At the November 2019 AGM, the ALAC confirmed the re-appoint Cheryl Langdon-Orr as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for a further term of office, being the period between the 2019 AGM to the 2020 ICANN 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.

Anyone is welcome to listen to GNSO Council Meetings    NEW Listen in Option in ZOOM

GNSO Council Meeting Webinar Room**

https://icann.zoom.us/j/96826336141
Password: awv^05b9!c

**UNLESS Specified Differently in a Current Agenda (such as during ICANN Public Meetings)

Occasional News Updates.

Any Notes of relevance to the ALAC / At-Large from GNSO Council Meetings will be highlighted at the top of any Agenda listed below in colour. 

*SPECIAL Meeting: GNSO Council EPPD Phase 2 Final Report Webinar

Date/time: Thursday 03 September 2020 at 21:00 UTC for 120 minutes

For those of you who could not attend this webinar you will find below the audio recording, zoom recording (audio, visual, rough transcript) and chat of the GNSO Council Webinar EPDP Phase 2 Final Report  held on Thursday, 03 September 2020 at 21:00 UTC. Recordings & presentation are posted on wiki agenda page and GNSO Calendar.

Audio only:   https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/FgWlZ1gdM_Q6cfCD4VTCsKhHV-VNSA1zpjWZYXkBXa2G5ti9xXAjRw0zCFAfXpwvQ5s_Ga9QJ2OQjDSM.OV0m30DklTyCZExw

Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab):

https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/MiLZAOAz-9S5LMcfZiM77ccUWcL9LpB8tCv9vERNxN_Gk0WOnRjCIJe1m5qz8AL5.R1KC08EGpXIcla5S?startTime=1599166830000

Zoom chat: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/sdownload/v3gngpF0D3JHBr6dfGqiJ--FkoQDFR2DHU_rQ1Dly1BX7c-zLQWF2SOhKF3IQWf8Xy_AoOTtwhwDhQkb.P30aT3TfsqNB57L4

**SPECIAL Meeting: GNSO Council PDP3.0 Webinar

Date/time: Tuesday, 15 September 2020 at 21:00 UTC for 90 minutes

All councilors are strongly encouraged to attend this session.

Observers are welcome to join, they will be in a read-only and listen-only mode.

Before joining the call:

Please be sure you have read the Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]

Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/EQebC

Check your timezone: https://tinyurl.com/y3dc23hu

• Please click the link below to join the webinar:

https://icann.zoom.us/j/93281618607?pwd=RmJGRTBZODlWV3RSbU1mT1dBdUhmZz09

Passcode: ?z&5&?%wGy

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council invite you to attend a webinar to discuss the implementation status of Policy Development Process (PDP) 3.0.

PDP 3.0 is a GNSO Council initiative designed to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the GNSO policy development process. The GNSO Council adopted the PDP 3.0 Final Report [go.icann.org] in February 2020; many work products related to the 14 PDP 3.0 improvements have been deployed in GNSO working groups or used by the Council.

There are three objectives for this webinar: 1) review the purposes and practical examples of the PDP 3.0 work products that have been applied in ongoing GNSO working groups; 2) kick start the preliminary assessment of PDP 3.0 impact; and 3) help other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees evaluate the applicability of PDP 3.0 improvements in their internal processes. In addition, the webinar will also include an introduction of the Consensus Playbook [go.icann.org] to kick off the initial community discussion of its contents and practical utility.

Participants are encouraged to join the discussions. More information will be posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/EQebC

PLEASE NOTE:   GNSO Council ADOPTS PDP 3.0.   At the February 20th GNSO Council Meeting the Council unanimously resolved the following regarding Small Team Report on the Councils work over several years now on PDP 3.0 

Resolved, 

1. The GNSO Council hereby adopts the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Final Report and instructs GNSO Support Staff to work with the GNSO Council leadership on the deployment of improvements based on the effective time frame proposed by the PDP 3.0 Small Team. 
2. The GNSO Council requests future charter drafting teams of the GNSO Council to commence chartering for upcoming PDP efforts by utilizing the revised GNSO working group charter template and other related PDP 3.0 work products, and report to the GNSO Council on whether they help achieve the intended outcomes.
3. The GNSO Council requests that after all PDP 3.0 improvements are in effect, the GNSO Council conducts a review of the implementation effectiveness in a timely manner. 
4. The GNSO Council requests that following the GNSO Council review of the PDP 3.0 implementation effectiveness, the GNSO Council considers any necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures and uses the relevant work product in the PDP 3.0 Implementation Final Report as a starting point.  
5. The GNSO Council confirms that none but one (1) “Parking Lot” item (Statement of Interest Review) identified by the PDP 3.0 Small Team should be moved forward until the GNSO Council has the opportunity to evaluate the PDP 3.0 implementation effectiveness. 
6. The GNSO Council thanks to the PDP 3.0 Small Team, GNSO support staff, and others who have contributed to the implementation of GNSO PDP 3.0 improvements as well as the proposed implementation work products to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of GNSO PDPs.

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).

2020 meetings.

The proposed upcoming dates for the GNSO Council Meetings in 2020 are as follows. (dates removed as they are completed and detailed in section below)           

• 21 October GNSO Council Meeting 11:00 UTC  
• 19 November GNSO Council Meeting 21:00 UTC  
• 18 December GNSO Council Meeting 12:00 UTC   

Formal Minutes for the Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures can be quickly found below:

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 ALT+ where needed for advice or action. These reports will constitute part of the ALAC meetings records.

GNSO Council Meeting Agenda's and Records for 2020 will be listed  below when available:

GNSO Council Agenda 24 September 2020 at 1200 UTC

Draft GNSO Council Agenda 24 September 2020

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/ugS-C

GNSO Council Meeting Webinar Room
https://icann.zoom.us/j/98972638542?pwd=cHM4RkhQL21PTWF6aWtvUm85WXZnZz09

___________________________________

Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 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 23 July 2020 were posted on 12 Aug 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 20 August 2020 were posted on 04 Sep 2020.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (0 minutes)

2.1 - In the interest of time, the review of the Projects List and Action Item List took place over the email list. 

Item 3: Consent Agenda (10 minutes) 

• 3.1 - Action Decision Radar decision - In respect of Recommendation 5 From IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report and in accordance with the Addendum to the RPMs Charter adopted by the Council on 23 January 2020, the Council shall initiate both the Expressions of Interest process to identify a single, qualified Work Track Chair and issue a call for Members and Observers to join the IGO Work Track
• 3.2 - Approval of the 2020 Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Slate - In accordance with Section 17.2 (d) of the ICANN Bylaw and per the CSC Charter, the full membership of the CSC must be approved by the GNSO Council. The Council approves the full slate of members and liaisons, noting that the SSAC has declined to appoint a liaison:

Members Customer Standing Committee:

Alejandra Reynoso (LAC)

Appointing Organization: ccNSO

Term: 2019 - 2021

Brett Carr (Vice-Chair) (EU) re-appointed

Appointing Organization: ccNSO

Expected Term: 2020 - 2022

Dmitry Burkov (EU)

Appointing Organization: RySG

Term: 2019 - 2021

Gaurav Vedi (NA) re-appointed

Appointing Organization: RySG

Expected Term: 2020 - 2022

Liaisons:

Lars-Johan Liman, (Chair) re-appointed

Appointing Organization: RSSAC

Expected Term: 2020 – 2022

Laxmi Prasad Yadav

Appointing Organization: GAC

Expected Term: 2020 - 2022

Holly Raiche

Appointing Organization: ALAC

Term: 2019 - 2021

James Gannon

Appointing Organization: GNSO (Non-Registry)

Term: 2019 - 2021

Naela Sarras

Appointing Organization: PTI

Term: no term limit

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of the Final Report of the Expedited PDP (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification Phase 2 (30 minutes)

Phase 2 of the Expedited PDP (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification was initiated in March 2019, and is focused on developing policy on a System for Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD) to non-public gTLD registration data, as well as other topics identified in Phase 2 of the Charter. The EPDP Team published its Phase 2 Initial Report for public comment on 7 February 2020, focused on the SSAD. Subsequently, the EPDP Team also published its Addendum for public comment on 26 March 2020, which was focused on priority 2 items. The Final Report was delivered to the Council on 31 July 2020. Minority Statements were accepted through 24 August 2020, and all statements received by the deadline were incorporated into the Final Report. A webinar was held on 3 September 2020 to better inform the GNSO Council of the recommendations contained within the Final Report, in advance of their consideration of the report.

Here, the Council will vote to adopt the Final Report of the EPDP Team.

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Rafik Dammak)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: Supermajority)

Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as outlined in ICANN’s Bylaws as the GNSO ‘shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws’ (Art.11.1). Furthermore, this action complies with the requirements set out in Annex A: GNSO Policy Development Process of the ICANN Bylaws.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Project Change Request (PCR) from the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs PDP WG (20 minutes)

Chartered in March 2016 to review all the RPMs that have been developed by ICANN, the PDP is focused on RPMs developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program (i.e., Trademark Clearing House, Sunrise, Claims, and Uniform Rapid Suspension). The WG is tasked with considering the overarching issue as to whether or not the RPMs collectively fulfill their purposes or whether additional policy recommendations will be necessary.

On 20 February 2020, the Council approved a Project Change Request to allow for additional time to deliver the groups Phase 1 Initial Report (March 2020) and delivery of the Final Report (mid-October 2020). The PDP has successfully published its Phase 1 Initial Report for public comment on 18 March 2020 and has spent the time since reviewing the extensive public comment received and seeking to agree on final recommendations. The Co-Chairs have determined that additional time is needed to accommodate substantive work, resulting in the WG missing its mid-October delivery date for the Final Report. The Co-Chairs are therefore submitting a Project Change Request. [INSERT LINK WHEN AVAILABLE]

Here, the Council will consider the Project Change Request and determine how it wishes to proceed.

5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership; John McElwaine, GNSO Council liaison to the PDP)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Next steps

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Expedited PDP (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification Phase 2 Proposed Next Steps for Priority 2 Items (15 minutes)

While the Phase 2 of the Expedited PDP (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification published its Phase 2 Initial Report for public comment on 7 February 2020, focused on the SSAD, it also published its Addendum for public comment on 26 March 2020, which was focused on priority 2 items. Rafik Dammak submitted a framework document to both identify the list of topics and suggest possible next steps for the Council to consider. A small team was convened to further develop the proposed approach for priority 2 items and present to the full Council for its consideration at a future date. The small team worked on its proposal, which was shared with the Council on 11 August 2020 and discussed on the August Council call. Taking into account discussions on that Council call, the proposal has been worked on further.

