...

The proposed upcoming dates for the GNSO Council Meetings in 2020 are as follows. (dates removed as they are completed and detailed in section below)    

• 16 April GNSO Council Meeting 12:00 UTC   
• 21 May GNSO Council Meeting 21:00 UTC   
• 24 June GNSO Council Meeting 05:00 UTC   
• 23 July GNSO Council Meeting 12:00 UTC   
• 20 August GNSO Council Meeting 21:00 UTC   
• 24 September GNSO Council Meeting 12:00 UTC   
• 21 October GNSO Council Meeting 11:00 UTC  
• 19 November GNSO Council Meeting 21:00 UTC  
• 18 December GNSO Council Meeting 12:00 UTC   

...

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

...

Next Council Meeting is to be held on

...

April 16th 2020 at

...

1200 UTC 

...

DRAFT Agenda will be posted here when available...

GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast

...

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

...

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 11 March 2020

Agenda and Documents      Audio Recording     

Coordinated Universal Time: 20:00 UTC:https://tinyurl.com/qwknzmy

13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington DC; 20:00 London; (Thursday) 01:00 Islamabad; (Thursday) 05:00 Tokyo; (Thursday) 07:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

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

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Greg DiBiase

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, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Elsa Saade (apology, proxy to Tatiana Tropina), Tatiana Tropina , Rafik Dammak, Farell Folly, James Gannon

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

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

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

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

There were no updates to councilor Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

Keith Drazek welcomed all to the first public GNSO Council session being held virtually and informed participants of the open mic session at the end of the agenda under Any Other Business.

There were no changes to the agenda as presented.

Keith Drazek reminded participants that having the Project List as its own agenda item was a decision made during the GNSO Strategic Planning Session (SPS) held in January 2020 in Los Angeles. The GNSO Council is the body managing the Policy Development Process (PDP) and the Project List is a crucial tool to discuss prioritization. During the SPS, councilors were encouraged to take part in a prioritization survey and to bring the results back to their Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) for review and further input.

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

Minutesof the GNSO Council meeting on the 23 January 2020 were posted on 10 February 2020

Minutesof the GNSO Council meeting on the 20 February 2020 were posted on 6 March 2020.

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

Keith Drazek reminded councilors that the Project List review was an independent agenda item for the March Council meeting.

Maxim Alzoba mentioned that he had sent an email about the Project List. Keith Drazek clarified that this was in regards to Project Change Requests (PCRs) submitted by both the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP Working Group (WG) and the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP WG.

Open action items marked in yellow, therefore not being discussed as part of the main agenda, were reviewed:

PDP3.0 Final Report: Further work to be done here. Pam Little informed councilors that Council adopted all deliverables from the small team effort during the GNSO Council meeting in February 2020. The small team is in the process of sending out documents to WG leadership to assist them in their activities, once ICANN67 ends. Jeff Neuman, SubPro co-chair, asked in the Zoom chat for updates about the consensus building tools. Keith Drazek mentioned that there had been plans for PDP3.0 face-to-face updates during ICANN67. This has now been replaced by a webinar to take place shortly. Rafik Dammak replied that the consensus playbook is to be finalised later this month.

Managing IDN Variant TLDs: Council received a report from the IDN Scoping team including a recommendation for policy work to be initiated around some components of the topic on variants. This group would be chartered under PDP3.0 guidance after Council discussion.

Evolution of the Multi Stakeholder Model (MSM) of Governance: ongoing discussion since 2019 about challenges the community has in ensuring that the MSM can continue to evolve and be effective

and the Council’s PDP3.0 efforts are a significant step in the right direction.

Action item: none

Item 3: Consent Agenda: no item

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Projects List Review

Keith Drazek provided an overview of the Project List summary page which was discussed during the SPS, where the decision was made to set a baseline of understanding allowing future discussions to be based on significant changes only. At the issue scoping stage, there is the Transfer Policy – Policy Review Scoping Team. At the initiation phase, there is the PDP: Internationalized Domain Names, current stage of the IDN Scoping team. Under Working Groups, the current PDP WGs and Cross Community Working Groups are listed together. There are two items which have been pending a Board vote for a lengthy duration, which would warrant an engagement with ICANN Board. Last is the Implementation phase with items for which the Council has a responsibility to engage with ICANN Org. The GNSO Standing Committees are also available upon request.

