...

GNSO Council Meeting Agenda's and Records for 2020 will be listed  below when available:

...

Next Council Meeting is to be held on

...

January 23rd 2020 at 2200 UTC

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

Draft GNSO Council Agenda 23 January 2020

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/7gCJBw

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

For convenience:

• An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
• An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.

GNSO Council meeting held at 22:00 UTC

Coordinated Universal Time: 22:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/vjx8bub

14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington DC; 22:00 London; (Friday) 03:00  Islamabad; (Friday) 07:00 Tokyo; (Friday) 09:00 Melbourne 

...

Final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 19 December 2019 at 21:00 UTC: 

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 24 October 2019  were posted on 13 November 2019

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 19 December 2019 were posted on 02 January 2020

Item 2: Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (20 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 (10 minutes) 

• Motion to adopt the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique.
• Motion for the confirmation of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration
• Confirmation of Anne Aikman-Scalese as one of the GNSO appointees to the CCWG Auction Proceeds

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of the Supplemental Recommendation Related to the Non-Adopted EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations (recommendation #12) 

• approve the nomination of Amr Elsadr to serve as the ICANN Fellowship Program mentor.
• Confirmation of Johan Helsingius as the Chair and Carlton Samuels as Vice-Chair for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC).

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Vote Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion on the Addendum 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 

Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE - Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data - Phase 2 Work  

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session (15 minutes)

From 22-24 January of 2020, the GNSO Council will hold its third Strategic Planning Session (SPS),

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS 

8.1 - Consideration of previous GNSO Council Additional Budget Requests (ABRs) and whether they should be pursued in the future, as well as if other ABRs should be submitted. FY20 ABRs included:

• GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session (similar ABRs submitted in FY18, FY19, and FY20)
• PDP Leadership Travel Pilot (similar ABRs submitted in FY18, FY19, and FY20)

Report (20 minutes)

On 18 April 2019, the Council voted to approve recommendations 1-4 of the 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 a draft Addendum to the RPMs PDP charter, which was discussed during the Council’s September 2019 meeting. After integrating Councilor feedback, the revised Addendum was shared with the GAC and IGOs for their consideration. The Council considered  GAC/IGO feedback received on 1 November 2019, as well as feedback from the meeting with the GAC at ICANN66. 

Taking into account GAC and IGO feedback received and balancing with the goals of the GNSO Council, leadership prepared a revised draft for GNSO Council consideration. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the draft at the December 2019 Council meeting. A revised draft was prepared and shared on the Council mailing list. 

Here, the Council will vote to adopt the Addendum to the RPMs PDP charter.

4.1 – Presentation of motion (Council leadership)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: Simple majority)

Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as outlined in ICANN’s Bylaws as the GNSO ‘shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws’ (Art.11.1). Furthermore, this action complies with the requirements set out in Annex A: GNSO Policy Development Process of the ICANN Bylaws.

Item 5: COUNCIL UPDATE – Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs PDP (15 minutes)

Chartered in March 2016 to review all the RPMs that have been developed by ICANN, the PDP is focused on RPMs developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program (i.e., Trademark Clearing House, Sunrise, Claims, and Uniform Rapid Suspension). The WG is tasked with considering the overarching issue as to whether or not the RPMs collectively fulfil their purposes or whether additional policy recommendations will be necessary.

The PDP has worked diligently since launch and is preparing to publish its Initial Report for public comment. As of ICANN64, the WG had expected to be able to publish its Initial Report at the beginning of 2020. The WG is currently revisiting sub team and individual URS proposals and, when completed, will proceed to the development of its Phase One Initial Report, with a plan to publish in March of 2020. As a result of this delay in timeline, the PDP has submitted a Project Change Request [INSERT LINK] and this update is intended to both inform and gain approval from the GNSO Council.

Here, the Council will consider the Project Change Request.

