...

Alan Greenberg served as the GNSO Liaison for the following terms:  2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014.

...

NEWS: 

...

 (preliminary report pending addition of Recorded Action Items)

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

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 Public Meeting on 30 June 2016  to be approved on xxxxx 2016. 

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes) 

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

Projects are being updated on a daily basis. No specifics. 

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) 

 (empty) 

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Primary and Secondary Liaison Candidates for the Customer Standing Committee (20 minutes)

The package of proposals that was developed by the community in relation to the IANA Stewardship Transition called for the creation of a new structure to provide operational oversight of the performance of the IANA naming function, a role currently performed by the United States government through the National Telecommunications and Information Authority (NTIA). This new oversight structure is to be called the Customer Standing Committee (CSC), and its role is to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function against agreed service level targets. The CSC may also initiate reviews of and make recommendations for changes to service level targets. As a ICANN Supporting Organization, the GNSO may appoint a liaison to the CSC, in addition to the two gTLD registry operator members to be selected by the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG). The liaison appointment is of a primary and a secondary candidate, both of whom must meet the qualification requirements and be geographically diverse.

The final composition of members of and liaisons to the CSC is to be approved first by the RySG and the ccNSO, and secondly by the GNSO and ccNSO, who will also decide which members and liaisons will serve inaugural three-year terms. Liaison candidates are to be confirmed by 22 July 2016, and the final slate of members and liaisons, as determined by the ccNSO and GNSO, is to be sent to ICANN on 10 August.

 The GNSO’s CSC Selection Committee consists of Councilors Susan Kawaguchi, David Cake, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Rubens Kuhl and Heather Forrest. At ICANN56, the Selection Committee updated the Council on its work to date and confirmed the timeline for CSC appointments. Here the Council will consider the recommendations of the Selection Committee for the primary and secondary GNSO liaison appointments. 

 4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)

 4.2 – Discussion

 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

...

Motion moved by Wolf Ulrich & Seconded by James Bladel. Carried unanimously.

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

In September 2015, the Independent Examiner that had been appointed to conduct the 2014 GNSO organizational review published its Final Report. At its meeting in April 2016, the GNSO Council adopted, with one modification, the proposed Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the Independent Examiner’s recommendations that was prepared by the GNSO Working Party (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201604). The Working Party had been formed to liaise between the GNSO, the Board’s Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) and the Independent Examiner. On 25 June 2016, the ICANN Board agreed with the OEC’s advice that the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis (as adopted by the GNSO Council) should guide the implementation process, and requested that the GNSO Council convene a group to oversee the implementation. The Board further requested that an implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, be submitted to the Board no later than six months after the adoption of the Board’s resolution, and the GNSO Council provide a regular report on the progress of the implementation effort (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e).

The GNSO Council had previously requested that ICANN staff prepare a paper on possible mechanisms for implementation upon Board approval of the GNSO organizational review recommendations. The Discussion Paper was circulated to the Council on 20 June 2016 and discussed by the Council at its Public Meeting during ICANN56. Here the Council will consider the suggestion and a draft Charter , stemming from its ICANN56 discussion, for repurposing the GNSO’s Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements to function as a Working Group to develop the implementation plan.

...

5.1 – Presentation of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)  

5.2 – Discussion

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison Notes: Wolf Ulrich Knoben explained the different options:

Option 1: close down the SCI and have a brand new group take over the implementation of the improvements

Option 2. use the GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) with working group that will be GNSO Review Implemenation team working alongside the SCI

b. close down the SCI and have a brand new group take over the implementation of the improvements

There could be some possibiity of overlap between the two groups.

Friendly amendment regarding that all of the recommendations expected to be sent to council for consideration needs to reach full consensus threshold within the working group. Option 1 is the preferred option. Full consensus will apply to any recommendations suggesting a change to GNSO operating procedures. Some debate about needed to amend the motion on the fly prior to it being adopted.

Motion passed moved by Wolf Ulrich & Seconded by James Bladel. Carried unanimously.

