On 24 July 2018, the ALAC voted unanimously to re-appoint Cheryl Langdon-Orr as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for the period between the 2018 AGM to the 2019 AGM.

In 2017, the ALAC re-appointed Cheryl Langdon-Orr as the ALAC Liasion to the GNSO for the period between the 2017 AGM to the 2018 AGM.

On 10 September 2016, the ALAC appointed Cheryl Langdon-Orr to serve as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO. This term will be from the end of the ICANN 57 Meeting on 8th November 2016 through the end of the 2017 AGM. 

Olivier Crepin-Leblond served as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council from March 7th, 2015, to the end of the AGM at the ICANN 54 meeting in Dublin 2015, and from September 22, 2015, through to ICANN 57 Hyderabad November 2016.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr served briefly as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council from October 2014 through to End February 2015, when due to her continuing service within the ICANN NomCom, she was required to tender her resignation from this role.

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.

Occasional News Updates.

Keith Drazek appointed as new GNSO Chair and Pam Little as new GNSO Vice Chair (Contracted Party House), at ICANN63 AGM.  Rafik Dammak was returned as 2nd Vice Chair (Non-Contracted Party House) for a further term.

The meetings of the GNSO are archived and listed with complete details including recordings from pages listed HERE by year (along with other GNSO Meeting records).

2019 meetings.

The proposed dates for the GNSO Council Meetings in 2019 are as follows.

• January 24^th (Pacific time, during the GNSO Strategic Planning session)
• February 21^st: 12:00 UTC
• March 13^th (ICANN64 Kobe)
• April 18^th: 21:00 UTC
• May 16^th: 12:00 UTC
• June 26^th (ICANN65 Marrakech)
• July 18^th: 21:00 UTC
• August 22^nd: 12:00 UTC
• September 19^th: 21:00 UTC
• October 24^th: 12:00 UTC
• November 6^th (ICANN66 Montreal)
• December 19^th: 21:00 UTC

• GNSO Council meetings 2019    

Special attention will be drawn verbally or by email, to any issues relating to the GNSO or the Liaison role at ALAC Meetings and those of the ALAC ATL+ where needed for advice or action. These reports will constitute part of the ALAC meetings records.

GNSO Council Meetings for 2019

1. January 2019

Final GNSO Council Agenda 24 January 2019.    Coordinated Universal Time: 22:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/ybxpm8s3 
Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access:https://community.icann.org/x/JIoWBg

14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington; 22:00 London; (Friday) 03:00 Islamabad; 07:00 Tokyo; 09:00 Melbourne

GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast.    You can listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01

Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u
___________________________________

Item 1: Administrative Matters (5 mins)
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 the 29 November 2018 were posted on the 13 December 2018 
Minutes of the GNSO COuncil meeting on the 20 December 2018 were posted on the 7 January 2019 

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 minutes) 

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

Item 3: Consent Agenda (5 minutes) 

Confirmation of Jonathan Frost as one of the GNSO appointees to the CCWG Auction Proceeds 

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Review of Public Comment Drafts (15 minutes)
The GNSO Council elects to respond to a limited number of public comment proceedings, particularly those that are relevant to the Council’s principal role as manager of the gTLD Policy Development Process. Accordingly, there are several ICANN Public comment proceedings that the Council will submit a public comment: 

ICANN Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update (8 February 2019. Prepared by the Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations for Council consideration): Draft response [INSERT LINK]
ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025 (11 February 2019 close date. Prepared by the Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations for Council consideration): Draft response [INSERT LINK]
Update Operating Standards for Specific Reviews (11 February close date): Draft response [INSERT LINK]
Here, the Council will determine if there are any objections to the draft language and if applicable, determine how to resolve those objections. In the event draft text is not yet available, the main themes for the response may be discussed.

4.1 – Update (Council leadership)
4.2 – Council discussion
4.3 – Next steps 
Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Temporary Specification for Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process - Recurring Update (15 minutes) 

On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council resolved to initiate the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data and adopt the EPDP Team Charter. Given the challenging timeline for the EPDP and the GNSO Council’s role in managing the PDP process, the Council has agreed that including a recurring update on the EPDP for each Council meeting is prudent.

Here, the Council will receive an update from the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP.
5.1 – Update (Rafik Dammak, GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP and EPDP vice-chair) 
5.2 – Council discussion 
5.3 – Next steps 

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Managing the EPDP Implementation Gap and Back-up Plans (20 minutes) 

In connection with the previous agenda item, on 14 November 2018, Cherine Chalaby, the Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors, sent a letter to Keith Drazek, Chair of the GNSO, submitting questions regarding the status of the EPDP. Two specific areas from the letter where the Board is seeking an update are:

Deadlines - The Board notes that the EPDP team intends to issue its initial report by 19 November 2018, with a final report to be submitted to the GNSO Council by 1 February 2019. Does the GNSO Council foresee any risks of these deadlines not being met, and if so, is there anything the Board can do to Help?
Back-up Plans - The Board recommends the development of back-up plans and would very much appreciate getting a better understanding of any such plans the GNSO Council may be contemplating. More specifically, what are the thoughts of the GNSO Council on next steps, consistent with the ICANN Bylaws and ICANN’s contractual agreements with Contracted Parties, in the event the community has not reached agreement on a consensus policy prior to the expiration of the Temporary Specification?
The GNSO Council sent a response to the ICANN Board on 10 January 2019. There, the Council acknowledged that alternative steps may be warranted, but should be considered in more depth following the January face-to-face meeting of the EPDP, if it appears the group is unlikely to meet projected timelines. The response also notes that there may be a need to consider: 

“…how to avoid a gap between the adoption of these policy recommendations by the ICANN Board and the subsequent implementation, noting the impending expiration of the Temporary Specification requirements. The EPDP Team is considering various options, such as the adoption of an interim policy for a set timeframe or recommending that the Temporary Specification requirements remain in place until the completion of implementation of these policy recommendations. The EPDP Team expects to obtain further guidance from ICANN Org on the options in this regard and make a recommendation accordingly in the Final Report.”

Here, the Council will discuss the plan to manage the gap between successful adoption of policy recommendations and implementation, as well as back-up plans in the event the EPDP is unable to meet deadlines.
6.1 – Update (Council leadership) 
6.2 – Council discussion 
6.3 – Next steps 

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (15 minutes) 

The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG had worked to resolve a final recommendation relating to IGO jurisdictional immunity and registrants’ rights to file court proceedings. The WG has determined consensus on a set of options for this final recommendation, as well as for all other recommendations. The WG Chair proposed his determination of consensus levels for all recommendations, which the WG affirmed. On 27 June 2018, the GNSO Council passed a resolution, thanking the PDP WG for its efforts and requesting that it submit its Final Report in time for the 19 July 2018 Council meeting.

After having agreed on consensus levels for its final recommendations, the WG considered the text of its Final Report. On 9 July 2018, the PDP WG submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus recommendations and three minority statements, documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the Final Report.

There remain several inconsistencies between GAC advice and consensus recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP WG, which have yet to be reconciled, including on the topic of appropriate protections for IGO acronyms (both preventative and curative). During its 19 July Council meeting, the Council resolved to accept the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group and has begun considering the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers.

On 9 October 2018, the Council held a question and answer webinar to review the recommendations and to ask itself a series of questions, 1) Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?; 2) Has the PDP followed due process?; and 3) Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?

A motion to consider the Final Report was originally on the 24 October 2018 Council meeting agenda but was withdrawn due to concerns around both the process followed by the PDP, as well as the substance of the PDP WG’s recommendations. Council leadership and staff have developed a summary document (Summary Paper and Slide Deck) that lists issues raised by Councilors, options available, and potential considerations. During the November meeting, the Council considered a set of available options and briefly discussed possible next steps.

On 20 December 2018, Council leadership circulated a proposal for next steps. Council leadership has since sent a reply to the GAC, in response to a letter received during ICANN63.

Here, Councilors will discuss the proposal from Council leadership, as well as discuss immediate next steps.

7.1 – Presentation of topic (Council Leadership) 
7.2 – Council discussion 
7.3 – Next steps 

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)
8.1 - Update on the CSC Effectiveness Review (Philippe Fouquart, one of the two GNSO appointed members)
8.2 - IANA Function Review (IFR) Team composition: Review of the ccNSO proposal to manage deficiencies
8.3 - ICANN64 Planning
8.4 - Discussion of proposed FY20 GNSO Council Additional Budget Requests 

GNSO Council meetings 2018 - NOTE all GNSO Council Meetings can be listened to via Audio Cast

Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01

Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u

December Meeting -  Dec 20 2100 UTC

Final GNSO Council Agenda 20 December 2018

Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/PAD_BQ

This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018

GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast

Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01

Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u

___________________________________

Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins)

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 part I and part II of the GNSO Council meetings on the 24 October 2018 were posted on the 12 November 2018

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 29 November 2018 were posted on the 13 December 2018

Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 minutes)

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

Item 3. Consent Agenda (5 minutes)

• Motion to adopt the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique.
• Motion to approve the nomination of [INSERT NAME WHEN AVAILABLE] to serve as the ICANN Fellowship Program mentor.
• Confirmation of Heather Forrest to serve as the GNSO Representative to the ICANN Fellowship Program Selection Committee for the remainder of the 2-year term.
• Confirmation of the leadership for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (Chair: Susan Kawaguchi, Vice-Chairs: Poncelet Ileleji and Erica Varlese)

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (15 minutes)

The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG had worked to resolve a final recommendation relating to IGO jurisdictional immunity and registrants’ rights to file court proceedings. The WG has determined consensus on a set of options for this final recommendation, as well as for all other recommendations. The WG Chair proposed his determination of consensus levels for all recommendations, which the WG affirmed. On 27 June 2018, the GNSO Council passed a resolution, thanking the PDP WG for its efforts and requesting that it submit its Final Report in time for the 19 July 2018 Council meeting.

After having agreed on consensus levels for its final recommendations, the WG considered the text of its Final Report. On 9 July 2018, the PDP WG submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus recommendations and three minority statements, documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the Final Report.

There remain several inconsistencies between GAC advice and consensus recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP WG, which have yet to be reconciled, including on the topic of appropriate protections for IGO acronyms (both preventative and curative). During its 19 July Council meeting, the Council resolved to accept the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group and has begun considering the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers.

On 9 October 2018, the Council held a question and answer webinar to review the recommendations and to ask itself a series of questions, 1) Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?; 2) Has the PDP followed due process?; and 3) Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?

A motion to consider the Final Report was originally on the 24 October 2018 Council meeting agenda but was withdrawn due to concerns around both the process followed by the PDP, as well as the substance of the PDP WG’s recommendations. Council leadership and staff have developed a summary document (Summary Paperand Slide Deck) that lists issues raised by Councilors, options available, and potential considerations. During the November meeting, the Council considered a set of available options and briefly discussed possible next steps.  

Here, Councilors, having had the opportunity to consider the documentation developed, will continue to discuss options and seek to make progress in determining next steps.

4.1 – Presentation of topic (Council Leadership)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Next steps

Item 5: COUNCIL UPDATE – Temporary Specification for Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process - Recurring Update (25 minutes)

On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council resolved to initiate the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data and adopt the EPDP Team Charter. Given the challenging timeline for the EPDP and the GNSO Council’s role in managing the PDP process, the Council has agreed that including a recurring update on the EPDP for each Council meeting is prudent. On 14 November 2018, Cherine Chalaby, the Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors, sent a letter to Keith Drazek, Chair of the GNSO, submitting questions regarding the status of the EPDP. Two specific areas from the letter where the Board is seeking an update are:

• Deadlines - The Board notes that the EPDP team intends to issue its initial report by 19 November 2018, with a final report to be submitted to the GNSO Council by 1 February 2019. Does the GNSOCouncil foresee any risks of these deadlines not being met, and if so, is there anything the Board can do to Help?
• Back-up Plans - The Board recommends the development of back-up plans and would very much appreciate getting a better understanding of any such plans the GNSO Council may be contemplating. More specifically, what are the thoughts of the GNSO Council on next steps, consistent with the ICANN Bylaws and ICANN’s contractual agreements with Contracted Parties, in the event the community has not reached agreement on a consensus policy prior to the expiration of the Temporary Specification?

Here, the Council will receive an update from the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP and discuss the letter from the ICANN Board, and corresponding Council response.

5.1 – Update (Rafik Dammak, GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP and EPDP vice-chair)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Next steps

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Reserve Fund (15 minutes)

The ICANN Reserve Fund was created in 2007 with a target level set at a minimum of 12 months of Operating Expenses. It has been funded through operational excesses. Over the past years, ICANN's operations have grown, its risk profile has evolved, and withdrawals have been made to fund the IANA stewardship transition expenses.

On 6 March 2018, ICANN Org sought public comment on the Reserve Fund replenishment strategy, to bring the Reserve Fund to its minimum target level of 12 months.

During the 25 October 2018 meeting of the ICANN Board, two resolutions were adopted to transfer funds to the Reserve Fund. The first transferred US$3,000,000 from the Operating Fund. The second allocated US$36,000,000 of auction proceeds to the Reserve Fund. Several Council members expressed concern that auction proceeds were utilized for this purpose, diminishing the pool of allocatable funds available to the recommendations of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG).

Here, the Council will discuss potential issues and determine if any remedial actions may be necessary, or possible, at the Council level.

