In preparation for the ICANN#69 virtual meeting, the ALAC reconfirmed Cheryl Langdon-Orr as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for a further term of office, being the period between the 2020 AGM to the 2021 ICANN AGM.

In January  2021, Hadia El Miniawi was appointed as the shadow ALAC Liaison to the GNSO. 

...

Any Notes of relevance to the ALAC / At-Large from GNSO Council Meetings will be highlighted at ALAC Meetings and here in colour from time to time.

Upcoming meetings of interest during ICANN 71 -  you must register to attend and receive the Zoom link details ... Remember the ICANN71GNSOPolicy Briefing document provides a snapshot of the status of GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) working groups/teams, and information about other GNSO policy-related activities.

GNSO Council Working Session

12:30 UTC on Monday, 14 June

Session Details

The GNSO Council will be hosting an interactive working session with the community where a variety of topics will be discussed. The final agenda is here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Working+Session+-+ICANN71   GDS staff will be joining the discussion on the first agenda item Status of Implementation of GNSO Policy Recommendations.

...

GNSO IDN EPDP Community Outreach Session

14:30 - 15:30 UTC on Tuesday, 15 June  

Session Details

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council has initiated an Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). This EPDP is expected to provide the GNSO Council with policy recommendations on i) the definition of all TLDs and the management of variant labels to facilitate the delegation of variant gTLDs in the root zone, and ii) address how the IDN Implementation Guidelines should be updated in the future.

As the IDN topic is of interest to the broader ICANN community and impacts various stakeholders, the GNSO welcomes wide community participation in this EPDP.

This session will provide additional information about this EPDP, including its mission and scope, as well as ways to get involved.

ICANN71 GNSO Policy Briefing: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/c4C1CQ

...

Joint Meeting: GAC and GNSO

07:00 - -8:00 UTC on Wednesday, 16 June

Session Details

Agenda:

Follow-up to ICANN 70:

• EPDP/SSAD and Phase 2A;
• Accuracy;
• DNS Abuse; CCT-Review and GNSO take on pending recommendations (especially those passed by the Board to GNSO) and potential common ask to Board re common tracking tool of all Review Team recommendationsSubPro and/or issues coming out of GNSO Council
• AOB

...

GNSO - CPH DNS Abuse Work Group Community Update

08:30 - 10:00 UTC on Wednesday, 16 June

Session Details

CPH DNS Abuse WG will update the community on progress addressing DNS Abuse.

ICANN71 GNSO Policy Briefing: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/foC1CQ

...

GNSO Council Meeting

10:30 - 12:30 UTC on Wednesday, 16 June

In this particular session, community members are invited to provide their input on the topics under discussion with the Council as it conducts its meeting.

ICANN71 GNSO Policy Briefing: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/14G1CQ

Motions: https://community.icann.org/x/2YG1CQ

Documents: https://community.icann.org/x/1YG1CQ

...

GNSO EPDP Phase 2A Community Update and Consultation

14:30 - 15:30 UTC on Thursday, 17 June

Session Details

The Expedited Policy Development Process ("EPDP") Phase 2A Team is expected to present an update on the status and content of its Initial Report and provide an opportunity for the ICANN Community to ask questions. The EPDP Phase 2A is tasked to review two issues: (i) whether any updates are required to the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation regarding legal vs. natural topic (“Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so“), and (ii) whether it is feasible for unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email addresses.

The EPDP Phase 2A also discussed what guidance can be provided to assist Contracted Parties who would like to (i) differentiate between legal and natural persons and/or (ii) implement uniform anonymized email addresses.

During this session, the EPDP Phase 2A Team will present its findings on the above questions and solicit community input on the recommendations as outlined in its Initial Report.

ICANN71 GNSO Policy Briefing: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/koC1CQ

...

GNSO Council Wrap-Up

10:30 - 12:00 UTC on Thursday, 17 June

Session Details

The GNSO Council meets to discuss the input from the meetings during the week and plan ahead. The meeting is open to anyone interested.

Who should attend: All interested in gTLD policy issues.

ICANN71 GNSO Policy Briefing: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/j4C1CQ

...

Key Resolutions of Interest to At-Large from GNSO Council Meetings

...

Such Resolutions will be held here temporarily prior to the formal acceptance and publishing of Council Minutes and Resolutions.

RESOLVED at the MAY 20 meeting  Initiation of the Expedited Policy Development Process on Internationalized Domain Names and Approval of the EPDP Team Charter

The GNSO Council hereby approves the Initiation Request for the EPDP on IDNs and as such initiates the EPDP.

...

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 June  1030 UTC (local  ICANN meeting time)

22 July   1900 UTC

19 August    1900 UTC

23 September   1900 UTC

27 October   1900 UTC

18 November  1900 UTC

16 December   1900 UTC

Formal Minutes for the Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures can be quickly found below:

...

This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.5, updated on 24 October 2019

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 17:30 UTC (12:30 local time)

...

Item 3: Consent Agenda (5 minutes) 

Confirmation of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of relevant Outputs from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP.

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - IANA Naming Functions Contract Amendment (10 minutes)

...

