Page History
Action Item / Request | Entry Date | Target Date | Responsible Council Member (if applicable) | Responsible Staff member (if applicable) | Additional Notes | Status | |||||||
Buenos Aires Meeting Planning:
| 18/7 | 20/11 | Wolf | Glen de Saint Gery / Marika Konings | Action items follow from discussions during GNSO wrap up session as well as GNSO - ccNSO Council meeting. Discussions on 31/10 resulted in additional action items:
| Update on schedule to be provided during 31/10 Council meeting |
| Latest version of meeting schedule has been circulated and uploaded on wiki.
First list of topics sent to Council mailing list by Maria on 11/11.
| |||||
GNSO Review
| 18/7 | 20/11
31/10 | Jen Wolfe | Rob Hoggarth | An updated list of volunteers has been collected in preparation for formation of the proposed Review Committee. In the wake of Board Resolution 2013.09.28.09, the Council intends to re-set its GNSO review-related work planning. The Council will discuss the most recent developments on this matter during its weekend work session in Buenos Aires and explore appropriate next steps. The Council Chair and staff will also coordinate with the Chair of the Board’s Structural Improvements Committee, including the possibility of a small meeting of the Chair of the SIC with the Council Review Committee and GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency leadership during the ICANN Public Meeting in Buenos Aires. |
| |||||||
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. | 13/6 | 10/10 | Jonathan Robinson | Marika Konings | The objective of each of the above 3 can be summarised as follows: 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 | Jonathan sent proposed approach to Council list on 13 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14984.html). Council members were requested to provide feedback on possible next steps. Maria Farrell volunteered to take lead on item 2. | |||||||
As part of the interaction with the ICANN board on Sunday November 17th, Ray Plzak has offered to update the Council on latest thinking and development. He is also potentially available to meet with a smaller (Review focussed) group in Buenos Aires.
| |||||||||||||
PDP Improvements
PDP Improvements
| 18/7 | 10/10 | 20/11 |
All | Marika Konings
|
Glen de Saint Gery | A paper on the proposed PDP enhancement was submitted to the GNSO Council and discussed / reviewed during the last meeting (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-22aug13-en.pdf). A tabulated version was shared with the Council on 23/9. Council is requested to provide further input. | Further update and discussion provided at 31/10 meeting. Proposed approach is to start and try out some of these suggested improvements. Staff is expected to provide an update in 6 months that will allow the Council to assess the impact of these proposed improvements. Update table to include proposed actions for each proposed improvement. | |||||
SCI Charter SCI Charter Jonathan to confirm the outcome of the Council discussions to the SCI (completed)
| 18/7 | 3120/1011 |
Jonathan All
| Julie Hedlund | During its wrap up session in Durban, the GNSO Council discussed possible changes to the charter of the SCI to confirm that it is to serve as a standing committee as well as possible changes to the methodology for decision-making. These items were further discussed during the September meeting in which it was agreed that the charter should be modified to confirm it is a standing committee and that the Council would like the SCI to undertake the work to propose any other changes it deems necessary and then to submit these to the Council. | Jonathan confirmed the outcome of the Council discussions to the SCI. Revised charter to be considered The revised charter was adopted at the 31/10 GNSO Council meeting. Council members encouraged to share their feedback on decision making methodology. | Policy Issues surrounding String confusion
| 5/9 | 31/10 |
Jonathan Robinson
All | Marika Konings | However, no further changes have been made to the decision-making methodology absent agreement on this topic at the GNSO Council level. The appointment of a Council liaison is expected to be confirmed in Buenos Aires. Christine Willett participated in Council meeting on 10/10. Following that it was agreed that the GNSO Council, in conjunction with Staff, would initiate some work within the GNSO, subject to seeking legal advice from ICANN legal Counsel that this would be potentially usable in the implementation and consistency of the decisions on string similarity. Feedback from ICANN legal is expected in time for consideration at the next meeting.
|