Here, the Council will discuss the revised proposal for handling priority 2 items.

6.1 – Introduction of topic (Rafik Dammak)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Implementation Concerns for EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7, related to the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy (15 minutes)

In adopting the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification Final Report and Recommendations, the Council requested that an informal Implementation Review Team (IRT) be established, which was done. After the recommendations were approved by the ICANN Board, the informal IRT transitioned to a formal IRT and has diligently been working to implement the policy recommendations. Within the IRT, there are diverging views amongst some IRT members on how to implement recommendation 7, especially in relation to the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, and .JOBS

The ICANN Board, taking note of the potential impasse, sent a letter to the GNSO Council on 11 March 2020. The Council considered the letter and agreed that recommendation 7 did not explicitly overturn the Thick Whois Transition Policy; to do so will require the GNSO Council to initiate policy development. The Council sent a response to the ICANN Board on 29 May 2020. The IRT has continued to try and implement recommendation 7 but has still been unable to reach agreement. As such and per the Council’s letter, the Council is requesting a briefing from, ”the GNSO Council liaison detailing the precise nature of the impasse so that the GNSO Council can make an informed determination on how to proceed.”

Here, the Council will receive a briefing from the GNSO Council liaison to the IRT.  

7.1 - Introduction of topic (GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP Phase 1 IRT, Sebastien Ducos)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Q&A with GNSO Chair Candidate (15 minutes)

The Non-Contracted Parties House has nominated Philippe Fouquart as its candidate for the GNSO Chair election. The Contract Parties House has not elected to nominate a candidate. 

Here, in advance of the election to take place during the Council’s administrative meeting in October, the Council will consider the candidate statement [INSERT LINK WHEN AVAILABLE] and participate in a Q&A session with Philippe. 

8.1 - Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

8.2 - Council discussion (Philippe Fouquart, all)

8.3 - Next steps

Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (15 minutes)

• 9.1 - Preparation for ICANN69 bilateral meetings with the ICANN Board, ccNSO, GAC, and SSAC. 

___________________________________

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 20 August 2020 2100 UTC

Agenda and Documents

List of attendees:
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Greg DiBiase
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Sebastien Ducos
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Elsa Saade (apology, proxy to James Gannon), Tatiana Tropina, Rafik Dammak, Farell Folly, James Gannon
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels (absent)
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :
Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison
Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC
Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer
ICANN Staff
David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional
Marika Konings – Senior Advisor, Special Projects
Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement
Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
Steve Chan – Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant
Emily Barabas – Policy Manager
Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist
Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager
Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator
Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Item 1: Administrative Matters
1.1 - Roll Call
1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
Sebastien Ducos (SOI) announced that Neustar has been bought by GoDaddy and is now a GoDaddy registry.
1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
Minutes of the Extraordinary GNSO Council meeting on 16 July 2020 were posted on the 30 July 2020
Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 23 July 2020 were posted on 12 August 2020.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects; Action List
Berry Cobb reminded councilors that most of the updates to the Project List had been circulated on the Council mailing list at the beginning of the week. The main change is the migration of EPDP P2 to the
Council deliberations section.

Michele Neylon noted that the Whois Implementation Advisory Committee has been discussed amongst the small team and further updates will be provided shortly.
Sebastien Ducos raised that Council is tasked with handling work which has many dependencies, many of which councillors might not be familiar with, and thus may struggle to have an opinion. He suggested
that staff propose two or three solutions as to how to manage the prioritization effort. He added that this was urgent also for perception purposes.
Philippe Fouquart concurred that a simplified version would be welcome.
Rafik Dammak responded that it was extremely difficult to lay out ways forward precisely given the lack of knowledge/data available at one given time.
Keith Drazek reminded councilors that it had been complicated to begin considering new work until EPDP efforts and PDP developments were nearing completion. However the discussion on prioritization
had been key in moving work forward.
Sebastien Ducos clarified that he would like shorter term items to allow for item completion.

Steve Chan, Org, agreed the tools developed were a start to identifying work coming up in the pipelines and that they would evolve. The key would be to look at it like a logical sequencing of the work. The Action Decision Radar document is helpful to identify work arriving in 1 - 3 months but also 3 - 6 months.
Maxim Alzoba suggested that a very clear scale of prioritization would be helpful.

Regarding the open Action items, not being dealt with in today’s main agenda, Keith Drazek provided the following updates:
- Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Accountability Work Stream 2 (WS2): A Council small team will meet to focus on the CCWG WS2 next steps and implementation before the next Council meeting.
- PDP3.0: a webinar is scheduled for 15 September 2020. .
- IGOs: Council to discuss the timing for the issuing of the call for volunteers, and the expression of interest for the Chair of the IGO Protections work track under the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Working Group umbrella.
- DNS Abuse: GNSO Council to reach out to the ccNSO at the appropriate time to discuss possible next steps.
Action Item:
● A GNSO Council small team to deliberate on the WS2 Implementation Assessment Report, coordinate with ICANN org depts (new Planning Function being established under our CFO Xavier Calvez & MSSI), and develop a work plan for consideration by the GNSO Council; this small team is also expected to consider potential overlaps between WS2 implementation and ATRT3 & MSM evolution. The small team to convene before the September 2020 Council meeting to discuss the plan for next steps and expectations.

Item 3: Consent Agenda
There were three items on the Consent Agenda.
● 3.1 - Action Decision Radar decision - Confirm that Council supports initiation of the IDN Operational Track 1, as recommended by the IDN Scoping Team, that shall focus on the IDN Implementation Guidelines 4.0, which the Council anticipates will be worked on primarily between ICANN org and Contracted Parties, but should allow observers.
● 3.2 - Action Decision Radar decision - Agree on next steps (i.e., for the EPDP-Phase 1 IRT to prepare draft revisions to the affected policies and publish for public comment) for terminology updates as described in the “EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 27: Registration Data Policy Impacts report” and possible actions as described in the “Possible next steps EPDP P1 Wave 1 Rec 27”. In the course of making updates to impacted consensus policies, the EPDP-Phase 1 IRT is instructed to promptly advise the GNSO Council if possible policy changes are required.
● 3.3 - Approve request for extension of timeline for Issue Report on the Transfer Policy

Caitlin Tubergen, Org, in response to John McElwaine’s request for further clarification on item 3.2, explained that if staff identified conflict or policy issues, amongst the minor changes, the conflicts would be sent back to the GNSO Council.
 
Action Item:
● Sebastien D. to inform the EPDP-Phase 1 IRT regarding the Council agreement on the next steps for terminology updates as described in the “EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 27: Registration Data Policy Impacts report” and possible actions as described in the “Possible next steps EPDP P1 Wave 1 Rec 27”.
● GNSO support staff to inform GDD of the Council’s support for initiating the IDN Operational Track 1, as recommended by the IDN Scoping Team, which shall focus on the IDN Implementation Guidelines 4.0, which the Council anticipates will be worked on primarily between ICANN org and Contracted Parties, but should allow observers.

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Expedited PDP (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification Phase 2: Final Report
Rafik Dammak, GNSO Council liaison and EPDP P2 Vice-Chair, presented updates to the Council. The Final Report was delivered on the 31 July 2020. A number of groups requested additional time to submit minority statements. An updated Final Report will be sent to Council once all minority statements have been received.
The Final Report contains an executive summary, an overview of the EPDP team approach, EPDP team recommendations and annexes. Council leadership has reviewed different options available and recommends that SSAD recommendations be considered as one package (Rec#1 - #18) and consider priority 2 recommendations as a separate package (Rec#19 - #22). This would allow alignment with EPDP Team’s recommendation to consider SSAD related items as interdependent. It would also enable potential fast tracking by ICANN Board of priority 2 items which could be handed to Phase 1 IRT upon adoption. It was also highlighted that all priority 2 designations have a consensus or full consensus while SSAD recs have more mixed designations. Proposed timeline for Council consideration highlights the first opportunity today for Council to discuss the timing of consideration of the Final Report. On the 24 August 2020, Council will receive an updated Report including the minority report. A Council webinar will be scheduled on the 3 September 2020.
Rafik Dammak clarified that all groups, except the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP), submitted or will submit minority statements. Keith Drazek reminded Council that the Final
Report was received at the end of July, with a view to vote on it on the 24 September 2020, allowing time for Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SGs and Cs) to discuss and review. He encouraged councilors to avoid deferring the vote to the October 2020 meeting. He added that councilors’ main responsibility is to manage the process and to not relitigate substantive issues discussed in the EPDP 2 team.
Michele Neylon noted that Council needed to appreciate the tremendous work achieved by the EPDP P2 team as well as staff supporting the effort. He expressed disappointment about several minority statements by groups, which could be perceived as undermining the entire process due to dissatisfaction.
Pam Little, on behalf of the RrSG, concurred with Michele Neylon, and highlighted how complex the topics worked on were. She recognised Rafik Dammak’s efforts as Council liaison and EPDP Vice Chair for two years, with uncomfortable time-zone constraints.
Rafik Dammak clarified that Working Group guidelines and Operating Procedures are very specific about “minority statements” and how to convey divergence. However, in the EPDP P2, this was viewed mainly as an opportunity for different groups to elaborate on specific issues and recommendations.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Expedited PDP (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification Phase 2:
Proposed Next Steps for Priority 2 Items
Keith Drazek reminded councilors that Priority 2 items were coined as such as not being on the critical path to the SSAD report, but that further in-depth discussions were indeed necessary The small group’s work on this topic was presented by Rafik Dammak. The small team addressed the topics of legal vs natural person, the feasibility of unique contacts, Whois accuracy of reporting systems. Several factors were taken into account: Ensuring efficient use of people’\s time and resources, due consideration given to topics whilst creating consensus, ensuring conformity with the GNSO PDP manual and Bylaws requirements and GNSO Council oversight.
Two tracks: Legal vs Natural & Feasibility of Unique Contacts (reconvene the EPDP P2 team) and Accuracy and Whois Accuracy Reporting System (new scoping team).
Open questions: when should the EPDP P2 team reconvene and how should the leadership position be determined?
James Gannon raised that not all members of the EPDP team may not wish to reconvene, and if so, maybe not as early as September 2020 in order to avoid volunteer burnout.
Marie Pattullo responded that the Business Constituency (BC) has discussed with EPDP team members who were willing to continue and that member replacements are possible so work should start before ICANN69.
Maxim Alzoba added that the work pace would not be the same as for EPDP P2.
Tatiana Tropina concurred with James, but also wanted the work to begin once the Final Report has been voted on and not before, and to allow members’ respite.
Keith Drazek raised the task of searching for a Chair would start early for Council and SG/Cs but that a pause for the EPDP P2 team would be ideal.