Item 3: Consent Agenda (10 minutes) 

3.1 - Action Decision Radar decision - In respect of Recommendation 5 From IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report and in accordance with the Addendum to the RPMs Charter adopted by the Council on 23 January 2020, the Council shall initiate both the Expressions of Interest process to identify a single, qualified Work Track Chair and issue a call for Members and Observers to join the IGO Work Track

3.2 - Approval of the 2020 Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Slate - In accordance with Section 17.2 (d) of the ICANN Bylaw and per the CSC Charter, the full membership of the CSC must be approved by the GNSO Council. The Council approves the full slate of members and liaisons, noting that the SSAC has declined to appoint a liaison:

Members Customer Standing Committee:

...

Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (15 minutes)

9.1 - Preparation for ICANN69 bilateral meetings with the ICANN Board, ccNSO, GAC, and SSAC. 

___________________________________

...

The IGO Curative Rights work track would start in Q4.

Rafik Dammak raised that the information provided, specifically in regards to duration, was high-level, further precision could be provided when starting the efforts individually in chartering and scoping. However this information will be useful to different groups when beginning their efforts.

Juan Manuel Rojas asked why the proposed IDN Track 1 only concerned the contracted parties and GDD. Keith Drazek responded that the assumption is that the contracted parties and GDD have a history in developing guidelines (which have evolved into contractual requirements over time) around existing IDNs and those are the groups interested in the topic. Steve Chan added that the two tracks are different, one is operational related and the second is policy related. The purpose of track 1 is to look at IDN guidelines which the contracted parties are expected to adhere to, and to resolve contracted party concerns regarding these guidelines.

Philippe Fouquart asked whether there was a one-to-one mapping between the workplan and the project list deadlines.

Pam Little reminded councilors the approach was to free up community and staff resources to support new efforts. To that end, many PDPs are still ongoing, and the implementation thereof (in particular of SubPro work) will take up a lot of community resources.

Keith Drazek added that this was a very helpful framework and that it would be needed to move from a quarterly basis to a monthly basis.

Steve Chan agreed with Pam Little that dependencies were a big part of the work plan, and that PDPs needed to move forward before something new begins. To Philippe’s question, Steve confirmed that the timing in the Project List is reflected in the work plan. He also added that whilst durations were certainly high-level, and re-working them into monthly increments was necessary, the suggested start dates of a specific effort were helpful.

Berry Cobb added that items such as reviews (GNSO 3 Review, CCT etc) weren’t included in the work plan as timings weren’t known to date. He will work to expand the work plan to include them.

Steve Chan pointed out that each of the items are not equal in terms of burden and in terms of responsibility and that this would be added to the document too.

Rafik Dammak mentioned that councilors needed to be aware of Work Stream 2 developments and that further communication with the Board or ICANN org may be needed. The GNSO is a Chartering Organization (CO) and thus needs to begin the thought process as soon as possible and to prepare without necessarily waiting to get a referral.

Action items:

Staff (Berry & Steve) to update the project list by adding projects such as the Specific Reviews and identifying relevant parties that are primarily responsible for that work.

...

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Draft Response to the Board Letter on Implementation Concerns for EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7, related to Thick WHOIS Transition Policy

Keith Drazek, having recused himself from discussion on the topic, handed this agenda item over to Rafik Dammak and Pam Little.

Rafik Dammak provided councilors with background on Recommendation 7 (Rec 7) from EPDP Phase 1 team. The ICANN Board reached out to the GNSO Council with concerns about a potential impasse within the Implementation Review Team (IRT) mainly about how to implement Recommendation 7 in light of the Thick Whois Transition Policy. The Board noted that the Final Report from EPDP Phase 1 did not specify whether Recommendation 7 was intended to modify the Thick Whois and if it were to modify it, it would be in contrast with EPDP Phase 1 recommendation 23 which includes specific changes to the UDRP. Councilors now need to review and determine next steps for the Thick Whois Transition Policy and evaluate if it is impacted as a result of the PDP recommendation. A small team of councilors put together a first draft of the letter in response to ICANN Board and then an updated version sent on the 21 May 2020 after receiving comments on the Council list and a letter from the CPH representatives in IRT. The later version emphasizes process over substance, in keeping with the role of the GNSO Council as policy development manager. Input is also required from the IRT team following the normal escalation process, in order for the Council to be fully informed.

Pam Little presented the updated version drafted by John McElwaine, Rafik Dammak, Marie Pattullo and herself. The small team believes the Council would need to take a step back and consider the two major topics raised by the Board: Rec 27 and Rec 7 from the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report. Rec 27 sets out certain existing consensus policies that are impacted by EPDP Phase 1 Final Report and Council action will be needed (a new PDP or other effort to address these impacts). The second topic is implementation of Rec 7. The Board raises a potential impasse within the IRT. The small team did not come to agreement regarding the resolution of the issue, and referred to the GNSO processes to seek how to address this.

Next step will be to ask the GNSO Council liaison to the IRT to clarify and resolve the potential impasse, and then Council would consider how to move forward.

Sebastien Ducos, GNSO Council liaison to the IRT, confirmed he accepted the task proposed by the small team. He informed the Council he had a conversation with Dennis Chang, ICANN Org and leading the IRT effort, who agreed this was the best next step.

Tatiana Tropina asked whether there was a timeline for this next step. Pam Little replied that there wasn’t one given this is a first for the GNSO Council and that the topic is a complex one. For the time being, she believes the Council’s focus is to support Sebastien Ducos in his efforts and to follow existing GNSO processes and guidelines.

