latter into consideration.
Darcy Southwell raised that there were many technical factors and policy issues affecting transfers and that a holistic approach would be preferred.
Action items:
Council to seek to determine options and next steps for the Transfer Policy review and provide GDD information/response and/or seek additional information as it considers the Transfer Policy holistically.
Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Next steps related to the ICANN Procedure of Handling WHOIS conflicts with Privacy Law
Keith Drazek reminded councilors that the GNSO Council decided to put the call for a drafting team for the implementation advisory group on hold until EPDP phase 1 work was finalised at which point the Council would revisit the topic.
Pam Little, on behalf of the RrSG, proposed to defer the call for volunteers by 12 months to allow for the implementation of phase 1 and phase 2 efforts to progress. Michele Neylon and Tatiana Tropina were also in support of the 12-month deferral after reassurance from Keith Drazek that should there be a need to revisit the issue prior to the 12 months ending, Council would take the necessary steps.
Action Items:
Extend out call for volunteers for another 12 months.
Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data - Phase 2 Work
Rafik Dammak updated the councilors on discussions around EPDP phase 2 taking place during ICANN64. The EPDP team met with the Technical Study Group (TSG) and discussed implementation and the creation of a small informal team in a separate session with the GDD team. The aim for the following session of the EPDP team was to better define the work plan proposal.
Michele Neylon raised the question of the membership requirements of the IRT, the timing of both the IRT and EPDP Phase 2, and expressed concern about available volunteer time and the lack of a Chair
Keith Drazek acknowledged Michele Neylon’s concerns whilst outlining that important scoping work, as well as administrative and logistical could still start immediately.
Rafik Dammak encouraged the stakeholder groups (SGs) and constituencies (Cs) to put forward EPDP phase 2 Chair candidate names.
Action Items: none
Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS
9.1 - New GNSO Chair election timeline with travel guidelines (120 days for funded traveller submissions)
Julie Hedlund, ICANN org, reminded councilors of the new travel guidelines of 120 days, impacting for the Annual General Meeting, the usual officer election timelines, given that funded traveller names need to be submitted a lot earlier than when the election results would be available. The GNSO Operating Procedures will need to be updated to reflect these changes.
Elsa Saade noted that this would heavily impact SG and C election timelines but also charter content.
Action item:
Councilors to continue discussion with their respective groups to help understand the impact and react accordingly.
9.2 - Open microphone
Thomas Rickert proposed a co-chair structure for the EPDP Phase 2 leadership position. Keith Drazek noted that the leadership structure of Chair and Vice Chair was already outlined in the EPDP Charter.
Nathalie Coupet raised the point that EPDP work was not doing justice to Whois.
Keith Drazek adjourned the GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday 13 March 2019 at 15:05 local time.
...
March 4th 2019 - Special Purpose Meeting for EPDP issue discussion - 2100 UTC
Minutesof the GNSO Council meeting on the 4th March were posted on the 18 March 2019
...
February 21st 2019 - Special Purpose Meeting for EPDP issue discussion - 1200 UTC -
...
