Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Completed

Letter sent to other SO / ACs on 25/4

Action Item / Request

Entry Date

Target Date

Responsible Council Member (if applicable)

Responsible Staff member (if applicable)

Additional Notes

Status

Submit statement on GNSO Council advice to ICANN Board11/416/5Jonathan Robinson Following statement made during the public forum, the ICANN Board requested that the statement is also submitted in writing

Completed

Submitted by Jonathan (29/4)

IDN - Sent IDN - Send letter to the board highlighting importance of this topic & request regular staff updates11/41613/56Ching ChiaoSteve Sheng 

Topic is on the agenda for Council meeting on 16/5

First draft of proposed message to the Board circulated by Ching (11/4)Jonathan committed to work with Ching to finalise the draft letter and send to the ICANN Board.

Steve Sheng has offered to co-ordinate regular staff updates on this topic

EWG - write to Jean-Francois Baril to confirm objective of EWG recommendations11/41613/56Jonathan RobinsonMarika Konings 

Jonathan to finalise the letter.

First draft of proposed message on EWG sent to Council mailing list by John Berard (6/4)

Durban Meeting Planning:

  • Wolf to reach out to request input from SG/Cs on agenda & topics for discussion
  • Presentations/updates to focus on substance and include background info as an annex or separate paper
  • Develop new format for ccNSO meeting
    • Council requested to provide timely feedback to Wolf on discussion topics with the ICANN Board, GAC And CEO.
    • Council requested to provide timely feedback to Jon Berard and Petter Rindforth on topics for discussion with the cNSO.
    11/413/76

     

    • Wolf

     

    • Staff / WG Chairs
      John Berard / Petter Rindforth
    Glen de Saint Gery 

    Update on the agenda for Council provided during meeting on 16/5

    Request sent to SO/ACs for input by Wolf (14/4 & 10/5)

    .

    GNSO Review - form small committee to consider issues and possible next steps in relation to the GNSO review11/41613/56 Rob Hoggarth  

    GNSO Motions:

    • Prepare first draft of revised language for GNSO Operating Procedures to deal with the timeline for submitting motions
    • Confirm whether such changes would need to be put out for public comment
    11/416/5

     

    • Wendy Seltzer

     

     

     

    • Marika Konings
     

    Completed - Proposed change has been published for public comment

    • Proposed change circulated to the mailing list by Wendy (18/4)
    • Confirmation sent by Marika (18/4)
    Request for Issue Report Template - check whether template also accommodates requests from other ACs11/416/5 Marika Konings Completed - verified that template also accommodates requests from other ACs
    CWGs - Reach out to ccNSO to request that they provide input on the principles11/416/5Jonathan RobinsonMarika KoningsThe Council created a drafting team that created a set of principles for CWGs that could be a potential departure point for developing broader community agreement on CWGs, including their role, function, and method of conducting joint activities. The GNSO approved these principles in March 2012 and circulated them to the SOs and ACs. The ccNSO submitted comments. The GNSO also held a public session in Prague to discuss the principles and, in particular, the suggestion from the ccNSO that a CWG could be established with the goal to arrive at a common set of principles and the identification of areas of divergence in guidelines and practices across SOs and ACs. A call for volunteers was subsequently launched, but to date, only volunteers from the SSAC and ccNSO have come forward. As there appears to be limited interest, and possibly bandwidth, to create a CWG to explore this issue further, the Council will instead encourage the ccNSO to provide their input on the GNSO developed principles, included proposed changes, which then can be reviewed by the DT and/or GNSO Council and hopefully result in principles that can be supported by a wide range of SO/ACs.Completed - letter sent to ccNSO on 23/4

    Consumer Metrics - write to the Board to request status update

    11/416/5Jonathan RobinsonBerry Cobb(see http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-crocker-chalaby-13may13-en.pdf). 

    Completed - Letter sent to Board 13 May 2013

    Proposed letter circulated to GNSO Council list on 8/5

    Policy vs Implementation - reach out to other SO/ACs to determine interest in joining GNSO WG/DT to explore issues further

    17/01

    16/5

    Jonathan Robinson

    Marika Konings

     

    Call for volunteers to be circulated
    Form Proxy and Privacy Accreditation Charter Drafting Team
    14/316/5Jeff NeumanMarika Konings

    One of the items that may need to be addressed as part of the RAA PDP appears to be the creation of a privacy / proxy accreditation program. In order to move this process forward, the Council is considering forming a drafting team to develop a charter for the PDP WG.

    Staff will prepare a briefing paper on this topic to help inform the development of the charter. Expected publication by Durban.
    Board request for input / advice on IDN Variant TLD Root LGR Procedure and User Experience Study Recommendations11/41/7 Steve ShengThe Board requests that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm#2.a for further details)Topic is on the agenda for Council

    Update provided to the Council during its meeting on 16/5. The Council is urged to provide input on:

    • Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not proceed until these recommendations are implemented),
    • Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and
    • Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work