Rafik Dammak suggested councilors read up on the topic to familiarise themselves with the complexities of the topic.

Tatiana Tropina asked whether there was anything in the guidelines regarding further information about a timeline as this is an important topic and requires time but also a resolution. Pam Little agreed that this is time sensitive and critical, and that the letter needs to be sent to the Board.

Keith Drazek thanked the small team for their efforts.

Action items:

GNSO Council leadership to instruct the Council Liaison to the IRT to engage with the IRT in order to understand the nature of the impasse regarding Phase 1 Recommendation 7, if it exists, and the next steps to address such impasse

...

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Expedited PDP (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification Phase 2 Update

Keith Drazek reminded councilors that in addition to the update from Rafik, there was another topic to discuss which are the additional topics which need to be considered by Council: data accuracy, legal versus natural, and PPSAI Implementation. These are remainers from the EPDP Phase 2 work and the GNSO Council will need to decide what next steps are. EPDP Phase 3, independent chartered work on each of these items are just two options which could be discussed.

Rafik Dammak, EPDP 2 Vice Chair and GNSO Council liaison, presented an update on the EPDP 2

team’s activities. Councilors received the April EPDP Phase 2 Project Package and Rafik brought their attention to the fact that due to the complexity of the content received from the Public Comment period, there is a risk the team might not be able to deliver the Final Report by the deadline. He also reminded councilors that the current Chair of the EPDP Phase 2 team cannot continue after June 2020, Rafik Dammak as Vice Chair could step in but only for a few weeks.

Keith Drazek reminded councilors that there are parties participating in the EPDP who feel strongly that the outstanding items (data accuracy, legal vs natural) should be part of the EPDP Phase 2 work, and that without addressing these issues, these parties will find it difficult to reach consensus. He reinforced that the Council needs to consider how to handle these issues to bring confidence to the parties.

Marie Pattullo thanked both Rafik and Keith for their updates and consideration of all parties. The Business Constituency (BC) believed these issues were not to be part of EPDP Phase 1 but would be dealt with in Phase 2. In addition to this, the amount of comments received during the Public Comment period, would warrant a three-month extension. Keith Drazek raised the fact Janis Karklins would not be available past June 2020 to ensure the extension, and that a new Chair selection would possibly extend the duration to a year.

Michele Neylon disagreed with the notion of an extension as the issue of a new Chair has always been known. He also mentioned that consensus can be reached without all items desired being agreed upon.

Tatiana Tropina noted that on the issue of data accuracy, Council on the 11 March 2020 had discussed the issue of accuracy being out of scope for the EPDP Phase 2 team. She also agreed with Michele’s stance against an extension, as one or two groups should not hinder the consensus process. She raised that the issue of data accuracy was too complex to be resolved with a three month extension.

Rafik Dammak reminded councilors that discussions on these topics had been deliberated with no agreement reached. Next steps would be to discuss how to deal with the priority two issues, out of the EPDP Phase 2, and not delay the work on them thanks to better scoping. The short-term aim will be completing the SSAD (Standardized System for Access and Disclosure) with little delay. He also raised volunteer fatigue within the EPDP Phase 2 team which was intended to be a short-lived effort and it would be better to reset for a new cycle to cover those issues.

Keith Drazek set the next step task for the Council: Rechartering EPDP Phase 3 or are there other processes? Priority two items must not be taken off the table entirely and would require scoping and a duration longer than three months.

Michele Neylon, on his personal behalf, stated that he did not believe members would be willing to engage in an EPDP Phase 3 effort due to the intense workload, hours, and pace of the group.

Flip Petillion agreed that priority two items must not be left untouched.

Action items:

Staff (Marika) to work with Rafik to develop a framework document to identify a list of topics (e.g., accuracy, legal vs. natural, and other remainder items from the EPDP) and outline the next steps for the EPDP for the GNSO Council to consider; GNSO Council leadership to circulate the framework document prior to the June Council meeting; Rafik to inform Janis about the upcoming framework document.

...

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Anticipated Outcome on DNS Abuse

Keith Drazek reminded councilors thatthe new gTLDS Subsequent Procedures Working Group (SubPro) leadership team, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman, had sent a letter to Council referring the CCT RT recommendations related to DNS abuse back to Council for consideration. The ICANN Board forwarded these recommendations to the SubPro group, who in turn, felt that the Council was better placed to consider these recommendations holistically. The broader topic of DNS abuse has been widely discussed within the community over the last few months. Possible solutions to engaging the community could be in creating a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on best practices, which could also include ccTLD operators who have a lot of experience on the matter.

Michele Neylon mentioned that within these discussions, there needed to be a focus on factual data and statistics. He also raised that the conversation with ccTLD operators was positive but that they were able to work within the silo of their national law, which isn’t applicable to international business. The key is to understand the problems raised and whether they apply to domains or whether they are part of a larger issue.

Keith Drazek agreed and added that if clearly-defined issues were to come up within the CCWG, they would be dealt with, possibly, within a PDP.

Maxim Alzoba reminded councilors that security companies which source tools like DAAR do not have industry wide standards, whereas registries need to gather information and often in these cases, fail to. Keith Drazek added that these discussions have been taking place for over a year and that there is a benefit to having a structured conversation. ICANN Org is moving forward with some efforts (a technical study group, TSG, on DNS abuse) and the community could also take part in a similar effort.

