Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/cYL8CQ

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 19:00 UTC

Coordinated Universal Time: 19:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/ybavc84m

12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 22:00 Moscow; (Friday) 05:00 Melbourne

GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: https://icann.zoom.us/j/99805526507?pwd=MlRKaTAzdDZIQ3Q1azJsc2JSWXRSZz09

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

___________________________________

Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 mins)

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

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

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 20 May 2021 were posted on 03 June 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 June 2021 were posted on 03 July 2021.

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

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

Item 3: Consent Agenda (5 minutes)

Approval of the Chair for the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names - Edmon Chung (SOI)
Acknowledgment of the GNSO Council liaison to EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names - Farrell Folly
Motion to adopt the GNSO Review of the GAC ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Accuracy Scoping Team (15 minutes)

During its October 2020 meeting, the GNSO Council confirmed its intent to launch a scoping team on the topic of accuracy based on a proposal from the previous Council leadership team (see here for the proposal). On 4 November 2020, the GNSO Council wrote to ICANN org, requesting the preparation of a briefing document outlining both the existing accuracy requirements and programs as well as the impact that GDPR has had on implementing and enforcing the identified requirements and programs. This briefing is intended to inform an accuracy scoping team that the GNSO Council envisioned initiating, which would be tasked with furthering the community’s understanding of the issue and assist in scoping and defining the issue (see here). On 10 December 2020, ICANN org responded to confirm its understanding of the request and to commit to delivering that briefing by 26 February 2021. ICANN org timely delivered the briefing. In addition to the briefing providing an overview of accuracy requirements and programs and the impact of GDPR on these, ICANN org also included a suggestion that a study to measure accuracy of registration data might be beneficial. In parallel to the request for the briefing, ICANN SO/AC/SG/Cs were requested to start thinking about whether their groups would be interested to participate in a scoping team once created. At or around that time, the BC, ISPCP, RySG, IPC and GAC expressed an interest and identified potential volunteers with relevant knowledge and expertise. The Council discussed this briefing and potential next steps during its Extraordinary Meeting on 08 April 2021. Following the meeting, Council leadership, with the support of the GNSO Support Staff, worked together to develop a set of proposed next steps for dealing with the topic of accuracy, which was shared on 23 April 2021.

Feedback was sought from Councilors by 07 May 2021 and the topic was discussed again during the Council’s May meeting. The Council agreed to convene a small team to refine the proposed next steps, particularly around clarifying the remit of the eventual scoping team. That small team met regularly to clearly document the remit of the scoping team and provided a brief update during the June Council meeting. The small team has reached agreement on the formation and instructions to the scoping team, which it shared with the Council on 9 July 2021.

Here, the Council will vote to confirm the formation and instructions to the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team as developed by the Council small team.

4.1 – Presentation of motion (Pam Little, Council vice-chair)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council vote (Voting Threshold: simple majority vote of each House)

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Operational Design Phase (ODP) on the Standardized System for Access/Disclosure - Update from the GNSO Council Liaison (15 minutes)

On 25 March 2021, the ICANN Board launched the Operational Design Phase (ODP) for the System for the Standardized Access/Disclosure to Nonpublic Registration Data (SSAD) policy recommendations as set out in the SSAD ODP Scoping Document.

As part of the general ODP process, it is recommended that a GNSO Council liaison be appointed, in order to serve as primary contact between the ODP team and Council to facilitate and streamline communications on identified issues that pertain to the intent or substance of the policy recommendations. On 12 April 2021, the Council received a letter from the Board, recommending the appointment of a Council liaison to the ODP. On 20 May 2021, the GNSO Council appointed Janis Karklins, the Chair of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 2 Expedited Policy Development Process.

Here, the Council will receive an update from the Council liaison to the ODP.