6.1 – Presentation of topic (Council Leadership)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 Implementation Plan (15 minutes)

In January 2018, the GNSO Council held an inaugural three-day Strategic Planning Session. On Day 3 of this meeting, the GNSO Council reviewed the workload for the year ahead and identified potential milestones, noting that the current average timeline for delivery of an Initial Report has increased at least 2-4 times compared to previous PDPs. In addition to noting the increased duration of the PDP lifecycle, the Councilbegan to identify challenges being encountered in PDPs, informed by a staff discussion paper on optimizing increased engagement and participation while ensuring efficient and effective policy development.

The effort to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO PDP process is called GNSO PDP 3.0. On 11 May 2018, a summary paper was shared with the Council, summarizing input received to date, as well as some proposed incremental improvements. The Council members and their respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies were invited to provide input, after which a summary report was prepared and shared with the Council on 10 September 2018, followed by a dedicated webinar on 11 September 2018.

Based on the input received as well as the subsequent webinar, Council leadership developed a the GNSOPolicy Development Process 3.0 Final Report for Council consideration. On 24 October 2018, the Counciladopted the Final Report and recommendations and instructed staff and Council leadership to develop an implementation plan. On 10 December 2018, the draft GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Plan was shared with the Council.

Here, the Council will discuss the draft implementation plan and consider next steps.

7.1 – Presentation of topic (Council leadership)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - 2019 Strategic Planning Session (10 minutes)

In January of 2017, the GNSO Council submitted a FY18 additional budget request to support a 3 day face-to-face strategic planning session in January of 2018. At a high-level, the purpose of the meetings is to allow for focused and dedicated sessions to strategically develop a work plan for the upcoming year. This additional budget request was approved by the ICANN Board and the GNSO Council successfully conducted its inaugural Strategic Planning Session (SPS) from January 29–31 2018. Based on the success of the first SPS, the GNSOCouncil requested a FY19 additional budget request for the same purpose, which was approved.

With the 2019 SPS scheduled for January 23-25 2019, Council leadership has developed and shared a draft agenda on 7 December 2018.

Here the Council leadership will provide an update to the Council on planning steps undertaken to date, including review of a draft agenda and seeking input from Councilors.

8.1 – Presentation of discussion topic (Council leadership)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)

9.1 - Existing ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law Implementation Advisory Group - Next steps for Call for Volunteers

9.2 - FY20 Draft ICANN Operating Plan and Budget - Next steps for the Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations.

9.3 - ICANN64 Planning

November Meeting - Nov 29th 1200 UTC

Upcoming Meeting(s)

1. December Meeting -  Dec 20 2100 UTC

GNSO Council meetings 2017

Previous meetings of the GNSO (most recent at top of the list): 

15 Dec 2016 at 1200 UTC 

This agenda is also published on the Wiki page at:

 Agenda 7 November 2016 - part 1

Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins)

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 GNSO Council on 13 October 2016 and posted on 4 November 2016.

Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 mins)

2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List [gnso.icann.org] and Action List[community.icann.org] 

GNSO Liaison notes: no comment.

Item 3. Consent Agenda (5 mins)

See motions

3.1 – Adopt the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO Policy Development Processes Final Status Report & Recommendations;

GNSO Liaison notes:
Motion passed unanimously.

3.2 – Approve appointment of a GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (Carlos Gutiérrez).

GNSO Liaison notes:
Motion passed unanimously. A lot of preparation had been made to reach this point. Mason Cole, who has held the interim Seat, has been thanked for his service.

Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of Consensus Recommendations from the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team (20 minutes)

On 30 June 2016, the GNSO Council created a Drafting Team (DT) to work with ICANN staff to identify the GNSO’s new rights and obligations under the revised ICANN Bylaws, and prepare an implementation plan to address any needed changes by 30 September (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2). On 29 September 2016, the Council received an update on the status of the DT’s work and, pending the completion of the DT’s work, the Council voted to appoint the GNSO Chair as its interim representative to the Empowered Community (EC) Administration. At its meeting on 13 October, the Council reviewed the DT’s report and recommendations (Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf; Minority Statement: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-minority-report-10oct16-en.pdf). Here the Council will vote on on whether or not to adopt the DT’s consensus recommendations. Following the GNSO Council’s review and approval of the DT’s recommendations, the GNSO is expected to confirm its process for appointing its EC representative going forward.

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison notes: the motion was DEFERRED.

Item 5. COUNCIL VOTE – Next Steps for the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (20 minutes)

The Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance Charter for the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) was ratified by the ALAC and the ccNSO and GNSO Councils between September 2014 and April 2015. Under its Charter, the CCWG-IG is to “do whatever it deems necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes”, including providing input to ICANN staff, Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees on issues pertaining to Internet governance discussions and processes and informing the community about ICANN-related issues arising in Internet governance discussions and processes. As part of its Charter-mandated review of the work of the CCWG-IG, the GNSO Council in 2016 requested and received activity reports from the CCWG co-chairs. Here the Council will evaluate the appropriateness of continuing with the CCWG-IG in light of the deliverables prescribed under the Charter and in the context of the recently adopted Uniform Framework of Principles for Cross Community Working Groups.  

5.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison notes:

Vote passed unanimously. It is worth noting that the original motion to leave the CCWG IG was replaced by the above motion, which provided more time for the CCWG IG to work out its Charter.

Discussions throughout the week made it clear that Councillors believed the topic of Internet Governance was important, but the vehicle (Cross Community Working Group) in which this activity took place might not be appropriate for the purposes and workflow of the activity concerned.

Motion passed unanimously.

Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Chartering of a New Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (20 minutes)

The 2012 New gTLD Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention. Although most string contention sets have been resolved through other means prior to reaching the stage of an auction conducted by ICANN's authorized auction service provider, it was recognized from the outset that significant funds could accrue as a result of several auctions. As such, any and all auction proceeds have been reserved and earmarked until the Board authorizes a plan for the appropriate use of the funds. The Board, staff, and community are expected to work together in designing the appropriate processes for addressing the use of the new gTLD auction proceeds. To this end, a cross-community Drafting Team (DT) was formed which has now submitted a proposed Charter for a cross-community working group to all SO/ACs for consideration.

The proposed charter is the result of extensive community input and DT deliberations and the DT presented it in the belief that it represents a careful balance between the different viewpoints and perspectives, including from the DT members and the ICANN Board liaisons to the DT.

At its meeting on 29 September 2016, the GNSO Council received a briefing and update on the draft Charter and the work of the DT from Jonathan Robinson, the DT chair. As there were no substantive suggested edits to the draft Charter received consequently from the GNSO, the Council will here consider whether or not to become one of the Chartering Organizations for the proposed new CCWG.

6.1 – Presentation of the motion

 6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison notes:

Liaison expressed the ALAC's intent to participate in this Cross Community Working Group and to appoint a Co-Chair for its work.

Motion passed unanimously.

Item 7. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Board Letter regarding policy implications of the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Expert Working Group (15 minutes)

On 11 May 2016, ICANN Board Chair Dr. Steve Crocker sent a letter to the GNSO Council following up on the Board’s 10 March 2016 Resolution (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-11may16-en.pdf). The Board’s request was for the GNSO Council to “review the broader policy implications of the IRD Final Report as they relate to other GNSO policy development work on WHOIS issues, and, at a minimum, forward the IRD Final Report as an input to the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS that is currently underway.”

The GNSO Council sought input from the co-chairs of the recently completed GNSO Policy Development Process on the Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data, requesting feedback on several specific points: (1) how certain recommendations in the IRD Final Report were considered, if at all, in the Final Report of the T&T PDP Working Group; (2) how those recommendations could potentially conflict with the T&T PDP Working Group’s recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board; and (3) What steps are recommended to the GNSO Council in considering the policy implications of the IRD Final Report. Here the Council will discuss the input received from a member of the T&T PDP Working Group (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/docxZ229qQH0Gm.docx), and decide on next steps.

7.1 –  Status update (GNSO Council chairs)

7.2 – Council discussion

 7.3 – Next steps 

GNSO Liaison notes:

A discussion took place - as per council update.

 Item 8. Discussion - Results of GNSO Newcomer Survey (5 minutes)

On 30 June 2016, the GNSO Council directed ICANN staff to develop a survey to “assess the familiarity that the community has with the different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness”, as part of the permanent integration of successful Policy Development Process (PDP) pilot project improvements into the overall structure of PDPs. Here the Council will receive a report on the results of the survey (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/newcomer-tools-survey-04oct16-en.pdf) and consider whether staff should proceed with implementing some of the suggested improvements following additional input (if any) from GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.

8.1 – Summary and update (David Tait)

 8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9. Open Microphone (10 Minutes)

GNSO Liaison Notes:

Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes)

 This agenda is also published on the Wiki page at:

https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-29sep16-en.htm

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 1 September 2016 to be posted on xx 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

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – GNSO Validation of the FY17 Budget and Cost-Control Processes for the CCWG-Accountability (20 minutes)

A draft budget and cost-control processes for the CCWG-Accountability activities for FY17 was presented at the group's plenary meeting of 21 June 2016. In accordance with the process agreed with the Project Cost Support Team (PCST) that supported the CCWG-Accountability, a request for validation of the proposed budget and cost-control processes was transmitted to the CCWG-Accountability's Chartering Organizations on 23 June.

The GNSO Council discussed the validation request during ICANN56 in Helsinki at the end of June, and a webinar on the topic was held at the Council's request on 23 August. Here the Council will consider approving the request to validate the FY17 budget and cost-control processes as well as a number of related topics that have been highlighted for discussion by various Councilors.

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

4.2 – Discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison Notes:

Concern was expressed specifically about the potential spiralling of costs in the Jurisdiction sub-group

"5.      It is the position of the GNSO Council that revisiting the jurisdiction or organization of the ICANN legal entity, as established by CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1,  would not likely be supported by this projected budget and, further, that such inquiry should not be undertaken at this time because the new accountability measures are all premised and dependent on California jurisdiction for their effective operation, and any near-term changes in organizational jurisdiction could be extremely destabilizing for ICANN and its community."

Motion passed unanimously by acclamation.

Action items:

• GNSO Secretariat to communicate voting result to the CCWG-Accountability chairs and the ICANN CFO

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of Implementation Advisory Group Recommendations to Update Procedure on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws (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 proposed modifications to the procedure that it believes do not contradict the underlying policy recommendations. The Council received an update on the proposed modifications at ICANN56 and discussed the matter further at its meetings on 21 July and 2 September. Here the Council will confirm whether or not the IAG's proposed modifications conform with the intent of the underlying GNSO Policy.

5.1 – Presentation of the motion (Stephanie Perrin)

5.2 – Discussion

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison Notes: a first version of this motion had been provided in the previous GNSO Council call (Item 5, 1st September 2016) and was withdrawn due to significant opposition to the motion.

Stephanie Perrin worked to put together another version of this motion. It effectively says: "GNSO Council rejects the report of the IAG" and asks for another PDP to be launched. This motion was unacceptable for contracted parties as there is concern that another PDP to resolve a PDP issue would again add months, if not years of work. After some time discussing the motion, it was agreed that the motion presenter would withdraw it and work on it with other parties until the Hyderabad meeting where face to face discussions of the topic could yield a solution.

Official minutes:

The Motion was withdrawn after concerns were raised about conforming with the process for starting a Policy Development Process (PDP), the current PDP workload, and the need to deal substantively with the Implementation Advisory Group’s  (IAG's) recommendations and how these factor into next steps. It was agreed to resubmit a motion for Council consideration at the Council meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, with potential modifications following additional discussions

Action items:

• Motion withdrawn; to be resubmitted for Council consideration at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, with potential modifications following additional discussions

Discussions to continue with Stephanie and other interested Councilors as well as affected parties (e.g. Registries, Registrars) to discuss path forward and rework motion language 

Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Appointment of an Interim GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration (20 minutes)

Section 1.1(a) of Article 6 of the new ICANN Bylaws concerning the composition and organization of the Empowered Community (EC) states that the EC is to be "a nonprofit association formed under the laws of the State of California consisting of the ASO, the ccNSO, the GNSO, the ALAC and the GAC (each a "Decisional Participant" or "associate," and collectively, the "Decisional Participants")." Section 6.3 provides that, as a Decisional Participant in the EC, the GNSO "shall act through its respective chair or such other person as may be designated by the GNSO". Each Decisional Participant must deliver annually a written certification from its chair or co-chairs to the ICANN Secretary designating the individual representing that Decisional Participant in the EC Administration.

On 30 June 2016, the GNSO Council created a Drafting Team (DT) to work with ICANN staff to identify the GNSO's new rights and obligations, and prepare an implementation plan to address any needed changes by 30 September (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2). Upon the completion of the DT's work, the GNSO is expected to finalize its process for appointing its EC representative going forward. Here the Council will consider the appointment of the GNSO Chair as an interim representative to the EC Administration to ensure that a GNSO representative is designated as soon as the new Bylaws come into effect, pending the completion and approval of the DT's work.

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

6.2 – Discussion

 6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison Notes:

Steve del Bianco explained the process by which this proposal was made. The discussion turned around whether the holder of the "empowerment" in the Empowered Community would be the GNSO Council or the Constituencies of the GNSO. It was proposed that the GNSO Council would be trusted with this empowerment.

The drafting team looked at two levels to address the Council resolution.

• who should represent the GNSO as the decisional participant? Namely, should it be council or should it be the GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies directly?

The drafting team report, in response to who should represent the GNSO pronounced a majority in favor of having Council speak for the GNSO.

• how should that entity reach their decisions? What are the voting thresholds for those kinds of decisions?

Having not yet reached a decision on the above, some names were proposed to take on the interim position. In the meantime, it is clear that the Design Team will not be able to produce a full proposal to the request. Thus the proposal was that, rather than leaving an empty seat in the EC, the GNSO Council Chair could be a placeholder.

Motion Passes with 2 abstentions (Heather Forrest; Paul McGrady).

Abstention from Heather Forrest was caused by the IPC's concern about the pace at which important decisions needed to be made and there is concern that WS2 is also progressing super fast too - perhaps too fast for some constituencies. Paul Mc Grady expressed that he had faith in the work being done by the drafting team but echoed Heather's concerns.

The next sections appears to have been skipped or is here in error.

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Draft Charter for a New Cross Community Working Group concerning Auction Proceeds from the 2012 New gTLD Program (15 minutes)

The 2012 New gTLD Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention. Although most string contention sets have been resolved through other means prior to reaching the stage of an auction conducted by ICANN's authorized auction service provider, it was recognized from the outset that significant funds could accrue as a result of several auctions. As such, any and all auction proceeds have been reserved and earmarked until the Board authorizes a plan for the appropriate use of the funds. The Board, staff, and community are expected to work together in designing the appropriate processes for addressing the use of the new gTLD auction proceeds.To this end, a cross-community Drafting Team (DT) was formed which has now submitted a proposed Charter for a cross-community working group to all SO/ACs for consideration.

As outlined by the DT, the proposed charter is the result of extensive input and deliberations and represents a careful balance between the different viewpoints and perspectives, including from both the DT Members and the ICANN Board liaisons to the DT. As such, the DT has requested that the GNSO Council review the proposed charter with this careful balance in mind and only flag to the DT any pertinent issues that would prevent the GNSO from adopting this charter. The DT has requested to receive the GNSO's feedback by 30 September 2016 at the latest, including an indication of when the GNSO anticipates to be in a position to consider the charter for adoption following 30 September, provided that no pertinent issues have been identified by any of the ICANN SO/ACs.

Here the Council will discuss the DT's proposed Charter, with a view toward providing its input by 30 September.

7.1 – Summary and update (Jonathan Robinson (DT chair))

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps 

GNSO Liaison Notes:

Jonathan Robinson provided an update to the GNSO Council. Work emphasis:

The following points were emphasized:

The funds are ring-fenced.

They are a single revenue source.

There has been substantial discussion about conflict of interest provisions.

There has been substantial discussion and care taken so as not to prejudice or impact ICANN’s tax status. There’s recognition of issues like transparency that you expect, lean and effective work, diversity issues.

Jonathan Robinson proposed that Cross Community Working Group be formed along the concepts that have been developed and refined by recent Cross Community Working Groups. The planned course of action is to run the charter by the different chartering organisations. The charter will aim to be finalised by Hyderabad.

_______________________________

AOB Interlude: (Agenda Item 11.2)

"Please see the note below, in which the leadership of CWG-Stewardship is asking all chartering organizations (incl. the GNSO) for their approval to being included as signatories on a letter, instructing ICANN to execute the three IANA IPR agreements referenced & attached.  They are asking for a response by 30 SEP (tomorrow)."

While acknowledging the last-minute nature of this request, this should be a non-controversial issue and I’d like to include a discussion of it under AOB for today’s call."

Jonathan Robinson, co-chair of the CWG IANA intervened to explain the IANA IPR Community Agreement.

Some discussion then continued about the Intellectual Property Issue on IANA.ORG etc. and the proposal that the Names Community selecting its representatives. The IPR Issue is the signing off a final instruction letter that was sent to ICANN, which reflects the CWG¹s appointment of Greg Shatan, Maarten Simon, and Christopher Wilkinson in the IANA IPR Community Agreement.

As the ALAC Liaison, I shared that the ALAC was also considering the letter and was concerned about the last minute too –  and is likely to sign it to proceed forward.

_______________________________

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (15 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).

At its meeting on 2 September, the GNSO Council agreed to seek input from all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituency leaders, as well as the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group. Here the Council will discuss feedback received from the various groups and determine next steps.

8.1 – Status update (GNSO Council chairs / Paul McGrady (for the PDP Working Group))

 8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: a quick update from Phil Corwin and no discussion. Item to be discussed further in Hyderabad.

Action items:

• Staff to convene volunteer group (comprising Councilors and interested community members) to synthesize coordinated response to the Board, based on WG & SG/C responses received
• Volunteer group to present proposed response to Council for adoption on 13 October, with goal to transmit response to Board before ICANN57 in Hyderabad

• Volunteers so far – Carlos Raúl Gutierrez, Phil Corwin, Keith Drazek, James Bladel, Stefania Milan

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Final Framework for Future Cross Community Working Groups (5 minutes)

In March 2014, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils jointly chartered a Cross Community Working Group to develop a framework of principles to guide the formation, chartering, operations and closure for future cross community working groups (CCWG-Principles). The CCWG-Principles published an initial proposed framework for public comment in February 2016, and following a review of all public comments received and further community discussion at ICANN56 in Helsinki at the end of June, completed a proposed Final Framework which it has since submitted to both its Chartering Organizations. Here the Council will receive a brief update on the Final Framework, with a view toward its possible adoption at the next Council meeting in October.

9.1 – Summary and update (Mary Wong / Steve Chan)

9.2 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: item skipped and discussed further in Hyderabad.

Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Meeting Schedule for ICANN57 (5 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 meetings on 21 July and 2 September. GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies wishing to hold sessions at ICANN57 were requested to submit meeting requests by the agreed deadline. Here the Council will discuss the GNSO's meeting schedule for ICANN57, including the Council sessions and Working Group and other meetings.

10.1 – Overview of the proposed schedule (GNSO Council Chairs / Glen de St Gery)

10.2 – Discussion

10.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: a quick update was given and a new block schedule will be published shortly.

Item 11: Any Other Business (5 minutes)

GNSO Liaison Note: I have shared the details of the At-Large Survey for the At-Large Review and shared the links in the AC Chat.

This agenda is also published on the Wiki page at:

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

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.

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call

 1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest 

Jennifer Gore resigned from the GNSO Council on 14 July 2016.
Volker Greimann noted that the Registrar Stakeholder Group had asked him to continue in his role on the Council until a replacement has been elected thus he is acting as his own temporary alternate.

 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)

GNSO Liaison Notes: Wolf Ulrich Knoben took councillors through the motion explaining how the selection was made. Use of an evaluation tool, etc. There was only one candidate but the tool was used on that candidate.

The candidate James Gannon, scored very well. There were concerns about not having an alternate. It was explained that the secondary name would just step in if there were diversity issues. No alternate role per-se.

Question asked (by Marilia Maciel) in the manner that the Registry Operators will select their representative(s). Registry Operators will be selected separately but the entire slate will be confirmed by the GNSO Council.

Motion moved by Wolf Ulrich & Seconded by James Bladel. Carried unanimously - David Cake was absent and did not vote.

Action Items:

• Staff to notify Mr. James Gannon of his selection as GNSO liaison to the CSC
• Staff to notify ICANN of the selection result

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

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 moved by Wolf Ulrich & Seconded by James Bladel. Carried unanimously - David Cake was absent and did not vote.

Action Items:

• Staff to update Charter to reflect Council decision that: (1) Option #1 was selected (Working Group will take up new requests following completion of implementation tasks and SCI will be disbanded); and (2) Working Group shall operate on Full Consensus for all recommendations relating to ICANN Bylaws and GNSO Operating Procedures
• Staff to note in Council meeting minutes that Option #1 was selected
• Staff to prepare notice of Council decision to SCI

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

Action Items:

• Staff to amend last sentence in draft response on IGO protections issue, to reflect Board-GNSO discussions in Helsinki
• Councillors to provide feedback on amended draft response by Wednesday 27 July)
• Staff to work with Mason Cole (GNSO Liaison to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) to ensure follow up communications with/from the GAC after formal response is submitted to the Board and cc’d to the GAC

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.

Action Items:

• Councilors to continue discussions via email with a view toward developing an agreed approach for the Council meeting in September 2016.

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

8.3 – Next steps

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

Action Items:

• Councilors to continue review of proposed draft schedule
• Council to confirm selection of GNSO PDP Working Groups for face-to-face meetings at ICANN57 on 3 November as soon as possible (most likely candidates – RDS and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures)
• Clarification from Nick Tomasso on visas for India

Item 9: Any Other Business (10 minutes)

9.1 – Update on Council representatives from the Registrars Stakeholder Group 

The Registrar Stakeholder group asked Volker Greimann to continue in his role on the Council until a replacement has been elected and elections are under way.

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. 

9.3 - Continuing disruptive behaviour of a Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process Working Group (RPM WG) Observer –

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.

Meeting Minutes (from GNSO Staff)

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 12 May 2016  were approved on 30 June 2016.

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

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

Council members were reminded that a copy of the updated Projects list, in both red-lined and clean version, is sent to the Council mailing list before each Council meeting for review and comment.

Item 3: Consent agenda

No items on the consent agenda

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval to Permanently Integrate Successful PDP Improvements into the GNSO Policy Development Process

Approval to Permanently Integrate Successful PDP Improvements into the GNSO Policy Development Process

 Motion proposed by Donna Austin seconded by Carlos Gutierrez.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Voting results

Action Item:

The GNSO Council directs staff to move ahead with the identified next steps including: integrating the inclusion of the proposed PDP Charter as part of the Preliminary Issue Report; development of draft guidelines for the use and application for face-to-face facilitated PDP WG meetings for Council review and adoption, and; developing a survey to assess the familiarity that the community has with the different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval to Form a Drafting Team to Develop an Implementation Plan for New and Additional GNSO Powers and Obligations under the Revised ICANN Bylaws

Motion to create a drafting team to further develop recommendations to implement the GNSO’S new roles and obligations under the revised ICANN Bylaws – 29 June 2016

Motion proposed by Paul McGrady, seconded by Susan Kawaguchi as amended by Heather Forrest

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Voting results

Action Item

ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for a Drafting Team that will work with ICANN staff to fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities.

Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Temporary Extension of Term of Current GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee

Motion to extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC and confirm the extended timeline for the selection process for the next GNSO liaison to the GAC.

Motion proposed by James Bladel seconded by Volker Greimann as amended by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Voting results

Action Item

• 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 for consideration during Council meeting on 8 NOV; GAC Leadership notified of new Liaison by 9 NOV).
• Staff to include consideration of a uniform selection process as part of the work associated with implementing the post-transition bylaws

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Response to ICANN Board Request concerning Expert Working Group Final Report on Internationalized Registration Data

Copy of official minutes:

James Bladel reminded Council of the three components of the Board request:

• Acknowledging receipt of the request,
• referring the request to the Chairs of the Translation and Transliteration PDP Working group
• referring the request Chairs of the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS  Working Group.

David Cake confirmed that the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS  Leadership was fully aware of the request.

Action Items: 

• Staff to note that GNSO Council will proceed with the Board request. 
• Staff to draft a letter which will be circulated to the Council list before transmitting to the ICANN Board and to the co-chairs of the Translation and Transliteration PDP Working group and the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS  Working Group

As the next points are well caught in the meeting's minutes, these are copied here:

Item 8: COMMITTEE UPDATE - Selection of Primary and Alternate Delegates from the GNSO to the New Bylaws-mandated Customer Standing Committee

Donna Austin provided the Council with an update on the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Selection Committee

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben provided background information about the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) and reminded the Council of the selection date deadline of the 15th August 2016. The target is to monitor the performance of the IANA naming functions in the future. The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) shall consist of representatives of all Advisory Committees and Supporting Organisations. The GNSO must appoint members (voting) and is strongly encouraged to appoint liaisons (non-voting).
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben offered to lead the GNSO Liaison Selection Committee. 

Deadline for applications to be sent to the GNSO Secretariat is the 15th July.

The GNSO Council Selection committee, Rubens Kuhl, Heather Forrest, Susan Kawaguchi, Wolf-Ullrich Knoben and David Cake, have decided on an evaluation tool which will be used to send four candidates to the GNSO Council which will select two out of the four.
The final selection will be decided with the Country Code Naming Support Organisation (ccNSO) and the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group in a coordination round.
Timeline:

15th July 2016: deadline for applications and for Expressions of Interest (EoI)

 21 July 2016: GNSO Council meeting, motion to be provided for selection of two top   applicants. 

James Bladel reminded everyone that the two GNSO Council Liaisons can be listed unnamed in the motion as such until the names of the applicants are known to the Council.

The aim would be for the GNSO Council to vote confirming members and liaisons by email ballot rather than having to convene an extra Council meeting during the summer break. Only gTLD and ccTLD registries are appointing members as they are the IANA direct customers and will be those to best keep the process in check. 

Further discussion was had about the timeline, the roles and selections of members and liaisons.
Wolf- Ulrich Knoben reminded Council that a motion deferral was ill advised and that a few days would be necessary for councilors to consult with their groups prior to the meeting and the close of the application window.
Paul McGrady raised the IPC's concerns about Council having undertaken this process, and noted that the IPC would not make a formal issue of the matter in light of tight timelines, but wished that Council's role in such matters be discussed going forward.
Keith Drazek clarified the members/ liaison terms. 

Action item:
Schedule precautionary 9 August 2016 Council meeting as vote is required. 

Item 9: WORKING GROUP PROGRESS REPORT – Activities of the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance

The Co-Chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance Working Group (CCWG IG) Rafik Dammak, provided Council with an Update while Olivier Crépin-Leblond, confirmed  the Working Group’s targets and accountability and clarified how much staff support and support in general the CCWG was receiving.