Michele Neylon warned against “urgent” issues which have been around for years and which urgently need to be considered in the spirit of compromise.
Rafik Dammak added that Council input and feedback on next steps was crucial, and that a lot of preparatory work needed to be factored into the future timeline. For legal vs natural, deliberation dynamics needed to change, and groups which had expressed interest on the topics previously, will be asked to provide concrete proposals.
James Gannon mentioned that this is the third time Council discussed the topic and that there was no consensus yet, but a proper strategy was needed. He added that voting in between meetings, tentatively, to gauge which way Council was leaning could be helpful. Removing the timing indication could reduce dissent.
Keith Drazek noted that there had been no objection to the proposed next steps, only to the timing.
Flip Petillion said that this would be discussed shortly within the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC).
Maxim Alzoba added that the voting date of the 24 September 2020 was indicative only, as it did not include the possibility of a motion deferral
John McElwaine mentioned that the new scoping team could be started in parallel.

Action Item:
● Prior to the September 2020 Council meeting, all GNSO Councilors to solicit input from their respective SGs/Cs regarding the Small Team proposal about the EPDP Phase 2 Priority 2 Items, and share their feedback to inform Council’s decision on the next steps.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel
The GNSO Council needs to decide who will participate in the selection committee for members of the IRP Standing Panel. Mary Wong, Org, informed councilors that Org is still working on factors such as time requirements, scope and decision-making methodology. She added that once the selection is made by SOs and ACs, it will be forwarded to the ICANN Board.,
Keith Drazek explained that the main task is to decide how to select candidates to the selection committee. One option could be the Standing Selection Committee.
James Gannon asked for further information about the SOAC leaders not wishing to use the IRP IOT existing members. He added he would not support using the SSC, but would delegate to the SGs and Cs. He would prefer it to be a collaborative process within the community as it is going to be foundational for the upcoming five to ten years.
Keith Drazek responded that the IRP IOT is already busy developing guidelines and guidance, and any further responsibility would divert from its current work. But nothing prevents IRP IOT members from volunteering.
A small Org team (with collaboration of chairs of SOs and ACs, SGs and Cs )is currently working on the terms of reference.

Action Item:

● Prior to the September 2020 Council meeting, all GNSO Councilors to solicit input from their respective SGs/Cs regarding the summary and next steps document about IRP Standing Panel, and share their feedback to inform Council’s decision on the next steps.

Item 7 ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
● 7.1 - ICANN69 Planning
Staff provided an overview of ICANN69 GNSO Schedule to date: SOAC week (13-15 October) & Plenary week (19-22 October)
● 7.2 - GNSO Chair election process/timing
Both Houses have until 1 September 2020 to submit their GNSO Chair candidate nominations.
● 7.3 - Update on the EPDP Phase 1 IRT, in respect of Recommendation 7
Sebastien Ducos, GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP P1 IRT provided an update regarding Recommendation 7. The team is coming to an agreement, ifis possible, but will take time. Disagreement regarding the definition of legal basis and which legal basis would be considered. Sebastien will return to Council with a question from the IRT, which the IRT cannot resolve on the topic.

Keith Drazek adjourned the meeting at 23:02 UTC on Thursday 20 August 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 23 July 2020 1200 UTC
Agenda and Documents

List of attendees:
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon (apology, proxy to Greg Dibiase), Greg DiBiase
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Sebastien Ducos
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Elsa Saade, Tatiana Tropina, Rafik Dammak, Farell Folly , James Gannon
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :
Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison
Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC
Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer (absent)

GNSO Appointed Board members: Becky Burr and Matthew Shears

ICANN Staff
David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional
Marika Konings – Senior Advisor, Special Projects
Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement
Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
Steve Chan – Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant
Emily Barabas – Policy Manager
Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist
Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager
Andrea Glandon - Operations Support, GNSO Coordinator
Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Item 1: Administrative Matters
1.1 - Roll Call
1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
Maxim Alzoba has been appointed interim Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) member of the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) until October 2020.
1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 24 June 2020 were posted on 10 July 2020.
Minutes of the Extraordinary GNSO Council meeting on 16 July 2020 will be posted on the 30 July 2020

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List
Berry Cobb reminded councilors that most of the updates to the Project List had been circulated on the Council mailing list at the beginning of the week. He added that staff is in the process of consolidating the project list, action item list to the program management tools to provide a complete portfolio for councilors. He brought councilor’s attention to the fact the EPDP phase 2 health status was downgraded to “in trouble”.
Regarding the open Action items, not being dealt with in today’s main agenda, Keith Drazek provided the following updates:
- Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Accountability Work Stream 2 (WS2): A Council small team needs to meet to focus on the CCWG WS2 next steps and implementation. Keith Drazek will engage with the Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee (SOAC) chairs on the topic.
- PDP3.0: Council needs to carry out any future action items in the resolved clauses at the appropriate time as directed by the motion.
- Accountability and Transparency review: Council small team in consultation with Cheryl Langdon-Orr to work on a draft response to the ATRT 3 Final Report Public Comment scheduled to close at the end of July 2020.

- IGOs: Council to discuss the timing for the issuing of the call for volunteers, and the expression of interest for the Chair of the IGO Protections work track under the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Working Group umbrella.
- DNS Abuse: GNSO Council to reach out to the ccNSO at the appropriate time to discuss possible next steps.

Item 3: Consent Agenda: no item

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE: Cross Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds - Final
Report
Erika Mann, seconded by Rafik Dammak, submitted a motion to approve the Cross Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds FInal Report.
Whereas,
1. The New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group was chartered by the the Address Supporting Organization (ASO), the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), and the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) to develop a proposal(s) for consideration by the Chartering Organizations on the mechanism that should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds.
2. The final proposed charter (https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter) was submitted to all ICANN SOs/ACs in October 2016, after which each ICANN SO/AC confirmed the adoption of the charter. The GNSO Council adopted the CCWG charter in November 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201611).
3. A call for volunteers (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en) was launched in December 2016 and the GNSO appointed five members to the CCWG, including one member serving as Co-Chair. The following GNSO-appointed CCWG members are currently serving on the CCWG: Anne-Aikman Scalese, Jonathan Frost, Johan (Julf) Helsingius, Erika Mann (Co- Chair), and Elliot Noss.
4. The CCWG commenced its work in January 2017.
5. On 11 December 2018, the CCWG published its Initial Report (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-08oct18-en.pdf) for public comment (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-2018-10-08-en). Thirty-seven (37) comments were received in response to this public comment period, including input from the GNSO Council, RySG, RrSG, BC, ISPCP, NCSG, as well as individuals from the GNSO community.

6. The CCWG reviewed public comments and revised recommendations based on this input and further deliberations. On 23 December 2019, the CCWG published a proposed Final Report (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-final-23dec19-en.pdf) for public comment (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-final-2019-12-23-en) and requested targeted input from the community on sections of the report that had changed substantially since publication of the Initial Report. Twelve (12) comments were received in response to this public comment period, including input from the RySG, RrSG, IPC, and NCSG.
7. The CCWG reviewed all of the input received and submitted its Final Report (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/ccwg-auction-proceeds-to-gnso-council-29may20-en.pdf) to the Chartering Organizations for their consideration on 29 May 2020.
8. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the Final Report and Recommendations.

Resolved,
1. The GNSO Council adopts the Final Report and Recommendations of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group.
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to share the results of this motion with the Chairs of the Auction Proceeds CCWG as soon as possible.
3. The GNSO Council expresses its sincere appreciation to the Auction Proceeds CCWG, the GNSO appointed members and participants in that effort, and especially the GNSO-appointed
Co-Chair, Erika Mann, for all their hard work in achieving the delivery of the Final Report and Recommendations.

After Erika Mann, GNSO co-chair of the CCWG Auction Proceeds, provided background information on the CCWG’s work, and after Rafik Dammak read the resolved clauses of the motion, the majority of councilors present on the call voted in favour of the motion.
Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) councilors John McElwaine and Flip Petillion thanked the CCWG co-chairs as well as all CCWG members for their efforts. On behalf of the IPC, John McElwaine and Flip Petillion objected to the motion for the following reason: Mechanism A is an extension of ICANN’s powers beyond its bylaws, and therefore the minority report statement put forward by the Commercial Stakeholder Group contains a preference to lead with a referral to the ICANN Risk Committee to evaluate that mechanism before moving forward.

Vote results
James Gannon encouraged councilors to monitor closely how the implementation of the CCWG work will be structured by the ICANN Board.

Action item:
● GNSO Secretariat to share the results of this motion passed by the GNSO Council with the
Chairs of the Auction Proceeds CCWG as soon as possible

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Expedited PDP (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification Phase 2:
Status Update and Proposed Next Steps for Priority 2 Items
Rafik Dammak, Chair of the EPDP Phase 2 team, provided an update on work to date. After having shared a version of the Final Report with EPDP members, they were asked to input feedback in a Google doc in the shape of three categories of rating (cannot live with, would like to see change, non-substantive and minor). The category classification was then discussed during team calls. In the most recent timeline, the Final Report was to be presented today with the aim of making consensus level designations, but this
will take place tomorrow. The aim is still to deliver the Final Report by Friday 31 July 2020. He then updated councilors on the work of the GNSO Council small team efforts which has developed a draft based on the previous framework presented during the June Council meeting. This draft focuses on providing more details, setting objectives and next steps whilst ensuring efficient use of people’s time and resources and following GNSO processes and procedures. Oversight of the GNSO Council will be key, the approach to deal with the issues of legal vs natural and feasibility of unique contact will be to reconvene the EPDP team. Timing to be determined. For the topic of accuracy, the small team suggests starting with a scoping team, taking into account elements from recommendation 27 Wave 1. Council needs to decide when to initiate this scoping team. He also indicated there are open questions to be resolved. John McElwaine asked when the effort on data accuracy would begin. Keith Drazek responded that the framework document developed by the Council small team was the discussion starting point, but that discussions on priority and on timing needs to take place once the Final Report is submitted.

Greg Dibiase raised that priority 2 items were going to be addressed after the SSAD report was going to be delivered to Council. He added that it would be better for the Council vote on the SSAD report to take place before starting to consider the priority 2 items.

Philippe Fouquart commented that he was lacking clarity (in regard to scope, phasing, timing) between the three tracks mentioned for priority 2 items despite the EPDP phase 2 coming to closure.