5.1 - Presentation (Janis Karklins)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Next steps

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDPPhase 2, Review of UDRP Next Steps (15 minutes)

On 21 January 2021, the GNSO Council approved the recommendations from the Phase 1 Final Report of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs, covering RPMs applicable to gTLDs launched under the 2012 New gTLD Program. The Council has discussed the need to review the RPMs charter in advance of launching Phase 2 of the PDP, which is focused on the UDRP.

Council leadership has considered the best path forward to initiating this work and has shared their thoughts for advancing this effort on [date], which considers a Policy Status Report (PSR) as a possible next step. The leadership team recognizes that a significant amount of time has passed since the 2011 UDRP Issue Report such that it will be helpful to know if new issues or information have emerged that could be relevant to a comprehensive policy review. Leadership also believes that a PSR will support a data-driven policy development effort and will result in a more tightly scoped Charter, that is consistent with the principles of PDP 3.0.

Here, the Council will discuss possible next steps, including a PSR for advancing RPMs Phase 2.

6.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - IGO Work Track Questions for Council (20 minutes)

On 18 April 2019, the Councilvotedto 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.”

In respect of that resolution, the GNSO Council prepared anAddendumto the RPMs PDP charter to support work related to Recommendation 5 andapprovedit during its January 2020 Council meeting. During its September 2020 Council meeting, the Council agreed to 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. Led by Chris Disspain as the Chair, the Work Track has been meeting since late February of 2021. The Work Track has sought to make meaningful progress within the bounds of the Addendum, with members recognizing that this foundational discussion will influence how the group will work and thus, what its work plan should look like. During its April meeting, the Council received a brief update and acknowledged the work track’s Work Plan (April package here).

In chartering this work, the GNSO Council expected that the work should be completed in an efficient manner and that frequent updates to the Council would be helpful to ensure an effective outcome. The Council has already received updates during the April and May meetings.

The Work Track has made steady progress in evaluating recommendation 5 and determining an appropriate policy path forward. According to the work plan, the Work Track is expected to deliver its Initial Report for public comment in early August, but due to the need to migrate the current Public Comment platform on the ICANN org website to a substantially new feature that will be compliant with the Information Transparency Initiative and its requirements, ICANN org needs to impose a moratorium on launching Public Comment proceedings between late July and end August. The Work Track has submitted a Policy Change Request in light of this external factor.

With the Work Track nearing a stage where it will be able to publish its Initial Report, notwithstanding the moratorium, it is timely to bring two questions to the Council for their consideration. The first question relates to the fact that the IGO Work Track was originally convened under the auspices of the then-ongoing Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group, which has since delivered its Final Report to the Council and subsequently approved; planning for Phase 2 of the RPM work is ongoing, which leaves the Work Track without a parent Working Group. The second question relates to the requirements imposed on the Work Track via the Addendum. The Work Track has kept Recommendation #5 (regarding IGO jurisdictional immunity) at the forefront in its work. However, it has concluded that a feasible and appropriate policy solution cannot be crafted simply by looking at that recommendation in isolation. Accordingly, the Work Track is seeking feedback to determine whether the approach and solution are in accordance with the limitations in the addendum. The Work Track leadership and staff have drafted a briefing document to support this agenda item.

Here, the Council will discuss the two questions and seek to reach agreement on answers/solutions.

7.1 – Update (John McElwaine, GNSO Council Liaison)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE - Update on the Customer Standing Committee and Next Steps for the Council (10 minutes)

The GNSO Council will soon have two responsibilities regarding the Customer Standing Committee, per the ICANN Bylaws. The first requirement is that, 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. This is expected to occur no later than September of 2021.