Tatiana Tropina mentioned that DNS abuse frameworks need to deal with this only, and not delve into content regulation, it needs to remain within a narrow technical definition within ICANN Bylaws.

James Gannon raised that his day job has been impacted by DNS abuse but the tools in place worked reasonably well. He preferred this framework to not be within ICANN, but within the TSG. If there are policy-related issues, then they should be handled by the GNSO.

Pam Little agreed with Michele, Tatiana and James and suggested raising the CCWG proposal to the

ccNSO during the joint meeting at ICANN68.

John McElwaine suggested that having a status of what has been accomplished and collected with respect to the Board’s scorecard from the CCT report, it would enable Council to better understand what is left to do and what could be done.

Action item:

GNSO Council to reach out to the ccNSO, at an appropriate time, to discuss potential next steps to address DNS abuse issues.

...

Item 3: Consent Agenda (10 minutes) 

Motion to 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 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 (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.

...

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].

...

...

October 24^th: 12:00 UTC

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

...

...

September 19th: 2100 UTC 

...

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”

...

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.

...

GNSO Council Meeting

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

...

Item 3: Consent Agenda (0 minutes)

None

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Re-populating the Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP IOT) / GNSO Input to the Independent Review Process Standing Panel  (15 minutes)

...

“•         In relation to purpose 2, there is general understanding for why the Board decided to not adopt this purpose and the EPDP Team confirms that it considers it firmly within its scope for phase 2 to further review this purpose in the context of the System for Standardized Access / Disclosure (SSAD);

        For recommendation #12, some additional context has been provided that may help explain the thinking behind the EPDP Team’s original recommendation. However, there is no agreement at this stage on whether or not the Board’s non-adoption should be supported.”

Here, the Council will continue to consider the next steps, especially in light of conversations held at ICANN65.

...

The Board will meet to discuss the EPDP recommendation(s) as soon as feasible, but preferably not later than the second meeting after receipt of the Recommendations Report from the Staff Manager. Board deliberation on the EPDP Recommendations contained within the Recommendations Report shall proceed as follows:

Any EPDP Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. If the GNSO Council recommendation was approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.

In the event that the Board determines, in accordance with paragraph a above, that the proposed EPDP Recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council.

The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement. The Board shall determine the method (e.g., by teleconference, email, or otherwise) by which the Council and Board will discuss the Board Statement.

At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for the then-current recommendation. In the event that the Council is able to reach a GNSO Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board determines that such guidance is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. For any Supplemental Recommendation approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board shall be sufficient to determine that the guidance in the Supplemental Recommendation is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN.

...

Agenda annotated with volunteers form Council now responsible for AI’s and follow up.

Review of ICANN65 GAC Advice (Julf, Paul, Michele, Martin and Tatiana) 

https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann65-marrakech-communique 

Next steps for ATRT3 (Council will consider the need or otherwise to replace Erica who needs to retire from ATRT3 at end of Aug - Selection Standing Committee and LT to follow up) 

Reminder of small team activities:

1. Input on the IRP Standing Panel (Volunteers: Flip, Elsa)
2. IDNs (Volunteers: Rubens, Maxim, Philippe, Edmon, Michele)

    Seek additional volunteers outside of Council at this stage? If so, how?

1. CCT-RT Recommendations (Volunteers: Pam, Carlos, Michele)
2. IGO-INGO Charter Drafting (Volunteers: Martin, Elsa, Paul, Carlos)

Correspondence and proposed next steps for:

1. Request for Clarification on Data Accuracy and Phase-2 of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data
2. ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs (assumptions document)

ICANN66 Meeting Planning 

1. Whether to have an informal dinner (and volunteer to organize if yes)
2. Input to leadership for planning purposes

AOB

1. Council liaison replacement (Reconvened WG on Red Cross- IRT: Currently Keith)
2. Reminder - Attend Impacts of EPDP Phase 1 session from 15:15-16:45 (https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058195)

extract copy  from At-Large Reporting Document from ICANN 65

...

The Board will meet to discuss the EPDP recommendation(s) as soon as feasible, but preferably not later than the second meeting after receipt of the Recommendations Report from the Staff Manager. Board deliberation on the EPDP Recommendations contained within the Recommendations Report shall proceed as follows:

Any EPDP Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. If the GNSO Council recommendation was approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.

 In the event that the Board determines, in accordance with paragraph a above, that the proposed EPDP Recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council.

The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement. The Board shall determine the method (e.g., by teleconference, email, or otherwise) by which the Council and Board will discuss the Board Statement.

At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for the then-current recommendation. In the event that the Council is able to reach a GNSO Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board determines that such guidance is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. For any Supplemental Recommendation approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board shall be sufficient to determine that the guidance in the Supplemental Recommendation is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN.

...

Consent Agenda resolution and vote result from the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday 16 May 2019 and has been posted on the GNSO resolutions page.

Consent Agenda

Confirmation of Julf Helsingius to serve on the CCWG on New gTLD Auction Proceeds, replacing Stephanie Perrin

Confirmation of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of recommendations 1-4 contained in the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/council-recommendations-pdp-igo-ingo-crp-access-final-16may19-en.pdf)

 Vote results

Final GNSO Council Agenda

...