Marie Pattullo thanked Rafik Dammak and staff for their efforts. She raised two issues: remaining items and when the new work track will start. Group momentum and expertise needs to be maintained, with a preferred start date of September 2020, not later as there is a risk of losing focus in the run up to ICANN69. Regarding accuracy, the same timeline concerns remain.

Tatiana Tropina addressed the issue of the starting point and preserving same team members. She raised that the intensity of the work, with just the month of August off, could be problematic.

Maxim Alzoba cautioned against re-starting the effort quickly for the sake of it.

Rafik Dammak responded to the comments: the priority 2 items need to have the right conditions and factors for success. The Council small team’s role is to propose a solution to guarantee results, by including guidance and detail. For this to happen, more time may be necessary. Keith Drazek concurred.

James Gannon added that over the last few years many EPDP volunteers had had to leave the team and ICANN altogether due to exhaustion. The remaining items would need to be incorporated into the GNSO Council’s program management tools for fair consideration.

Keith Drazek concluded the item discussion by mentioning that the charter would not need modifying but a process review might be necessary. These priority 2 items are not an SSAD report dependency but do need to be worked up for the entire EPDP effort to close.

Rafik Dammak added that the work being done is owned by Council as process manager it will take into account concerns, responding to them in keeping with the charter and the procedures and sending clear messages to all groups.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Program Management [tentative based on discussions from the Extraordinary Meeting] - Rec#27 Wave 1 report
Berry Cobb, Org, provided a quick update to councilors following the 16 July 2020 Extraordinary meeting focusing on how to handle the follow up work from Rec#27 Wave1 report. Meetings have been held with Global Domain Division (GDD) colleagues with an update to Council planned for August 2020 with an aim to circulate by the document and motion deadline (10 August 2020). A matrix of seven impacted policies is being developed, and is a four-column summary report including which policies are impacted, what effort, timing is involved to accomplish the work, does there need to be an interim attachment to the RDS policies in the meantime and low impact items with terminology updates only. This is also to ensure that the work is detached from the EPDP 1 IRT work efforts.

Action item:
● Staff to add the EPDP Wave 1 Analysis as an item on the August 2020 Council meeting agenda

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Program Management [tentative based on discussions from the
Extraordinary Meeting] - IDN Operational Track 1
Steve Chan, Org, provided background information on the GNSO Council IDN Scoping Team, whose Final Report considered two tracks. The IDN Operational Track 1 stems from the GNSO Council’s concerns to the IDN Implementation Guidelines. This track is dependent on GDD and Contracted Parties (CPs) collaborating, without a heavy lift from Council other than kicking off the work effort which could be a Consent Agenda item. GDD staff will be available to support the work effort. In addition to this track, the charter drafting team for the policy track could convene as early as August 2020.

Ariel Liang, org, added that staff is exploring the PDP3.0 revised charter template in drafting a charter for the Policy track work. GNSO Council will be invited to review the document when available. Collaboration with GDD staff, Sarmad Hussein in particular, is helping to look at confirming questions raised by the recommendations. Regarding the Operational Track, it has an important advisory role, identifying what part of the implementation guidelines is implementation and which portion is policy-related.

Rafik Dammak, in regard to the Operational Track, asked about the track composition, and whether observers would be welcome. Steve Chan clarified that primarily the effort is an operational and contractual one, but the group overall supported the presence of observers.

Philippe Fouquart asked how much of the policy track effort would be related to the ccNSO PDP4 call for volunteers. Ariel Liang responded that two subteams were going to be created, one of which would overlap with the IDN Policy track effort. The Variant TLD staff paper contains items which would warrant GNSO and ccNSO staff collaboration, but not the majority.

Keith Drazek confirmed the start of the IDN Operational Track would be on the August 2020 Consent Agenda.

Action item:
● Staff to add in the August 2020 Council meeting agenda the initiation of the IDN Operational Track 1 work as a “consent agenda” item

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Program Management [tentative based on discussions from the
Extraordinary Meeting] - Other Items
Berry Cobb, org, reminded councillors that this was discussed in relation to the wave 1 report from EPDP Phase 1, and items which were listed there as high and medium impact, which is the URS Procedure as well as URS rules. Staff did an analysis and in regards to the URS Procedure items, there were nine that were listed there from the Wave 1 report: two of which are terminology updates, two have already been addressed, two identified as not yet addressed but considered as implementation guidance, one was not yet addressed but could provide policy deliberations on the group. The bulk of these therefore could be addressed by the RPM Working group and should all be incorporated into the Final Report. A few of these could require deliberation, but a low-level risk for the RPM WG, with little impact on their path to the Final Report. The same analysis was made in regard to URS Rules, the eight items here are terminology updates and could be incorporated into the RPM Final Report as implementation guidance. Two out of the eight items were already addressed by the RPM WG. He suggested Council agree that the RPM liaison as well as RPM staff support, take the analysis to the RPM WG leadership, have them review it and take action within the WG. If there are issues, they could report back to Council. If none of these can be incorporated into the Final Report, they could still be assigned to the matrix mentioned in item 6.

Keith Drazek addressed the Council, is the RPM PDP WG the best vehicle to address these changes or is there another path? John McElwaine, GNSO Council liaison to the RPM PDP WG, responded that provided that the work is mainly definitional, it should be handled by the RPM PDP WG and that it was already on the group’s agenda for next week.

Marie Pattullo thanked Berry Cobb for the Extraordinary Council meeting the previous week. She asked whether all terminology updates could be put into a separate item, as a rolling agenda item, which would allow greater visibility on the work effort. Berry Cobb responded that further clarification would be available for the August Council meeting. In regards to handling the bulk of the wave 1 report, the additional items, the decision is not for Council, it will be mostly worked on by GDD staff and the EPDP IRT, as it is the RDS policy implementation which is causing the impact.

Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS
● 9.1 - Populating the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel - feedback from SG/Cs on approach

James Gannon confirmed on behalf of the NCSG that there had been discussion, and that the question remained that this was not the IRP itself, but the IRP Standing Panel which was to be populated. If the IOT is to be the body which helps select the Standing Panel members, the NSG is in favour. Mary Wong, Org, mentioned that there are several options (the IRP IOT, a small group which may not include IRP IOT members). Further discussion with ICANN Org and community chairs is to take place this following week. There is an important role, in the Bylaws, for community direction in populating standing panels.

Maxim Alzoba asked why the SSC and the SSC process was not being used for the selection of standing panelists. Keith Drazek replied that the appointment of members to the standing panel was broader than the GNSO.

James Gannon added that the NCSG would strongly support the IOT assisting with the selection of the Standing Panel as it was an extremely complicated process.

Flip Petillion mentioned that the IRP IOT is composed of experts, the intention is that this group is examining issues and improvement suggestions to the IRPs. The IOT ought to preserve an advisory role only and not a selection one. Mary Wong added that if the community agreement is that a community group should be constituted, it is up to the GNSO how it wishes to appoint a rep to that group - which may be the SSC if you choose. That’s an internal GNSO selection issue but we are not at that stage yet.

Becky Burr in the chat wrote: “The IRP IOT does not have current authority for panel nominations, and technically Board/Org selects members in consultation with SOAC. “

● 9.2 - Council response to the public comment on the Enhancing the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model – Next Steps proceeding.                                                                                                                                                                                    Pam Little asked councilors to provide input on the draft response.

● 9.3 - Update on the EPDP Phase 1 IRT, in respect of Recommendation 7
Sebastien Ducos, GNSO Liaison to the IRT, informed Council that the group was close to coming to an agreement. He has had several discussions with IRT members, whilst keeping the GNSO Council leadership up to date. A summary of the discussion findings will be shared with the IRT, who in turn will provide a written response to the Council.

● 9.4 - GNSO Council liaison to the GAC
Julf Helsingius is stepping down as GNSO COuncil liaison to the GAC. Keith Drazek thanked Julf for his role and responsibility in this effort. The SSC will begin its process to identify a replacement for Julf.
Keith Drazek thanked GNSO appointed Board members for their presence on the call.

Keith Drazek adjourned the meeting at 13:58 UTC on Thursday 23 July 2020

Council Meeting held on June 24th 2020 at 0500 UTC  during ICANN68

GNSO Council Minutes 24 June 2020

Coordinated Universal Time: 05:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y9rrz5aw

Audio Recording

Transcript

Agenda and Documents

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Greg DiBiase

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Elsa Saade, Tatiana Tropina, Rafik Dammak, Farell Folly (absent for vote, proxy for remainder of session to James Gannon), James Gannon

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer

ICANN Staff

David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional

Marika Konings – Senior Advisor, Special Projects

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Policy Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Keith Drazek welcomed all councilors to the call.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

There were no updates to Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

There were no changes to the agenda as presented. Sebastien Ducos asked for additional time to cover an Implementation Review Team (IRT) update regarding recommendation 7 of EPDP Phase 1 Final Report under Any Other Business (AOB).

1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 April 2020 were posted on 01 May 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 21 May 2020 were posted on 05 June 2020.

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

In the interest of time, this agenda item was postponed.

Item 3: Consent Agenda:

There was no item for Council consideration under the Consent Agenda.

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Vote to Request an Issue Report on the Transfer Policy

Pam Little, seconded by Rafik Dammak, submitted a motion for the GNSO Council to approve a request for an Issue Report on the Transfer Policy.

Whereas,

Recommendation 18 of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D PDP Working Group’s Final Report states, “[t]he Working Group recommends that contracted parties and ICANN should start to gather data and other relevant information that will help inform a future IRTP review team in its efforts;”

ICANN org, in response to Recommendation 18 of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D PDP Working Group’s Final Report, delivered the Transfer Policy Status Report (TPSR) to the GNSO Council on 22 April 2019;

The GNSO Council issued a call for volunteers for a Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team on October 3, 2019;

The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team held its first meeting on December 5, 2019;

ICANN org delivered the EPDP Recommendation 27 Wave 1 Report, which included an inventory of potential inconsistencies with the Transfer Policy and the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations, to the GNSO Council on 19 February 2020;

The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team delivered its recommendations in the Transfer Policy Initial Scoping Paper on April 6, 2020;

The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team recommended the GNSO Council instruct ICANN Policy staff to draft a Preliminary Issue Report, outlining, et.al., the issues described within the Transfer Policy Initial Scoping Paper;

Resolved:

The GNSO Council hereby requests the preparation of a Preliminary Issue Report, for delivery as expeditiously as possible, on the issues identified in the Transfer Policy Initial Scoping Paper, to assist in determining whether a PDP or series of PDPs should be initiated regarding changes to the Transfer Policy.

Pam Little provided further background to the Issue Report Request.

The necessary voting threshold for the GNSO Council to approve the request for an Issue Report is more than one-fourth vote of each House or majority of one House. All councilors present on the call voted in favour of the motion.

Vote results

Action item: none

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Expedited PDP (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification Phase 2: Project Change Request and Next Steps for Priority 2 Items

Keith Drazek provided background on the GNSO Council initiated Project Change Request (PCR). The EPDP team submitted a PCR for Council consideration, requesting that the new target delivery date be extended from 11 June 2020 to 31 July 2020 for the delivery of the Final Report for SSAD and priority 1 items.

Rafik Dammak, EPDP Phase 2 Vice-Chair and GNSO Council liaison, reminded councilors that this is the second time that the EPDP Phase 2 team submits such a request. The rationale for the PCR is the current Chair needing to leave, and the need to complete the Final Report. Rafik Dammak will step into the Chair role. The GNSO Council is expected to provide input on how the EPDP Phase 2 team is to move forward on priority 2 items. Rafik Dammak then reviewed the framework document highlighting three topics which will be difficult to complete discussing and working on before the

deadline. There are three options: to reset the EPDP team with scope-related input from the Council, terminate the EPDP and initiate separate tracks to address outstanding topics, combine options 1 and 3 and reset a PDP to deal with the accuracy topic and additional tracks to focus on the outstanding, remaining topics. Rafik Dammak indicated that he recommends option three.

Keith Drazek thanked Rafik Dammak for stepping in as Chair. He clarified there are two items to consider: the PCR and the framework of approaches of how to deal with remaining issues and priority 2 items.

James Gannon mentioned that there had been requests raised on the GNSO Council mailing list that the extension needed to be focused solely on completing the Final Report. He also asked how the GNSO Council would come to agreement on the chosen framework. Keith Drazek expressed his preference for a discussion at Council level in order to come to a decision, without necessarily requiring a vote.

Michele Neylon shared that within the Registrar Stakeholder Group, there had been discussions on the matter. Regarding the PCR agreement, given that the deadline has already passed, there cannot be discussion. He insisted on the need for the Final Report to be completed and for this to be the sole purpose for the extension request.

Rafik Dammak provided further detail on the PCR request. Currently there is a small team working on the evolution mechanism for SSAD and the EPDP team having 3 calls in total to finish the review, there will be a silent week for different groups to work on a final review. He added that for the team to be able to work on the question of legal vs natural, ICANN Org was expected to provide a study, but did not provide it on time. He indicated that GNSO council should send a clear message and guidance with regard to the extension and expectations to finish the work on the final report.

Tatiana Tropina requested that when communicating the PCR approval, the purpose of the extension be clearly mentioned as other groups were still asking for priority 2 items to be taken into account. Keith Drazek added that the content of the PCR clearly stated that the focus was on priority 1 items and that input was expected from the GNSO Council as to how to deal with priority 2 items.

John McElwaine noted that the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) had no objections to the PCR and that the level of detail of the document was appreciated. He agreed with Tatiana’s point on the need for clarity. The IPC would prefer option 3 on the basis that work would be continued on data accuracy, legal vs natural and the feasibility of the anonymized email address. He also added that former EPDP members would be better informed to be part of these tracks.

Marie Pattullo, from the Business Constituency (BC), extended her thanks to the members of the EPDP Phase 2 team. She added that the BC was concerned about priority 2 items, but that it would support the PCR to complete the Final Report. However, priority 2 items are critical, and not just to the GNSO, and need to be dealt with accordingly, moreover as GNSO councilors with a responsibility to the Policy Development Process. Keith Drazek agreed that the GNSO Council needs to work together, or in a small team capacity on a chosen framework before the July 2020 GNSO Council meeting. On the Zoom chat, several councilors volunteered to work in a small team capacity on the topic.

Greg Dibiase, from the RrSG, raised that the EPDP team “can't reach consensus” is not the same as "have not addressed" as several priority 2 topics had indeed been discussed and worked on within the EPDP Phase 2 but without reaching consensus. The RrSG would therefore prefer framework option 2, and have a better scoping mechanism and understanding as to why consensus has not been reached.

Philippe Fouquart, from the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency (ISPCP), mentioned that there was no objection from the ISPCP to the PCR. Regarding option 2, there would be items of option 1 carried over, so there is overlap between the two options. For the meanwhile, option 3, is the ISPCP’s preferred option pending further clarification on all three options proposed. Keith Drazek clarified that a “reset” would be a re-chartering of the EPDP to refocus on legal vs natural and feasibility, with the topic of accuracy being for separate consideration.

Maxim Alzoba, on behalf of the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) , would prefer option 2 as these topics must be worked on further, but without repeating what has already been worked on. Therefore re-setting the EPDP is not a good idea. The EPDP Phase 2 team must stick to this current extension however.

Rafik Dammak thanked all for their input, and insisted on the need for a communication from the GNSO Council to the EPDP Phase 2 team that the Council is managing the process. Regarding the framework for next steps, he encouraged councilors to take a closer look at the document which provides additional information on the topics which cannot be covered by EPDP Phase 2. He noted a clear, separate track for the topic of accuracy, and more scoping needed for the other topics.

Action item:

A Council small team, consisting of Council leadership, support staff, and interested Council members -- including Marie Pattullo, Philippe Fouquart, Sebastien Ducos, John McElwaine, Greg DiBiase -- to develop a consolidated approach to address the remaining EPDP priority 2 topics, with the aim to report back to the Council prior to the July 2020 Council meeting.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG AP) - Final Report

Erika Mann, co-chair of the CCWG Auction Proceeds (CCWG AP) provided councilors with an update on the group’s activity to date.

Erika Mann reminded Council that there had been two Public Comment Periods, the input received during both was integrated into the Final Report. The chosen working method, coordination with the ICANN Board, ICANN Legal and ICANN Finance, was to address the concern to the relevant department immediately, and have it on record, to avoid any inconsistencies in the Final Report leading to further discussion. The CCWG AP was tasked by the Chartering Organizations (COs) with working on a mechanism to allocate the Auction Proceeds fund. The Final Report was submitted to the COs at the end of May 2020 with a two-month period for feedback.

There were four mechanisms originally, but the group narrowed it down to three rapidly: A, an internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization; B, an internal department dedicated to the allocation of auction proceeds is created within the ICANN organization which collaborates with an existing nonprofit; C, a new charitable structure (ICANN Foundation) is created, functionally separate from ICANN org, responsible for the allocation of auction proceeds. The Final Report recommends that the Board selects either A or B, with a preference expressed by CCWG AP members for mechanism A. The CCWG encourages the Board to proceed with a feasibility assessment in addition to the existing guidelines provided by the CCWG.

Also included is a whole set of recommendations which the following team will have to translate into concrete and operational steps: an Independent Project Evaluation Panel to consider and select projects, objectives of fund allocation, safeguards and auditing requirements, existing ICANN Accountability Mechanisms cannot be used to challenge decisions on individual applications, all must be implemented in an effective and judicious manner. Two types of review are also recommended: internal and strategic. Not all these recommendations gathered full consensus in the CCWG AP, but these recommendations remain unimpacted by choice of mechanism A or B.

What is not in the CCWG’s scope are any recommendations with regards to specific finding decisions, including specific organizations or projects to fund or not.

The co chairs designated the level of support for the final report recommendations as consensus. Two minority statements were submitted. The co-chairs did not vote in order to remain independent.

Erika Mann thanked the GNSO support staff , ICANN Org and ICANN Board for their support and engagement.

Keith Drazek thanked Erika for her commitment to the CCWG AP, and reminded councilors that they have an obligation to read the Final Report and provide input.

James Gannon thanked Erika Mann for her shepherding of the process and hoped that the GNSO Council could vote on the Final Report rapidly so it moves into implementation.

Michele Neylon reiterated thanks for the work covered. He also asked about ICANN Org previous transferring of funds from the Auction proceeds to cover a shortfall created by legal fees incurred by the IANA Transition and if there were safeguards to prevent this happening again. Erika Mann responded that there is an understanding that this would only be possible in extraordinary circumstances, a financial situation which would put the organization at risk.

Action item: none

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: CCWG-Accountability WS2 Implementation Assessment Report and GNSO Next Steps

Keith Drazek raised that the GNSO Council needed to understand the potential impact of the WS2 recommendations and next steps for implementation, both of which would feed into the GNSO work prioritization topic.

Tatiana Tropina, having participated in WS2, asked whether it would be feasible for a small group of councilors to review the report and highlight the impacts for the GNSO as well as to work out a coordination with the Multi Stakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) ICANN Org team.

Rafik Dammak agreed with Tatiana, but added that the small team should review the Implementation Plan and identify next steps or preparatory work to integrate them into the GNSO Work Plan with clear deadlines. He recommended that the small team coordinate the relevant ICANN department. He reminded councilors that several reviews were currently either in a Public Comment period or requesting input more generally.

Tom Dale supported Tatiana’s point, and having looked at the ATRT3 Final Report out for Public Comment and the work on the evolution of the multistakeholder model effectiveness, was looking forward to contributing to the small group.

Action items:

A GNSO Council small team -- including Juan Manuel Rojas, James Gannon, Tatiana Tropina, Tom Dale, and Keith Drazek from Council Leadership -- to deliberate on the WS2 Implementation Assessment Report, coordinate with ICANN org depts (new Planning Function being established under our CFO Xavier Calvez & MSSI), and develop a work plan for consideration by the GNSO Council; this small team is also expected to consider potential overlaps between WS2 implementation and ATRT3 & MSM evolution.

Staff to schedule a meeting of the small team.

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel

Keith Drazek clarified that there was a need to determine if there was a Council position on how to appoint IRP standing panel members. He asked councilors to take this back to their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SGs and Cs) as this is a critical accountability mechanism.

James Gannon raised a concern about using the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP IOT) as a small representative group to serve as interim members of the IPR Standing Panel. He added that is to establish them as a group to assist ICANN org in establishing a panel, that would be acceptable.

Keith Drazek agreed that the IPR IOT would not become panelists, but that the question remains of what the right mechanism would look like.

Action item:

GNSO Councilors to consult with their respective SGs/Cs regarding how to appoint IRP standing panel members and share their feedback no later than the July 2020 Council meeting

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Work Prioritization - Council Work Plan and Program Management

Steve Chan, ICANN Org, provided background to the work plan project. January 2020, during the GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session (SPS), prioritization was considered a key topic. Feedback was received from SGs and Cs and integrated into a draft work plan which highlighted urgency and dependencies. However a near-term action plan was needed and staff has been working on a methodology over the last few months. Steve provided a sneak preview of the work document in progress. The last part of the document is the Council action decision register radar to point out what work the Council must undertake in the next few months. The beginning of the document is to create a catalogue of all the work and an ensuing project plan. Rather than concentrate on individual items, it focuses on their place within a program. There is then an expansion of all the projects that constitute the programs.

An extraordinary Council meeting will be warranted to review the work so far.

Action item:

GNSO Council to organize a 2-hour extraordinary session proposed for 16 July 2020 at 21:00 UTC, to review the details of the work prioritization.

Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.1 - DNS Abuse - While this is not a substantive item for this agenda, this is intended to serve as a reminder of community discussion leading up to and during ICANN68, which will inform the GNSO Council’s contribution to this topic in the future.

Keith Drazek notified councilors that as the GNSO Council, they will need to discuss the topic of DNS abuse in response, or related, to the letter sent by the co-chairs of the GNSO New Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group (SubPro WG) on the referral of the CCT RT recommendations related to DNS Abuse. Jeff Neuman, co-chair SubPro, raised the Government Advisory Committee’s disappointment at the DNS

Abuse topic to have been referred to the GNSO Council. Keith Drazek confirmed the GNSO Council had no response at this time.

Michele Neylon mentioned that the topic of DNS abuse has been discussed a lot and emphasized the need to make policy based around facts. There is therefore a need for accurate data. Keith Drazek concurred and added that it was key to comply with ICANN’s Bylaws and within the GNSO Council’s remit.

10.2 - Draft response to the ICANN Board regarding recommendations from the Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) passed through to the GNSO Council.

Pam Little noted the BC’s proposed amendments to the draft response and suggested her and Marie Pattullo (BC councilor) work together on the document. She invited other councilors to join the effort if required.

Action item:

Pam Little to work with Marie Pattullo to complete the draft response, as soon as practical, to the ICANN Board regarding RDS-WHOIS2-RT recommendation for consideration by the GNSO Council

10.3 - EPDP IRT Update from Sebastien Ducos, liaison from the GNSO Council to the IRT, on recommendation 7.

He has received input from the Contracted party house (CPH) and from the IPC and BC. The issue resides less in the wording of Rec 7 than in the implications. Different parties have different views on the pertinence of Thick Whois questioning whether or not it qualifies as the appropriate legal basis to transfer data from registries to registrars. There is agreement that the best way forward would be for this to be resolved within the IRT without the issue having to be presented officially to the GNSO Council.

Action item:

Sebastien Ducos to provide a written update on EPDP IRT discussions on recommendation 7

10.4 - Open Microphone

There were no questions from attendees. Keith Drazek invited comments or questions to be raised to him directly once the meeting ended.

Keith Drazek adjourned the meeting at 07:01 UTC on Wednesday 24 June 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 21 May 2020

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/ydfhcxlz

14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington DC; 22:00 London; (Friday) 02:00 Islamabad; (Friday) 06:00 Tokyo; (Friday) 07:00 Melbourne

Audio Recording

Transcript

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann (absent)

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Greg DiBiase

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Elsa Saade, Tatiana Tropina, Rafik Dammak, Farell Folly, James Gannon

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer (apology)

ICANN Staff

David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional

Marika Konings – Senior Advisor, Special Projects (apology sent)

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Policy Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager (apology sent)

Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations (apology sent)

Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator

Julie Bisland - GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Keith Drazek welcomed all councilors to the call.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

There were no updates to Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

There were no changes to the agenda as presented.

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 11 March 2020 were posted on the 27 March 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 April 2020 were posted on 01 May 2020

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 Item List

Berry Cobb from staff, as a follow up to the email he sent to the Council list prior to the Council meeting, provided an update on recent changes to the Projects List. Light changes made to the summary page were made to better highlight the span of control the GNSO Council has on certain projects. PDP3.0 initiative implementation, such as overall status and health of the projects, has positively impacted ongoing PDPs. However, once Council has deliberated on consensus policy recommendations, the span of control diminishes from a Council ownership perspective, as these recommendations will move through ICANN Board and onto Org for implementation. Other projects, with shared ownership, also show a lesser Council span of control. He reminded councilors this was an evolutionary and iterative process.

James Gannon thanked Berry Cobb for the recent adjustments which help to manage the different scope of responsibilities.

Steve Chan, ICANN org, pointed out that the differentiation between the different phases of the project was not to diminish the importance of a particular project, but to highlight that the management tools available could differ from one phase to another.

Open Action Items marked in yellow, therefore not being discussed as part of the main agenda, were reviewed:

Report from the Transfer Policy Team: Councilors need to review the report and engage with Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) to provide input with an aim to eventually initiate a PDP.

PDP3.0 Final Report: As Council prepares to initiate new PDPs (IDNs, Transfer Policy), PDP3.0 improvements need to be taken under consideration.

Managing IDN Variant TLDs: Council received a report from the IDN Scoping team including a recommendation for policy work to be initiated around some components of the topic on variants. This group would be chartered under PDP3.0 guidance after Council discussion. Council will need to engage with the ccNSO to discuss parallel processes for the sake of consistency.

Evolution of the Multi Stakeholder Model (MSM) of Governance: ongoing discussion since 2019 about challenges the community has in ensuring that the MSM can continue to evolve and be

effective. After ICANN67, there was a discussion about sharing PDP3.0 developments with other ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees via a community-wide webinar which will take place in between ICANN68 and ICANN69.

Action item: none

Item 3: Consent Agenda:

There were two items for Council consideration under the Consent Agenda:

Approval of the PTI SLA for the ccTLD Creation and Transfer Process

Reappointment of Matthew Shears to seat 14 on the ICANN Board. The NCPH has reappointed Matthew Shears for Seat 14 on the ICANN Board of Directors. This agenda item is intended to acknowledge the selection and confirm that the notification process as outlined in Section 7.25 of the ICANN Bylaws has been completed

All councilors voted in support of the Consent Agenda items.

Vote result

Action items:

On behalf of the GNSO Council, Staff to inform the CSC regarding the GNSO Council approval of the PTI SLA for the ccTLD Creation and Transfer Process;

On behalf of the GNSO Council, Staff to inform the Board/Board Support regarding the GNSO Council approval of the appointment of Matthew Shears to seat 14 on the ICANN Board.

Keith Drazek raised that inviting Matthew Shears and Becky Burr, GNSO Appointed Board members to GNSO Council meetings could be an excellent engagement opportunity.

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Work Prioritization - 2020 Work Plan

Keith Drazek reminded councilors that discussion on this item started during the Strategic Planning Session in Los Angeles during January 2020, with an informal survey and input from SGs and Cs to pull the information received into a work plan proposal.

Steve Chan, ICANN Org, provided further information on the document which is a new form, directly related to the previous draft. The previous draft was drilling down into each project and identifying what needed to be done, what the dependencies were, and whether parts of the project could be carved out and started earlier. This draft needed to be transformed into a work plan to try to get through all the important work in the Council’s pipeline. The work plan proposal attempts to look in a granular manner at which efforts could be started and when. The premise is that all the work is important, but not everything can start at the same time. Targeted for initiation in Q3 are the Transfer Policy Review where an Issue Report will be requested, topics from EPDP Phase 2, Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM)  

Phase 2 Charter drafting and others which would need GDD (ICANN Org Global Domains Division) to start the preparatory work. The IDN Scoping team had mentioned two tracks of work: one with the contracted parties and GDD working collaboratively and another drafting the Charter of the future PDP.

The IGO Curative Rights work track would start in Q4.

• Rafik Dammak raised that the information provided, specifically in regards to duration, was high-level, further precision could be provided when starting the efforts individually in chartering and scoping. However this information will be useful to different groups when beginning their efforts.
• Juan Manuel Rojas asked why the proposed IDN Track 1 only concerned the contracted parties and GDD. Keith Drazek responded that the assumption is that the contracted parties and GDD have a history in developing guidelines (which have evolved into contractual requirements over time) around existing IDNs and those are the groups interested in the topic. Steve Chan added that the two tracks are different, one is operational related and the second is policy related. The purpose of track 1 is to look at IDN guidelines which the contracted parties are expected to adhere to, and to resolve contracted party concerns regarding these guidelines.
• Philippe Fouquart asked whether there was a one-to-one mapping between the workplan and the project list deadlines.
• Pam Little reminded councilors the approach was to free up community and staff resources to support new efforts. To that end, many PDPs are still ongoing, and the implementation thereof (in particular of SubPro work) will take up a lot of community resources.
• Keith Drazek added that this was a very helpful framework and that it would be needed to move from a quarterly basis to a monthly basis.
• Steve Chan agreed with Pam Little that dependencies were a big part of the work plan, and that PDPs needed to move forward before something new begins. To Philippe’s question, Steve confirmed that the timing in the Project List is reflected in the work plan. He also added that whilst durations were certainly high-level, and re-working them into monthly increments was necessary, the suggested start dates of a specific effort were helpful.
• Berry Cobb added that items such as reviews (GNSO 3 Review, CCT etc) weren’t included in the work plan as timings weren’t known to date. He will work to expand the work plan to include them.
• Steve Chan pointed out that each of the items are not equal in terms of burden and in terms of responsibility and that this would be added to the document too.
• Rafik Dammak mentioned that councilors needed to be aware of Work Stream 2 developments and that further communication with the Board or ICANN org may be needed. The GNSO is a Chartering Organization (CO) and thus needs to begin the thought process as soon as possible and to prepare without necessarily waiting to get a referral.

Action items:

Staff (Berry & Steve) to update the project list by adding projects such as the Specific Reviews and identifying relevant parties that are primarily responsible for that work.

Council leadership and staff to provide a more detailed, actionable GNSO work prioritization plan and present the update during the June Council meeting.

Keith to circulate the WS2 Implementation Assessment Report to the GNSO Council to kick off the discussion about CCWG-Accountability WS2 next steps.

GNSO Council leadership to raise the “CCWG-Accountability WS2 next steps” topic during the next SO/AC leadership meeting and propose the idea of developing a joint letter to seek further communications from ICANN org regarding the progress.