The second responsibility relates to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review, which would represent the second such review. The ICANN Bylaws, Section 17.3 (b) states, "The effectiveness of the CSC shall be reviewed two years after the first meeting of the CSC; and then every three years thereafter. The method of review will be determined by the ccNSO and GNSO and the findings of the review will be published on the Website." The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) was established and conducted its first meeting on 6 October 2016, so the first review needed to take place in 2018. As required, the GNSO and ccNSO established a process to conduct the review, which per the Council’s resolution “concluded that the most practical and efficient path forward is for the ccNSO and GNSO to each appoint two members to conduct the CSC Effectiveness Review that will consider the effectiveness of the CSC in performing its responsibilities as outlined in the CSC Charter and that the findings of the Review, as adopted by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils, will become an input to the IANA Naming Function Review.” The Council approved this process in September of 2018. After completing an Initial Report and publishing it for public comment, the Final Report was delivered 05 March 2019; the Council adopted the Final Report on 13 March 2019.

With an October 2016 first meeting for the CSC, the time for the second review of the CSC is October 2021. The GNSO and ccNSO will need to establish the terms of reference for the second review, which may be able to highly leverage the ToR from the first review. At a minimum, this second review will need to include a determination whether the recommendations from the first effectiveness review were successfully implemented.

Here, the Council will discuss the expectations of the Council as it relates to the two CSC items.

8.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)

9.1 - Transfer Policy Review PDP - Review of Work Plan

...

GNSO Council Meetings at ICANN 71

...

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

...

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 16 June 2021

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 10:30 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/4wy66z7y 03:30 Los Angeles; 06:30 Washington; 11:30 London; 12:30 Paris; 13:30 Moscow; 20:30 Melbourne