Item 3: Consent Agenda (10 minutes)

Confirmation of Julf Helsingius to serve on the CWWG on New gTLD Auction Proceeds, replacing Stephanie Perrin

Confirmation of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of recommendations 1-4 contained in the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP.

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – 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 RPM PDP Working Group to reflect this new instruction accordingly.”

...

Item 3: Consent Agenda (0 minutes)

None

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of the Final Report on Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (40 minutes)    -    

...

Item 3. Consent Agenda (5 minutes)

Motion to adopt the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique.

Motion to approve the nomination of [INSERT NAME WHEN AVAILABLE] to serve as the ICANN Fellowship Program mentor.

Confirmation of Heather Forrest to serve as the GNSO Representative to the ICANN Fellowship Program Selection Committee for the remainder of the 2-year term.

Confirmation of the leadership for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (Chair: Susan Kawaguchi, Vice-Chairs: Poncelet Ileleji and Erica Varlese)

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (15 minutes)

The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG had worked to resolve a final recommendation relating to IGO jurisdictional immunity and registrants’ rights to file court proceedings. The WG has determined consensus on a set of options for this final recommendation, as well as for all other recommendations. The WG Chair proposed his determination of consensus levels for all recommendations, which the WG affirmed. On 27 June 2018, the GNSO Council passed a resolution, thanking the PDP WG for its efforts and requesting that it submit its Final Report in time for the 19 July 2018 Council meeting.

After having agreed on consensus levels for its final recommendations, the WG considered the text of its Final Report. On 9 July 2018, the PDP WG submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus recommendations and three minority statements, documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the Final Report.

There remain several inconsistencies between GAC advice and consensus recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP WG, which have yet to be reconciled, including on the topic of appropriate protections for IGO acronyms (both preventative and curative). During its 19 July Council meeting, the Council resolved to accept the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group and has begun considering the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers.

...

On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council resolved to initiate the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data and adopt the EPDP Team Charter. Given the challenging timeline for the EPDP and the GNSO Council’s role in managing the PDP process, the Council has agreed that including a recurring update on the EPDP for each Council meeting is prudent. On 14 November 2018, Cherine Chalaby, the Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors, sent a letter to Keith Drazek, Chair of the GNSO, submitting questions regarding the status of the EPDP. Two specific areas from the letter where the Board is seeking an update are:

Deadlines - The Board notes that the EPDP team intends to issue its initial report by 19 November 2018, with a final report to be submitted to the GNSO Council by 1 February 2019. Does the GNSOCouncil foresee any risks of these deadlines not being met, and if so, is there anything the Board can do to Help?

Back-up Plans - The Board recommends the development of back-up plans and would very much appreciate getting a better understanding of any such plans the GNSO Council may be contemplating. More specifically, what are the thoughts of the GNSO Council on next steps, consistent with the ICANN Bylaws and ICANN’s contractual agreements with Contracted Parties, in the event the community has not reached agreement on a consensus policy prior to the expiration of the Temporary Specification?

Here, the Council will receive an update from the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP and discuss the letter from the ICANN Board, and corresponding Council response.

...

Upcoming Meeting(s)

December Meeting -  Dec 20 2100 UTC

...

Motion passed unanimously by acclamation.

Action items:

GNSO Secretariat to communicate voting result to the CCWG-Accountability chairs and the ICANN CFO

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of Implementation Advisory Group Recommendations to Update Procedure on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws (20 minutes)

...

The Motion was withdrawn after concerns were raised about conforming with the process for starting a Policy Development Process (PDP), the current PDP workload, and the need to deal substantively with the Implementation Advisory Group’s  (IAG's) recommendations and how these factor into next steps. It was agreed to resubmit a motion for Council consideration at the Council meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, with potential modifications following additional discussions

Action items:

Motion withdrawn; to be resubmitted for Council consideration at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, with potential modifications following additional discussions

Discussions to continue with Stephanie and other interested Councilors as well as affected parties (e.g. Registries, Registrars) to discuss path forward and rework motion language 

...

The drafting team looked at two levels to address the Council resolution.

who should represent the GNSO as the decisional participant? Namely, should it be council or should it be the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies directly?

The drafting team report, in response to who should represent the GNSO pronounced a majority in favor of having Council speak for the GNSO.

how should that entity reach their decisions? What are the voting thresholds for those kinds of decisions?

Having not yet reached a decision on the above, some names were proposed to take on the interim position. In the meantime, it is clear that the Design Team will not be able to produce a full proposal to the request. Thus the proposal was that, rather than leaving an empty seat in the EC, the GNSO Council Chair could be a placeholder.

...

GNSO Liaison Notes: a quick update from Phil Corwin and no discussion. Item to be discussed further in Hyderabad.

Action items:

Staff to convene volunteer group (comprising Councilors and interested community members) to synthesize coordinated response to the Board, based on WG & SG/C responses received

Volunteer group to present proposed response to Council for adoption on 13 October, with goal to transmit response to Board before ICANN57 in Hyderabad

Volunteers so far – Carlos Raúl Gutierrez, Phil Corwin, Keith Drazek, James Bladel, Stefania Milan

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Final Framework for Future Cross Community Working Groups (5 minutes)

...