5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership; John McElwaine, GNSO Council liaison to the PDP)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Next steps

Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE – Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds (15 minutes)

This CCWG was chartered to develop a mechanism to allocate new gTLD Auction Proceeds. The CCWG is expected to consider the scope of fund allocation, due diligence requirements that preserve ICANN’s tax status as well as how to deal with directly related matters such as potential or actual conflicts of interest. The CCWG will not make any recommendations or determinations with regards to specific funding decisions (i.e. which specific organizations or projects are to be funded or not).

The CCWG published its Initial Report for public comment on 8 October 2018 that later closed 11 December 2018 after requests for extension. 37 community submissions were received (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-17dec18-en.pdf). After additional deliberations, a decision was made to publish the CCWG’s Proposed Final Report for public comment to ensure that the community can review and provide input on changes that have been made since publication of the Initial Report. Input received through the second public comment period will be reviewed and incorporated as appropriate before the Final Report is published. The purpose of this update is to ensure that the GNSO Council, as a Chartering Organization, is familiar with the expected recommendations, but also to determine whether it might make sense for the Council to submit a public comment (14 February 2020 deadline).

Here, the Council will consider the proposed final recommendations and consider whether a public comment on behalf of the Council is warranted.

6.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership; Erika Mann, Chair of the CCWG)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE – IDN Scoping Small Team (15 minutes)

The ICANN Board resolved in 2010 that IDN variant TLDs will not be delegated until relevant work is completed and directed ICANN org to develop a report identifying what needs to be done with the evaluation, possible delegation, allocation and operation of generic top-level domains (gTLDs) containing variant characters IDNs, in order to facilitate the development of workable approaches to the deployment of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs. Based on analysis, ICANN org and the community identified two gaps to address: 1) that there is no definition of IDN variant TLDs, and; 2) that there is no IDN variant TLD management mechanism.

The Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels (RZ-LGR Procedure) has been developed by the community to define the IDN variant TLDs and, following the Board resolution in 2013 which approved the RZ-LGR Procedure, has been implemented to incrementally develop the Root Zone Label Generation Rules to address the first gap.

ICANN org has developed the Recommendations for Managing IDN Variant TLDs (the Variant TLD Recommendations), a collection of six documents finalized after incorporating the public comment feedback and published them as mechanisms for addressing the second gap identified by the community in the implementation of IDN variant TLDs.

On 14 March 2019, the ICANN Board resolved:

The Board approves the Variant TLD Recommendations and requests that the ccNSO and GNSO take into account the Variant TLD Recommendations while developing their respective policies to define and manage the IDN variant TLDs for the current TLDs as well as for future TLD applications.

 The Board requests that the ccNSO and GNSO keep each other informed of the progress in developing the relevant details of their policies and procedures to ensure a consistent solution, based on the Variant TLD Recommendations, is developed for IDN variant ccTLDs and IDN variant gTLDs.

Additionally, and separately, the ICANN Board anticipated adopting the IDN Guidelines v. 4.0 as part of its consent agenda for the 3 May 2019 meeting, but the GNSO Council requested that the vote be deferred, due in part to concerns around the process, as well as specific requirements within the guidelines (e.g.,“same entity” requirement on second level registrations, which are in both the guidelines and the Variant TLD Recommendations). The ICANN Board agreed to the deferral, allowing the GNSO Council additional time to consider the matter.

The Council convened an IDN Scoping Team, comprised of Councilors and other GNSO members, to consider the scope of issues (e.g., IDN Guidelines and IDN Variant Management solutions) related to IDNs and accordingly, recommend a mechanism to address those issues (e.g., leverage existing PDPs, convene new PDP/EPDP, other).