List of attendees: Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli Contracted Parties House Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale Non-Contracted Parties House Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Mark Datysgeld, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly, Tomslin Samme-Nlar Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers : Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison Jeffrey Neuman– GNSO liaison to the GAC Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer
ICANN Staff David Olive - Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement Julie Hedlund – Policy Director Steve Chan – Senior Director Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant Emily Barabas – Policy Manager Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom Recording Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters
1.1 - Roll Call Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, welcomed all to the June 2021 Council meeting. 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest. There were no updates to the Statements of Interest. 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda The agenda was accepted as presented. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 22 April 2021 were posted on the 06 May 2021 Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 20 May 2021 were posted on 03 June 2021.
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List 2.1 - The review of the Projects List and Action Item List Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, reminded councilors that progress is shared monthly on the GNSO Council mailing list, and thanked Maxim Alzoba, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) for his diligent monitoring of content. One of Maxim’s questions was in relation to the EPDP P2 SSAD recommendations that Council adopted and passed to the Board, and also in relation to the initiation of the Operational Design Phase (ODP) which will force a change of the program tool timelines. Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, added that the program management tool was a complex document, and that he was always available to assist councilors should they wish.
Item 3: Consent Agenda: no item.
Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Initiation of the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) seconded by Kurt Pritz, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), submitted a motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project. Whereas, Council leadership started conversations with the GNSO Council and GNSO community, via Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs, on how to address several items on the Council’s Action Decision Radar (ADR) 0-1 month timeframe dealing with process and procedural improvements such as Accountability Work Stream 2, Accountability and Transparency Review Team 3 and PDP 3.0.
1. This resulted in a proposed GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Oversight and Implementation. Following the circulation of an initial proposal in January 2021, Council leadership solicited feedback via email as well as a dedicated call with SG/C Chairs as well as Council. Taking into account the input received, an updated proposal was circulated to the Council and SG/C Chairs on 26 May 2021 (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-May/024730.html). 2. This updated proposal includes a proposed pilot which allows for a more limited roll out of the Framework from which lessons can be drawn and possible updates can be made, should the Council and GNSO community decide that it is worthwhile to continue. 3. The Council and SG/C Chairs reviewed this updated proposal. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council initiates the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot as outlined in section 4 of this document where step 4 of Section 4 is replaced with the fourth resolved clause below. 2. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to circulate the call for volunteers to form the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement. 3. Once formed, the GNSO Council expects regular updates from the Chair of the Council Committee to the Council as well as SG/Cs in relation to progress made. 4. Once the pilot completes, the Council, in close collaboration with SG/Cs as well as the Council Committee and Pilot Task Force, will review the functioning of the Framework and decide whether to continue with the other assignments as outlined in the updated proposal (see section 3), make modifications to the framework and continue with the other assignments, or, identify another path through which the assignments identified are to be addressed. 5. For the time being, the items that are expected to be addressed as part of the Framework (inlc. WS2, Policy & Implementation, PDP 3.0, Empowered Community, ATRT3, GNSO Review) will be moved to a section in the ADR with no timeframe associated with them as the timing will be determined as a result of the pilot. However, this does not prevent the Council from determining if one or more of these items need to be addressed in a different manner before the pilot concludes, for example, as a result of external factors or changes in the dependencies that were identified (see section 5).
Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, reminded councilors there had been interactions with the Stakeholder Group (SG) and Constituency (C) Chairs on the matter, as well as several drafts of the proposed framework document circulated to the Chairs and to councilors. Kurt Pritz, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), had seconded the motion and submitted an amendment proposal on 14 June 2021. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) accepted the amendment as friendly. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, NCSG introduced the motion outlining its direct relationship to the Council work on the Action Decision Radar (ADR), more specifically, the 0 - 1 month timeframe items which have been on the ADR for a long time. She clarified that this motion initiated a pilot project focussing on two small tasks as outlined in the framework document, which will be reviewed and