Mariel Maciel stressed the importance of this CCWG both in triggering awareness of the potential threats ICANN could be facing but also in consolidating collaboration with other similar organizations.
Heather Forrest requested copies of the reports produced by the CCWG IG support staff so the Council can be kept apprised of the CCWG’s progress.

Action Item:
Council be kept apprised of the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance Working Group’s (CCWG IG) progress

Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Next Steps relating to Implementation of Recommendations for the GNSO Review

James Bladel reminded everyone that ICANN Board has approved the GNSO review recommendations as well as those amended by the GNSO Council. It is foreseen that a team is to be created in July to work on an Implementation Plan to send to the Board. However, is a new team to be created or would the Standing Committee on the Implementation of GNSO Improvements (SCI) be repurposed to this intent?
Avri Doria supported the latter.

Anne Aikman-Scalese, vice-Chair of the SCI, reminded the Council that the SCI is at their disposal for work projects

Action Item:

Staff proposed re-drafting the SCI’s charter in order to accommodate the changes.

Item 11: STAFF UPDATE TO COUNCIL – Next Steps relating to the Final Report of the Implementation Group on Review of the WHOIS Conflicts with National Law Procedure

Jamie Hedlund provided an update to the Council giving a brief reminder of the beginning of the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) through to current developments. Currently, there is one trigger for the procedure and that is evidence of a process or regulatory action or litigation against a contracted party for effectively complying with Whois obligations in conflict with local privacy law.

Donna Austin questioned whether the GAC or Data Protection Agencies had been consulted on the subject. Several other members raised the concern that the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) could not come to consensus given that their scope of action was narrow as policy had already been made. 

Item 12: Any Other Business

James Bladel noted that a written proposal from the Board Finance Committee on proposed cost, monitoring cost, tracking cost, and control mechanisms for CCWG Accountability Work Stream 2 was submitted and encouraged Councillors to review the proposal. 
 

 (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 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)

GNSO Liaison Notes:

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)

GNSO Liaison Notes: Response approved. 

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.

 (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:

Draft minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 21 January 2016 were posted as approved on 4 February 2016.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 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 – Approve Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group

3.2 – Approve appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chairs for the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services PDP Working Group

Item 4: COUNCIL ACTION – Vote on Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) for the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs, and Discussion of Proposed Charter for the PDP Working Group (30 minutes)

In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS). The Final Issue Report was published on 11 January 2015 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf).  Based on public comments received in response to the publication of the Preliminary Issue Report, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP), with the first phase focused on a review of the RPMs developed for the New gTLD Program and, the subsequent, second phase on a review of the UDRP. Here the Council will review the report and vote on whether or not to initiate the recommended PDP. The Council will also discuss the proposed draft Charter for the PDP Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf).

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

4.2 – Discussion of the motion

4.3 – Council vote on the motion (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

4.4 – Council review and discussion of draft charter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf)

4.5 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: a long discussion took place about disagreement on the order in which the issues will be addressed in the PDP:

• Whether the review of the RPMs is performed first, followed by a review of a UDRP
• Whether the review of the UDRP is performed first, followed by a review of the RPMs

It was strongly added that this decision should not be left to the Working Group itself to work out.

With the Council ready to hammer out the Charter in advance of Marrakech, the Motion was passed unanimously.

Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Marrakech Meeting Planning (10 minutes)

During the Dublin meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr volunteered to work with the GNSO Council Leadership on the development of the proposed agenda for the GNSO Weekend Session in Marrakech. Here the Council will receive a status update on the planning for Marrakech and any action that may be required from the GNSO Council.

5.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr / Donna Austin)

5.2 – Discussion

5.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: update performed, noting that the new ICANN CEO has been invited by GNSO Council Staff to come meet the GNSO Council at his convenience.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 minutes)

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As the US government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published for public comment on 30 November 2015.

Concurrently, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) – the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue – announced after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. In this regard, the CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment to the CCWG-Accountability which, while noting that several of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points that in its view merited further attention.

In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team to review all the public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council held a special meeting on 14 January 2016 to discuss the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team, and, following updates made as a result and further discussion at the 21 January Council meeting, the Council approved a letter setting out its response to the recommendations in the Third Draft Proposal that was sent to the CCWG-Accountability on 22 January. The CCWG-Accountability is currently expected to circulate a Supplemental Proposal, following which the GNSO Council will hold a Special Meeting on 29 February to discuss the updated proposals in detail. Here the Council will discuss its timeline and necessary actions for approval of the CCWG-Accountability’s final recommendations , which is scheduled to take place at ICANN55.

6.1 – Update (James Bladel)

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: A discussion on the next steps for the GNSO Council yielded concern from some Council members that they will not have enough time to ask the opinion of their own members. It was agreed that a call should process on 29^th February that would be open to both GNSO members but also members of their communities, where an open and frank discussion would take place. The Council would then take up the lessons learnt from this discussion to Marrakech, with a better idea of where their communities stood. A ratification vote will then take place at ICANN 55 in Marrakech.

I shared the process that the ALAC is going to use. (community calls on 24th & 25th February 2016; 1/2 day face to face meetings on Saturday 5 and Sunday 6 March 2016 at ICANN55 and ratification in an ALAC vote later in the week, potentially Tuesday)

ITEM 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – 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 has been reviewing the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board’s consideration in relation to the implementability and prioritization of these recommendations. The Council received a written update from the Working Party chair on 29 January. Here the Council will receive a further update, following the Working Party’s meeting in early February where it is expected to finalize its recommendations that are to be sent to the GNSO Council for approval and submission to the Board’s Organizational Effectiveness Committee for its consideration.

7.1 – Update (Jen Wolfe)

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: the call ran out of time before addressing this issue, thus to be continued at a future date.

Item 8: BRIEFING & DISCUSSION – RDAP Implementation (10 minutes)

Building on previous advisories, ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) had recommended the replacement of the longstanding WHOIS protocol in SAC051 (see https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf). In October 2011, the ICANN Board directed staff to produce, in consultation with the community, a roadmap for the coordination of the technical and policy discussions necessary to implement the recommendations outlined in SAC 051. The Roadmap was published in 2012 (see https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-roadmap-04jun12-en.pdf). Also in 2012, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) chartered the WEIRDS (Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Services) working group, which concluded its work in early 2015 with the publication of several specifications defining the behavior of the Registry Data Access Protocol (RDAP), a standardized replacement for WHOIS. ICANN-accredited registrars subject to the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), registry operators from the 2012 New gTLD round and several other gTLD registries are contractually obligated to deploy RDAP.

In February 2014 the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO Council’s recommendations for a new Consensus Policy that would require the provision of “thick” WHOIS services for all gTLD registries. The GNSO Implementation Review Team that was formed for the Thick Whois Policy Implementation agreed with the proposal of ICANN staff to synchronize implementation of the policy with the adoption of RDAP. On 3 December 2015 ICANN staff published a draft RDAP Operational Profile for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en). Public comments will be received through 15 February 2015.

Some concern has been expressed as to the policy implications of adopting RDAP in view of a number of other parallel efforts with potential cross-cutting impact, such as the recent initiation by the GNSO Council of a PDP for a Next-Generation Registration Directory Service to Replace WHOIS (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201511). Here the Council will discuss the concerns that have been raised, in preparation for a discussion with GDD staff at ICANN55 about the policy bases for RDAP, the linkage to Thick WHOIS, and the RDAP Operational Profile requirements (including timeline).

8.1 – Discussion

8.2 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: the call ran out of time before addressing this issue, thus to be continued at a future date.

Item 9: Any Other Business (5 Minutes)

None.

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:
Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of the GNSO Council on 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on 27 January 2016

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 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: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (20 minutes)

This PDP had been requested by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN's implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Consideration of this item was deferred from the 17 December meeting. Here the Council will review the Working Group's Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it.

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

4.2 – Discussion

4.3 – CCouncil vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House)

Motion Passed Unanimously

Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes)

In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO's policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. During its meeting on 17 December, the Council initiated the PDP but deferred consideration of the Charter for the PDP Working Group to this meeting. Here the Council will review the revised charter for adoption.

5.1 – Presentation of the motion (Donna Austin)

5.2 – Discussion

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

Concern by Paul McGrady to avoid collision of other PDP that has been deferred regarding Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs). The concern is that RPMs would be treated in both PDPs when they should be addressed separately.

After small friendly amendment, Motion Passed Unanimously.

Item 6: Vote on motion: Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (15 minutes)

In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS. The Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures was published on 11 January 2015 at http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/rpm. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) in order to the review Rights Protection Mechanisms in the new gTLDs and, in a subsequent, second phase, review the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the review topics are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter.

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (Amr Elsadr)

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

Withdrawn

Item 7: Vote on motion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 minutes)

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published for public comment on 30 November 2015. The comment period closed on 21 December 2015, with all Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt the recommendations in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016.

Concurrently, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) – the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue – announced after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. In this regard, the CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment which, while noting that several of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points that in its view merited further attention.

In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team that was to review all the various public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council had an initial discussion on the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team during its meeting on 14 January, following which an updated version of the proposed response was circulated [include link when available]. Here the Council will discuss the updated proposed response developed by the Sub Team, and if appropriate vote on whether to submit this response to the CCWG-Accountability.

7.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

There was no vote. Action Item is to have a final version circulated to the GNSO Council, with a consensus call.

Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion – Marrakesh Meeting Planning (10 minutes)

During the Dublin meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr volunteered to work with the GNSO Council Leadership on the development of the proposed agenda for the GNSO Weekend Session in Marrakech. Here the Council will receive a status update on the planning for Marrakesh and any action that may be required from the GNSO Council.

8.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr)

8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: Any Other Business (10 Minutes)

This was a special meeting of the GNSO Council on a single topic: CCWG Accountability Final Report.

The Council went through each recommendation and feedback was received from Councillors. James Bladel, GNSO Chair, will produce a concerted document over the week-end 16-17 January.

ACTION ITEMS:

• Letter explaining GNSO Council response - James to prepare draft for Council consideration before 21 January, assisted by Keith and Ed
• Rec 5, 11 - James to draft additional language along the lines of what was discussed/agreed on the call, assisted by Ed and Paul
• Rec 1 - reinsert BC note about strong right of inspection (perhaps with cross-reference in/to Rec 3?)
• Rec 2 - change "unanimous support" to "broad support"
• Rec 3, 4 - no change
• Rec 6 - remove last sentence; add note that certain questions remain to be resolved in WS2
• Rec 7 - no change
• Rec 8 – further elaboration needed on note about timeliness (including replies and deadlines)
• Rec 9 - Review whether IPC comment on AOC section 8(b) and direct constituency participation in review teams should be included; review generally for accuracy
• Rec 10 - emphasize need for it to be a community-led effort
• Rec 12 - no change

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 meetings of 19 November have been posted as approved on 5 December 2015

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 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: VOTE ON MOTION – Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes)

In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO’s policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter.

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Donna Austin)

4.2 – Discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

Liaison Notes:

In the discussion about this motion there was concern that this PDP could be linked to the completion of the PDP on Rights Protection Mechanisms to be complete before this PDP can complete.

It was mentioned that this was not the case.

Vote was unanimous. 100% both houses.

Item 4b: Again the question of Rights Protection Mechanisms came up and some confusion was present as to whether these were to be included in the Chartering. It was decided to defer this motion for a month until this issue is clarified.

NOTE: Check Charter which is at the end of the Final Report of the Issues as drafted by Staff.

ACTION ITEMS:

• Vote on Motion #1 (initiation of PDP) – PASSED
• Vote on Motion #2 (adoption of Charter) – DEFERRED
  • Susan Kawaguchi, Philip Corwin and ICANN staff to work on appropriate language to clarify scope of Charter vis-à-vis rights protection mechanisms (which is the subject of a separate Issue Report on which the Council is expected to consider in January 2016) and circulate to Council list prior to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting

Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes)

This PDP had been requested by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN’s implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Here the Council will review the Working Group’s Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it.

5.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

5.2 – Discussion

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House)

Liaison Notes:

Due to a crowded schedule, volunteers are currently overwhelmed and the proposal was to put this off for a few more weeks.

ACTION ITEMS:

Vote on Motion - DEFERRED

Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique (10 mins)

Following discussions at the Council level in late 2014 to develop a means for the GNSO to provide input to the ICANN Board regarding gTLD policy matters highlighted in a GAC Communique, a template framework to review each GAC Communique was created by a group of Council volunteers assisted by ICANN staff. The Council agreed that while it would review carefully each GAC Communique issued at an ICANN meeting, it would not always provide input to the Board unless it also agreed that such feedback was either necessary or desirable, on a case-by-case basis. The first GNSO Review of a GAC Communique was of the GAC’s Communique from ICANN53 in Buenos Aires. That Review document was sent to the ICANN Board in July 2015 and acknowledged by the Board in October. At its last meeting, the Council discussed an initial draft of a possible review document to be sent to the Board in response to the GAC’s Dublin Communique. Here the Council will review an updated draft document and vote on whether to adopt it for forwarding to the ICANN Board.

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (Stephanie Perrin)

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

Liaison Notes:

The response to the GAC communiqué was presented and voted on. The response was fairly non-controversial.

 Motion passes unanimously.