The IDN Scoping Team has thoroughly considered the scope of work that needs to be undertaken and accordingly, what mechanisms make the most sense to address. Most members of the IDN Scoping Team believe that two tracks of work can be undertaken:

• Operational Track 1:  In brief, a Contracted Party working/negotiation/implementation team would focused on IDN Implementation Guidelines 4.0 operational issues
• Policy Track 2: In brief, a PDP/EPDP should be initiated and would have a scope including the definitions, management, and coordination issues related to IDN Variant TLDs, as well as IDN variants at the second-level. Additionally, this track would consider the related issue of how the IDN Implementation Guidelines, which Contracted Parties are required to comply with, should be revised in the future.

The IDN Scoping Team shared the report [INSERT LINK} with the Council mailing list on [date].

Here, the Council will discuss the IDN Scoping Team’s recommendations report.

7.1 – Introduction of topic (Council Leadership; Edmon Chung, Scoping Team Lead)

7.2 – Update and council discussion

7.3 – Next step

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)

8.1 - ICANN67 Planning

8.2 - Council response [INSERT LINK] to the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group’s request for input on 27 recommendations.

8.3 - Council consideration of proposed GNSO Council Additional Budget Requests (ABRs) for FY21; review draft ABRs for the FY21 Strategic Planning Session and Travel support for PDP Leadership to  ICANN Public Meetings.

...

DRAFT Minutes of the December 19th GNSO Council Meeting

Audio Recording

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 19 December 2019

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/w82k6rn

13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington DC; 21:00 London; (Friday) 02:00 Islamabad; (Friday) 06:00 Tokyo; (Friday) 08:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Greg DiBiase (incoming RrSG councilor following Darcy Southwell’s resignation)

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa (arrived after first vote), John McElwaine, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Martin Silva Valent, Elsa Saade, Tatiana Tropina, Rafik Dammak, Farell Folly, Sam Lanfranco (temporary alternate after Farzaneh Badii’s resignation)

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels (arrived after first vote)

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer

ICANN Staff

David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional (apologies)

Marika Konings – Senior Advisor, Special Projects

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

Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations

Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator

Audio Recording

Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

There were no updates to Statements of Interest (SOI) on the call. It was noted that Julf Helsingius has circulated an update to his SOI on the Council mailing list prior to the call.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

Keith Drazek, in the interest of time, suggested moving Item 2 to the end of the call. This was accepted by councilors on the call.

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 24 October 2019 were posted on 13 November 2019

Minutes Part 1Part 2 of the GNSO Council meetings on the 06 November 2019 were posted on 26 November 2019

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

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

In the interest of time, this agenda item was deferred to the end of the meeting.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

Tatiana Tropina, seconded by Michele Neylon, submitted a motion for GNSO Council approval GNSO Review of the ICANN66 GAC Communique for submission to the 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 co-ordination 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 theMontréal GAC Communiqué(seehttps://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac-communique-09dec19-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Council Review of

the Montréal 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.

Pam Little, seconded by Rafik Dammak, submitted a motion for the GNSO Council to approve Keith Drazek as GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community:

Whereas,

The GNSO Council confirmed in November 2019 that the GNSO Chair (currently Keith Drazek) will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community (EC) Administration on an interim basis.

The GNSO Council leadership team subsequently met to agree who from the Council leadership should perform the role of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration and communicated this decision to the Council mailing list on 9 December 2019.

Resolved,

The GNSO Council hereby confirms that Keith Drazek, GNSO Chair will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration until the end of his term at ICANN69.

The GNSO representative shall act solely as directed by the GNSO Council in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and other related GNSO Operating Procedures.

The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this decision to the ICANN Secretary which will serve as the required written certification from the GNSO Chair designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration

As part of the Consent Agenda, there was equally a request the councilors to confirm Anne Aikman-Scalese as one of the GNSO appointees to the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Auction Proceeds.

Councilors present on the call unanimously voted in support of the Consent Agenda motions and vote.