reassessed when the pilot is completed. The larger tasks in the 0-1 month timeframe would be moved to a section of the ADR with no associated timeframe. Comments about limited resources and representation were expressed by the SG/C Chairs, and were taken into account. Kurt Pritz, RySG, presented his amendment which requested that Council, and not the committee formed for the pilot, be the body deciding whether the committee would stay in place after the first efforts. He added that further time for discussion with the RySG would have been welcome, mainly on topics of representation and consensus, but that the SG did not want to delay the initiation of the pilot project. He raised concerns about the potential increase in administrative burden the pilot might trigger. He added that improving on the Policy Development Process (PDP), making better use of PDP3.0 and the Consensus Playbook, would also increase the efficiency of the GNSO Council work. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, NCSG, thanked Kurt and clarified that consensus levels would be also revised during the pilot reassessment. John McElaine, Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), raised that the IPC believed certain items assigned to the Framework for Continuous Improvement were outside of the GNSO’s remit and that there were other processes already in place that would serve the same goal. The IPC supports increasing the GNSO Council’s efficiency, but did not have time to discuss the amendment with the IPC membership as it was submitted too close to the GNSO Council meeting. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, NCSG, confirmed that the items for consideration were of the GNSO’s remit. She added that whilst there were Council small teams formed to tackle certain issues, the lines surrounding the notion of ownership of issues were sometimes blurred between the Council’s remit and that of the SG and Cs. Olga Cavalli, NomCom Appointee (NCA) asked for further information regarding the pilot project and what could be the final Framework for Continuous Improvement. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, NCSG, clarified that the pilot project was to allow for re-adjustment of resources, composition with the SGs and Cs and further discussion with the GNSO Council before moving onto a more definitive structure. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, accepted that the concern regarding administrative burden was a valid one. He expressed hope that using the consensus building decision process would alleviate concerns over composition. Flip Petillion, IPC, confirmed that he agreed with his fellow IPC councilor John McElwaine, regarding the lack of time for discussion with their constituency members. Kurt Pritz, RySG, offered to withdraw his amendment to allow for voting on the original motion. John McElwaine, IPC, declined the proposal, as the late amendment had impacted IPC discussions on the original motion. Councilors voted in favour of the amended motion. There were two abstentions (John McElwaine, Flip Petillion, IPC). Vote results
Action Items:
● The GNSO Secretariat to circulate the call for volunteers to form the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement. ● The Chair of the Council Committee to provide regular updates to the Council as well as SG/Cs in relation to progress made. ● Once the pilot completes, the Council, in close collaboration with SG/Cs as well as the Council Committee and Pilot Task Force, to review the functioning of the Framework and decide whether to continue with the other assignments as outlined in the updated proposal (see section 3), make modifications to the framework and continue with the other assignments, or, identify another path through which the assignments identified are to be addressed. ● Staff to move the items that are expected to be addressed as part of the Framework to a section in the ADR with no timeframe associated with them as the timing will be determined as a result of the pilot. ● Staff to update this document to reflect the change required in resolved clause 1 of the motion.
Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Potential Next Steps for the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Operational Track Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, introduced the topic reminding councilors that the IDN Implementation Guidelines are contractual requirements for both registries and registrars. The GNSO Council requested the deferral of IDN Guidelines 4.0 due to concerns around the process but also specific requirements. In May 2021, Council discussed these concerns taking dependencies into account. On 4 June 2021, the Contracted Parties House (CPH) suggested a path forward.
Kurt Pritz, RySG, presented the proposed path. He explained that the proposal was to reconsider the GNSO Council’s recommended approach for proceeding with an operational track as initially discussed. This operational track was intended to review issues that would have been raised with regard to the IDN Implementation Guidelines and to develop a path forward. In the meantime, Council initiated the IDNs Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) which will consider some of the same issues addressed by the IDN Implementation Guidelines, so there is an overlap and the risk of contradicting results. Dennis Tan Tanaka, Chair of the IDN Charter Drafting Team, as well as the rest of the RySG, suggested pausing the operational track, given the issues raised would be better dealt with in the EPDP. There are no stability nor security issues being addressed within the IDN Guidelines v.4.0 so the pause would be of low impact. A draft letter from the RySG could begin the discussion on these issues. The ccNSO is also beginning a related PDP, collaboration between both Supporting Organisations (SOs) would be beneficial.
Tomslin Samme-Nlar, NCSG, asked if there were any other items within the operational track to be dealt with which wouldn’t be included in the IDN EPDP.