 ACTION ITEMS:

Vote on Motion – PASSED (James Bladel to ensure that actions outlined in the motion are followed through i.e. communicate to Board followed by communication to GAC Chair and GAC-GNSO Consultation Group - COMPLETED)

Item 7: VOTE ON MOTION – Endorsement of GNSO Candidates for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (20 minutes)

Under ICANN’s Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with the United States government, ICANN is mandated to review the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT Review). The CCT Review Team is expected to also assess the effectiveness of the application and evaluation processes, as well as the safeguards put in place by ICANN to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion of new gTLDs. A Call for Volunteers to the CCT Review Team closed on 13 November 2015, and twenty-six (26) applicants indicated that they wished to be endorsed as representatives of the GNSO to the Review Team. ICANN staff has since followed up with all these applicants for further information to assist the Council in its decision on endorsements (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw). Here the Council will discuss and determine which of the applicants to endorse for the CCT Review Team.

7.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

Liaison Notes:

A lot of candidates were presented, with much discussion on all of the individuals that are proposed. (all 18 of them)

There is some concern that it was understood that the proposals were to be undertaken at SG level whilst some have provided names at Constituency level.

Plenty of time was used to discuss the selection process itself, with some proposing that all names should be sent to the ICANN process, letting the selection being taken by the people in ICANN making the selection. It was also suggested that along with the names sent out, a reminder be made that this is a review of a GNSO policy, hence there should be much involvement from participants from the GNSO.

Final decision is that the whole list will be sent over to the ICANN CEO & GAC Chair with a note that the GNSO component should be an important part of the resulting Review Team as this group will be reviewing GNSO policy.

Motion approved unanimously.

ACTION ITEMS:

• Vote on Motion - PASSED; candidates named in the motion are endorsed by GNSO Council (Calvin Browne, Gregory DiBiase, Ben Anderson, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Nacho Amadoz, Carlos Gutierrez, Jonathan Zuck, Waudo Siganga, Michael Graham, Greg Shatan, David Taylor, Stacie Walsh, Viktor Szabados, Cecilia Lee Smith, YJ Park, Jeremy Malcolm, Kinfe Michael Yilma Desta)
• Actions outlined in motion to be carried out by GNSO Secretariat (i.e. inform Review Team selectors including specific advice (see below) - COMPLETED; inform endorsed candidates as well as candidates that did not obtain endorsement -COMPLETED)
• Susan Kawaguchi to assist staff in drafting specific advice concerning GNSO role in New gTLD Program implementation and need to ensure representation of all relevant GNSO stakeholders - COMPLETED
• NPOC & NCUC to send specific candidate lists (if wished) directly to selectors, but to note that these are not candidates endorsed by the GNSO Council

Item 8: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (25 minutes)

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN’s historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders’ expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability has made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published for public comment on 30 November 2015.

Following ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) – the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue – announced that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send the consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. Public comments on these latest recommendations closes on 21 December 2015, with all the Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt them in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016.

Here the Council will discuss its review and adoption of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, including the timeline and consideration of any input from its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.

8.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert)

8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Liaison Notes:

Thomas Rickert provided a good summary of where the process is at the moment, including the needs for the various SOs and ACs to file their comments. The debate was however curtailed due to lack of time and some people needing to drop off.

IPC (Paul McGrady) explained there is an unrealistic comment deadline. Also concerned with the events in Washington DC. Asking for extension to 35 days, possibly 60. Also concerned about issue of Board to vote on GAC advice with the threshold being too high.

Recommendation #5 is another issue because it appears that this is not enough for ICANN to enforce its contracts.

Recommendation #9: AoC incorporation missing that ICANN needs to remain a US not for profit. Needs to be a fundamental bylaw.

BC (Phil Corwin): not enough time to get approval today on how to vote any comments. Question: how is the CCWG going to handle the comments from the Board which were described in an earlier cll with the Board as having Full Consensus on the Board?

Thomas Rickert: the charter foresees that the Chartering Orgs need to agree to charter. A concern regarding the Global Public Interest. We are not in the wordsmithing yet of the bylaws drafting and a lot of the concerns could be addressed, including the Board comments, at implementation.

ISPCP (Wolf Ulrich Knoben): only open concern is wrt Rec. 11 with the Board needing to Vote on Issues. Not wanting to impose a specific threshold.

NCSG having huge problems in receiving responses from people in China and far away places  because the comment period is way too crunched.

1, 10, 11 are the recs they have problems with.

1 + 11 give more power to governments and they do not believe this process was started to enhance government

If there is any kind of backtrack on inspection, Human Rights & extending the remit of ICANN they will not be ratifying.

I updated the Council on the ALAC's progress in this area.

James Bladel summarising: the GNSO Council will not be able to send consolidated comments due time running out.

ACTION ITEMS:

• Council to develop process to document support for CCWG-Accountability from GNSO SG/Cs and synthesize into a consolidated, GNSO position
• Council to work on appropriate resolution for adoption

Due to time running out, Agenda Items 9 & 10 will be taken to the GNSO Council mailing list.

Item 9: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION – New gTLD Auction Proceeds (10 minutes)

ACTION ITEMS:

Council to discuss on mailing list (COMPLETED)

Item 10: Any Other Business (10 Minutes)

10.1 – Confirming schedule of GNSO Council meetings for 2016

10.2 – Marrakech meeting planning (note: weekend session planning being led by Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr)

GNSO Election results for 2015-2016:

GNSO Council Chair: James Bladel
GNSO Council Vice Chair (Contracted Parties House): Donna Austin
GNSO Council Vice Chair (Non-contracted Parties House): Heather Forrest

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 meetings of 24 June, 23 July 2015 and 24 September and 21 October will be posted as approved on xxxxxx 2015

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)

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

Action Items

Besides the regular updates that will be done before the next Council call, the following require further action from the Council:

• Council response to Board letter on exclusive registry access – draft circulated to the Council list on 18 November, feedback requested by 23 November:  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17670.html 

• Council response to Board letter on replacement of registrar insurance requirements – draft to be circulated to the Council by 19 November, feedback to be provided by 24 November.

• Dublin meeting survey – Councillors to respond as soon as possible:  https://s.zoomerang.com/s/PR55KC2 

• IETF follow up - Council to consider next steps, including possibly inviting IETF representatives to a meeting in Marrakech to discuss the most effective ways of ensuring there is regular communication/liaison

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of the Charter for PDP Working Group on Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS (15 minutes)

In November 2012 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Concurrently, the Board directed the launch of a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. In June 2014 the Expert Working Group convened as a result of the Board resolution published its Final Report. In April 2015 a group comprising Board and GNSO Council members finalized a proposed Process Framework to guide the work of the PDP. In July 2015 an updated Preliminary Issue Report was published at the Board’s request for public comment, following which a Final Issue Report taking into account public comments received was prepared and submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2015 (see http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf).

At its October meeting in Dublin, the Council agreed to defer voting on chartering the Working Group for this PDP till its next meeting. Here the Council will review and vote on a revised motion to approve the charter for the Working Group to be formed to conduct this Board-initiated PDP.

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)

4.2 – Discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

Amended motion passed: call for volunteers to form the PDP Working Group to be launched at the latest by 4 January; Councillors to update their respective SG/Cs on how the amendment affects the Working Group’s handling of SG/C feedback provided during the public comment period on the Preliminary Issue Report.

Note that the deliberations around this motion, including on the spot word-crafting, took much more time than the allocated time provided in the agenda - hence affecting other order of business items.

Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – New Referral Request to the Standing Committee for GNSO Improvements Implementation (10 minutes)

The GNSO Council identified a number of procedural issues during the most recent round of elections for the GNSO Chair. These arise mainly from the fact that the GNSO Operating Procedures do not currently contain express provisions for an election timetable and a method for prescribing the specific terms to be served by the Chair and Vice-Chairs. The Procedures also do not seem to permit new incoming Council members to stand for the Chair position. Here the Council will discuss and vote on whether to refer these matters to the GNSO’s Standing Committee for GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI), and the scope of such a referral request.

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

5.2 – Discussion

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique (15 mins)

Following discussions at the Council level in late 2014 to develop a means for the GNSO to provide input to the ICANN Board regarding gTLD policy matters highlighted in a GAC Communique, a template framework to review each GAC Communique was created by a group of Council volunteers assisted by ICANN staff. The Council agreed that while it would review carefully each GAC Communique issued at an ICANN meeting, it would not always provide input to the Board unless it also agreed that such feedback was either necessary or desirable, on a case-by-case basis. The first GNSO Review of a GAC Communique was of the GAC’s Communique from ICANN53 in Buenos Aires. That Review document was sent to the ICANN Board in July 2015 and acknowledged by the Board in October. Here the Council will review a draft of a possible review document to be sent to the Board in response to the GAC’s Dublin Communique.

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (Stephanie Perrin)

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

Deferred to the next meeting; Council to further discuss and finalize the draft most recently circulated on the mailing list:  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17693.html

Item 7: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (25 minutes)

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN’s historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders’ expectations. Considering that the US Government (through the NTIA) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published some initial proposals surrounding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability has made further adjustments to its draft recommendations. As a result, a third public comment period will be held in November, with the aim to submit a report to all the Chartering Organizations for adoption in January 2016.

At ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) – the community group that was formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue – announced that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send the consolidated proposal to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that its accountability requirements have been met by Work Stream 1 recommendations currently being finalized by the CCWG-Accountability. The CCWG-Accountability therefore hopes that completion and timely approval of its Work Stream 1 recommendations by all its Chartering Organizations will mean minimal disruption of the IANA stewardship transition timeline.

Here the Council will receive an update on the progress of the CCWG-Accountability, and determine how best to ensure that its comments, as well as input from its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, are submitted and considered in a coordinated and timely fashion.

7.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert)

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Councilors to begin consultations with their respective SG/Cs based on the 15 November Formal Update provided by the CCWG co-chairs:  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stream-1-recs-15nov15-en.pdf (pending the release of the full Third Draft Proposal on 30 November).

Councilors to consider next steps in relation to input to be provided to the CCWG by the end of the public comment period as well as consideration of the Final Report.

Item 8: COUNCIL ACTION – GNSO Candidates for ICANN’s Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (15 minutes)

As part of its Affirmation of Commitments with the United States government, ICANN is committed to conducting periodic community-led reviews of four key objectives, one of which is the promotion of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. This review team is currently being formed, to “examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion.” The Call for Volunteers to serve as a Review Team member representing a particular ICANN Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee closes on 13 November. SO/ACs are expected to confirm their endorsements of their representatives by 13 December, following which the ICANN CEO and the GAC Chair will select the members of the Review Team, which is expected to begin its work in January 2016. Here the Council will discuss which of the volunteers who have indicated a wish to represent the GNSO to endorse.

8.1 – Presentation of the candidate list (Volker Greimann)

8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Council decision and next steps

Deferred to the next meeting; Councilors to review the proposed process (see  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17695.html) for endorsing a certain number of applicants as GNSO representatives for consideration by the selection team (ICANN CEO and GAC Chair), and to continue discussions on the Council mailing list (see  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17686.html for the updated list of candidates).

Item 9: UPDATE – Issue Report for a Potential PDP on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (10 minutes)

In June 2015, the GNSO Council had requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO’s policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the comment period closing on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. Here the Council will receive an update from ICANN staff on the expected timeline and next steps following the close of the public comment period.

9.1 – Update (Steve Chan)

9.2 – Discussion

9.3 – Next steps

ICANN staff to send a written update to the Council mailing list.

Item 10: BRIEFING – Ensuring Attendee Security at ICANN Meetings (15 minutes)

At its meeting in Dublin the GNSO Council had expressed an interest in getting early information about security arrangements for forthcoming ICANN meetings, starting with the next meeting scheduled for Marrakech. The intention is to make this briefing a standard agenda item for all future ICANN Public Meetings, so that the community will have up to date information regarding the security arrangements ICANN is making for each Public Meeting.

10.1 – Informational briefing (Nick Tomasso / Geoff Bickers / Chris Clark)

10.2 – Discussion / Q&A

ICANN staff to forward the following questions to Nick Tomasso and his team:

• With the posting publicly of the location of where the security details will be at the venue, should we be concerned that others may gain access to this plan?

• Can we have the details about the firm Chris works for sent to the Council? [ NOTE: full details of the gentleman's credentials have been forwarded to the Council list ]

• Can we get an update from the Moroccan authorities about security enhancements outside the venue, e.g. the airport?

• Can ICANN staff provide updates about concerns that the rooms in Marrakech are: (1) non-refundable/changeable; (2) to be prepaid; and (3) not available on Thursday night? Apparently the hotel is also asking people to email a scanned copy of the front and back of their credit cards – all these are very discouraging and difficult for attendees, especially business travelers.

Item 11: QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION – GNSO Chair Elections (30 minutes)

Following the close of the second nomination period on 5 November, one nomination for GNSO Chair for the term AGM 2015-AGM 2016 was received from the Contracted Parties House. The Non-Contracted Parties House has since confirmed that it will not be nominating a candidate for Chair. Here the Council will have a chance to ask questions of the sole candidate, Mr James Bladel, prior to the distribution of the ballots on 20 November. Balloting will close on 23 November, with results to be announced on 24 November.

11.1 – Introduction of candidate (James Bladel)

11.2 – Q&A

11.3 – Next steps (Marika Konings /Glen de St Gery)

Councilors to follow up on James Bladel’s latest email invitation if so desired:  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17694.html; ICANN staff to distribute electronic ballots on 20 November.

Item 12: Any Other Business (5 Minutes)

• Proposed meetings for 2016: Councilors to provide input on the proposed schedule of meetings as well as potential changes to the rotation of time zones.

• CWG-Stewardship Letter concerning role in implementation: Councilors to provide feedback on whether there are any concerns in relation to the approach proposed by the CWG-Stewardship for dealing with implementation oversight.

• DNS Entrepreneurship Center: Julf to circulate message concerning DNS Entrepreneurship Center to Council mailing list.

 Action Items

2.1 – Review of Projects List and Action List
Action Items:

Item 3: Consent agenda

3.1 – Approve addition to the GNSO Operating Procedures of a proposed process for the selection of Board seat #13 by the Contracted Parties House (per current rules in the Operating Procedures concerning the selection of Board seats by each House)

Action item: Staff to update and post GNSO Operating Procedures accordingly.

3.2 – Approve transmission of Recommendations Report to ICANN Board following public comments on the Council’s recommendation that the Board adopt the Final Report from the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Data Working Group

 Action item: Staff to submit Recommendations report to the ICANN Board.

Item 4: MOTION – Public Comment Period for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report

Action Item: Staff to consider request from the GNSO Council to extend the public comment forum from 40 to 60 days. 

Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Exploring the Public Interest within ICANN’s Remit 

Action Item: Nora Abusitta to share with the GNSO Council further information on resources and references in relation to the research that has been undertaken on this topic.

Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Discussion Paper on New gTLD Auction Proceeds

Action Item: All encouraged to provide input to the public comment forum. 

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Final Report of the Independent Examiner on GNSO Review  

Action Item: The GNSO Review Working Party to communicate to the OEC that there are concerns with Recommendation 23 and these are being discussed within the GNSO at present noting that a full expression of those concerns may be forthcoming in the near future. 

Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

Action Item: Everyone is encouraged to participate in and provide reasonable input to their respective groups in relation to this topic noting the current state of discussions.

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – New ICANN Meeting Strategy

Action Item: Item deferred to the next meeting.

Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes)

10.1 GNSO Council appointment to the Leadership Training in Dublin.

Action Item: Candidates for the GNSO Council slot for the Leadership Training in Dublin should be submitted to the GNSO Council list as soon as possible. Note, the candidate does not need to be a Council member.

GNSO Council Call

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call
1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest
Donna Austin
1.3 – Review/amend agenda
1.4. – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings of 24 June and 23 July 2015 will be posted as approved on xxxxxx 2015.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)

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

NOTES: project list has been updated.

Item 3: Consent agenda (10 minutes)

3.1 – Adoption of timeline for election of the next GNSO Chair

3.2 – Approval of transmission of Recommendations Report to ICANN Board following public comments on the Council’s recommendation that the Board adopt the Final Report from the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Data Working Group

Notes: Unanimously agreed.

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION & DECISION – Public Comment Period for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report (15 minutes)

At its July 2015 meeting, the GNSO Council approved the staff request for an extension of the deadline for publication of the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures. The extension was viewed as necessary given the number of potential topics that had been identified by the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group and the need to develop a proposed framework for handling those topics in a possible PDP. The Council had also discussed briefly the possible benefits of having an extended public comment period in view of the community interest in this matter. Here the Council will discuss the ramifications of extending the public comment period and decide whether or not to recommend moving forward with the idea.

4.1 – Update and presentation of possible timelines (Steve Chan)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council decision and next steps

Notes: 147 page report / summarised by Steve Chan. Right now the public comment is set at 40 days, closing a few days before ICANN 54.

I expressed the preference of the ALAC to have this comment period be a longer public comment period (67 days) in the interest of openness and giving the ability for all stakeholders to carefully consider the report and to contribute to the process as early as possible. This makes it a closing date for Staff account of public comments to be 6^th Dec, ahead of 7^th December document deadline for the December GNSO Council call.

Longer public comment period referred by IPC, BC, NCSG (Some preference for 60 days comment period was made). Current comment period preferred from RySG, RrSG, and possibly ISPC. It was decided that the Council should vote on this matter at its next call on 24 September. It was noted that ICANN staff could, at their discretion, decided to make the comment period longer in any case.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Letter from ICANN Board Chair on Exclusive Registry Access for gTLD Terms representing Generic Strings (10 minutes)

On 27 July 2015 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter to the GNSO Chair requesting that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program. The GNSO was also asked to inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to progress on the issue. Here the Council will discuss the letter and decide on its response.

5.1 – Council discussion

5.2 – Next steps

Notes: I expressed the ALAC’s lack of consensus on the matter with very different points of view between ALAC members, some finding closed generic strings to be absolutely fine. As a result I expressed that some ALAC would say linking this to the public interest would be a waste of time whilst others would support it.

Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Protection for IGO Acronyms at the Second Level in All gTLDs (15 minutes)

At the July 2015 Council meeting, PDP Working Group co-chair Philip Corwin outlined for the Council certain concerns that the WG co-chairs shared regarding the timing and mechanisms for interactions between the WG and the IGO “small group” (comprising IGO and GAC representatives) that had been formed to formulate a substantive proposal for discussion with the GNSO. The final proposal is expected to be based on the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) initial March 2014 proposal to the GAC, and as such is expected to address both so-called “preventative” (i.e. pre-registration) as well as “curative” (i.e. post-registration) protections for IGO acronyms. In respect of preventative protections, the NGPC had previously requested that the GNSO Council consider amending those of its adopted policy recommendations that are inconsistent with GAC advice. Following discussions with the NGPC, the Council had put the matter on hold pending further details regarding possible amendments from the NGPC.

Here the Council will receive an update on the status of the WG, GAC and IGO interactions on the topic if IGO protections, and discuss what, if anything, it might wish to do at this stage to facilitate progress in resolving any issues arising therefrom.

6.1 – Update (Philip Corwin / Mason Cole / Mary Wong)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Notes: very slow progress / none / since Buenos Aires meeting. 

Item 7: UPDATE ON EXPECTED COUNCIL ACTION – Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (5 minutes)

The Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group was chartered to explore opportunities to review standard methodologies of reporting and metrics that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision-making, including how the community can collaborate with Contracted Parties and other service providers in the sharing of metrics and data. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 July 2015, and the public comment period will close on 7 September 2015. Here the Council will receive an update on the expected timeline for delivery of the WG’s Final Report and note potential issues for Council consideration in the Final Report.

7.1 – Update (Jonathan Zuck)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Notes: Jonathan Zuck has provided a full update and explanation of the recommendations on today's GNSO Council call.

Slides: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-dmpm-03sep15-en.pdf

Recommended for any ALAC member who wishes to catch up quickly on the contents of the report.

Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability – CCWG Accountability (15 minutes)

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN’s historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders’ expectations. Considering that the US Government (through the NTIA) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

On 3 August, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second round of public consultation concerns significant changes made by the CCWG to its first proposal. The changes focus on outstanding issues, add details to the Work Stream 1 proposal(s), and include revisions to the original proposal(s) arising from the feedback received in the first public comment consultation period. Public comments may be sent in through 12 September. Here the Council will review the CCWG’s status and progress, and discuss any specific issues that need to be addressed in view of the timeline of the CCWG and the connection between its work and the IANA stewardship transition.

8.1 – Summary and status update (Thomas Rickert)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Notes: update from Thomas Rickert about the CCWG’s progress, including process recommendations about treatment of the Board’s point made on the call a few hours ago.

There was concern expressed from BC about the forthcoming possibly proposed F2F meeting in Los Angeles turning into a face to face negotiation.

There was concern from RrSG with the whole process potentially grinding to a halt due to the late arrival of input from the Board.

Item 9: DISCUSSION - Preparation for ICANN54 (15 minutes)

During the regular GNSO weekend working sessions at each ICANN Public Meeting, the GNSO Council and community meet with the ICANN Board, the GAC, staff from ICANN’s Global Domains Division, and senior ICANN management. Here the Council will discuss suggested topics for those meetings at ICANN54, as well as receive an update on scheduling and planning for the meeting generally.

9.1 – Update (Volker Greimann / Marika Konings / Glen de St. Gery)

9.2 – Council discussion

9.3 – Next steps

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

Item 10: Any Other Business (15 minutes)

10.1 – Post-ICANN53 progress of the Cross Community Working Group on Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs

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

10.2 – Brief update on the implementation of the new ICANN Meeting format particularly with regard to Meeting B.

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

 GNSO Council Call 

Agenda Wiki page (where the latest updates can be found):
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+23+July+2015

Motions are posted on page:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+23+July+2015

GNSO Council is having an induction day on Friday, at the end of the ICANN Week for all new Councillors to be brought up to speed on GNSO matters. This is likely to become a permanent fixture to help new Councillors be more quickly effective in their new position.

Action Items:

• ·        Arrange for a facilitator for the Council Development and Induction session in Dublin on Friday 23 October 2015.

• ·        Formally communicate to parting councilors that they are welcome to attend the Council Development and Induction.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 minutes)

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

All projects are going according to plan.

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Motion to Approve GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué from Buenos Aires (15 minutes)

The GNSO Template for responding to the GAC Communiqué is to be presented to the Board, with a copy to the GAC Chair and Secretariat.

Approved unanimously.

GNSO Liaison Recommendation: the ALAC needs to watch out that this use of a Template for responding to GAC Communiqués does not turn into a box ticking exercise.

Action Items: 

• ·        GNSO Council Chair to communicate the GNSO Review of Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board
• ·        GNSO Council Chair to inform the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. 

Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Purpose of New gTLD Registration Data Policy Development Process (PDP) (20 minutes)

Concerns from NCSG about Privacy Issues in regards to Registration Data. This might contravene basic human rights. Suggestion that this goes in the Public Comment.

 Action Item:

• Encourage GNSO SG  & C’s to provide input to the public comment forum.

Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability – CCWG Accountability (15 minutes)

Update from Thomas Rickert, reporting that great progress was made at the recent Paris meeting of the CCWG Accountability group.

Action Items:

• ·        Encourage GNSO SG and C’s to review the notes from the Paris meeting.  
• ·        Encourage GNSO SG and C’s to provide input to the public comment forum.

Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Proposed Cross Community Working Group On New gTLD Auction Proceeds (15 minutes)

GNSO Staff are preparing a discussion paper based on the discussions that took place in Buenos Aires sessions. All points of view will be taken into account at this stage – which is the stage where the PROCESS of decision will be proposed, and not the actual way to use Auction Proceeds. It is recognised that during the BA disussions, some people did not understand this and already attempted to pull the discussion into the actual topic, making suggestions on how to use the funds. We are not there yet. There first needs to be a debate about who should participate in the debate - whether ICANN GNSO, ICANN Communities, or outside Communities unrelated to ICANN.

 Action Item:

• Encourage GNSO SG and C’s provide input to the public comment forum.

Item 8: COUNCIL ACTION – GNSO Chair Election Timetable (10 minutes)

No specific change to the already agreed schedule/timetable are foreseen.

Action Item:

•  Publish the proposed GNSO Chair Election Timetable. Place on agenda for formal consideration and approval at September Council meeting. 

Item 9: Any Other Business (15 minutes)

9.1 - Staff has requested for a time extension in preparing the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report.

Councillors are not happy about this but did say they had forecast this and had asked for additional Policy Staff at the GNSO Comment on Budget. 2 more FTEs have been added and Staff as announced that the first FTE allocation will be soon made to the GNSO.

Councillors were told they have no choice but to accept that new timetable.

 Action Item

• ·        Accept request for time extension in preparing the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report 
• ·        Note Council discussion – some councilors expressed concern about the delay 
• ·        Council to further discuss and resolve the length of the public comment period

9.2 – Discuss appointment of three experts from the GNSO to join new Working Group to review IDN Guidelines: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en (due 3 August 2015)

Some volunteers needed. Communication out ASAP.

 Action Item

• GNSO Council Chair to follow up in writing with Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Councilors to work with Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies seeking suggested names of experts.

9.3 – Selection of a PDP Working Group for facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN54. Part of the continued GNSO Council Pilot Project to improve PDP effectiveness.

Process on its way.
 

Action Item

• GNSO Council Chair to communicate to the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP working group that, based on the analysis by staff, the working group would benefit from a face to face meeting in Dublin and ask for confirmation that the working group would like to take up the offer.

9.4 – Discuss possible Council action regarding IETF proposed standard for .onion as a Special Use Domain Name: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/ (due 11 August 2015)

Avri Doria reported on the work of the IETF in creating a Special Use TLD .ONION but there is concern that there is very little communication with ICANN about this. Council is to consider the path through the ICANN Board (IETF Liaison?) and also through their own informal link. Does the GNSO Council need its own IETF Liaison?

Action Item

Council needs to consider whether there is scope for future co-operation between the GNSO Council and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

9.5 – Planning for ICANN54

Action Item

•  GNSO Council Vice Chair (Volker Greimann) to assist Chair and staff in Dublin meeting preparations 

More AoB

Response to letter to Board on IGO/INGO. (Phil Corwin)

"In respect of the ongoing discussions between the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) and the GAC on protection for IGO names and acronyms, please see the following letter, just sent by the Secretary-General of the OECD to ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gurria-to-chehade-20jul15-en.pdf. Note that the letter refers to positive developments in this process that are expected to result in the delivery to the GNSO of an updated proposal. Given the GAC’s recent Buenos Aires Communique calling for this to occur by the Dublin meeting, the Council may wish to note this as a possibility. "

The concern is that the ICANN response points to the GAC, Staff and ICANN Board would produce a response re: IGO/INGO *without* taking into account the GNSO’s working group work on IGO/INGO. The Working Group is bogged down due to lack of help on legal matters whilst the ICANN Board and GAC are engaging directly with IGOs. A real concern from the IGO/INGO GNSO Working Group.

