...

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: 

This agenda is also published on the Wiki page at:

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+1+September+2016

(draft notes)

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 Meeting on 21 July 2016  to be approved on 27 August 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 (5 minutes)

3.1 – Confirm dates for selection of GAC-GNSO liaison (motion passed on 30 June 2016) based on updated ICANN57 meeting dates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+30+June+2016

Motion as passed, with dates to be updated highlighted as indicated below:

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms the extension of the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC, Mason Cole, until the end of the ICANN AGM in Hyderabad. 

2. The GNSO Council instructs the 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 (change to 28 October) for consideration during Council meeting on 8 NOV (change to 7 November); GAC Leadership notified of new Liaison by 9 NOV).

Motion Carried unanimously.

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Recommendations from the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements (10 minutes)

In April 2015 the GNSO Council requested that the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements (SCI) document the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council concerning (i) whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion before the Council is to be seconded, and (ii) the treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either “friendly” or “unfriendly”. The Council’s request also authorized the SCI to develop new processes for these practices if the SCI believed that the current practices are inappropriate. Separately, in November 2015, the GNSO Council requested that the SCI review Sections 2.2(b), (f) and (g) of the GNSO Operating Procedures with respect to, first, clarifying: (i) the eligibility of incoming Council members to run for the position of GNSO Chair; (ii) the start and end dates as well as the duration of the Chair and Vice-Chair terms in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws; and (iii) the timing of publication of the election results; and, secondly, recommending a general time table for election of the GNSO Chair.

In October 2015 and in accordance with the Council’s April request, the SCI sent its documentation of the Council’s practices on the seconding and amendment of motions to the Council (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/aikman-scalese-vansnick-to-robinson-09oct15-en.pdf). Subsequently, the SCI reached Full Consensus on a proposal to codify the current customary practices in the GNSO Operating Procedures as a new Section 3.3.3: Submitting, Seconding, and Amending Motions. With respect to its review of the rules governing the GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair elections, the SCI reached Full Consensus on modifications to Section 2.2 and a proposal for a new Section 2.2.1: Procedures for a Situation Where a New GNSO Chair Has Not Been Elected by the End of the Previous Chair's Term in the GNSO Operating Procedures.

The SCI’s proposals were published for public comment on 5 July 2016 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-op-procedures-2016-07-05-en). By the close of the public comment period on 14 August, two public comments had been received supporting the SCI’s proposals (https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-op-procedures-05jul16/). Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve the SCI’s recommendations for modifying the GNSO Operating Procedures as proposed.

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Amr Elsadr)

4.2 – Discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison notes: friendly amendment to be made that the Standing Committee is not "disbanded" but possibly "retired" - less negative language.

Motion carried unanimously.

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of Implementation Advisory Group Recommendations to Update Procedure on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws (15 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 proposed modifications to the procedure that it believes do not affect the underlying Policy. The Council received an update on the proposed modifications at ICANN56 and discussed the matter further at its meeting on 21 July. Here the Council will confirm whether or not the IAG’s proposed modifications conform with the underlying GNSO Policy.

5.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)  

5.2 – Discussion

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison Notes: Volker Greimann expressed concerns from the Contracted Parties that the proposed policy is unworkable for them - mentioning, as an example, the need for a Registrar to break the law in order to obtain a waiver is unworkable and opens a Registrar to unwarranted risk. ALAC Liaison expressed support with the concerns raised by Volker. It is worth noting that the concerns expressed by Volker Greimann on behalf of the Registrar Constituency broadly echo the concerns expressed in the At-Large Community in At-Large IAG Initial Report and Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Procedure for Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws Workspace.

Donna Austin also had similar concerns. Others expressed a concern that the PDP working group had reached consensus but now the Council appeared not to have consensus, thus that was potentially going to raise a problem.

As a result to the discussion, the motion was withdrawn as a rejection of the motion during voting could have had worse effects than a current withdrawal.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (20 minutes)

On 5 August 2016, ICANN Board Chair Dr. Steve Crocker sent a letter to the GNSO Council concerning work on the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-05aug16-en.pdf). The Board wished to know the GNSO Council’s view of the current work in light of the existing GNSO policy and ongoing parallel review work on the 2012 New gTLD Program. The Board letter specifically asked for information on the PDP timeline and whether the GNSO believes that the current PDP must be completed prior to advancing a new application process under the current policy recommendations, including whether any consideration has been given in relation to whether a future application process could proceed while policy work continues and be iteratively applied to the process for allocating new gTLDs. On 16 August the GNSO Chairs sent a reply to the Board on behalf of the Council, acknowledging the Board’s request (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/council-leadership-to-crocker-16aug16-en.pdf). Here the Council will discuss the subject of the Board’s letter and its further response, including whether or not input from the PDP Working Group may be helpful.