Berry Cobb added that phases one through three are intended to highlight work in the pipeline, missing are items like the GNSO Review3, ATRT3 and others, focusing instead on PDP efforts. Ideally this scope would be broadened in the future. Regarding reviewing activity of each PDP, given the recent Project Change Requests submitted and the monthly Project Package submitted by the EPDP team, Council is up to date with activity status. Once items are in the Implementation phase, they are no longer under the Council’s strict remit.

Berry Cobb then provided further information on the changed steps, whether out of the scoping phase or into the implementation stage. He also added that “health” of completed projects had not been taken into consideration previously, for now, we have “status” and “condition” markers which will allow Council to understand when efforts will enter a problem phase. Yellow or red colouring on a task should be an alert to the Council and not a persisting condition of an effort or even an indication of the overall health of the project. Improvement 11 from PDP3.0 (creating a consistent work product of status reporting for each project) has been implemented by the EPDP with the development of the monthly package containing a summary timeline, a situation report and a Gantt chart showing each task that the group is to accomplish. This is easier to implement with an EPDP like structure rather than an longstanding PDP.

Keith Drazek asked about the “scary spreadsheet” (list of all GNSO Council impacting activities), and whether all its items would be incorporated into the Project list (EPDP Phase 1, wave 1 for instance). Berry Cobb responded that the list would become more difficult to handle, and could possibly cause loss of focus on policy development activity, but that it should be considered.

Pam Little noted that some projects were of the Council’s remit, and others no longer. She asked

whether there could be a manner of differentiating the latter. She also asked about the accrued days and percentage of completion counts, whether they were both marking the total days of the effort, or whether they were marked by phase.

Berry Cobb clarified that the number of days was not an exact count and that the clock would start when the Council decides to launch a PDP. For RPM PDP WG for example, when the Council resolved to launch the PDP, there was a two-year delay before efforts started. There is no correlation between day counts and percentage of completion, as the latter is largely based on guesstimates gathered thanks to Council leadership, Council liaisons et staff support input. Using the EPDP example with the monthly project package highlighting what is completed, he explained that this effort was a lot easier to track than others. He acknowledged that collapsing items for Implementation and Board vote in one row leading to a more detailed page outlining the projects could provide more clarity. It was important that they still remained visible to the Council.

James Gannon noted that for PDPs having begun their efforts before PDP3.0, it would be good to break them down into project phases with a raci matrix each and roll them into their own program. Once these PDPs enter the implementation phase, feedback loops would be helpful.

Keith Drazek reinforced that this Project List and the precision of its data is geared towards EPDP set ups and structures development with PDP3.0 improvements.

Councilors were then presented with a more detailed follow up:

Expired Registration Recovery policy - Policy Review: Could be further discussed as part of the Council prioritization, and part of the EPDP 1, recommendation 27 wave 1 item. Could be part of a policy status report.

Policy & Implementation Recommendations Review: Should be part of a prioritization discussion with a focus on processes developed to date.

Transfer Policy - Policy Review Scoping Team: Team will be delivering its scoping report by the April document and motions deadline, suggesting a PDP with several issues outlined.

IDN Scoping Team: Example of a project being reset for the initiation phase anticipating the work for the charter. After ICANN67, the drafting process will start for the draft charter. This does not mean the PDP needs to be initiated after the charter draft, several tasks could be considered for completion prior to initiating the PDP.

Whois Procedure Implementation Advisory Group: On hold due to the dependency on conclusion of EPDP work on the temporary specification. Council needs to take a decision as to whether this effort is still valid in light of EPDP developments. Rafik Dammak noted that there is recommendation 27 wave 1 report, and that this effort should no longer be on hold in the initiation phase but placed in another phase, such as a backlog for example.

RPM - IGO Curative Rights: referral of recommendation 5 of the IGO Protections Issue group to the RPM team. It’s a separate work track under the umbrella of RPM WG. The addendum and charter has been approved, the group now needs to be initiated under PDP3.0 improvement recommendations. The call for volunteers and expression of interest for the chair are now finalised.