Motion moved by Wolf Ulrich & Seconded by James Bladel. Carried unanimously - David Cake was absent and did not vote.

Action Items:

Staff to notify Mr. James Gannon of his selection as GNSO liaison to the CSC

Staff to notify ICANN of the selection result

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Implementation Mechanism for the Adopted Recommendations from the 2014 GNSO Organizational Review (15 minutes)

...

Motion moved by Wolf Ulrich & Seconded by James Bladel. Carried unanimously - David Cake was absent and did not vote.

Action Items:

Staff to update Charter to reflect Council decision that: (1) Option #1 was selected (Working Group will take up new requests following completion of implementation tasks and SCI will be disbanded); and (2) Working Group shall operate on Full Consensus for all recommendations relating to ICANN Bylaws and GNSO Operating Procedures

Staff to note in Council meeting minutes that Option #1 was selected

Staff to prepare notice of Council decision to SCI

Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Response to GAC Communique from ICANN56 (25 minutes)

...

Withdrawn/Deferred to Electronic Voting 6-9 August 2016

Action Items:

Staff to amend last sentence in draft response on IGO protections issue, to reflect Board-GNSO discussions in Helsinki

Councillors to provide feedback on amended draft response by Wednesday 27 July)

Staff to work with Mason Cole (GNSO Liaison to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) to ensure follow up communications with/from the GAC after formal response is submitted to the Board and cc’d to the GAC

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Next Steps on Proposed Modifications to the Procedure to Address WHOIS Conflicts with National Law (20 minutes)

...

Result: discussion to be continued on the GNSO Council mailing list.

Action Items:

Councilors to continue discussions via email with a view toward developing an agreed approach for the Council meeting in September 2016.

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Schedule for ICANN57 (20 minutes)

...

GNSO Liaison Notes: this is the first rough skeletal schedule for ICANN 57. To be discussed further in future calls.

Action Items:

Councilors to continue review of proposed draft schedule

Council to confirm selection of GNSO PDP Working Groups for face-to-face meetings at ICANN57 on 3 November as soon as possible (most likely candidates – RDS and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures)

Clarification from Nick Tomasso on visas for India

Item 9: Any Other Business (10 minutes)

9.1 – Update on Council representatives from the Registrars Stakeholder Group 

...

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Voting results

Action Item

GNSO Secretariat to inform the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the extended selection timeline (Nominations Accepted for Candidates - 1 OCT 2016; Council Chairs consider candidates and notify first choice - 20 OCT; Chairs submit motion to Council by 29 OCT for consideration during Council meeting on 8 NOV; GAC Leadership notified of new Liaison by 9 NOV).

Staff to include consideration of a uniform selection process as part of the work associated with implementing the post-transition bylaws

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Response to ICANN Board Request concerning Expert Working Group Final Report on Internationalized Registration Data

...

James Bladel reminded Council of the three components of the Board request:

Acknowledging receipt of the request,

referring the request to the Chairs of the Translation and Transliteration PDP Working group

referring the request Chairs of the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS  Working Group.

David Cake confirmed that the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS  Leadership was fully aware of the request.

Action Items: 

Staff to note that GNSO Council will proceed with the Board request. 

Staff to draft a letter which will be circulated to the Council list before transmitting to the ICANN Board and to the co-chairs of the Translation and Transliteration PDP Working group and the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS  Working Group

As the next points are well caught in the meeting's minutes, these are copied here:

...

GNSO Liaison Notes: a long discussion took place about disagreement on the order in which the issues will be addressed in the PDP:

Whether the review of the RPMs is performed first, followed by a review of a UDRP

Whether the review of the UDRP is performed first, followed by a review of the RPMs

It was strongly added that this decision should not be left to the Working Group itself to work out.

...

The Council went through each recommendation and feedback was received from Councillors. James Bladel, GNSO Chair, will produce a concerted document over the week-end 16-17 January.

ACTION ITEMS:

Letter explaining GNSO Council response - James to prepare draft for Council consideration before 21 January, assisted by Keith and Ed

Rec 5, 11 - James to draft additional language along the lines of what was discussed/agreed on the call, assisted by Ed and Paul

Rec 1 - reinsert BC note about strong right of inspection (perhaps with cross-reference in/to Rec 3?)

Rec 2 - change "unanimous support" to "broad support"

Rec 3, 4 - no change

Rec 6 - remove last sentence; add note that certain questions remain to be resolved in WS2

Rec 7 - no change

Rec 8 – further elaboration needed on note about timeliness (including replies and deadlines)

Rec 9 - Review whether IPC comment on AOC section 8(b) and direct constituency participation in review teams should be included; review generally for accuracy

Rec 10 - emphasize need for it to be a community-led effort

Rec 12 - no change

...

NOTE: Check Charter which is at the end of the Final Report of the Issues as drafted by Staff.

ACTION ITEMS:

Vote on Motion #1 (initiation of PDP) – PASSED

Vote on Motion #2 (adoption of Charter) – DEFERRED

• Susan Kawaguchi, Philip Corwin and ICANN staff to work on appropriate language to clarify scope of Charter vis-à-vis rights protection mechanisms (which is the subject of a separate Issue Report on which the Council is expected to consider in January 2016) and circulate to Council list prior to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting

Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes)

...