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

The GAC Communique from ICANN56 contained GAC advice on several gTLD policy issues, including future gTLD policies and procedures, privacy and proxy services accreditation, and protections for International Governmental Organizations’ (IGO) names and acronyms. Starting in July 2015, the GNSO Council has reviewed each GAC Communiqué for issues relating to gTLD policy, with a view toward providing feedback to the ICANN Board as well as the broader community concerning past, present or future GNSO policy activities relating to advice provided by the GAC. A draft response was circulated to the GNSO Council on 19 July 2016. Here the Council will consider whether or not to provide a response to the Board concerning the relevant gTLD issues raised by the GAC in its Helsinki Communique.

...

6.1 –  Presentation of the motion (James Bladel) 

6.2 - Council discussion 

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison Notes: it is worth noting that some feel there is an increase in understanding and collaboration between GAC/Board/GNSO. Several Councillors have followed the discussions and shared their point of view, espcecially on topics such as IP Rights, IGO, PPSAI, etc. Pointing out to outputs of GNSO PDP – and an interest in having GAC members takng part in the GNSO PDPs. Concern expressed about the target of the Response.

Decision made to refine the Response further with amended language that was uploaded. The Council will defer the response to let more Councillors study the response.

Withdrawn/Deferred to Electronic Voting 6-9 August 2016

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

The GNSO’s 2005 Policy on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois-privacy/council-rpt-18jan06.htm) had recommended the creation of a procedure to address conflicts between a contracted party's WHOIS obligations and local/national privacy laws or regulations. Under the existing procedure dating from January 2008, a contracted party that credibly demonstrates that it is legally prevented from complying with its WHOIS obligations can invoke the procedure, which defines a credible demonstration as one in which the contracted party has received "notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action that might affect its compliance." The procedure has never been invoked. In May 2014, ICANN launched a review of the procedure. An Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) was formed and began its work in January 2015. The IAG’s Initial Report was published for public comment in November 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/iag-whois-conflicts-privacy-2015-10-05-en). 

On 25 May 2016, the IAG’s Final Report, accompanying Appendices and a summary Memo to the GNSO Council was delivered to the GNSO Council. The IAG is proposing modifications to the procedure that do not affect the underlying Policy. The Council received an update on the modifications at ICANN56. Here the Council will discuss its next steps, which may include confirming whether the IAG’s proposed modifications conform with the underlying GNSO Policy.

...

7.1 – Review of status of Council discussion (James Bladel) 

7.2 - Council discussion

7.3 - Next steps 

GNSO Liaison Notes: Pushback by NCSG about the procedure that is proposed above. The policy was not referred to a PDP. Chair Bladel mentioned that there was indeed an RDS PDP but this would not be long term. Concern from others that the above proposal was already rejected and there is a "groundhog day" feeling about this. There is a difficulty in differentiating between the policy itself & the triggers that invoke the policy – even though neither the policy nor the trigger for the policy are liked. Others think that this is a contractual discussion thus it should be discussed under other circumstances.

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

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

ICANN57 will take place in Hyderabad, India, from 3-9 November 2016. This will be the first “Meeting C” under the new ICANN Meeting Strategy as well as the Annual General Meeting for ICANN. A draft GNSO schedule for the meeting was circulated to the GNSO Council on 11 July 2016. Here the Council will review the proposed schedule, including the need to possibly accommodate face to face Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group meetings and the customary annual Development Session for incoming and continuing GNSO Councilors.

...

8.1 – Overview of the proposed schedule (James Bladel)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: this is the first rough skeletal schedule for ICANN 57. To be discussed further in future calls.8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: Any Other Business (10 minutes)

9.1 – Update on Council representatives from the Registrars Stakeholder Group 

GNSO Liaison Notes: problem about a member of the RPM working group. Request for GNSO Council to look into available actions when an individual sends unsollicited communication to other community members and staff. ICANN Legal to be consulted.

9.2 – Update on status of progress on the Drafting Team that is to identify new and additional rights and responsibilities for the GNSO under the revised ICANN Bylaws

GNSO Liaison Notes: Staff to send an update about the timeline to the Council mailing list. 

...

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

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 meeting of the Special GNSO Council session 29 February 2016 will be posted as approved on 22 April  2016.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes)

...