EPDP Phase 2: the progress bar to the left of the condition codes marks 81%, it was at 73% when the team opened up for Public Comment. The monthly project package presented by the EPDP will be an essential step for all upcoming PDPs.

CCWG Auction Proceeds: After the past Public Comment, the group is reviewing input on the proposed Final Report. The Final Report is scheduled for May 2020.

RPM PDP WG: Project Change Request has been submitted to and approved by Council. The group went through a process of working with staff, the GNSO Council liaison and Council leadership. John McElwaine, GNSO Council liaison to the RPM PDP WG, reported that since the PCR was approved, the efforts promised by the three co-chairs, to work together, to have a method to reach agreement are visibly showing positive results. The RPM WG sessions for ICANN67 finished early as scheduled work was completed. Initial Report is due to be published on 18 March 2020.

SubPro PDP WG: Project Change Request has been submitted to and approved by Council with a planned end date of 20 December 2020. Flip Petillion, GNSO Council liaison to SubPro, added that work was going smoothly. Keith Drazek reminded councilors that having approved the Project Change Request, Council needed to commit to ensuring these new deadlines were met. Steve Chan, ICANN Org, clarified the difference of status (about timeline), and condition (which can be better defined by health). The latter might need to be discussed with co-chairs, but condition defines the overall health of the group and that the amount of topics to be discussed by the SubPro WG could potentially keep the condition at-risk. Keith Drazek noted Jeff Neuman, SubPro co-chair, disagreeing in the Zoom chat. He reminded councilors that the PCR had only just been approved. He added that there might need to be further coordination as to the codes of the tracking documents, such as the Project List.

Action item:none

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Work Prioritization - 2020 Work Plan

Keith Drazek introduced this item as a follow up from the informal survey undertaken by councilors during the SPS in January 2020. The results of the informal survey were to be shared by councilors with their groups, with the aim of sharing the ensuing input with the Council during today’s meeting to discuss whichnew workshould be prioritized for initiation, when capacity within the community becomes available.

Michele Neylon mentioned that there was discussion among the RrSG about what could be an important topic. There was insistence on the limited bandwidth available. The highest priority item for the RrSG is related to transfer policy, the lowest priority would be around DNS abuse, which is important but has no specific asks.

Farell Folly asked for clarification regarding the fact the initial survey was filled in by councilors present at the SPS only and was concerned about the ensuing results. Keith Drazek reminded councilors that these results were to be brought back to the SGs and Cs for their input prior to the March GNSO Council meetings. He added that voting on the items wasn’t necessarily planned for, but that it was mostly a tool

to help inform the discussion.

Marie Pattullo communicated input from the Business Constituency, which consists of following up on items which have completed their PDP, or current steps: SSR1, ATRT3, CCT RT. Following those, EPDP, PDP3.0, IDNs and Universal Acceptable, which needs to move much faster to have results for the next round, and data accuracy.

Sebastien Ducos, for the Registry SG (RySG): expired registration recovery policy, Whois and IDNs. He added that not many registries provided input.

Rafik Dammak, for the Non Commercial SG (NCSG),priorities are: phase 3 EPDP and phase 2 RPMs. Further information is also required regarding Internationalized Registration Data (IRD).

Action item:

GNSO Council, in collaboration with GNSO Support Staff, to develop a framework of prioritization for upcoming GNSO policy work based on the input received from GNSO Councilors and their respective stakeholder groups/constituencies and input from the broader ICANN community/ICANN Board.

Keith Drazek to encourage councilors to share the survey feedback received from their groups on the Council mailing list (missing IPC and ISPCP)

Item 6: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

6.1 - Council discussion on theguidance soughtfrom the EPDP team related to ICANN org's 5 December 2019letterseeking clarifications on data accuracy and the EPDP Phase 2. The EPDP Team is hoping to receive guidance by 13 March 2020.

Keith Drazek informed councilors that the EPDP 2 team is asking for guidance regarding the topic of data accuracy stemming from the EPDP 1 report. Can the topic of data accuracy be reasonably handled by the EPDP 2 team within the time remaining? There is recognition that it is an important topic requiring discussion, but it does not need to take place within the scope of EPDP 2. He suggested the Council call for a small group to work on this out of the EPDP 2 effort.