Action Item

•  WG chair’s concern on the process and substance of the letter is noted by the Council. Phillip Corwin to report back to the Council at or before the next Council meeting

 GNSO Council Call

4 & 5: Updates on IANA Stewardship & ICANN Accountability

Item 5: DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability – CCWG Accountability

Action Item
Councillors and members of the respective groups are encouraged assist their groups to provide comments and questions during the public comment period on Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) (All)

Item 6: UPDATE FOR COUNCIL DECISION – Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance

GNSO has conducted a consensus call on the interpretation of the Charter of the CCWG on Internet Governance. No objections to the interpretation that opens the group to all participants.

Action Items:

·        Convey to the Cross-Community Working Group Internet Governance that no objections were recorded to the interpretation of the section on observers in the CCWG IG charter (Staff)

·        Communicate on the mailing list that Carlos Raúl Gutierrez is the appointed Council liaison to the Cross-Community Working Group Internet Governance (Staff)


 

Item 7: UPDATE FOR COUNCIL GUIDANCE –Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs

 Registry SG has had issues with the use of Country Codes at the second level referring to GAC advice. There is some concern that this is such a small, target issues, a CWG is a bit of an overkill.

Action Items:

• The gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group to talk directly to the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs (RySG Councillors)
• Council to discuss the issue with the GAC – Council leaders commit to commence the communication with the GAC leadership (Chair / Staff)
• Request guidance from the Council by posting the substantive issues to the Council list (Heather Forrest)
• Heather Forrest to track the outcomes of the discussion and ensure that the Council is responding to the request (Heather Forrest)

·        Call for additional GNSO participation to the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs (Staff)

Item 8: UPDATE FOR COUNCIL GUIDANCE  –IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group

INGO has now been removed from the scope of the working group as they are already using UDRP.

Problem in determining the scope of immunity for IGOs. Additional legal input is sought.

It was pointed out by Philip Corwin that there were, by extension, concerns over the renewal of .TRAVEL which appear to be introducing Charter Amendments in a private manner rather than subjecting them to ICANN Community deliberation.

Action Items: 

• Determine the scope of  GNSO GAC related issues which could be worked through by the Council leaders and Staff as agenda topics for the joint GAC GNSO meetings in Buenos Aires (Chair / Vice Chairs / Staff)
• Topic for future Council discussion:

            Introduction of changes to Registry agreements through private negotiations relative to the Policy Development Process and whether this is appropriate (Philip Corwin).

Item 9: UPDATE FOR SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL ACTION –New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group

 https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables

Draft Deliverables ready in case a PDP WG was to be created.

Registries asked whether if there were amendments made to the program this would mean the drawing up of new Registry agreements - and if so, a question was raised as to whether it would be fair to have different Registry agreements than the original ones. Registrars are already noting that this would raise competitive considerations so as to have some degree of inertia and therefore not deviate from this so as to have different Registry Agreements for the new round.

Action Item:

Review documentation before Buenos Aires for discussion at the working group meeting (All).

Item 10: UPDATE  & DISCUSSION – GNSO Drafting Team on New ICANN Meeting Strategy

GNSO is building its agendas for all of the meetings, with help from Staff.

Action Item: 
Urgent request to provide drafting team with feedback on the initial proposal especially with regard to Meeting B before the proposals go the other Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees for comments and input (URGENT – All).

Item 11: UPDATE – Progress on GNSO Review (10 minutes)

Progress is happening with Westlake monitoring feedback on a per comment basis and all of the process update is available on the GNSO Review Web pages.
https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Home

Public Consultation starts on June 1st and will remain open throughout June.

Action Items:

• Councillors are encouraged to review the GNSO Review report (All)
• Inform Staff if Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies wish to meet with the Westlake team and the GNSO Review Working Party during Constituency Day in Buenos Aires so that time slots can be arranged.(All)

The agenda was reorganised due to the need for some participants to leave early.

Item 4 - MOTION TO AMEND THE CHARTER OF THE IGO-INGO ACCESS TO CURATIVE RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS PDP WORKING GROUP

The charter is to be amended:

Where, under “Mission and Scope”, the current Charter reads:

“For purposes of this PDP, the scope of IGO and INGO identifiers is to be limited to those identifiers previously listed by the GNSO’s PDP WG on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs as protected by their consensus recommendations (designated by that WG as Scope 1 and Scope 2 identifiers, and listed in Annex 2 of the Final Issue Report).”

It is hereby amended to read:

“For purposes of this PDP, the WG shall take into account any criteria for IGO or INGO protection that may be appropriate, including any that may have been developed previously, such as the list of IGO and INGO identifiers that was used by the GNSO’s prior PDP WG on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs as the basis for their consensus recommendations and the GAC list of IGOs as provided to ICANN in March 2013.”

OCL comment: this is in order to be able to make use of rights protection mechanisms already in place for IGOs/INGOs outside of ICANN.

Item 8 - Progress of Work on GNSO Council Template for Feedback on GAC Communiques

Template presented taking each GAC Communiqué item into a table with comments on whether this relates to GNSO policy and what policy this relates to. Staff will follow-up with another version following on the Council's comments.

Item 6 - CCWG Accountability

Simple update by Thomas Rickert.

 Item 5: DISCUSSION – Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions

Simple update by Jonathan Robinson.

Item 7 - DISCUSSION – Proposed ICANN FY16 Budget

 David Olive mentioned the Pilot Project for community support helping with drafting, especially for non contracted communities.

 It was felt that GNSO policy work was not likely to decrease and concerns were expressed regarding the low figure in the budget for GNSO policy development work. David Olive explained the sharing of resources which are not directly reflected in the policy budget allocation for GNSO.

The GNSO will express its concern about being properly covered for FY16 policy work.

Item 10

10.1 Cross Community Working Group has been proposed by GNSO. Board Chair has responded with another scenario involving outside organisations. It felt like a top-down response. The GNSO Council will consider its response but a general state of unhappiness about this response was expressed by Councillors.

10.2 Will report in the future once work has progressed by email.

10.3 Appointment of a Liaison will proceed forward.

10.4 N/A

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)

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

2.2 - Comments or questions arising.

Outcome: projects are on track with nothing exceptional to note.

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins)

3.1 – Confirm selection of Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Working Group for facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN53 in Buenos Aires

Outcome: Council confirmed the selection of the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Working Group for a facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN53 in Buenos Aires.

Item 4: MOTION – GAC/GNSO Consultation Group (15 mins)

The GAC-GNSO Consultation Group (CG) was formed to develop proposals to facilitate the GAC’s ability to engage more productively and effectively with the GNSO on relevant issues in the GNSO’s Policy Development Processes (PDPs). At ICANN52 in Singapore, the CG presented its preliminary recommendations concerning specific mechanisms intended to facilitate early engagement by the GAC in a PDP, during the Issue Scoping phase. Here the Council will consider a proposed motion on adopting these preliminary recommendations

Outcome: - Follow-up on GAC Communiqué - GNSO currently working on a response

- Motion to implement the recommendations of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group in relation to Issue Scoping on a trial basis

Concerns that Trial basis has no deadline and could remain "trial" for a long time.

Motion Carried.

1.               The GNSO Council agrees to jointly implement with the GAC, the preliminary recommendations by the CG concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP as outlined here http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-cg-issue-scoping-27jan15-en.pdf on a trial basis for a minimum of 3 consecutive GNSO PDP’s immediately following the adoption of the motion.


2.       Following the end of this trial period, the CG is expected to report back to the GAC and GNSO Council on the effectiveness of these recommendations as a result of the experiences gained during the trial period. Furthermore, the CG is expected to make a recommendation as to whether or not the preliminary recommendations concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP should be permanently implemented, either in their current form, or with possible modifications based on the further work of the CG including experience gained during the trial.

Item 5: DISCUSSION  – Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (10 mins)

The CWG-Transition was chartered to develop a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. The original January 2015 target date was driven by the request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).

A draft proposal was published for community comment on 1 December 2014, following which a revised timeline and update was provided for discussion at ICANN52 in Singapore.

Given that the GNSO is a chartering organisation of the CWG-Transition and will need to approve the CWG’s ultimate proposal, this is an opportunity for the Council to review and discuss the CWG’s work and to determine what, if any, issues arise from a GNSO or Council perspective at this stage.

Outcome: none specific in addition to the briefing

Item 6: DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (10 mins)

In discussions around the IANA stewardship transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability given its historical contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. The community concerns indicate that the level of trust regarding existing ICANN accountability mechanisms does not yet meet some stakeholders’ expectations. Considering that the NTIA has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations could be a possible impediment to timely progress of the transition.

The GNSO is one of the chartering organizations for this CCWG, having adopted the charter in November 2014. The CCWG developed two work streams, of which the first is intended to align with the timing of the CWG-Transition work and the overall NTIA objectives and timeline. Here the Council will have the opportunity to consider how it can continue to facilitate the progress of this CCWG, especially in view of the work and timelines of the CWG-Transition.

Outcome: none specific in addition to the briefing

Question/discussion on 5 & 6 - a concern about the time being taken, especially with regards to using the Legal Advice

Item 7: UPDATE  – Progress of the PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections (10 mins)

This WG was chartered by the GNSO Council in June 2014 to consider whether or not existing curative rights protection mechanisms should be amended to address the needs and concerns of international governmental and non-governmental organizations (IGOs and INGOs). The WG’s charter directed the WG to consider only those IGOs that appear on the GAC’s list of protected IGOs (sent to ICANN in April 2013). Here the Council will receive a report on the progress of the WG, including a request for guidance from the WG as to appropriate next steps concerning the WG’s consideration of the scope of the IGO list.

Outcome: Propose a motion for the next Council meeting on 16 April 2015 seeking to modify the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Working Group’s charter to accommodate the request as detailed in the explanatory email sent to the Council list on 16 March 2015. 

Item 8: UPDATE – Progress of the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (10 mins)

This DG was created by the GNSO Council in June 2014 to develop a list of issues for consideration as part of the GNSO’s preparation for the next round of new gTLDs. The DG has also provided the GNSO Council with input for the Council’s 28 January 2015 letter to the ICANN Board responding to the Board’s enquiry concerning planning for the next round. Here the Council will receive an update from the DG on its further progress.

Outcome:  Bret Fausett committed to send to the Council mailing list the chart which lists the issues for future work so that the different groups can provide their input.

Staff to provide the necessary information, on the Council mailing list, as to how participants can join the New gTLD Discussion Group.

Item 9: UPDATE: GNSO Review (15 minutes)

The Independent Examiner commissioned by the ICANN Board to conduct the GNSO Review presented its initial findings to the GNSO Review Working Party at the ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore. Here the GNSO Council will discuss these findings and consider further direction (if any and if needed) to be provided to the GNSO Review Working Party.

Outcome:

Progressing - although with a small delay to collect more input. Plenty of opportunity to provide input and engage further in future ICANN meetings. Concerns over who was interviewed. First draft is just out

Action Items:
Comments are still welcome and be sent directly to Jennifer Wolfe or through a constituency/stakeholder group representative on the GNSO Review Working Party.

Update on the GNSO Review Progress be added to the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 21 May

Item 10: DISCUSSION: Working Group Self-Assessment Survey (10 mins)

The GNSO’s Working Group Guidelines allow a WG’s chartering organization to request feedback from the WG about its inputs, processes and outputs. The GNSO’s WG Self-Assessment Tool was tested by the Thick WHOIS PDP WG and the first formal survey has just been completed by the IRTP Part D PDP WG. Staff has prepared a report on the survey results. Here the Council will consider the feedback provided and appropriate next steps for this input.

Outcome: 

Action Item:

Send the report to the GNSO Review Working Party for the attention of the Westlake Review team.

Item 11: DISCUSSION – Issues for Possible Referral to the SCI (5 minutes)

At its January 2015 meeting, the GNSO Council placed on hold two items it had identified previously as possibly meriting referral to the GNSO’s Standing Committee for Improvements (SCI) for review. Following discussion with the SCI at ICANN52 in Singapore, the Council liaison to the SCI agreed to complete a template request form for these items. Here the Council will discuss whether or not to refer these items to the SCI for further work.

Outcome:

Action Item:

Defer this item to the next Council meeting on 16 April 2015 for Council to decide whether or not to refer these items to the SCI for further work.

Item 12: DISCUSSION – Remaining Items from the GNSO’s Strategic Discussion Session in Singapore (15 minutes)

At ICANN52 in Singapore, the GNSO engaged in an open and strategic discussion concerning the effective functioning of the GNSO Council and the community as a whole. Here the Council will aim to conclude the discussion, with the emphasis on reviewing its goals and performance based on the objectives and priorities identified during its Development Session at ICANN51 in Los Angeles in October 2014.

Outcome: no specific outcome at this time.

Item 13: Any Other Business (5 mins)

13.1 – CWG on Auction Proceeds

 Outcome:

Action Item:

Call for participants to form a Drafting Team to develop a charter for a working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds.

Mar 2015:  ALAC has appointed Olivier Crepin-Leblond as the new ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council to serve from March 7th, 2015, to the end of the AGM at the ICANN #54 meeting in Dublin 2015.

Jan 2015:

• Policy Update Webinars are being presented as preparation for ICANN #52 Meeting see  icann.org/new/announcement-2015-01-14-en

• Policy work of the GNSO; in a bid to provide for easier access to the different information sources that are currently available as well as further direction on what information is provided to guide both newcomers as well as veterans, staff has created a new one-stop information web-page (http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm). As of  end January, the new page is linked from the GNSO home page (gnso.icann.org) – either via the ‘quick link’ button at the top or via the quick links in the left-hand column. 

• Additionally there is now a new page that centralizes important GNSO-related information for the upcoming ICANN52 meeting that we hope will assist attendees in their preparation for the meeting (http://gnso.icann.org/icannmeeting). Updates to this page will be made for all future ICANN meetings.

  ---

The Next Meeting of the GNSO  Council will be held on March 19th, 2015

Last Meeting of the GNSO Council was a Face to face Meeting during the ICANN #52 Singapore Meeting see http://gnso.icann.org/en/icannmeeting

Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference on 29 January 2015 at 12:00 UTC

GNSO Council meeting audio cast

To join the event click on the link: 
http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u

Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 29 January 2015 is published on page:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-29jan15-en.htm 

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 mins)

1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)

Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics

Include review of Projects List and Action List.

Comments or questions arising.

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins)

3.1 – Approve request for extension of timeline for Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms

3.2 – Approve formation of informal community group to review IDN Implementation Guidelines and approve draft GNSO Council letter in response to these.

Item 4: UPDATE  – Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (30 mins) 

The CWG has been chartered to develop a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and has been meeting for 2 hours every week since its creation with a goal of delivering a final proposal by the end of January 2015. The January 2015 target date is driven by the request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). It is by now clear that the January target date will not be met and that a new target needs to be agreed.

A number of sub-groups were formed to progress work on the different elements of the ICG Request for Proposals and a face-to-face meeting was run in mid-November 2014. A draft proposal was published for community comment on 1 December 2014 and the public comment period has since closed. An intensive work weekend followed on 10 & 11 January 2015 which attempted to systematically review inputs from the public comment.

Given the deadlines and associated intensity of the work of the CWG as well as the need for the GNSO as a chartering organisation to approve the proposal, it is relevant for the Council, and through it the GNSO, to receive a full update and to have the opportunity to discuss the work of the CWG. This item will provide an update, create the opportunity for discussion and empahsise the need for the GNSO to be informed about the work of this important group.

4.1 – Update (Jonathan Robinson)
4.2 – Discussion
4.3 – Next steps

Item 5: Update: Planning for ICANN meeting in Singapore – key direction & themes (10 mins)

5.1 Update – Volker Greimann
5.2 Open issues / Discussion
5.3 Actions arising

Item 6: Any Other Business (5 mins)

Past Meetings in 2015 

Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference on 15 January 2015 at 18:00 UTC.

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 mins)

1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 11 December 2014 will be posted as approved on 29 January 2015.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)

Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics

Include review of Projects List and Action List.

Comments or questions arising.

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins)

• Approve the GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board concerning IRTP Part D 

Note: The outcome of the vote on the Council input to the public comment forum on theBoard Working Group Report on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom). 

Item 4: UPDATE  – Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (20 mins)

The CWG has been chartered to develop a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and has been meeting for 2 hours every week since its creation with a goal of delivering a final proposal by the end of January 2015. The January 2015 target date is driven by the request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).

A number of sub-groups were formed to progress work on the different elements of the ICG Request for Proposals and a face-to-face meeting was run in mid-November. A draft proposal was published for community comment on 1 December 2014 and the public comment period has since closed. An intensive work weekend is planned for the CWG on 10 & 11 January 2015, following which it is anticipated that a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition will be drafted and then distributed to the chartering organisations.

Given the deadlines and associated intensity of the work of the CWG as well as the need for the GNSO as a chartering organisation to approve the proposal, it is timely for the Council to receive a full update and to discuss the work of the CWG.

4.1 – Update (Jonathan Robinson)
4.2 – Discussion
4.3 – Next steps

Item 5: UPDATE - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (15 mins)

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN “convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role” with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management (see item 4 above). 

During discussions around the transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability given its historical contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN accountability mechanisms does not yet meet some stakeholder’s expectations. Considering that the NTIA has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent the transition to proceed.

As a result, a DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO, GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees on 3 November 2014 and the charter was adopted by the GNSO Council during its meeting on 13 November.

Here the Council will receive an update on status and activities of the CCWG to date.

5.1 Update (Thomas Rickert)

5.2 Discussion

5.3 Next steps

Item 6: UPDATE  – Prospective policy work on “name collision” (10 mins)

On the 30 July 2014, the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board directed staff to "provide information to, and work with the GNSO to consider whether policy work on developing a long-term plan to manage gTLD name collision issues should be undertaken."

ICANN Staff submitted this paper to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2014 and it was presented to the Council during the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. Council members agreed in Los Angeles to discuss with their respective group what further action, if any, should be taken on this topic and report back accordingly during this meeting.

Furthermore, a letter was received from Cyrus Namazi offering any additional information or assistance that ICANN Staff can provide to further assist the Council in its deliberations.

The GNSO Council discussed the topic during previous meetings following which it was agreed to draft a response. Here the Council will receive and update and provide any additional input needed.

6.1 Status update (Donna Austin)

6.2 Discussion

6.3 Next steps

Item 7: DISCUSSION - Board resolution concerning future gTLD Application Rounds (10 mins)

On 17 November 2014 the ICANN Board adopted a resolution the planning for future gTLD application rounds. As part of its action, the Board acknowledged the effort and progress within the GNSO to identify areas where the GNSO believes that policy advice can be clarified or where it wishes to provide additional policy advice applicable to future application rounds. Furthermore, as requested in the GNSO Council’s June 2014 resolution, the Board provided input into the GNSO Council’s discussion to identify areas that the Board believes may be appropriate for discussion in an evaluation of the current gTLD application round and for possible adjustments for subsequent application procedures.

A draft letter of response has been prepared, distributed to the Council and commented on. This is an opportunity for the GNSO Council to review the draft and ideally agree to send the letter as drafted or with any agreed modifications.

7.1 - Update

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: UPDATE – GNSO / GAC Consultation Group and related work (15 mins)

Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear about the work of the GNSO / GAC Consultation Group and from the GNSO Liaison to the GAC including any initial input and feedback derived following the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles.

In addition, there will be an opportunity to further discuss ideas put forward during the GNSO Council Development Session in relation to potential GNSO work in response to the GAC Communiqué from ICANN meetings.

8.1 – Update on GAC/GNSO Consultation Group (Mason Cole)

8.2 – Update on draft process for dealing with GAC Communique (Volker Greimann)

8.3 – Discussion

Item 9: Update: Planning for ICANN meeting in Singapore – key direction & themes
9.1 Update – Volker Greimann
9.2 Discussion

Item 10: Any Other Business (10 mins)

10.1 - Correspondence with NGPC on IGO & RCRC. Any update?

10.2 – Consideration of a CWG to deal with new gTLD auction proceeds

10.3 – Note that the Translation & Transliteration PDP WG Initial Report is out for public comment – Update Amr Elsadr

10.4 - Request for extension of time for Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms

PAST REPORTS

GNSO Liaison Reports 2014

GNSO Liaison Reports 2013

GNSO Liaison Reports 2012

GNSO Liaison Reports 2011

ARCHIVES

GNSO Liaison Reports 2010

GNSO Liaison Reports 2009

GNSO Liaison Reports 2008

GNSO Liaison Reports 2007

 MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference held on Thursday, 11 December 2014 at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20141211-en.mp3 

as well as the Adobe chat transcript  at :

http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-11dec14-en.pdf 

all on page

http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec

GNSO Council Call

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call
1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest
Donna Austin
1.3 – Review/amend agenda
1.4. – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings of 24 June and 23 July 2015 will be posted as approved on xxxxxx 2015.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)

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

NOTES: project list has been updated.

Item 3: Consent agenda (10 minutes)

3.1 – Adoption of timeline for election of the next GNSO Chair

3.2 – Approval of transmission of Recommendations Report to ICANN Board following public comments on the Council’s recommendation that the Board adopt the Final Report from the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Data Working Group

Notes: Unanimously agreed.

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION & DECISION – Public Comment Period for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report (15 minutes)

At its July 2015 meeting, the GNSO Council approved the staff request for an extension of the deadline for publication of the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures. The extension was viewed as necessary given the number of potential topics that had been identified by the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group and the need to develop a proposed framework for handling those topics in a possible PDP. The Council had also discussed briefly the possible benefits of having an extended public comment period in view of the community interest in this matter. Here the Council will discuss the ramifications of extending the public comment period and decide whether or not to recommend moving forward with the idea.

4.1 – Update and presentation of possible timelines (Steve Chan)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council decision and next steps

Notes: 147 page report / summarised by Steve Chan. Right now the public comment is set at 40 days, closing a few days before ICANN 54.

I expressed the preference of the ALAC to have this comment period be a longer public comment period (67 days) in the interest of openness and giving the ability for all stakeholders to carefully consider the report and to contribute to the process as early as possible. This makes it a closing date for Staff account of public comments to be 6^th Dec, ahead of 7^th December document deadline for the December GNSO Council call.

Longer public comment period referred by IPC, BC, NCSG (Some preference for 60 days comment period was made). Current comment period preferred from RySG, RrSG, and possibly ISPC. It was decided that the Council should vote on this matter at its next call on 24 September. It was noted that ICANN staff could, at their discretion, decided to make the comment period longer in any case.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Letter from ICANN Board Chair on Exclusive Registry Access for gTLD Terms representing Generic Strings (10 minutes)

On 27 July 2015 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter to the GNSO Chair requesting that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program. The GNSO was also asked to inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to progress on the issue. Here the Council will discuss the letter and decide on its response.

5.1 – Council discussion

5.2 – Next steps

Notes: I expressed the ALAC’s lack of consensus on the matter with very different points of view between ALAC members, some finding closed generic strings to be absolutely fine. As a result I expressed that some ALAC would say linking this to the public interest would be a waste of time whilst others would support it.

Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Protection for IGO Acronyms at the Second Level in All gTLDs (15 minutes)

At the July 2015 Council meeting, PDP Working Group co-chair Philip Corwin outlined for the Council certain concerns that the WG co-chairs shared regarding the timing and mechanisms for interactions between the WG and the IGO “small group” (comprising IGO and GAC representatives) that had been formed to formulate a substantive proposal for discussion with the GNSO. The final proposal is expected to be based on the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) initial March 2014 proposal to the GAC, and as such is expected to address both so-called “preventative” (i.e. pre-registration) as well as “curative” (i.e. post-registration) protections for IGO acronyms. In respect of preventative protections, the NGPC had previously requested that the GNSO Council consider amending those of its adopted policy recommendations that are inconsistent with GAC advice. Following discussions with the NGPC, the Council had put the matter on hold pending further details regarding possible amendments from the NGPC.

Here the Council will receive an update on the status of the WG, GAC and IGO interactions on the topic if IGO protections, and discuss what, if anything, it might wish to do at this stage to facilitate progress in resolving any issues arising therefrom.

6.1 – Update (Philip Corwin / Mason Cole / Mary Wong)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Notes: very slow progress / none / since Buenos Aires meeting. 

Item 7: UPDATE ON EXPECTED COUNCIL ACTION – Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (5 minutes)

The Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group was chartered to explore opportunities to review standard methodologies of reporting and metrics that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision-making, including how the community can collaborate with Contracted Parties and other service providers in the sharing of metrics and data. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 July 2015, and the public comment period will close on 7 September 2015. Here the Council will receive an update on the expected timeline for delivery of the WG’s Final Report and note potential issues for Council consideration in the Final Report.

7.1 – Update (Jonathan Zuck)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Notes: Jonathan Zuck has provided a full update and explanation of the recommendations on today's GNSO Council call.

Slides: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-dmpm-03sep15-en.pdf

Recommended for any ALAC member who wishes to catch up quickly on the contents of the report.

Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability – CCWG Accountability (15 minutes)

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN’s historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders’ expectations. Considering that the US Government (through the NTIA) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

On 3 August, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second round of public consultation concerns significant changes made by the CCWG to its first proposal. The changes focus on outstanding issues, add details to the Work Stream 1 proposal(s), and include revisions to the original proposal(s) arising from the feedback received in the first public comment consultation period. Public comments may be sent in through 12 September. Here the Council will review the CCWG’s status and progress, and discuss any specific issues that need to be addressed in view of the timeline of the CCWG and the connection between its work and the IANA stewardship transition.

8.1 – Summary and status update (Thomas Rickert)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Notes: update from Thomas Rickert about the CCWG’s progress, including process recommendations about treatment of the Board’s point made on the call a few hours ago.

There was concern expressed from BC about the forthcoming possibly proposed F2F meeting in Los Angeles turning into a face to face negotiation.

There was concern from RrSG with the whole process potentially grinding to a halt due to the late arrival of input from the Board.

Item 9: DISCUSSION - Preparation for ICANN54 (15 minutes)

During the regular GNSO weekend working sessions at each ICANN Public Meeting, the GNSO Council and community meet with the ICANN Board, the GAC, staff from ICANN’s Global Domains Division, and senior ICANN management. Here the Council will discuss suggested topics for those meetings at ICANN54, as well as receive an update on scheduling and planning for the meeting generally.

9.1 – Update (Volker Greimann / Marika Konings / Glen de St. Gery)

9.2 – Council discussion

9.3 – Next steps

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

Item 10: Any Other Business (15 minutes)

10.1 – Post-ICANN53 progress of the Cross Community Working Group on Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs

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

10.2 – Brief update on the implementation of the new ICANN Meeting format particularly with regard to Meeting B.

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.