6.1 –  Status update on the Board letter and PDP progress (James Bladel / Paul McGrady)

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: expressed the ALAC's discussions in its new gTLD working group and read out to the record:

1. *do not start the process of a subsequent round until all necessary reviews have been completed* and their reports and recommendations have been fully considered by the ICANN community and Board. This includes not just the Subsequent Procedures PDP referenced in Chairman Crocker’s letter but also the RPM Review PDP and the Consumer Choice, Competition and Trust Review mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments.

A strong discussion took place about this. Expression about a pattern of abuse being undertaken by some Registries and ICANN compliance not helping was expressed by Susan Kawaguchi.

Discussion will continue for the next call, noting that the Board is expecting a response. The aim would be to respond to the Board by mid October. (before Hyderabad)

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Next Steps for the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (10 minutes)

The Charter for this Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) was ratified by the ccNSO Council (September 2014), the GNSO Council (October 2014), and the ALAC (April 2015). The ratified Charter provides that the CCWG scope includes 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 monthly 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.

At ICANN55, there was some discussion over the most appropriate forum for SO/AC interaction on Internet governance matters, especially given the expected forthcoming finalization of a Uniform Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs. The co-chairs of the CCWG-IG provided the Council with a Progress Report on its recent activities at ICANN56. Here the Council will discuss appropriate next steps in relation to overseeing the work of the CCWG.

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

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 - Next steps

Liaison Notes: skipped to a future call. Concern expressed by Marilia Maciel that this item keeps on being moved from meeting to meeting and 

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Cost Control Mechanisms and Request for GNSO Council Validation of the Budget for the Cross Community Working Group on Ensuring ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) (15 minutes)

On 10 July, the GNSO Council requested that the ICANN Board Finance Committee and the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs conduct a webinar to brief the Council and broader GNSO community on the Proposed Cost Control Mechanisms and the CCWG-Accountability’s request for the GNSO Council to validate the proposed FY17 budget for the CCWG-Accountability (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-bfc-ccwg-accountability-chairs-10jul16-en.pdf). The proposed budget and costs had been reported to the GNSO Council on 21 June  https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18841.html) The requested webinar took place on 23 August. Here the Council will discuss the CCWG-Accountability’s request for the Council to validate the proposed FY17 budget in light of the further information provided during the webinar (recording and slides available at https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/.

8.1 – Status update (James Bladel)

8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Liaison Notes: The Council will be asked to approve the costs of CCWG Accountability. Concern expressed (Paul McGrady) about approving a plan that includes "Jurisdiction" in WS2. This is of concern to some. Otherwise, satisfaction was expressed at the level of detail given to provide ongoing updates for the cost control of WS2 topics.

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Planning and Scheduling for ICANN57 (15 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 and reviewed at the Council meeting on 21 July. Here the Council will review all proposed GNSO sessions for ICANN57 in relation to the meeting schedule, including the face to face Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group meetings, the customary annual Development Session for incoming and continuing GNSO Councilors, and the submission of High Interest Topics of interest to the GNSO.

9.1 – Overview of the proposed schedule (James Bladel)

9.2 – Discussion

9.3 – Next steps

Liaison notes: very short update made. (less than a minute) – and will be followed up on the mailing list.

Item 10: Any Other Business (10 minutes)

10.1 – Discussion of note from Chris Disspain on status of IGO acronyms protection work (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/disspain-to-gnso-council-22aug16-en.pdf)

Liaison Notes: GAC & Board have been meeting behind closed doors and none such discussion between GNSO and Board. (Phil Corwin)

10.2 – Confirmation of Council liaisons to the the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data PDP, IRTP-C PDP, IRTP-D PDP and GNSO Review Working Group

10.3 - Timeline for GNSO Chair/Vice-Chair elections leading up to and at ICANN57 to be shared following meeting – Councillors encouraged to share any questions / concerns with mailing list

10.4 Proposed Measures for Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels to Avoid Confusion with Corresponding Country Code

Liaison notes: most of these items will be raised and discussed on the mailing list.

...

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 12 May 2016  were approved on 30 June 2016.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List

...

Note: due to time running out, this item was deferred to the mailing list. 

1. *do not start the process of a subsequent round until all necessary
reviews have been completed* and their reports and recommendations have
been fully considered by the ICANN community and Board. This includes
not just the Subsequent Procedures PDP referenced in Chairman Crocker’s
letter but also the RPM Review PDP and the Consumer Choice, Competition
and Trust Review mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments.