...

GNSO Council Meetings for 2019

Next Council Meeting is to be held on

...

October 24th at 1200 UTC 

Agenda will be posted  here when available

...

September 19th: 2100 UTC 

In advance of the Minutes from this meeting being released, please find below the audio recording, zoom recording (audio, visual, rough transcript) and chat of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday, 19 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC.

Audio only:  https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/PuXU1OR7Ev87q-sfarOwQiLmlnkoVtxR3BmGuRJgb7luVZXKoY_fP6uf5f-GM3RQ

Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab):

https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/x3cNART9vmQ_giom1O4F9cOdxHIktnON5-2tcY6O0BOwIumekTziMw?startTime=1568926885000

Zoom chat: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/download/Jjx-DzQSvy7X2V6NnpYq8DP70gpLfCeKXT6LvaNq4biviR6VKpG4l8ii3nXDevxH

Final Proposed Agenda 19 September 2019

Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/MY-kBg 

This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018 

GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast

Listen in browser:  http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01

Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u

Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call.

___________________________________

Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 mins)

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

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

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 18 July 2019 were posted on the 02 August 2019

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 22 August 2019 were posted on the 6 September 2019

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

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

Item 3: Consent Agenda (0 minutes) 

• None

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Board referrals of CCT-RT recommendations to GNSO Council and GNSO PDP WGs (10 minutes)

On 10 June 2019, ICANN org communicated to the GNSO Council that the ICANN Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 – see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org] - calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, “recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action”:

• Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations;
• Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions;
• Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35).

The Council was specifically invited to review to pages 1-4 of the scorecard https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf[icann.org] which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to. The recommendations the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to the GNSO Council, in whole or in part, for its consideration:

• Recommendation 10.
• Recommendation 16 (in part) Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that “it is not accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider”.
• Recommendation 27.
• Recommendation 28.
• Recommendation 29. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, “should they choose to do so, defining the term ‘Global South’ or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org”.

The Board noted in its resolution that: “in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. […] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address”

A small group of Council volunteers reviewed the recommendations passed through to the GNSO Council as well as a number of Recommendations were passed through to gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group.  In order to have a better picture of where all the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its PDPs stand, the GNSO Chair is planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their feedback.

An initial draft with the small team's proposed GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to the GNSO were circulated to the GNSO Council on 23 July for review and consideration with an updated version circulated on 30 August [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-council-response-cct-review-team-recommendations-30aug19-en.pdf].

Here the Council will consider the initial draft and whether and how to coordinate with the PDP WGs to which recommendations were also passed through.

4.1 – Introduction of topic (Pam Little)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Next steps 

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Policy Status Report and Council next steps (15 minutes)

The Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) provides guidance to ICANN org and the community for implementing policy. However, there is minimal guidance in this document or in other documentation around the review of implemented policies adopted by the GNSO Council. In some cases, a review is explicitly mandated as an element of the PDP WG’s recommendations to the Council, but in some cases, the recommendations are silent in this respect.

ICANN org, in consultation with the Council, prepared a draft framework on the approach for post-implementation reviews of Council adopted policy recommendations. The framework provides guidance on a number of questions (e.g., When should a review be initiated when there is no PDP recommendation to do so? What triggers should initiate a review? What are the expected outcomes of the review? Etc.).

During its 26 April 2018 meeting, the Council agreed to have ICANN org conduct a review of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP). ICANN org utilized the draft framework for conducting the post-implementation review of the IRTP. On 14 November 2018, ICANN org published the IRTP Policy Status Report for public comment. ICANN org has worked to integrate elements identified in public comment and on 22 April 2019, shared a Revised Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Status Report. 

As noted in the report, there are no prescribed next steps once the Council is in receipt of the report.

As such, here, the Council will discuss possible next steps for the Transfer Policy taking into account the Transfer Policy Review briefing document prepared by staff and the recent feedback from the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) regarding its suggested approach. 

5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Next Steps

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Draft Amendments to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Charter to Integrate Recommendation 5 From IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report (15 minutes)

On 18 April 2019, the Council voted to approve recommendations 1-4 of Final Report from the  IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG. The Council also resolved to not approve Recommendation 5 and, ” directs the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDP to consider, as part of its Phase 2 work, whether an appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent with Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report and:

• accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances;
• does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction; 
• preserves registrants’ rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and
• recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

The GNSO Council resolved also to, “amend the charter for the RPMs PDP Working Group to reflect this new instruction accordingly.” Some members of the GNSO Council met with certain members of the GAC and IGOs at ICANN65, where there appeared to be agreement from the GAC/IGOs to support the chartering of this separate work.