Dennis Tan Tanaka, Chair of the IDN Charter Drafting Team, confirmed that there were no issues left out pertaining to the operational track. The operational track was envisioned to look at issues raised by the RySG pertaining to the IDNs Guidelines v.4.0. Other items were not to be considered. V.3.0 of the IDN guidelines is in full force, and covers all security and stability concerns.
John McElwaine, IPC, asked for further information regarding the differences between the work, deliverables, resource, composition of the operational track and the IDN EPDP. He agreed pausing the operational track seemed like a good idea. Action Items: ● The RySG to provide further information to Council regarding the differences between the work, deliverables, resource, composition of the Operational Track and the IDN EPDP. ● The GNSO Council to defer the work of the IDN Guidelines v4.0 Operational Track. ● The GNSO Council to advise the Board that the Council will defer the work of the IDN Guidelines v4.0 Operational Track and recommend that the Board continue deferring the adoption of the IDN Guidelines 4.0 until the issues overlapping with the IDN EPDP can be fully deliberated and resolved by the IDN EPDP. Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Accuracy Scoping Team Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, reminded Council a small team was convened to work on the set of instructions to be provided to the Accuracy Scoping Team. The work is still in progress, with all SGs & Cs bar the NCSG represented on the small team. The topic is challenging but there is agreement on the task and focus areas, staff help will be needed to update the document and submit before the July 2021 document deadline. Marie Pattullo, Business Constituency (BC), added the progress had been made, and that completion was close. The BC is very eager to begin the work, and is grateful to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) for their input. Jeffrey Neuman, GNSO Liaison to the GAC, informed the Council that he was on the small team to improve GNSO/GAC relations, and not on the GAC’s behalf. Action Item: ● Staff to include the Accuracy Scoping Team as a topic on the agenda for the 22 July 2021 GNSO Council meeting. Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Interactions with the GAC Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, introduced the topic which was in context of the annual confirmation or renewal of the GNSO Liaison to the GAC role. The 2020 GNSO Liaison to the GAC Annual Report referred to the need to evaluate the effectiveness of the role. Pam Little, GNSO Vice Chair, RrSG, added that this was a long overdue exercise, given the way in which the interactions between the two groups seem to have changed over the years. For example there is a higher GAC participation in the GNSO PDPs and regular interactions with the GAC during ICANN meetings. Previously there had been the need for mechanisms such as the Quick Look Mechanisms for the GAC to be informed of the content of Issue Reports, as well as the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
role. The aim here is to improve on the quality of the GAC - GNSO interactions given the importance of the relationship between the two groups. Jeffrey Neuman, GNSO Liaison to the GAC, presented his update on interactions with the GAC. He agreed that the GNSO-GAC relations had changed over the years, and for the better. Previously the GAC communicated to the Board directly with little or no GNSO involvement. It was important to bring the GAC into GNSO processes earlier which is what he and Cheryl Langon-Orr, as New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP Working Group (WG) co-chairs, did frequently. He also emphasised that addressing GAC concerns does not necessarily imply adopting them as recommendations. He added that the main reason why the GAC is not active in all GNSO PDPs is generally due to lack of resources. However, certain GNSO PDP WG Chairs are invited to present updates to the GAC frequently. The role of the GNSO Liaison to the GAC has changed a lot: monthly meetings with the GAC point of contact the week after the GNSO Council meeting to discuss GNSO resolutions and outcomes, increased communication of GAC input to the GNSO Council, GNSO Council & GAC leadership prep meetings ahead of bilateral sessions. Jeffrey, as GNSO Liaison to the GAC, attends all possible GAC sessions during ICANN Public Meetings, but is not invited to intersessional meetings which are closed to non-GAC members. He added that he represents the policy work of the GNSO in a neutral manner and provides as much information as possible to ensure the GAC understands the GNSO position. He mentioned that an area of concern was the briefing on GNSO activity that the GAC receives from GAC Support staff prior to every ICANN Public Meeting, which would benefit from initial review by the GNSO Support staff to avoid misunderstanding. In addition, bringing back GNSO Council prep sessions for bilateral meetings with the GAC would be helpful. He suggested having GNSO topic leads invited to bilaterals to create better understanding and engagement as well as holding leadership bilaterals after ICANN meetings as well as before. He advocated for more honest tackling of issues during conversations with the GAC. Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, clarified that this discussion was about the role itself and not about the person. She asked councilors to focus their attention on the GNSO Liaison to the GAC job description. Olga Cavalli, NCA, commended Jeffrey Neuman for his great work, and emphasised the importance of the GAC briefing materials which are highly valued by GAC members. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, added that he found the GNSO GAC bilaterals interesting and useful and that feedback had been positive. Stephanie Perrin, NCSG, joined the many in the chat congratulating Jeffrey on his active role, and on his recommendations to improve the relationship. She however noted that information provided seemed to be mostly in one direction, from the GNSO to the GAC. Action Item: ● The GNSO Council to continue discussion on the issue of its interactions with the GAC.
Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE - Status Update Regarding EPDP Phase 2A Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Council Liaison to EPDP P2A, reminded councilors the team published the Initial Report for early Public Comment early June 2021. This Initial Report includes preliminary recommendations and a number of questions. The Public Comment period closes on 19 July 2021. He highlighted the tremendous effort put in by the EPDP P2A team. Action Item: none Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION -EPDP Phase 1 Rec 27 (Wave 1.5) Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, informed staff that the ICANN Org Global Domains Strategy (GDS) input on EPDP Phase 1 Rec 27 next steps had been received. Karen Lentz, ICANN Org, GDS, reminded councilors that EPDP P1 Rec 27 contemplated that some of the existing policies and procedures might need updating in light of the work in Phase 1. Both wave 1 and 1.5 identified possible areas of impact for Council to consider in determining whether any updates were needed to Proxy/Privacy or to Translation and Transliteration recommendations. In April 2021, the GNSO Council requested an estimated level of effort and an understanding from the former Implementation Review Team (IRT) members as to who would be willing to continue the work effort. Action item: ● Council leadership, with help from staff support team, to develop proposed response to ICANN org in relation to restarting PPSAI in line with Council's feedback during the wrap up session. Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS 10.1 - Review of topics to discuss with the ICANN Board Proposed topics are: 1. New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP WG (ODP Timeline & SAC114) 2. IDN Guidelines 4.0 3. DNS Abuse, potential next steps? Stephanie Perrin, NCSG, added that a discussion topic on accuracy would be helpful. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, asked that councilors submit additional comments on the GNSO Council mailing list. Action Item:
● The GNSO Council Chair to post the suggested topics to the GNSO Council mailing list for review. 10.2 - GNSO Council Liaison to IDNs EPDP Staff mentioned that one councilor had expressed interest in the Liaison role, and that staff were discussing the role requirements and responsibilities with the councilor. 10.3 - Open Microphone Martin Sutton, Brand Registry Group (BRG), informed the councilors of a BRG session held on 15 June 2021, where the BRG heard from future potential applicants and their frustrations at the perceived delay since the completion of the work of the SubPro PDP WG, worsened by uncertainty linked to the initiation of the SubPro ODP. He added that the community urged activities to move forward more efficiently and questioned the use of an ODP in this situation. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, took this as an item to be raised to the Board, and added that there were Board members attending the GNSO Council meeting, Susan Payne, IPC, raised concerns about GNSO Council levels of transparency especially regarding lack of feedback from certain Council small team efforts. She supported the small team structure wholeheartedly but wished to see more input on the work being undertaken on the GNSO Council public mailing list for all community members subscribed as observers to be able to follow. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, replied that members from the GNSO Community should rely on their councilors to, insofar as possible, join small team efforts, to be able to report back effectively to the community groups they represent. He then insisted on the importance of the Council’s representative model. He also appreciated that the disappearance of informal information channels made possible during face-to face events, implies information received currently is mainly only accessible on the Council mailing list. He acknowledged that the process could improve in efficiency. Maxim Alzoba, RySG Councilor, added that small team work is not possible via mailing lists as it focuses mainly on document editing. Once the document is ready, it is then circulated on the GNSO Council mailing list. He mentioned that the level of transparency expected of councilors should be reasonable. John McElaine, IPC Councilor, added that whilst the GNSO Council small team working on SAC114 has yet to provide any output, the SAC114 paper is listed as a discussion topic for the upcoming bilateral with the ICANN Board, Rafik Dammak mentioned that GNSO councilors needed to be able to cover different topics and that small teams were necessary to that process. There needs to be trust conveyed to councilors representing the different Constituency and Stakeholder Groups, these councilors should then be reporting back to
their groups accurately. Councilors should be allowed the necessary flexibility to complete their work as efficiently as possible. Amr Elsadr’s question posted in the chat in relation to agenda item 4 was read out: “Why is this being treated as a pilot program when there have been previous groups within the GNSO that have pretty much done this exact type of work, I’m thinking of the SCI and the GNSO Review Working Group.” Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, replied that this question was considered in the initial stages of the discussion around the Framework for Continuous Improvement. The idea is not to replicate those past initiatives, as the remit in the pilot program is much more limited in scope. Action item: none Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, adjourned the meeting at 12:30 UTC on Wednesday 16 June 2021

...

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 20 May 2021

...

Content

Space Tools

Versions Compared

Old Version 265

New Version 266

Key

GNSO Council Meeting Agenda's and Records for 2021 will be listed below when available:

GNSO Council Agenda 22 July 2021 at 1900 UTC

GNSO Council Meetings at ICANN 71

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 16 June 2021

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 20 May 2021