Vote results

Action items:

ICANN Staff to send the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique to ICANN Board cc-ing the GAC Chair and GAC support staff,

ICANN Staff to inform the Empowered Community Administration the confirmation of Keith Drazek as the GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration

ICANN Staff to inform the Chair and support staff of the CCWG Auction Proceeds the confirmation of Anne Aikman-Scalese as on the GNSO appointees

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of the Supplemental Recommendation Related to the Non-

Adopted EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations (recommendation #12)

Keith Drazek reminded councilors that ICANN Board did not accept parts of two consensus policy recommendations which were approved previously by the GNSO Council after being submitted by the EPDP Phase 1 team. After discussions with the Board, it was decided to allay concerns about the organisation field data deletion. Following exchanges with the EPDP Phase 1 team, the GNSO Council reaffirmed the recommendation but included implementation guidance which would imply applying the EPDP Phase 1 approach to the administrative field, to the organisation field.

As maker of the motion, Rafik Dammak mentioned that following the Board’s feedback, he approached the EPDP Phase 1 team to ask for their feedback regarding the suggestion from the GNSO council, but that there had been no consensus from the team. Rafik Dammak said however that he believed the Board’s concerns had been dealt with and encouraged councilors to avoid delaying the process further, reminding Council that its responsibility was to the Policy Development Process (PDP) and not to substantive content.

Keith Drazek raised that Marie Pattullo had circulated an amendment on behalf of the Business Constituency (BC) on the email list prior to the Council call. Keith Drazek reminded councilors that the amendment could be accepted as friendly if the makers (Rafik Dammak and Pam Little) of the motion accepted, otherwise it would need to be voted on via simple majority by Council prior to voting on the motion itself.

Pam Little, as seconder of the motion and on behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG), did not accept the amendment as friendly given that the additional language and reference to Section 3.7.7.1 of the Registrar Amendment Agreement (RAA) would introduce additional obligations on the part of the registrar which is not contemplated in the original provision. Pam Little invited councilors to consider this in conjunction with 3.7.7 of the RAA which stipulates a number of provisions that the registrars must include in their registration agreements with registered name holders including 3.7.7.1. Pam Little added that 3.7.7.1 is an obligation on the part of the registered name holders to provide up to date contact information to the registrar. The proposed amendment would shift the responsibility to registrars. Pam Little also mentioned that the BC-proposed amendment have the potential of adding confusion as section 3.7.7.1 and other provisions of the RAA have already been amended or superseded by the temporary policy and by EPDP Phase 1 recommendations which are being development into policy by the Implementation Review Team (IRT).

Rafik Dammak stated that he would not accept the BC-proposed amendment as friendly based on the explanation provided by Pam Little but welcomed further input from Marie Pattullo.

Marie Pattullo, as proposer of the amendment, thanked Pam Little for her input. She also explained that the BC shared the same concerns as the ICANN Board regarding the data deletion and needed confirmation that there would still be ways to contact the registrant.

Sebastien Ducos mentioned that the IRT were in agreement with the position coming out of the last ICANN meeting. He agreed with Pam Little regarding the wording proposed by the BC. He also reminded councilors that the IRT were awaiting the result of the vote on the motion to continue their work.

John McElwaine supported Marie Pattullo’s concerns and emphasized that further clarity around contact information was needed.There are issues with terminology, “valid”, for instance as well as a need for better definition of contact information.

Flip Petillion expressed his appreciation of councilors’ input, but regretted that the amendment proposal

was provided last minute, with no time to take the input back to Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs).

Keith Drazek acknowledged the lateness of the amendment proposal, and reminded Council that while a deferral was possible, discussions had been held with ICANN Board who had confirmed that the additional implementation guidance sufficed to allay their concerns.

Michele Neylon clarified that there is no contact detail in the organization field in Whois, adding that registrars do not rely on Whois to contact a client, as there are other means (billing information, email information, social media for instance), and therefore opposed the deferral.

Keith Drazek added that the organisation field was an optional field in Whois.There is a process under recommendation 12 where registrars need to validate this information with their clients. The recommendation seeks to deal with the situation where a registrar is unable to validate this information, for instance if a registrant does not respond. Recommendation 12 then allows registrars to clean up the information after having followed a certain number of compulsory steps.