Maxim Alzoba made the difference between the use of the term accuracy used in ICANN and the use for GDPR.

Tatiana Tropina agreed with Keith Drazek and noted that accuracy was not within the scope of the team, and certainly not within the timeframe remaining. Responding to Marie Pattullo’s point in the chat, she added that as part of the EPDP Legal team herself, not all members of the Legal Team agreed on accuracy, and that Bird & Bird had addressed the issue already and had concluded that the EPDP findings would not affect data accuracy. Data accuracy as defined by ICANN Org, is not within the very narrow scope of the GDPR compliance.

Greg Dibiase also agreed and added that the RrSG does not believe data accuracy is within the scope of the EPDP team, nor that there is enough time for the team to deal with it correctly.

Rafik Dammak, EPDP Vice Chair, asked for clarification regarding the feedback he should bring back from Council to the EPDP team and added that this would be needed by Friday 13 March 2020.

Keith Drazek asked councilors to provide their additional input on the Council mailing list, and noted that the Business Constituency disagreed in the chat with the previous comments made by councilors.

Action Item:

Keith Drazek to send an email to the GNSO Council mailing list regarding the possible next steps regarding the data accuracy issue, with the aim to provide a response to the EPDP Team by Friday, 13 March

6.2 - Open microphone

Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair of the SubPro PDP WG, complimented the Project List as a good visual tool to see where the different PDPs stand in terms of activity. He added that further work needed to be done to provide a better understanding of the meanings of the various statuses. He also mentioned that an escalation procedure, should a PDP status be in trouble, triggering Council action should be put into place.

Keith Drazek agreed and added that the Project List was a tool evolving with PDP3.0 improvements, the aim of which is also to hold the GNSO Council as well as PDP Leadership teams, accountable for the PDP meeting its obligations and timelines. He assured Jeff Neuman that staff would be engaging with Council PDP leadership teams regarding further work on statuses.

Amr Elsadr spoke about the data accuracy topic highlighting that there was no mention of this topic in the EPDP charter and directed councilors to the Expedited PDP manual which recommends substantially scoping an issue before initiating an EPDP, but the data accuracy topic has not been sufficiently scoped.

Keith Drazek thanked all for their input and participation in the GNSO Council session of ICANN67.

Keith Drazek adjourned the meeting at 23:05 UTC on Wednesday 11 March 2020

...

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 20 February 2020
Agenda and Documents
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
List of attendees:
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann (apology)
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Greg DiBiase
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 (absent, proxy to Scott McCormick), Scott
McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Martin Silva Valent, Elsa Saade, Tatiana Tropina , Rafik
Dammak, Farell Folly, James Gannon
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :
Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison
Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC
Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer (absent)
ICANN Staff
David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN
Regional
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
Jeff Graham - Technical Support
Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations
Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator
Audio Recording
Transcript
Item 1: Administrative Matters
1.1 - Roll Call
Keith Drazek welcomed Juan Manuel Rojas and James Gannon as new NCSG councilors.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
Elsa Saade announced that she was stepping down as GNSO Council liaison to the GNSO New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG). James
Gannon added that he had resumed employment with Novartis.
1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
The agenda was approved without changes. Keith Drazek mentioned that there would be time for a
discussion about the ICANN67 virtual meeting between items 6 and 7 following the cancellation of the
Cancun venue due to risks related to Covid-19.
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 19 December 2019 were posted on 02 January 2020
Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 23 January 2020 were posted on 10 February 2020
Action items:
● GNSO Support Staff to remove Elsa Saade as the GNSO Council liaison to the SubPro PDP WG
following her formal resignation from the position during the Council meeting on 20 February
2020.
● Councilors who were unable to attend the pre ICANN67 GNSO Policy Update webinar to listen to
the recording of the session prior to the week of ICANN67 (week of 9 March). Keith to send a
reminder to the Council list.