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

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

Item 4: PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION – Possible Next Steps in Resolving the Issue of Permanent Protection of Certain Red Cross Identifiers (20 minutes)

In November 2013, the GNSO Council approved the final recommendations from its Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs. Subsequently, in April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s PDP recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice received on the topic. For the Red Cross movement, the protections adopted were for the full names Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun at the top and second levels, in the 6 official languages of the United Nations, with an Exception Procedure to be designed during the implementation phase for the affected organizations. However, with respect to the names and acronyms of the 189 national Red Cross societies and the names of the International Red Cross Movement (as noted by the GAC in its Singapore Communique), the Board requested more time to consider the GNSO’s recommendations as these are inconsistent with GAC advice received on the topic. In the interim period, the Board adopted temporary protections for the Red Cross national society and international movement names noted in the GAC’s Singapore Communique.  

At ICANN55, representatives of the Red Cross met with the GNSO Council leadership to discuss possible next steps. Here the Red Cross representatives will brief the Council on the scope of the Red Cross’ continuing request for permanent protections for those of its national society and international movement identifiers that are not currently covered by the policy recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. 

4.1 – Introduction (James Bladel)

4.2 – Presentation by representatives of the Red Cross (by invitation)

4.3 – Q&A / next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: International Red Cross providing evidence as to why Red Cross should be given protection in the Red Cross / Red Crescent mark.

The Red Cross maintains that they do not fit in the IGO/INGO Protection.

Item 5: VOTE – Approval of Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations from the GNSO Review (10 minutes)

As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (now known as the Organizational Effectiveness Committee) appointed Westlake Governance as the independent examiner to conduct the current review of the performance and operations of the GNSO. A GNSO Working Party, chaired by former Councillor Jennifer Wolfe and comprising representatives of all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, was formed to consult with Westlake over the design and conduct of the review. Westlake's Draft Report was published for public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including from the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its Final Report on 15 September. The Working Party reviewed all the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board in relation to the implementability and prioritization of the recommendations. The Council received a written update from the Working Party chair on 29 January, and the Working Party’s proposed Implementation and Feasibility Analysis was sent to the Council on 28 February. 

Here the Council will review the Working Party’s Implementation and Feasibility Analysis, and vote on its adoption as well as agree on next steps in the process.

5.1 – Presentation of the motion  (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
5.2 – Discussion 

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

...

Long discussion about several concerns which were expressed about how to go forward with some of the recommendations and what additional issues they may be raising as a consequence. Amr El Sadr expressed his concerns about what

Important to differentiate the output of the recommendations vs. the recommendations of a PDP working group. The Working Party is an unchartered group. During the WP deliberations there was a conscious decision to seek council endorsement of the assessment. Emphasis on “endorsing the recommendation” rather than “adopting the recommendation”. 

Suggestion: vote to continue the work based on the comments that were received. “adopting” as in not actually endorsing it.

Adopted unanimously. (less Marilia Maciel who was absent)

Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Procedures Governing the Selection of the GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (10 minutes)

As part of a two-year pilot program initiated in June 2014, the GNSO Council and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) agreed, through its joint GAC-GNSO Consultation Group, to appoint a GNSO Liaison to the GAC. The purpose of the Liaison role was to facilitate more effective early engagement by the GAC in GNSO policy activities and to contribute toward better information flow between the two bodies. Following Consultation Group review of the pilot program, the Consultation Group recommended that the Liaison role be made a permanent one in March 2016. Here the Council will review and approve the scope of such a permanent Liaison role as well as the application, selection and confirmation process.

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel) 

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

Applications are made confidentially. Candidates may share their application if they wish. An evaluation sheet will be used to decide on the candidate. Agreement that if there are more than one candidate there might be a balance between contracted & non-contracted parties house.

...

GNSO Liaison Notes: Approved unanimously. 

Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of GNSO Input to the ICANN Board on the GAC’s Marrakech Communique (20 minutes)

Beginning in mid-2015 with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique, the GNSO Council developed a mechanism for reviewing and commenting on aspects of that Communique that are relevant to gTLD policy. The resulting GNSO input on both the GAC’s Buenos Aires and Dublin Communiques were approved by the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board and the GAC Chair (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/robinson-to-icann-board-gac-chair-29jul15-en.pdf and http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-gac-review-31dec15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the draft response to the GAC’s Marrakech Communique, drafted by a volunteer group of Councillors, and, if appropriate, approve its being forwarded to the ICANN Board and GAC Chair.