Motion approved unanimously.

ACTION ITEMS:

Vote on Motion - PASSED; candidates named in the motion are endorsed by GNSO Council (Calvin Browne, Gregory DiBiase, Ben Anderson, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Nacho Amadoz, Carlos Gutierrez, Jonathan Zuck, Waudo Siganga, Michael Graham, Greg Shatan, David Taylor, Stacie Walsh, Viktor Szabados, Cecilia Lee Smith, YJ Park, Jeremy Malcolm, Kinfe Michael Yilma Desta)

Actions outlined in motion to be carried out by GNSO Secretariat (i.e. inform Review Team selectors including specific advice (see below) - COMPLETED; inform endorsed candidates as well as candidates that did not obtain endorsement -COMPLETED)

Susan Kawaguchi to assist staff in drafting specific advice concerning GNSO role in New gTLD Program implementation and need to ensure representation of all relevant GNSO stakeholders - COMPLETED

NPOC & NCUC to send specific candidate lists (if wished) directly to selectors, but to note that these are not candidates endorsed by the GNSO Council

Item 8: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (25 minutes)

...

James Bladel summarising: the GNSO Council will not be able to send consolidated comments due time running out.

ACTION ITEMS:

Council to develop process to document support for CCWG-Accountability from GNSO SG/Cs and synthesize into a consolidated, GNSO position

Council to work on appropriate resolution for adoption

Due to time running out, Agenda Items 9 & 10 will be taken to the GNSO Council mailing list.

...

Besides the regular updates that will be done before the next Council call, the following require further action from the Council:

Council response to Board letter on exclusive registry access – draft circulated to the Council list on 18 November, feedback requested by 23 November:  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17670.html 

Council response to Board letter on replacement of registrar insurance requirements – draft to be circulated to the Council by 19 November, feedback to be provided by 24 November.

Dublin meeting survey – Councillors to respond as soon as possible:  https://s.zoomerang.com/s/PR55KC2 

IETF follow up - Council to consider next steps, including possibly inviting IETF representatives to a meeting in Marrakech to discuss the most effective ways of ensuring there is regular communication/liaison

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

...

ICANN staff to forward the following questions to Nick Tomasso and his team:

With the posting publicly of the location of where the security details will be at the venue, should we be concerned that others may gain access to this plan?

Can we have the details about the firm Chris works for sent to the Council? [ NOTE: full details of the gentleman's credentials have been forwarded to the Council list ]

Can we get an update from the Moroccan authorities about security enhancements outside the venue, e.g. the airport?

Can ICANN staff provide updates about concerns that the rooms in Marrakech are: (1) non-refundable/changeable; (2) to be prepaid; and (3) not available on Thursday night? Apparently the hotel is also asking people to email a scanned copy of the front and back of their credit cards – all these are very discouraging and difficult for attendees, especially business travelers.

Item 11: QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION – GNSO Chair Elections (30 minutes)

...

Item 12:Any Other Business (5 Minutes)

Proposed meetings for 2016: Councilors to provide input on the proposed schedule of meetings as well as potential changes to the rotation of time zones.

CWG-Stewardship Letter concerning role in implementation: Councilors to provide feedback on whether there are any concerns in relation to the approach proposed by the CWG-Stewardship for dealing with implementation oversight.

DNS Entrepreneurship Center: Julf to circulate message concerning DNS Entrepreneurship Center to Council mailing list.

...

GNSO Council is having an induction day on Friday, at the end of the ICANN Week for all new Councillors to be brought up to speed on GNSO matters. This is likely to become a permanent fixture to help new Councillors be more quickly effective in their new position.

Action Items:

·        Arrange for a facilitator for the Council Development and Induction session in Dublin on Friday 23 October 2015.

·        Formally communicate to parting councilors that they are welcome to attend the Council Development and Induction.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 minutes)

...

GNSO Liaison Recommendation: the ALAC needs to watch out that this use of a Template for responding to GAC Communiqués does not turn into a box ticking exercise.

Action Items: 

·        GNSO Council Chair to communicate the GNSO Review of Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board

·        GNSO Council Chair to inform the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. 

Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Purpose of New gTLD Registration Data Policy Development Process (PDP) (20 minutes)

...

Concerns from NCSG about Privacy Issues in regards to Registration Data. This might contravene basic human rights. Suggestion that this goes in the Public Comment.

 Action Item:

Encourage GNSO SG  & C’s to provide input to the public comment forum.

Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability – CCWG Accountability (15 minutes)

...

Update from Thomas Rickert, reporting that great progress was made at the recent Paris meeting of the CCWG Accountability group.

Action Items:

·        Encourage GNSO SG and C’s to review the notes from the Paris meeting.  

·        Encourage GNSO SG and C’s to provide input to the public comment forum.

Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Proposed Cross Community Working Group On New gTLD Auction Proceeds (15 minutes)

...

GNSO Staff are preparing a discussion paper based on the discussions that took place in Buenos Aires sessions. All points of view will be taken into account at this stage – which is the stage where the PROCESS of decision will be proposed, and not the actual way to use Auction Proceeds. It is recognised that during the BA disussions, some people did not understand this and already attempted to pull the discussion into the actual topic, making suggestions on how to use the funds. We are not there yet. There first needs to be a debate about who should participate in the debate - whether ICANN GNSO, ICANN Communities, or outside Communities unrelated to ICANN.