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 of
Projects List and Action Item List
Keith Drazek reminded councilors that the Project List review was an independent agenda item for the
February Council meeting.
As part of the Action Item list review, it was decided to remove an open task from the Evolution of the
Multistakeholder Model. Berry Cobb confirmed that this topic had been discussed during a call between
the GNSO Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) and the ccNSO Strategic and
Operational Planning Standing Committee (SOPC) and could be further discussed at a ccNSO and
GNSO Council level.
Regarding the IDN Scoping team, the GNSO Council now needs to review the Recommendation Report
which was delivered on 17 January 2020 and determine next steps taking into account discussions
around PDP3.0 improvements which took place during the GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session
(SPS) in January 2020.
Maxim Alzoba raised the issue of a potential overlap of an IDN PDP with other GNSO PDPs.
Action items:
- GNSO Support Staff to remove the current open action item for the MSM evolution project
- GNSO Council to share with the ccNSO Council about the work done in PDP 3.0 that aligns with
the MSM evolution project (during the next joint ccNSO-GNSO Council meeting?);

- GNSO Councilors to review the IDN Scoping team Recommendation Report by the March 2020
Council meeting; Keith to send a reminder to the Council list.
- GNSO Council to use the revised charter template and other related PDP 3.0 work products to
develop a draft charter for a future PDP/EPDP for the IDN policy effort, consider potential overlap
of IDN PDP with other GNSO PDPs
, and report to the GNSO Council on whether these PDP
3.0 work products help achieve the intended outcomes.

Item 3: Consent Agenda: no item

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – PDP3.0 implementation Final Report
Rafik Dammak, seconded by Pam Little, submitted a motion for Council to approve the PDP3.0
Implementation Final Report.
Whereas,
1. GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) 3.0 is a GNSO Council initiative aimed at introducing
incremental improvements to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of GNSO PDPs.
2. On 24 October 2018, the GNSO Council resolved to adopt the GNSO PDP 3.0 Proposed
Improvements Paper and provided full support for fourteen (14) improvements.
3. In January 2019 during the GNSO Council’s Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the GNSO
Council decided that a Small Team of Councilors should be convened to support the
implementation efforts in collaboration with the GNSO support staff. Led by Rafik Dammak, a
GNSO Council Vice Chair, the Small Team met regularly between April 2019 and February 2020,
with designated leads working with staff to advance the implementation of each improvement.
4. To facilitate the GNSO Council’s review, the Small Team delivered four packages to the GNSO
Council in an incremental manner: Package one, on improvements 1, 2, 3, and 6 was delivered
on 13 August 2019; Package two, on improvements 11, 12, 14, and 16 was delivered on 25
September 2019; Package three, on improvements 5 and 13 was delivered on 22 October 2019;
and Package four, on improvements 9 and 15 was delivered on 21 November 2019.
5. During the process of developing and finalizing the proposed implementation, the ICANN
community and the ICANN org were consulted for input and suggestions via various
mechanisms, including but not limited to: interviews and small group discussions, GNSO Council
mailing lists and meetings, invitation to provide written input, and a public webinar on 9 December
2019.
6. While the PDP 3.0 precedes ICANN’s Evolution of the Multistakeholder Model (MSM) project, the
implementation is nevertheless connected. The GNSO Council commented on the Evolution of
the MSM’s initial report and engaged with Brian Cute, the project’s facilitator, before and during
the ICANN66 meeting in Montréal. In Appendix C of ICANN’s Draft FY21-25 Operating &
Financial Plans and Draft FY21 Operating Plan & Budget, which documents the outcome of
Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project, three (3) out of the six (6) workstreams align with the PDP
3.0 implementation; the GNSO is being proposed to lead the “Issue A: Consensus +
representation and Inclusivity” workstream.
7. In January-February 2020, the Small Team conducted additional activities, including: 1) revising
the GNSO PDP working group charter template; 2) identifying sections in the current GNSO
Operating Procedures that could be revised after the GNSO Council reviews the effectiveness of