GNSO Council leadership, in collaboration with interested volunteers (e.g., James Gannon, Philippe Fouquart, and Tom Dale), to tee up the Council discussion of the CCWG-Accountability Workstream 2 topic for a future Council meeting.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Draft Response to the Board Letter on Implementation Concerns for EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7, related to Thick WHOIS Transition Policy

• Keith Drazek, having recused himself from discussion on the topic, handed this agenda item over to Rafik Dammak and Pam Little.
• Rafik Dammak provided councilors with background on Recommendation 7 (Rec 7) from EPDP Phase 1 team. The ICANN Board reached out to the GNSO Council with concerns about a potential impasse within the Implementation Review Team (IRT) mainly about how to implement Recommendation 7 in light of the Thick Whois Transition Policy. The Board noted that the Final Report from EPDP Phase 1 did not specify whether Recommendation 7 was intended to modify the Thick Whois and if it were to modify it, it would be in contrast with EPDP Phase 1 recommendation 23 which includes specific changes to the UDRP. Councilors now need to review and determine next steps for the Thick Whois Transition Policy and evaluate if it is impacted as a result of the PDP recommendation. A small team of councilors put together a first draft of the letter in response to ICANN Board and then an updated version sent on the 21 May 2020 after receiving comments on the Council list and a letter from the CPH representatives in IRT. The later version emphasizes process over substance, in keeping with the role of the GNSO Council as policy development manager. Input is also required from the IRT team following the normal escalation process, in order for the Council to be fully informed.
• Pam Little presented the updated version drafted by John McElwaine, Rafik Dammak, Marie Pattullo and herself. The small team believes the Council would need to take a step back and consider the two major topics raised by the Board: Rec 27 and Rec 7 from the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report. Rec 27 sets out certain existing consensus policies that are impacted by EPDP Phase 1 Final Report and Council action will be needed (a new PDP or other effort to address these impacts). The second topic is implementation of Rec 7. The Board raises a potential impasse within the IRT. The small team did not come to agreement regarding the resolution of the issue, and referred to the GNSO processes to seek how to address this.
• Next step will be to ask the GNSO Council liaison to the IRT to clarify and resolve the potential impasse, and then Council would consider how to move forward.
• Sebastien Ducos, GNSO Council liaison to the IRT, confirmed he accepted the task proposed by the small team. He informed the Council he had a conversation with Dennis Chang, ICANN Org and leading the IRT effort, who agreed this was the best next step.
• Tatiana Tropina asked whether there was a timeline for this next step. Pam Little replied that there wasn’t one given this is a first for the GNSO Council and that the topic is a complex one. For the time being, she believes the Council’s focus is to support Sebastien Ducos in his efforts and to follow existing GNSO processes and guidelines.
• Rafik Dammak suggested councilors read up on the topic to familiarise themselves with the complexities of the topic.
• Tatiana Tropina asked whether there was anything in the guidelines regarding further information about a timeline as this is an important topic and requires time but also a resolution. Pam Little agreed that this is time sensitive and critical, and that the letter needs to be sent to the Board.
• Keith Drazek thanked the small team for their efforts.

Action items:

GNSO Council leadership to instruct the Council Liaison to the IRT to engage with the IRT in order to understand the nature of the impasse regarding Phase 1 Recommendation 7, if it exists, and the next steps to address such impasse

GNSO Councilors to review the draft letter and provide feedback on Council list by Thursday, 28 May COB; Pam to propose appropriate revision to the letter to reflect the GNSO Council liaison’s engagement with the IRT.

GNSO Council leadership to review the draft documents related to Registry Directory Service Review Team Recommendations and WHOIS Procedure Implementation Advisory Group (WPIAG) that Staff (Caitlin) developed and consider circulation on the Council list.

GNSO Council leadership and staff to schedule a future prep call to discuss the RDS program management issues.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Expedited PDP (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification Phase 2 Update

• Keith Drazek reminded councilors that in addition to the update from Rafik, there was another topic to discuss which are the additional topics which need to be considered by Council: data accuracy, legal versus natural, and PPSAI Implementation. These are remainers from the EPDP Phase 2 work and the GNSO Council will need to decide what next steps are. EPDP Phase 3, independent chartered work on each of these items are just two options which could be discussed.
  
• Rafik Dammak, EPDP 2 Vice Chair and GNSO Council liaison, presented an update on the EPDP 2
• team’s activities. Councilors received the April EPDP Phase 2 Project Package and Rafik brought their attention to the fact that due to the complexity of the content received from the Public Comment period, there is a risk the team might not be able to deliver the Final Report by the deadline. He also reminded councilors that the current Chair of the EPDP Phase 2 team cannot continue after June 2020, Rafik Dammak as Vice Chair could step in but only for a few weeks.
  
• Keith Drazek reminded councilors that there are parties participating in the EPDP who feel strongly that the outstanding items (data accuracy, legal vs natural) should be part of the EPDP Phase 2 work, and that without addressing these issues, these parties will find it difficult to reach consensus. He reinforced that the Council needs to consider how to handle these issues to bring confidence to the parties.
  
• Marie Pattullo thanked both Rafik and Keith for their updates and consideration of all parties. The Business Constituency (BC) believed these issues were not to be part of EPDP Phase 1 but would be dealt with in Phase 2. In addition to this, the amount of comments received during the Public Comment period, would warrant a three-month extension. Keith Drazek raised the fact Janis Karklins would not be available past June 2020 to ensure the extension, and that a new Chair selection would possibly extend the duration to a year.
• Michele Neylon disagreed with the notion of an extension as the issue of a new Chair has always been known. He also mentioned that consensus can be reached without all items desired being agreed upon.
• Tatiana Tropina noted that on the issue of data accuracy, Council on the 11 March 2020 had discussed the issue of accuracy being out of scope for the EPDP Phase 2 team. She also agreed with Michele’s stance against an extension, as one or two groups should not hinder the consensus process. She raised that the issue of data accuracy was too complex to be resolved with a three month extension.
  
• Rafik Dammak reminded councilors that discussions on these topics had been deliberated with no agreement reached. Next steps would be to discuss how to deal with the priority two issues, out of the EPDP Phase 2, and not delay the work on them thanks to better scoping. The short-term aim will be completing the SSAD (Standardized System for Access and Disclosure) with little delay. He also raised volunteer fatigue within the EPDP Phase 2 team which was intended to be a short-lived effort and it would be better to reset for a new cycle to cover those issues.
  
• Keith Drazek set the next step task for the Council: Rechartering EPDP Phase 3 or are there other processes? Priority two items must not be taken off the table entirely and would require scoping and a duration longer than three months.
  
• Michele Neylon, on his personal behalf, stated that he did not believe members would be willing to engage in an EPDP Phase 3 effort due to the intense workload, hours, and pace of the group.
  
• Flip Petillion agreed that priority two items must not be left untouched.
  

Action items:

Staff (Marika) to work with Rafik to develop a framework document to identify a list of topics (e.g., accuracy, legal vs. natural, and other remainder items from the EPDP) and outline the next steps for the EPDP for the GNSO Council to consider; GNSO Council leadership to circulate the framework document prior to the June Council meeting; Rafik to inform Janis about the upcoming framework document.

Keith to develop a draft GNSO Council response to the SSAC letter, correcting any inaccuracies.

Staff (Berry) to develop a PCR for the EPDP to be reviewed/discussed during the June Council meeting.

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Anticipated Outcome on DNS Abuse

• Keith Drazek reminded councilors that the new gTLDS Subsequent Procedures Working Group (SubPro) leadership team, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman, had sent a letter to Council referring the CCT RT recommendations related to DNS abuse back to Council for consideration. The ICANN Board forwarded these recommendations to the SubPro group, who in turn, felt that the Council was better placed to consider these recommendations holistically. The broader topic of DNS abuse has been widely discussed within the community over the last few months. Possible solutions to engaging the community could be in creating a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on best practices, which could also include ccTLD operators who have a lot of experience on the matter.
• Michele Neylon mentioned that within these discussions, there needed to be a focus on factual data and statistics. He also raised that the conversation with ccTLD operators was positive but that they were able to work within the silo of their national law, which isn’t applicable to international business. The key is to understand the problems raised and whether they apply to domains or whether they are part of a larger issue.
• Keith Drazek agreed and added that if clearly-defined issues were to come up within the CCWG, they would be dealt with, possibly, within a PDP.
  
• Maxim Alzoba reminded councilors that security companies which source tools like DAAR do not have industry wide standards, whereas registries need to gather information and often in these cases, fail to. Keith Drazek added that these discussions have been taking place for over a year and that there is a benefit to having a structured conversation. ICANN Org is moving forward with some efforts (a technical study group, TSG, on DNS abuse) and the community could also take part in a similar effort.
  
• Tatiana Tropina mentioned that DNS abuse frameworks need to deal with this only, and not delve into content regulation, it needs to remain within a narrow technical definition within ICANN Bylaws.
  
• James Gannon raised that his day job has been impacted by DNS abuse but the tools in place worked reasonably well. He preferred this framework to not be within ICANN, but within the TSG. If there are policy-related issues, then they should be handled by the GNSO.
  
• Pam Little agreed with Michele, Tatiana and James and suggested raising the CCWG proposal to the
• ccNSO during the joint meeting at ICANN68.
  
• John McElwaine suggested that having a status of what has been accomplished and collected with respect to the Board’s scorecard from the CCT report, it would enable Council to better understand what is left to do and what could be done.

Action item:

GNSO Council to reach out to the ccNSO, at an appropriate time, to discuss potential next steps to address DNS abuse issues.

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1 - ICANN68 virtual meeting planning - draft GNSO ICANN68 schedule

Terri Agnew, ICANN Org, provided an overview of ICANN68: no public forum, three plenary sessions, schedule is in Kuala Lumpur time, GNSO Council will meet on Wednesday for two joint sessions (ccNSO & Board) and for the monthly Council meeting.

Keith Drazek adjourned the meeting at 00:02 UTC on Friday 22 May 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 16 April 2020

Agenda and Documents
Coordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/vau3jkd
05:00 Los Angeles; 08:00 Washington DC; 13:00 London; 17:00 Islamabad; 21:00 Tokyo; 22:00
Melbourne
List of attendees:
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Greg DiBiase
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Sebastien Ducos
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo
Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Elsa Saade (apology, proxy to Rafik
Dammak), Tatiana Tropina (apology for first half of the call, proxy to Farell Folly) , Rafik Dammak, Farell
Folly, James Gannon
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :
Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison
Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC
Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer
ICANN Staff
David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN
Regional
Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement
Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
Steve Chan – Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant
Emily Barabas – Policy Manager
Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist
Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager
Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations
Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator
Audio Recording
Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters
1.1 - Roll Call
Keith Drazek expressed his hope that councillors and their families were staying well and healthy during this difficult period.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
Sebastien Ducos mentioned that Neustar was in the process of selling its registry division to GoDaddy, this would be completed in the next few months, but for now he is still a Neustar employee. His SOI has been updated to reflect the most recent changes.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
There were no changes to the agenda as presented.