7.1 – Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

...

Item 8: COUNCIL APPROVAL – Public Comment on ICANN’s FY17 Proposed Budget (15 minutes) 

On 5 March 2016, the draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan and Budget was published for public comment (closing on 30 April). The GNSO Council had previously provided public comments to the FY16 Operating Plan and Budget. At ICANN55, a small group of Councillors had volunteered to work on possible Council comments to the draft FY17 budget. Here the Council will review and, if appropriate, agree to send in the proposed comments.

8.1 – Update and summary of comments (Keith Drazek / Edward Morris / Carlos Raul Gutierrez) 

8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: Cut short. Taken to list.

Item 9: DISCUSSION – Implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan (10 minutes)

At ICANN55, community discussions were held concerning the upcoming implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan, including at a session on 7 March. Several GNSO community members voiced concerns about whether the proposed implementation plan would meet the requirements of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Proposal on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). On 25 March a Call for Volunteers was issued for additional CCWG participation, including for implementation of the adopted Work Stream 1 recommendations.

Here the Council will discuss the community concerns that have been raised, and review possible next steps in relation to the CWG-Stewardship and ICANN staff that have been charged with developing the implementation plan. 

9.1 – Summary & update (James Bladel)

9.2 – Discussion

9.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: Briefly discussed. Follow-up on mailing list due to time running out. 

Item 10: DISCUSSION – Planning for “Meeting B” (ICANN Policy Forum) (10 Minutes) 

At ICANN55, the GNSO held several discussions, including with the ICANN Board, concerning the focus, duration and meeting schedule for the first designated ICANN Policy Forum, to take place in Helsinki as ICANN56 (i.e. the initial so-called “Meeting B”). Specific concerns were raised about the apparent lack of time for actual policy work in the overall Meeting B schedule when all the current draft SO/AC/Board proposals were put together, and about the lack of opportunity for different SO/AC/Board groups to interact with one another. A small group of SO/AC volunteers has been formed to address these concerns.

Here the Council will hear from its representatives to this group, and discuss further plans for finalizing the GNSO’s schedule for ICANN56 so as to maximize the policy focus for Meeting B. This includes confirmation of the PDP Working Group(s) to be invited to consider conducting a face-to-face working meeting in Helsinki, on a day either precedent or subsequent to the ICANN56 schedule.

10.1 – Update (Donna Austin / Volker Greimann)

10.2 – Discussion 

10.3 – Next steps 

GNSO Liaison Notes: Update that work is ongoing and preparations including the coordination with other SOs & ACs is ongoing.

Item 11: DISCUSSION – Status of Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (10 minutes)

The Charter for this Cross Community Working Group was ratified by the ccNSO Council (September 2014), the GNSO Council (October 2014), and the ALAC (April 2015). The CCWG Charter states its scope as doing “whatever it deems relevant and necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes”, with regular updates to be provided to its Chartering Organizations and a periodic Progress Paper where appropriate. The Charter also provides that the Chartering Organizations should review the Charter and CCWG deliverables in order to determine whether the group should continue or be dissolved, with the proviso that the CCWG will continue if at least two of its Chartering Organizations extend the Charter and notify the other Chartering Organizations accordingly.

During the CCWG co-chairs’ update to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils at ICANN55, there was some discussion over whether a CCWG format or other arrangement might be the most appropriate form for SO/AC interaction on Internet governance matters, especially given the expected forthcoming finalization of a Uniform Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs by the CCWG-Principles. Here the GNSO Council will continue that discussion, with a view toward agreeing on the appropriate next steps for the CCWG on Internet Governance.

11.1 – Introduction and summary (Carlos Raul Gutierrez)

11.2 – Discussion

11.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: Deferred to mailing list due to time having run out.

Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes)

12.1 – Proposed approach to Expert Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Final Report

GNSO Liaison Notes: Deferred to mailing list due to time having run out. 

...