PDP 3.0 implementation; and 3) discussing “Parking Lot” items that might benefit from future
work.
8. In January 2020 during GNSO Council’s SPS, the GNSO Council dedicated several sessions to
the discussion of PDP 3.0 and agreed on several action items as the next steps for the
implementation efforts.
9. On 10 February 2020, the Small Team completed thirteen (13) out of fourteen (14) PDP 3.0
improvements and delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration. The Final
Report provides an overview of the PDP 3.0 implementation process and outcomes, a
consolidation of all of the work products incorporating community feedback as appropriate, and
suggested effective time frame for deployment of the improvements.
10. The last remaining work product related, the Consensus Playbook, is originated from PDP 3.0
Improvement #4 and not complete. While, the Consensus Playbook is not strictly a PDP 3.0
product, it is intended to be utilized by the broader ICANN community beyond the GNSO. Its
pending status should not prevent the GNSO Council adoption of the Implementation Final
Report from the PDP 3.0 Small Team. Adoption of the Consensus Playbook will be voted upon by
the GNSO Council at a later date.
Resolved,
1. The GNSO Council hereby adopts the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Final Report and instructs
GNSO Support Staff to work with the GNSO Council leadership on the deployment of
improvements based on the effective time frame proposed by the PDP 3.0 Small Team.
2. The GNSO Council requests future charter drafting teams of the GNSO Council to commence
chartering for upcoming PDP efforts by utilizing the revised GNSO working group charter
template and other related PDP 3.0 work products, and report to the GNSO Council on whether
they help achieve the intended outcomes.
3. The GNSO Council requests that after all PDP 3.0 improvements are in effect, the GNSO Council
conducts a review of the implementation effectiveness in a timely manner.
4. The GNSO Council requests that following the GNSO Council review of the PDP 3.0
implementation effectiveness, the GNSO Council considers any necessary updates to the GNSO
Operating Procedures and uses the relevant work product in the PDP 3.0 Implementation Final
Report as a starting point.
5. The GNSO Council confirms that none but one (1) “Parking Lot” item (Statement of Interest
Review) identified by the PDP 3.0 Small Team should be moved forward until the GNSO Council
has the opportunity to evaluate the PDP 3.0 implementation effectiveness.
6. The GNSO Council thanks to the PDP 3.0 Small Team, GNSO support staff, and others who
have contributed to the implementation of GNSO PDP 3.0 improvements as well as the proposed
implementation work products to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of GNSO PDPs.
John McElwaine had submitted an amendment to the motion, which, after discussion, was re-worded
and accepted as friendly by Rafik Dammak and Pam Little.
Maxim Alzoba asked why the Consensus Playbook was not intended to be submitted to Public
Comment.
Rafik Dammak , in response to Maxim’s question, reminded councilors that the Playbook is solely a
resource for WG leadership to build consensus, via Additional Budget Request funding, and to be
available to the broader community. Given it is a collaboration with external vendors, and given the need
to limit community workload, it is not necessary to submit it to Public Comment.

Councilors voted unanimously in support of the amended motion.
Rafik Dammak thanked the PDP3.0 members and staff for their efforts and reminded Council of the
importance of the implementation next steps.
Vote results
Action items:
● GNSO Support Staff to work with the GNSO Council leadership on the deployment of
improvements based on the effective time frame proposed by the PDP 3.0 Small Team.
● GNSO Council to carry out the other future action items in the “resolved” clauses at appropriate
time, as directed in the motion.

