Page History
Active: Smartsheets Version
Archive: Smartsheets Version
| Date | File |
|---|---|
| 2021-2022 | TBD |
| 2020-2021 | GNSO_Council_Action_Items_2020_2021.pdf |
Action Item / Request
Entry Date
Target Date
Responsible Council Member (if applicable)
Responsible Staff member (if applicable)
Additional Notes
Status
Completed
Recent events seem to have overtaken the need to send this letter - which was confirmed by the GNSO Council at its last meeting.
Steve Sheng has offered to co-ordinate regular staff updates on this topic
Durban Meeting Planning:
- 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.
- Wolf
- John Berard / Petter Rindforth
Update provided during meeting on 13/6. Council members are encouraged to provide input on the proposed topics for discussion with the meetings with the Board, GAC and ccNSO.
Jonathan to forward to Council mailing list information provided by Bruce in relation to the GNSO review.
To be further considered in Durban.
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.
No Council response will be prepared, but SG/C are encouraged to provide any input they may have directly.
Jonathan to prepare note to send to the ICANN Board to inform them that no GNSO response is forthcoming at this stage.
BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3
1. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the Board Governance Committee (copying the New gTLD Programme Committee).
2. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ATRT2.
3. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ICANN Board.
1. The Board Governance Committee – Drafted by [Jeff].
a. To highlight and describe the key concerns with output of the committee i.e. with the rationalisation for the reconsideration decision.
b. To make it clear that the desired outcome is to remove the current rationalisation from the record (and not to overturn the outcome of the reconsideration).
c. To recognise that the Council’s intervention in these processes is for very specific reasons and because of the perceived potential impact on the GNSO and indeed the MS Model.
2. The ATRT2 – Drafted by [Volunteer].
a. To highlight concerns with the reconsideration process as a mechanism for ensuring accountability and transparency.
b. To not propose a specific remedy but rather to leave that to the ATRT.
3. The ICANN Board – Drafted by [Jonathan].
a. To summarise and refer to both 1 & 2 above
b. To highlight on-going concerns about the issue of accountability for actions (implementation or policy) which are not in agreement with GNSO policy or policy advice.
c. To propose solutions such as:
i. Agreement to effectively communicate with the GNSO in the event that a decision goes against such policy or policy advice
(something we have already agreed to on the back of our Beijing / recent discussions)
ii. Possible change/s to the ICANN bylaws
Request sent to BGC to 'thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the publication of the rationale until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban' on 19/6.
In response, the BGC noted that the current plan is for the Board Governance Committee to meet again on 25 June 2013 to review the rationale and has proposed to have a discussion around GNSO advice, and involvement of the GNSO in the implementation of policies, outside of the context of the wording of the rationale in Durban.