Philippe Fouquart, on behalf of the ISPCP, raised that whereas there had not been sufficient time to consult with his colleagues, he would follow the EPDP recommendations as GNSO Council should not be discussing substance.

There was no request for a deferral.

Councilors voted against the proposed amendment to the motion.

Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Philippe Fouquart, Sam Lanfranco, Flip Petillion abstained due to lack of time to consult with their groups.

Vote results

Councilors voted in favour of the motion.

Marie Pattullo shared a statement on behalf of the BC.

Vote results

Action item:

GNSO Chair to communicate the Supplemental Recommendation to the ICANN Board, including the vote result of the GNSO Council Supermajority supporting the Supplemental Recommendation.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion on the Addendum 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

Keith Drazek reminded Council that in April 2019 all recommendations from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection MechanismsFinal Report were approved, except for Recommendation 5 which should be handled by the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group. Discussions with the Governmental Advisory Committee and IGOs were held at ICANN64 to ensure IGOs’ participation in the new Work Track. Concerns had been raised on Council about the four GNSO Council approved recommendations not being approved by ICANN Board yet, and potentially being impacted by Work Track discussions.

The current draft revisions to the Addendum to the RPMs PDP charter developed by the GNSO Council leadership team, John McElwaine and Martin Valent, takes into account GAC redline edits, IGO input, PDP3.0 work and protects the GNSO Operating Procedures.

Keith Drazek added that Brian Beckham from WIPO had reviewed the document and expressed his support.

Tatiana Tropina thanked the small team for their work and asked for clarity regarding the term “policy proposal” on page 3, first paragraph. Keith Drazek explained that these referred to the recommendations currently submitted to the Board and thanked her for the input.

Maxim Alzoba raised that the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) had previously mentioned that the team composition should include members of the Contracted Party House to ensure the operational aim is feasible. The current terms of participation should therefore be modified to be more inclusive as it currently appears to exclude members who are not international law experts.

Keith Drazek pointed out that there is a requirement for the CPH to be consulted in regards to operational feasibility. Regarding membership criteria, the “must” requirement has been modified to “should”. He acknowledged that Maxim’s input would be considered by the small team.

Action items:

GNSO Councilors to ask additional questions and/or provide comments about the proposed charter addendum on the GNSO Council list before 13 January 2020.

GNSO Council small team, in consultation with the GNSO Council leadership, to finalize the charter addendum and submit the final version to the GNSO Council no later than 13 January 2020.

Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE - Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data - Phase 2 Work

Rafik Dammak, Council liaison to the EPDP,shared with the Council the adjustment to the EPDP Phase 2 work timeline and Project Change Request form which were circulated earlier this week on the GNSO Council mailing list. This is the first time a Project Change Request form is being used. The initial EPDP 2 aim was to publish the Initial Report in December 2019 and have the Final Report ready in April 2020. The new target date is early February for the Initial Report publication. The EPDP Phase 2 team will hold a face-to-face meeting in January 2020 and will be working on the report during the session. The key is to have the Final Report ready and published before the end of the fiscal year for budgeting reasons. The content of the Project Change Request highlights the ambitious timeline for the EPDP 2 team and the various dependencies the team has to take into account (European Data Protection Board (EDPB) advice, issues which require further legal consultation, awaiting cost prediction of a centralised SSAD

model).

Berry Cobb, policy consultant, added that councilors would be focusing on the topic of project change forms for PDP working groups during the Strategic Planning Session in January 2020.

Pam Little thanked both for their input. She questioned the date of the document submission being later than the deadline of submission for the Initial Report. The Project Change Request ought to be submitted prior to the target date. She suggested that the Change description field should be more explicit about the “ask” in the request.

Rafik Dammak mentioned that the decision was made in December 2019 to adjust the timeline based on EPDP team members comments .