Item 5: COUNCIL UPDATE – Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) in All gTLDs PDP
Project Change Request
Keith Drazek reminded the Council that an updated Project Change Request had been received by the
RPM PDP WG. An update on the WG activities had been provided the previous day during the pre
ICANN67 GNSO Policy Update webinar. A discussion had been held between council leadership, RPM
co-chairs and liaison to ensure that the new timelines being presented were reasonable and that the co-
chairs were committed to meet them with efficient work methods and decision-making.
John McElwaine, GNSO Council’s liaison to the RPM WG, provided context to the new updated request.
He reminded councilors that this effort has been ongoing since 2016. The first Change Request had a
date of conclusion for August 2020, however given the holiday period, an updated Project Change
Request was subsequently submitted. John McElwaine pointed out that the co-chairs had committed to
working together, to remain within scope and to avoid old issues being relitigated whilst recognizing that
diversity of views existed. A clear work plan will also be submitted to members of the WG.
Keith Drazek reminded councilors of the importance of the Project Change Request tool. He also raised
the issue of the three co-chairs leadership structure and that should the current structure be unable to
move the effort forward, it would be within the Council’s remit to remove the co-chairs.
Flip Petillion asked whether Project Change Requests would be put to motion moving forward as it might
assist PDP leadership teams in their efforts. Keith Drazek clarified that this was not the case currently, as
there had been no meaningful Council objection to the submitted requests to date, but that PDP co-chairs
would receive formal notification of Council approval. Berry Cobb added that considering a motion could
be a next step for Council in the future. Pam Little suggested mentioned that giving councilors extra time
to consider the Project Change Request as the to provide a response to a Project Change Request
should be on behalf of the whole Council and not just Council leadership. Keith Drazek confirmed that
putting future Project Change Requests to formal vote was not excluded.
Action items:
● GNSO Councilors to consider using formal votes to approve future Project Change Requests
(PCRs)

● GNSO Council to provide feedback with regard to the RPM PCR on list for one week (till 27
February 2020), which should help inform the GNSO Council decision on whether to approve the
PCR. Keith to send a reminder on the Council list.
Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE – New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Project Change Request
Keith Drazek reminded councilors that a Project Change Request had been submitted by the SubPro
working Group.
Flip Petillion provided councilors with further context. The WG began its efforts in 2016 and is currently
developing and reviewing its draft final recommendations whilst seeking to resolve open issues on a
subset of topics. It was estimated that the WG could deliver its final report to the Council by the end of the
second quarter of 2020 but that was based on the understanding that the additional public comment
period would be limited to a subset of topics. However, there was an expectation of a new public
comment period based on the entire draft final report which led to the Project Change Request new
timeline of delivery by end of December 2020.
Flip Petillion stressed that this was not a decision which the PDP co-chairs took lightly and that the WG
was already ahead of schedule with extended meetings planned in April and May 2020. The issue of
limited participation of WG members was also raised. Flip Petillion encouraged councilors to remind their
stakeholder and constituency members of the importance of the multistakeholder model need for
consensus.
Keith Drazek pointed out that adding structure and accountability to the PDP WG leadership teams
should help them in reaching their timeframes and that support of the GNSO Council to the WGs was
essential in making this happen.
Maxim Alzoba asked for clarification about the delivery date of the 31st December 2020, date at which
ICANN offices are closed. Keith Drazek drew attention to the fact that “no later than” appeared before the
mentioned date and thus delivery would need to be prior to the ICANN offices closing.
Philippe Fouquart asked whether the current timeline would affect the first applications for the next
round of gTLDs. Keith Drazek asserted that the focus was the Policy Development Process. Next steps
will be GNSO Council and ICANN Board consideration, followed by the implementation phase which
would include the parameters for how ICANN builds the review process for how applications are
submitted, the full timeline is as of today undetermined. The last phase would include a new process to
manage the next round of applications.
Action item:
● GNSO Council to provide feedback with regard to the SubPro PCR on list for one week (till 27
February 2020), which should help inform the GNSO Council decision on whether to approve the
PCR. Keith to send a reminder on the Council list.

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Projects List Review postponed & replaced by ICANN67
discussion
This agenda item was postponed in favour of a discussion on the announcement that ICANN67 will now
be a virtual meeting.