A small team of Councilors was convened to prepare draft amendments to the RPMs PDP charter, which was shared with the Council on 10 September 2019. 

Here, the Council will discuss the draft, but take no action at this time. Consultation with the GAC/IGOs is still required before a motion can be submitted.

6.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership / Small team)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next Steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Org’s Request for Clarification on Data Accuracy and Phase-2 of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data  (10 minutes)

On 21 June 2019, the GNSO Council received a letter from ICANN Org, which was seeking a better understanding of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Team’s plans “to consider the subject of "data accuracy" as it relates to gTLD registration data and related services, such as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System (ARS).”

Further, “ICANN org notes that footnote #6 on page 7 of the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report states: “The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System.” However, it is not clear who would consider this topic and when. Therefore, ICANN org seeks the GNSO Council’s clarification on whether the Phase 2 EPDP Team will be considering the subject of data accuracy, including projects that utilize gTLD registration data, such as WHOIS ARS.” 

The GNSO Council prepared a response to acknowledge the  letter reception. However, the Council still needs to prepare its substantive input to the request from ICANN org. A small team has been working on that substantive response and will provide their initial thoughts on the key themes to be contained in the response.

Here, the small team will lead a discussion on the themes of the substantive response.

7.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership / small team)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION -  EPDP P1 Recommendation 27: ICANN Org’s Assessment of Impact From GDPR on Existing Policies / Procedures (15 minutes)

In the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process Team Phase 1 (EPDP P1) Final Report, recommendation #27 asked that during the implementation of the policy recommendations, existing policies / procedures be made consistent with the changes to required data elements.

ICANN org prepared a draft work plan to address EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 27, which was shared with the GNSO Council and IRT on 27 August.

Here, the Council will receive an update from ICANN Org on the status of its implementation work to date on this recommendation.

8.1 – Introduction of topic (ICANN org - Karen Lentz)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - PDP 3.0 Small Group Update/Discussion (10 minutes)

In advance of the 22 August 2019 GNSO Council meeting, the PDP 3.0 Small Team completed five (5) out of fourteen (14) PDP 3.0 improvements, provided an update, and requested feedback by 13 September 2019. Work continued on the rest of the nine (9) improvements in the pipeline, which are at various levels of progress. While a number of improvements are nearing completion, they are not yet at a point where they are ready for Council review.

The PDP 3.0 small group has prepared a work plan that covers items leading up to ICANN66, as well as additional elements needed to complete the project.

The PDP 3.0 small group is expected to provide a factual update of the work to date to the public comment period for the Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model. Given the connections between the topics, the PDP 3.0 small group believes that it is in a good position to provide that update.

Here, the Council will receive an update on progress made to date and the work plan to complete the PDP 3.0 implementation.

9.1 - Introduction of topic (Rafik Dammak)

9.2 - Council discussion

9.3 - Next steps 

Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Draft Response to the Verisign Request to Defer Enforcement of the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy (10 minutes)

On 29 July 2019, Verisign wrote to ICANN org again requesting an extension to the current implementation plan for the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy by one year. The ICANN Board wrote to the GNSO Council, asking for the Council’s views on whether it believes the request should be granted. The ICANN Board requested response during or immediately following the GNSO Council meeting on 19 September. A draft response was circulated on 6 September, which notes the expected policy work related to the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy, but also notes that the request for deferral is from an ICANN Contracted Party and is not a matter of policy development.   

Here, the Council will discuss the draft and the underlying conclusions and rationale.

10.1 - Introduction of topic (Rafik Dammak and Pam Little)

10.2 - Council discussion

10.3 - Next steps 

Item 11: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Draft Response to Questions on the Independent Review Process Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) (10 minutes)

On 09 May 2019, ICANN org published a Call to Action for the Independent Review Process Standing Panel, which was intended to help the Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) in its critical role of implementing the updated IRP. ICANN org published a series of questions, posed to the various Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, seeking input to pending issues.

The GNSO convened a small team, tasked with preparing a draft response on behalf of the Council. 

Here, the small team will seek feedback from the Council on its draft response.

11.1 - Introduction of topic (Small Team)

11.2 - Council discussion

11.3 - Next steps 

Item 12: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)

12.1 - Draft GNSO Council letter to the ICANN Board regarding potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. 