 Action Item:

Encourage GNSO SG and C’s provide input to the public comment forum.

Item 8: COUNCIL ACTION – GNSO Chair Election Timetable (10 minutes)

...

No specific change to the already agreed schedule/timetable are foreseen.

Action Item:

 Publish the proposed GNSO Chair Election Timetable. Place on agenda for formal consideration and approval at September Council meeting. 

Item 9: Any Other Business (15 minutes)

...

Councillors were told they have no choice but to accept that new timetable.

 Action Item

·        Accept request for time extension in preparing the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report 

·        Note Council discussion – some councilors expressed concern about the delay 

·        Council to further discuss and resolve the length of the public comment period

9.2 – Discuss appointment of three experts from the GNSO to join new Working Group to review IDN Guidelines: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en (due 3 August 2015)

...

Some volunteers needed. Communication out ASAP.

 Action Item

GNSO Council Chair to follow up in writing with Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Councilors to work with Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies seeking suggested names of experts.

9.3 – Selection of a PDP Working Group for facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN54. Part of the continued GNSO Council Pilot Project to improve PDP effectiveness.

...

Process on its way.
 

Action Item

GNSO Council Chair to communicate to the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP working group that, based on the analysis by staff, the working group would benefit from a face to face meeting in Dublin and ask for confirmation that the working group would like to take up the offer.

9.4 – Discuss possible Council action regarding IETF proposed standard for .onion as a Special Use Domain Name: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/ (due 11 August 2015)

...

9.5 – Planning for ICANN54

Action Item

 GNSO Council Vice Chair (Volker Greimann) to assist Chair and staff in Dublin meeting preparations 

More AoB

Response to letter to Board on IGO/INGO. (Phil Corwin)

...

The concern is that the ICANN response points to the GAC, Staff and ICANN Board would produce a response re: IGO/INGO *without* taking into account the GNSO’s working group work on IGO/INGO. The Working Group is bogged down due to lack of help on legal matters whilst the ICANN Board and GAC are engaging directly with IGOs. A real concern from the IGO/INGO GNSO Working Group.

Action Item

 WG chair’s concern on the process and substance of the letter is noted by the Council. Phillip Corwin to report back to the Council at or before the next Council meeting

...

 Registry SG has had issues with the use of Country Codes at the second level referring to GAC advice. There is some concern that this is such a small, target issues, a CWG is a bit of an overkill.

Action Items:

The gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group to talk directly to the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs (RySG Councillors)

Council to discuss the issue with the GAC – Council leaders commit to commence the communication with the GAC leadership (Chair / Staff)

Request guidance from the Council by posting the substantive issues to the Council list (Heather Forrest)

Heather Forrest to track the outcomes of the discussion and ensure that the Council is responding to the request (Heather Forrest)

·        Call for additional GNSO participation to the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs (Staff)

...

Problem in determining the scope of immunity for IGOs. Additional legal input is sought.

It was pointed out by Philip Corwin that there were, by extension, concerns over the renewal of .TRAVEL which appear to be introducing Charter Amendments in a private manner rather than subjecting them to ICANN Community deliberation.

Action Items: 

Determine the scope of  GNSO GAC related issues which could be worked through by the Council leaders and Staff as agenda topics for the joint GAC GNSO meetings in Buenos Aires (Chair / Vice Chairs / Staff)

Topic for future Council discussion:

            Introduction of changes to Registry agreements through private negotiations relative to the Policy Development Process and whether this is appropriate (Philip Corwin).

...

Progress is happening with Westlake monitoring feedback on a per comment basis and all of the process update is available on the GNSO Review Web pages.
https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Home

Public Consultation starts on June 1st and will remain open throughout June.

Action Items:

Councillors are encouraged to review the GNSO Review report (All)

Inform Staff if Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies wish to meet with the Westlake team and the GNSO Review Working Party during Constituency Day in Buenos Aires so that time slots can be arranged.(All)

...

Mar 2015:  ALAC has appointed Olivier Crepin-Leblond as the new ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council to serve from March 7th, 2015, to the end of the AGM at the ICANN #54 meeting in Dublin 2015.

Jan 2015:

Policy Update Webinars are being presented as preparation for ICANN #52 Meeting see  icann.org/new/announcement-2015-01-14-en

Policy work of the GNSO; in a bid to provide for easier access to the different information sources that are currently available as well as further direction on what information is provided to guide both newcomers as well as veterans, staff has created a new one-stop information web-page (http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm). As of  end January, the new page is linked from the GNSO home page (gnso.icann.org) – either via the ‘quick link’ button at the top or via the quick links in the left-hand column. 

Additionally there is now a new page that centralizes important GNSO-related information for the upcoming ICANN52 meeting that we hope will assist attendees in their preparation for the meeting (http://gnso.icann.org/icannmeeting). Updates to this page will be made for all future ICANN meetings.

...

The Next Meeting of the GNSO  Council will be held on March 19th, 2015

...

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins)

Approve the GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board concerning IRTP Part D 

Note: The outcome of the vote on the Council input to the public comment forum on theBoard Working Group Report on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom). 

Item 4: UPDATE  – Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (20 mins)

...