Keith Drazek reminded all that ICANN Org announced that ICANN Board passed a resolution cancelling
the face-to-face ICANN67 meeting in Cancun, a virtual meeting will be developed instead. He
acknowledged that the decision taken was not an easy one. A community webinar was organized on 20
February 2020 to gather input. A call with community leaders is scheduled for the 21 February 2020 to
determine next steps.
The following points were raised during the Council discussion:
- The ICANN67 schedule as it stands would not fit a virtual meeting.
- Prioritising sessions and establishing parameters will be key.
- The choice of timezone in which to conduct these sessions is crucial to encourage participation
- Are joint meetings and regular update sessions considered essential?
- PDPs are facing a considerable challenge as their work plans all depend on F2F meeting output.
- Acknowledgement that lengthy overnight and/or full days of conference calls and won’t be
feasible over a long duration.
- Scheduling conference calls during the set ICANN67 dates would be preferable over impacting
members availability beyond the planned end date.
- Some community members will still travel to Cancun, their time zone will need to be taken into
account.
- For those whose day jobs are unrelated to ICANN matters, taking personal time off for
conference calls will be difficult.
- To ensure active and constructive participation, all presentation materials need to be made
available before the meeting and all recordings need to be published rapidly after the end of each
session.
- Proper evaluation will need to be captured to consider the quality of the virtual format on
meetings of this scale. A positive outcome could be ease of access and financial savings.
- Regional gatherings could be an alternative albeit with its logistical difficulties (comparisons were
drawn with the ICANN37 Nairobi meeting where remote participation was organised for hubs).
- Given the short timeframe, trying to re-organise a whole new schedule with a new time zone
seems extremely difficult.
- There are no extremely urgent items for Council consideration, PDP efforts should be prioritized.

Outcome:
● GNSO Council deferred the discussion of the project list to the next Council meeting.

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Work Prioritization
At the Strategic Planning Session, Councilors participated in an informal and non-binding ranking survey,
which was used as a “sense of the room.” This informational survey result was shared with Councilors to
then share with their respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to gain a better sense of the
various groups’ top priorities.
Keith Drazek reminded all that there were three PDPs currently heading to milestones and that
community input on the upcoming workload was key. An example is the updated work on the EPDP
recommendation 27 circulated to the mailing list earlier that day.

Rafik Dammak mentioned there was also follow up work on the IRD (Iinternationalized Registration Data)
which had been the scope of the Expert Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data
Registration Data Services PDP WG but which was no longer being dealt with.
Keith Drazek also asked councilors to look at items which are easily achievable as well as those with the
utmost importance.
Michele Neylon added that the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) considered that the transfer policy
was a high priority but that the list needed to be cleared of other items too.
Pam Little stressed that feedback on the prioritisation list of items was key for a Council work plan to be
developed for 2020.
Steve Chan, ICANN Org, reminded councilors that IDN Variants were not scored as high priority item,
however they could impact new gTLDs. In this regard, dependencies also need to be considered when
ranking items.
Action Item:
● GNSO Support Staff to research and incorporate the deliberation on the Internationalized
Registration Data
 (IRD) issue in the prioritization list, as appropriate.
● GNSO Councilors to continue consulting with their respective groups in preparation for further
Council discussion and/or decision during the March 2020 Council meeting.

Item 9 Any Other Business
9.1 - ICANN67 Planning / Questions for lunch with the ICANN Board
This item was postponed as there will be no lunch meeting with the Board.
9.2 - Council consideration of the draft GNSO Council public comment to the Draft FY21-25 Operating &
Financial Plan and Draft FY21 Operating Plan & Budget, due on 25 February.
John McElwaine, chair of the SCBO, asked that councilors, especially those involved in the PDP3.0 work
effort or with project management experience, review the comments and provide input. Berry Cobb
added that tthe final draft would be submitted to Council on the 23 February 2020 for a last review, and
then submitted as GNSO Council public comment on the 25 February 2020.
Action item:
● GNSO Council, especially the Councilors involved in the PDP 3.0 small team, to review the draft
and provide input for the PDP 3.0 related comments no later than 21 February 2020 at 23:59
UTC.

9.3 - Council consideration of whether a response is needed to ICANN org's 5 December 2019 letter
related to clarifications on data accuracy and EPDP Phase 2.
Keith Drazek reminded all a response is needed to the letter sent by ICANN org.
Action item:

● Keith Drazek to re-circulate the letter to the Council list with discussion points.
● GNSO Council to provide feedback.

Keith Drazek adjourned the meeting at 23:02 UTC on Thursday 20 February 2020

...

GNSO Council Agenda 20 February 2020

...

Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access:-

...

October 24^th: 12:00 UTC

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

Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access:-

...

September 19th: 2100 UTC 

...

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/CoaGBg - 

GNSO Council Meeting

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/SoaGBg Motions: https://community.icann.org/x/TIaGBg Documents: https://community.icann.org/x/SIaGBg

...