Keith Drazek asked how the recently received letter from the EDPB impacted the EPDP 2 team’s next steps.

Rafik Dammak reminded councilors that an EDPB letter had been received a few days ago, confirming that policy regarding choice of model should come from the EPDP 2 team, and that the CPH cannot move all their liability to the joint controller. That is an initial analysis pending further discussion early 2020.

Action item: None

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session

The GNSO Council Strategic Planning (SPS) session will take place in Los Angeles from the 22-24 January 2020 with the aim of working together, prioritising the workload, promoting engagement with SGs and Cs and strategising efforts for the rest of the Council term.

Pam Little mentioned that a high-level draft agenda would be sent to the Council list shortly and that a webinar would be held early January 2020 to allow all to better prepare for the SPS.

Rafik Dammak added that there would be a focus on PDP3.0 next steps and reminded for those who couldn’t attend the PDP 3.0 webinar to listen to the recordings.

Keith Drazek insisted that reading the materials sent ahead of time was key to the success of the face-to-face meeting. The webinar will also allow for the SPS to begin with more substantive discussions on Council engagement.

Maxim Alzoba added that the best way to understand PDP3.0 work efforts would be to join the small team.

Steve Chan, ICANN Org, mentioned that PDP3.0 materials were at this stage fairly abstract, discussions amongst councilors at the face-to-face would allow them to become a reality.

Action items:

GNSO Council leadership to send the detailed proposed agenda for SPS2020 on list by Friday, 20 December.

All GNSO Councilors to participate in a Pre-SPS webinar in January 2020 as part of the preparation.

GNSO Councilors to read all relevant materials/documents (e.g., PDP 3.0 implementation documents, GNSO guidelines related to its role & responsibility in the Empowered Community)

ahead of SPS 2020.

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1 - Consideration of previous GNSO Council Additional Budget Requests (ABRs) and whether they should be pursued in the future, as well as if other ABRs should be submitted

Berry Cobb, policy consultant, reminded councilors that the ABR submission period opened on the 11 December 2019 and would close at the end of January 2020. The Board Finance Committee approval process will take place mid-April 2020.

Steve Chan, ICANN Org, confirmed that this item concerned ABRs submitted on behalf of Council, SGs and Cs will submit their own requests. In the past, Council has submitted three: the SPS, the PDP Travel Pilot and a one time ABR for a consensus- building playbook stemming from PDP3.0 recommendations. He invited councilors to reflect on whether other areas the Council worked on would warrant additional funding.

Action item:

GNSO Councilors to provide ideas/suggestions, if any, for FY21 ABRs on list, in time for the Council review of potential ABRs during its January 2020 meeting. FY21 ABR submissions are due at the end of January 2020.

8.2 - Letter from ICANN org - EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 28

The GNSO Council received a letter from ICANN Org on the 18th December 2019 relating to the timing for implementation of the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations, acknowledging that the IRT will most likely miss the target date of 29 February 2019. This date was included in recommendation 28 from the EPDP, and the ensuing Board resolution. Council must now draft a response to ICANN Org after further discussion.

Action item:

GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with ICANN staff, to draft a response to the ICANN Org letter and share the draft with the Council by January 2020 Council meeting.

Keith Drazek then commented on the Project List, insisting on its importance and that it would be a key document for the SPS. He encouraged all councilors to familiarise themselves with the document and to follow the updates. Berry Cobb pointed out the importance of the status and condition codes and what Council actions should be when projects signal that they need extra attention to keep to deadlines. The addition of PDP3.0 improvements as well as the impact of dependencies need to be considered when reflecting what can be done to move a project forward.

Action item:

GNSO Councilors to review the entire Project List document as part of the homework for the SPS 2020 preparation.

Keith Drazek adjourned the meeting at 22:53 UTC on Thursday 19 December 2019. Consensus Building Playbook (submitted in FY20 only, as an element of PDP 3.0)

...

November 6^th (ICANN66 Montreal)

...