Page History
...
The GNSO Council has adopted the practice of providing feedback to the ICANN Board on matters pertaining to gTLD policy, where the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) has included advice on such matters as part of a GAC Communique issued at each ICANN Public Meeting. Following the issuance of the GAC Copenhagen Communique (https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20ICANN%2058%20Communique%20-%20Full%20-%2015mar17.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1490215932389&api=v2), a team of Councilors and the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC agreed to prepare an initial draft of possible GNSO Council input to the Board for Council consideration. This draft was circulated to the Council mailing list on 10 April 2017 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-response-gac-communique-10apr17-en.xlsx).
...
At ICANN58 in Copenhagen in March 2017, representatives from the GNSO (including the GNSO Council chairs) and the GAC held a dialogue, facilitated by former Board member Bruce Tonkin, to discuss possible ways of reconciling inconsistent GAC advice and GNSO policy recommendations relating to National Society names of the Red Cross Movement and the two names of the international components of the Movement (http://sched.co/9xr2). Following that discussion, the ICANN Board passed a resolution requesting that the GNSO Council initiate the process outlined in Section 16 of the GNSO’s Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual, which sets forth the requisite steps for amending policy recommendations that have been approved by the GNSO Council but not yet approved by the ICANN Board (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/prelim-report-2017-03-16-en#2.e.i). The Board’s request related to the 190 Red Cross National Society names and the two international movement names and a limited defined set of their variants. Here the Council will consider whether or not to initiate the Section 16 process as requested by the Board, which will include reconvening the original PDP Working Group for consultation purposes as well as conducting a public comment period on the proposed amendments prior to a formal Council vote on the proposed amendments.
...
Following initial community review, a revised proposed Budget and Operating Plan for FY2018 was published for public comments on 13 March 2017 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-budget-2017-03-08-en). At its Wrap Up Session at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, the GNSO Council agreed to form a small team of volunteers to draft comments on the revised Budget for Council consideration. At the Council’s request, ICANN’s Finance Team conducted a webinar on 4 April 2017 covering those aspects of the proposed Budget of interest to the GNSO community (https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/presentation-gnso-update-04apr17-en.pdf). A draft of the proposed Council comments was circulated to the GNSO Council on 10 April 2017. Here the Council will discuss the draft comments, and vote on whether or not to submit them as a Council comment to the public comment forum.
...
In January 2017, ICANN launched a Call for Volunteers for the forthcoming second Review Team (RT) to be formed to conduct a review of Registration Directory Services (formerly the WHOIS Review). Under the Bylaws, the each Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee may nominate up to 7 candidates for the RT, with its first 3 preferred candidates being guaranteed a spot on the RT. The GNSO’s Standing Selection Committee (established by the GNSO Council in March 2017: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20170315-2) met met to discuss those volunteers who had indicated they wished to be nominated by the GNSO, and has reached full consensus on a slate of 7 nominees. The list was circulated to the Council on 10 April 2017. Here the Council will vote on whether to approve the slate of nominees proposed by the Standing Selection Committee. Following additional discussions within the SSC, the original motion was amended, see link below for updated version.
...
At ICANN57 in Hyderabad in November 2016, the GNSO Council approved a motion conditioning the future participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization of the CCWG on Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) upon a comprehensive review of the group’s Charter by the CCWG-IG, in accordance with the Framework of Uniform Principles for CCWGs that had been adopted recently by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf). In its resolution, the GNSO Council had noted that the CCWG-IG’s future work is expected to be subject to a clear work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables, and had requested that, by ICANN58, the CCWG-IG was to report on its findings, which report may include a revised charter or a recommendation to reconstitute the group under a new structure (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions - 20161107-3). The CCWG-IG provided a written report on its 2016 activity and a draft revised Charter for the GNSO Council’s consideration on 10th March 2017 (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019816.html).
At its Public Meeting at ICANN58 in Copenhagen on 15 March 2017 and its joint meeting with the ccNSO Council on 13 March, the Council engaged in a discussion with the CCWG-IG co-chairs regarding the group’s reports. Here the Council will discuss its potential next steps in relation to the GNSO’s continued participation as a Chartering Organization of this CCWG.
...