12.2 - Approval of the 2019 slate of Members and Liaisons on the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - possible email vote

...

August 22nd: 1200 UTC

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 22 August 2019

Agenda and Documents
Coordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y2qdox2m
05:00 Los Angeles; 08:00 Washington; 13:00 London; 17:00 Islamabad; 21:00 Tokyo; 22:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann (absent)
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Darcy Southwell
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba (apologies, proxy to Rubens Kühl) , 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, Tatiana Tropina, Rafik
Dammak, Ayden Férdeline, Arsène Tungali (absent)
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
Guest speakers: ICANN Org: Cyrus Namazi, Trang Ngyuen, Brian Aitchison
ICANN Staff
David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN
Regional (apologies)
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 (apologies)
Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist
Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager
Sara Caplis - Manager, Meetings Technical Services
Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations
Andrea Glandon - Operations Support - GNSO Coordinator
MP3 Recording
Transcript

Item 1. Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call.
1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

Scott McCormick has left HackerOne and moved to Reciprocity (SOI to be updated). Flip Petillion has
been added to the lists of Panelists of NOMINET (SOI).

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
Keith Drazek reviewed the agenda. A 10.6 item was added to AOB.

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 26 June 2019 were posted on the 13 July 2019
Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 18 July 2019 were posted on the 02 August 2019

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List

Keith Drazek reviewed the Action items which were not to be discussed under this meeting’s main
agenda:
- IRP IOT: There was a call from ICANN Board to repopulate the IRP IOT, seven GNSO
community members were recommended by the GNSO Council. A small team is finalising
questions for Council consideration which will be submitted to ICANN Org and presented to
Council before the September 2019 meeting.
- RPM Charter amendments specific to the IGO INGO protections: the first step is a focus on a
small team and then work on Charter updates in regards to the PDP3.0 improvements.
- Legislative Tracker: GNSO Council sent a draft letter with recommended improvements. Input
from ICANN Org is awaited.
- The CSC Effectiveness Review Final Report action item is ongoing.
- IRTP Policy Status Report: it was initially hoped that EPDP IRT would provide further input on the
gaining registrar FOA issue. Council can now expect a letter from the RrSG Chair for the Council
to write to ICANN Board and address the issue.
- IANA Functions Review team: there are further questions regarding repopulating the IANA
Review team in terms of availability of community members. This is an open action item for the
broader community.
- International Domain Names (IDN) Variant TLDs: the GNSO Council small team including subject
matter experts has set up a mailing list, has met for one conference call and is working on a time
rotation for future meetings, as well as mapping out the task at hand. The small team has an
action item to request the GNSO Council send two liaisons to the ccNSO parallel effort, once it
begins, to ensure consistency.
- IGO INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms action item regarding the 3.7 appeal process
is in progress.
- Evolution of the Multistakeholder model: there is an upcoming Public Comment for which the
GNSO Council will have to identify areas of concern and encourage Stakeholder Groups (SGs)
and Constituencies (Cs) to provide input. Staff has an open action item to look into the cost of the
effort.
- PDP Updates: GNSO Chair needs to draft letter to ICANN Board, cc-ing SSAC, regarding the
Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP). Engagement needs to be sought with the ccNSO on
discussions concerning NCAP, string similarity and IDNs.

Action Items:

● ICANN Staff to follow up with GSE staff about input from GNSO Council on the legislative tracker
(i.e., Global Engagement to take into account feedback, in particular, inclusion of rationale for
including a piece of legislation on the legal / regulatory tracker.)
● ICANN Staff to add to the existing action item that Council is anticipating input from RrSG on the
Review of the Transfer Policy as well as the request for the suspension of the contractual
compliance enforcement of the FOA.
● ICANN Staff to ensure that GNSO liaison(s) are assigned to the IDN ccPDP, when the ccNSO
initiates that effort.

Item 3: Consent Agenda (none)

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Letter on Status of Consultation in Relation to
Non-Adopted EPDP Phase 1 Parts of Recommendations (purpose 2 and recommendation #12)

On 15 May, the ICANN Board informed the GNSO Council of the Board’s action in relation to non-
adoption of two GNSO’s EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations. The GNSO Council has a responsibility
to follow through in instances where consensus policy recommendations from a PDP, approved by the
GNSO Council, are not approved in full by the Board. This was further discussed during ICANN65 during
the joint GNSO Council - ICANN Board session and during the Council meeting on 18 July 2019. The
GNSO Council leadership has updated the draft response which incorporated the different views among
the Councilors. The latest draft seeks to clarify Council’s understanding from the discussion with the
Board during ICANN65 in order to determine the next steps.
Marie Pattullo thanked Keith Drazek for the requested amendments to the draft, but stressed that the
Business Constituency was concerned by recommendation 1, purpose 2, would like the EPDP 2 team to
work on the placeholder language and would appreciate clarification that not all councilors agree with the
recommendation.
Keith Drazek explained that the GNSO Council is not challenging the Board’s decision but is
acknowledging that it is placeholder language and that there is further work for the EPDP 2 team.
Tatiana Tropina suggested bullet point 2 of the draft letter be modified to reflect the position of the
different constituencies.
Flip Petillion supported Tatiana Tropina’s suggestion whilst reminding councilors that the Council is
responsible for developing policy for the entire community. He equally supported Marie Pattullo’s
intervention, whilst encouraging Keith Drazek to promote the fact the EPDP 2 team should concentrate on
the issue.
Darcy Southwell raised that bullet point 2 needed clarification regarding what the GNSO Council was
asking of the ICANN Board.
Keith Drazek welcomed the suggestion and encouraged councilors to provide further edits. He agreed
that the letter was not communicating a decision, but requesting confirmation of common understanding
of the verbal conversation held during ICANN65.
Elsa Saade raised the notion of ‘global public interest” which was mentioned in the letter sent by ICANN
Board, and questioned its definition, noting that the GNSO Council should use such terms with care.

Keith Drazek responded that “global public interest” is one of thresholds that the ICANN Board must
attain in the event that it does not agree with policy recommendations. He agreed that the term could be
lacking in definition and noted that staff had provided further information in the Zoom room.
Michele Neylon expressed his dissatisfaction at the focus on minor points by one or two constituencies.
He reminded councilors that all constituencies were represented within the EPDP team and that it was
not the GNSO Council’s remit to rewrite recommendations. He supported Elsa Saade’s concern with the
expression “global public interest”.
Keith Drazek stated that the procedural issue was the focal point in order to set a constructive precedent.
Tatiana Tropina agreed that the Council cannot change recommendations substantively. She raised that
the Board’s letter and annex were lacking in clarity, and could be interpreted as asking the EPDP 2 team
to consider general public interest.
Rafik Dammak mentioned that recommendation 1, purpose 2 will be worked on with the Standardized
System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD).
Keith Drazek noted that further exchanges had taken place in the Zoom room chat.

Action items:
● Councilors to work to complete the letter, which may include integrating elements such as:
○ When the letter references that some Councilors having dissenting views, that the group
holding those dissenting views are identified.
○ Add clarity about the ask of the ICANN Board (e.g., confirm that the Board and Council
have a common understanding).

● Rafik Dammak to confirm when recommendation one, purpose 2 will be expected to be discussed
by the EPDP phase 2.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Org’s Request for Clarification on Data Accuracy and
Phase-2 of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for
gTLD Registration Data

Keith Drazek reminded the councilors that on 21 June 2019, the GNSO Council received a letter from
ICANN Org requesting clarification on data accuracy and specifically the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting
System (ARS), which was then discussed during the GNSO Council meeting on the 19 July 2019. On the
15 August, a draft response was circulated on the mailing list acknowledging receipt of the ICANN Org’s
letter, but Keith Drazek confirmed that Council needed to provide a more substantive response shortly.
Elsa Saade raised the concern that accuracy was not mentioned in the EPDP charter and should not be
of the EPDP 2 team’s remit. Keith Drazek added that a review has been initiated with ICANN Org to
assess EPDP 1 recommendations impacted contracts or policy, and where there are inconsistencies and
incompatibilities with existing policies, specifically regarding the Whois ARS.
Marie Pattullo raised that the Business Constituency had no issue with the draft letter, but that they
would need clarification regarding ICANN Org next steps and confirmation from the GNSO Council that
ARS is included in the EPDP 2 team’s work.

Keith Drazek agreed that having further information about ICANN Org’s next steps would be useful.
Elsa Saade clarified that her point was procedural and that EPDP 2 team should only focus on tasks with
which the group was chartered. If there are points which are not in the charter, they should be discussed
within the broader community.
Keith Drazek suggested a small team of councilor with a focus on accuracy broadly and the Whois
accuracy more specifically especially within the discussion about what will replace Whois eventually.
Michele Neylon expressed his objection to the above suggestion as it would be unproductive given the
lack of clear definition of the term “accuracy” but supported an exchange with ICANN Org.
Keith Drazek reminded councilors that a substantive response needed to be sent to ICANN Org within a
short timeframe and that volunteers were needed for that task. Marie Pattullo volunteered for the small
group.
Action items:
● ICANN staff to include an agenda item on the September Council meeting, inviting ICANN Org to
speak on the impact of GDPR as well as the EPDP 1 recommendations on the enforcement and
implementation of existing policies, procedures, and contractual provisions related to accuracy
(including ARS).
● Council to convene a small group to draft a substantive response on data accuracy for Council
review to send to ICANN Org in response to 21 June letter
(https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-21jun19-en.pdf) (volunteers: Marie,
Darcy, Flip)

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Board referrals of CCT-RT recommendations to GNSO
Council and GNSO PDP WGs

In the interest of time, agenda item 6 was deferred to the September 2019 Council meeting.
Action item:
● Councilors to review draft text and provide input, if applicable, prior to the September 2019
Council meeting, 13 September 2019 at the latest.

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - ICANN Org assumptions for new round of new gTLDs

ICANN org compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the
preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization and circulated these to the GNSO
Council on 17 June 2019. The Global Domains Division (GDD) is now awaiting community input. Cyrus
Namazi,Trang Nguyen, Christine Willett and Chris Gift joined the call to exchange with councilors.
Cyrus Namazi provided background on the origins of the document insisting on the complexity of the
implementation of the policies into a new gTLD round. The first steps were to focus on the operationality
of the program. Four assumptions were made and feedback was received from ICANN Board. Cyrus
reminded councilors that these are assumptions based on incomplete information as community input has
not yet been received in total.

Keith Drazek acknowledged that the effort was not presupposing what the policy work would entail, but
establishing baseline structures.
Darcy Southwell asked about the underlying data which supports some of the assumptions, for instance
the number of 2000 applications. This data is key to understanding the processing and how ICANN Org
will support the effort.
Cyrus Namazi responded that the number 2000 is an operational assumption on which to build future
capabilities. Any number above 2000 will increase the complexity and have impacts on cost.
Philippe Fouquart raised that the document refers to 1000 gTLDs a year, maximum delegation rate, and
asked whether given the experience gained since the last round, processing could be speedier.
Cyrus Namazi replied that at its peak during the 2012 round, the maximum number TLDs delegated into
the root, was 400 a year. SSAC and RSSAC have advised the Board in terms of the rate at which the root
is going to expand and have asked ICANN Org to maintain a reasonable rate.
Darcy Southwell followed up raising concerns about the significant impact on cost with working on
assumptions, and encouraged marketing research be done by ICANN Org to better estimate numbers.
Cyrus Namazi acknowledged that having more realistic expectations would be helpful and welcomed
community input on the matter.
Michele Neylon understood the challenge of having exact numbers but insisted on the considerable
impact on staff and resourcing. One solution would be to look at it by tranches of scale, looking at the
number of applications per fiscal year for instance.
Cyrus Namazi responded that closer to the application window, it will be easier to build appropriate
systems. Regarding staffing, there will be core staff, but certain functions are short term and would be
staffed with temporary positions. ICANN Org will update the assumptions paper with community input
whilst observing EPDP work in parallel and present the Board with updated assumptions to receive the
authorisation to begin planning the next round. Input provided by the GNSO Council by the end of
September 2019 would be ideal.
Keith Drazek stated that GNSO Council input would be received within the deadline.
Action items:
● Council to consider if they would like to provide a written response to ICANN Org, to be delivered
by the end of September. Councilors to inform their respective SG/Cs of the timeline for providing
input.

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Amendments to Consensus Policy Implementation
Framework (CPIF)

Brian Aitchison, ICANN Org, joined the GNSO Council to present the latest updates concerning CPIF.
He reminded councilors that the CPIF was being constructed as a roadmap for the community to follow
as GDD implements policy recommendations. ICANN Org is mandated to continuously review the

framework, this was done in 2018 for the first time. For 2019, the review should be more structured and
this is reflected in the amendments. Two new sections have been added: the Post-Implementation
Consensus Review Process which has been in discussion for a long time, with precise guidelines being
sought and an amendment process has also been added, with proposals to undertake it every five years
rather than every time a review is initiated. Efforts have been made to remove inconsistencies.
GNSO councilors are being asked to provide feedback on the amendments by the 25th October 2019
deadline.
Keith Drazek suggested a small team focus on providing feedback on behalf of the Council.
Rafik Dammak thanked Brian for his presentation and asked about what will happen past the input
deadline.
Brian Aitchison replied that the process would be similar to 2018. The input will be reviewed and added
to the document in collaboration with those who provided the input.
Pam Little inquired as to the process of providing input, as previously individual councilors had provided
input without constituency or stakeholder group differences having to be reconciled. The Registrar
Stakeholder Group (RrSG) is already working on input which could be put to the Council as starting
document for their deliberations.
Keith Drazek acknowledged that this would be the best solution moving forward and thanked Brian
Aitchison for his efforts.
Action items:
● Councilors to ensure that their respective SG/Cs are aware that they are able to provide input to
ICANN Org by 25 October 2019 at the latest. To the extent the Council can agree on any unified
feedback, Council to provide written input by 25 October as well.
● Pam Little to share proposed edits from the RrSG with the Council.

Item 9 - PDP 3.0 Small Group Update/Discussion

Keith Drazek reminded councilors of the importance of the PDP3.0 small group efforts.
Rafik Dammak provided an update to the Council on PDP3.0 small team activities. Work on 5 out of 14
of the improvements has been completed by the small team, but only 4 submitted to the Council as a
package for review as they cover similar topics. The team is continuing to work on the other
improvements. The chosen approach is to have a designated small team member per improvement as
lead to collaborate closely with ICANN staff. Improvements completed are: terms of participation for
Working Group members which was based on collaboration with EPDP leadership, three alternatives to
open working group models to assist the charter drafting teams in defining the structure of the future
Working Group, criteria for new members joining once PDP work has begun and expectations for Working
Group leaders.
The PDP3.0 team has a deadline to complete the work by the Annual General Meeting, and will therefore
welcome councilors input.
Rafik Dammak thanked the PDP3.0 team members and staff for their dedication to the task at hand.

Action Item:
● Councilors to review and provide feedback on the finalized implementation elements (1, 2, 3, 6)
by 13 September 2019 at the latest.

Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.1 - ICANN66 Draft Schedule Review & travel booking reminder
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/icann66-draft-gnso-schedule-21aug19-en.pdf
Keith Drazek reminded councilors to review the schedule ahead of ICANN66.
Action item:
● ICANN Staff to send reminder to Councilors to book their travel

10.2 - GNSO Strategic Planning Session January 2020
Keith Drazek reminded councilors to plan their travel in keeping with the communicated session dates.

10.3 - Confirmation of volunteers for Council liaisons to PDP/IRTs beginning at the AGM:
● Sebastian Ducos – EPDP IRT
● Maxim Alzoba - Translation/Transliteration IRT
● John McElwaine – RPMs PDP WG
Keith Drazek stated he would keep this topic open on the Council list for a week following the Council
meeting for any input.
Action items:
● If applicable, Councilors to ask questions or note objections by 28 August.
● Subsequently, ICANN Staff to facilitate handover meetings between incoming and outcoming
liaisons, as well as PDP/IRT leadership.

10.4 - EPDP Phase 2 Work plan package (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-
attach/epdp-phase-2-project-management-work-plan-15aug19-en.pdf)
Keith Drazek asked councilors to review the Work Plan package as early as possible.
Action item:
● Councilors to review EPDP Phase 2 work plan package and share any comments or questions
with the mailing list
10.5 - ATRT3 Survey - volunteers to develop Council response
Keith Drazek requested a small team of councilors volunteer to draft a Council response.
Action item:
● Councilors to draft response to ATRT3 Survey (volunteers: none)

10.6 - Questions from the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working
Group Co-Chairs [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/beckham-et-al-to-gnso-
council-rpm-pdp-liaison-19aug19-en.pdf] and GNSO Council leadership reply
[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-council-to-rpm-pdp-co-chairs-22aug19-
en.pdf]
Keith Drazek encouraged councilors to review the exchanges and submit any comments or questions to
the GNSO Council leadership team and Council liaison, Paul McGrady.
Action item:
● Councilors to review Council leadership response to RPM leadership (see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-rpm-pdp-co-chairs-22aug19-en.pdf)
and advise Council leadership of any questions, comments or concerns in relation to the
response.

Keith Drazek adjourned the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 22 August 2019 at 14:04 UTC.

...

July 18^th: 21:00 UTC

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 18 July 2019

...