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 20 February 2020 were posted on 6 March 2020.
Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 11 March 2020 were posted on the 27 March 2020

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 Item List Keith Drazek informed councilors that Council leadership had met with GNSO Support staff to review the
Projects List in further detail. Segments of the Project list will be separated into those concerning the GNSO Council directly and those currently being under Board consideration or in the implementation phase. Berry Cobb, ICANN Org, concurred that staff will be working on the agreed changes and will have revisions available for the following Council meeting. He added that the status and health feeds would benefit from further Council discussion. He also encouraged councillors to review the list in detail. Open Action Items marked in yellow, therefore not being discussed as part of the main agenda, were reviewed:
- PDP3.0 Final Report: As Council prepares to initiate new PDPs (IDNs, Transfer Policy), PDP3.0 improvements need to be taken under consideration.
- Managing IDN Variant TLDs: Council received a report from the IDN Scoping team including a recommendation for policy work to be initiated around some components of the topic on variants. This group would be chartered under PDP3.0 guidance after Council discussion. Council will need to engage with the ccNSO to discuss parallel processes for the sake of consistency.
- Evolution of the Multi Stakeholder Model (MSM) of Governance: ongoing discussion since 2019 about challenges the community has in ensuring that the MSM can continue to evolve and be effective.
After ICANN67, there was a discussion about sharing PDP3.0 developments with other ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees via a community-wide webinar.
Action item: none

Item 3: Consent Agenda: no item

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Impact of Coronavirus Keith Drazek reminded the Council that over the past two weeks, SO and AC leaders had met with ICANN CEO, Goran Marby, twice, to discuss the impact of Covid-19 on the community. It was estimated,in light of additional responsibilities lockdowns are triggering, that work capacity would be at 70%. Taking into account possible illness of community members, how does work develop and how to prioritise He noted that both BC and RrSG council representatives had exchanged on the matter on the Council mailing list. Michele Neylon commented that for service providers, experiences had been varied, although there has been a greater need for online services and that the scaling had been overall handled well. Issues arising however with clients having problems paying bills, accessing data centres, are concerning. Registry colleagues in ccTLD and gTLD spaces have been very reactive, implementing processes to ease procedures. For smaller enterprises, a lot of the focus has been on day-to-day operations and the ensuing challenges. The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG), in terms of GNSO work, doesn’t necessarily have issues however, although the economic long-term impact cannot be measured to date. Maxim Alzoba raised that the current assessment of the impact can only be based on current data. Further assessments will need to be held in the near future. Companies may not have the available resources to dedicate to the volunteer pool. John McElwaine, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), noted that whilst there hadn’t been a huge lapse in effort, more requests for deadline extensions had been submitted. It has been harder to find volunteers, distractions are more numerous when working from home, and this would be representative of the 70% capacity mentioned beforehand, and the question of legitimacy would therefore come into question. Rafik Dammak emphasized that the situation differs by members, some finding more time to engage due to the lockdown while others are heavily impacted because of their work and family engagements.This makes a situation assessment very delicate, and regular assessments would be helpful, especially as many community members are volunteers. James Gannon, on behalf of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), raised that many of the members are in humanitarian services and thus highly impacted by Covid-19 as their day jobs do not allow them to partake in ICANN efforts. Philippe Fouquart, on behalf of the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) mentioned that whilst ISPCP members were not impacted in the same way as the NCSG, there was a concern about legitimacy of decisions, with a drop in membership activity overall. Flip Petillion added that the psychological effect of the situation was not to be underestimated, and that steps need to be thought through with everything taken into account. Keith Drazek informed councilors that the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) has raised concerns about timelines on two fronts: the EPDP Phase 2 work and the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) Policy Development Procedure (PDP) Working Group (WG). He insisted that such concerns should not be taken lightly. Regarding the SubPro timeline, the group is moving faster than its anticipated timeline based on a worst case scenario but this is causing strain amongst the GAC. Whereas the timeline was good from a project management perspective, it can also impact different groups differently. Regarding EPDP, the GAC requested the group be postponed, or the timeline extended. Keith Drazek held a call with the GAC Chair and a GAC representative and EPDP Chair earlier this week to discuss the timeline and also issues the GAC was preoccupied with. Marie Pattullo, on behalf of the Business Constituency (BC), reported that no BC members were affected by the virus, but the items on data accuracy and legal vs natural were still items of concern within the BC membership, and that in agreement with the GAC, the BC would like these items to be discussed properly. There may indeed be a representative issue with EPDP GAC members not being able to commit to EPDP work in these difficult times. Greg Dibiase, for the RrSG, believed the EPDP has done very good work to date and should build on that work and complete the task as planned. He added that adding data accuracy to the work of the EPPD at this time was an extension of the scope and of the timeline especially with the resource impact of Covid-19. Consequences of extension would be a lack of a Chair to the EPDP and a risk of volunteer fatigue. Rafik Dammak reminded councilors that the EPDP team already extended its timeline in December 2019 in order to deliver on time in regards to the SSAD. In terms of project management, it is important to ensure that projects are completed. Any extension would be in contradiction with the wishes expressed beforehand about the urgency for the SSAD. Data accuracy and legal vs natural are important, and the EPDP team has already spent a lot of time deliberating these topics, consensus is hard to reach. One clear point was that the SSAD was the first priority of the group and it is key to have it completed. Janis Karklins, Chair of the EPDP, will not be able to chair further than the 30 June 2020 due to other commitments, finding a replacement chair with such short notice would be difficult. John McElwaine added that accuracy would be key to the SSAD, as malicious use of domain names is a rising issue. He also mentioned that data accuracy had already been moved from EPDP phase1 to phase 2 and that optics therefore were fairly negative. Michele Neylon pointed out that ICANN processes were already being perceived as slow. He noted that the parties asking for swift results were those now requesting an extension. He added that the task of finding an EPDP Chair on both occasions had not been an easy endeavour. The Contracted Party House had requested to better understand the need for the extension. The EPDP is a GNSO process, and granting an extension upon request of groups who are not part of the process would not make sense. The extension would also have a financial and budgetary impact which would need to be taken into account, Keith Drazek stated that the issues are complex and important topics which would not be solved with an extension, and are not critical to the policy recommendations on the SSAD. Priorities should be automation and the evolution of the SSAD. Councilors should reflect on these topics in preparation for the next Council meeting. Flip Petillion asked that all projects be treated in the same way, as other PDPs had been granted new timeline extensions to focus on complex topics. Keith Drazek responded that PDPs lasting for 3 - 5 years was not an ideal scenario, and that with EPDP Phase 2, there was a possibility the main work could end on time, and additional, key issues be dealt with separately or with a EPDP Phase 3.
Action item: none

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Work Prioritization - 2020 Work Plan/ Impact from Coronavirus Keith Drazek reviewed the draft document produced by Council leadership and GNSO Support staff. The aim is to consider work capacity, efforts in flight, RPM Phase 1 and SubPro and dependencies. It’s a program level perspective rather than a project one. Steve Chan, ICANN Org, added that the document had to be treated as a work plan. It starts with a set of assumptions with four factors: Importance or urgency of the effort, level of effort from staff and community, timing and whether work can be divided into smaller portions. There are also efforts where the GNSO is expected to contribute but is not central to the work. Presenting the timeline, he focused on which work had to be completed for further efforts to start. These efforts needed to take into account the four factors mentioned above. He also noted that there were questions for the Council regarding IDNs and IGO Curative Rights track beginning their work within the current environment. There is also a next steps suggestion which is dependent on the Global Domain Division (GDD) capacity. Keith Drazek added that he needed to reach out to the GAC regarding the IGO work track to take place under the RPM umbrella. Regarding future efforts, he insisted on the smaller tasks which would be achieved with small teamwork before launching a more considerable process such as a PDP.
Action item:
● GNSO Councilors to review the draft 2020 work plan and provide input on the Council list by 1 May 2020; next steps regarding the work plan are expected to be discussed during the May 2020 Council meeting.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Report from Transfer Policy Scoping Team
The Transfer Policy Team has been working on the next steps for a Transfer Policy Report. Pam Little reminded councilors that this was a review of a policy which has been in place for several years. The Scoping team was requesting that Council instruct ICANN Policy staff to draft an Issue Report to initiate a PDP and that this be a motion to be voted on during this Council meeting. However in light of all the discussions held about current circumstances, more time would be needed for councillors to review the Scoping Team’s recommendations and defer this topic to vote until the Mary 2020 meeting. She encouraged councillors to review the report from the Scoping Team.
Action item:
● GNSO Councilors to review the Report from the Transfer Policy Scoping Team and engage with their respective SG/C in preparation for the Council vote on the request for an Issue Report during the May 2020 Council meeting.

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Registration Directory Services (RDS) Program Management
Keith Drazek reminded Council that a holistic approach was preferred for program management. With EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 27 Wave 1 report which gave Council an assessment of other impacted policies, the Council needs to decide how to manage these impacts. Steve Chan explained that the document described how to deal with the Wave 1 report from the more detailed adjustments to the wider approach. Council needs to discuss how the updates from Recommendation 27 need to be approached. The two remaining bullet points dealing with the Whois Procedure Implementation Advisory Group (WPIAG) and Registration Directory Service (RDS) Review Team appear on the Prioritization work plan. Keith Drazek highlighted the importance of dealing with Wave 1 as it points out inconsistencies between the old policies and the new ones. The WPIAG and RDS need to be reviewed.
Action item:
● GNSO Leadership, in collaboration with other interested Council members and support staff, to develop a path forward for the RDS program management, in particular the next steps regarding the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 27 Wave 1 Report, with the aim to provide an update during the May 2020 Council meeting.

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1 - GNSO Chair election timeline announced
The GNSO Chair election timeline has been published and communicated to Stakeholder Groups and Constituency leadership teams.

8.2 - EPDP Phase 2 Initial Report and latest EPDP Project Package - Any questions?
Rafik Dammak, GNSO Council liaison and Vice Chair of the EPDP, presented the Project Package which includes all status and conditions. The EPDP team is currently reviewing comments on the Initial Report, and accepting late comments. The team is adjusting the work plan taking into account the pace and workload for team members. Staff has been helpful in organising comments in a review tool to sort via commonalities and priority questions. The team is still on track for the June 2020 deadline. Berry Cobb added that although some projects were showing as almost completed, there was still a lot of work remaining to be done, and that the emphasis was on individual task completion. Keith Drazek reminded councillors that out of the team meetings, EPDP members had a lot of work to provide from session to session in order to meet the timeline efficiently.

8.3 - RDS data accuracy - possible next steps Steve Chan highlighted that the work plan document (item 4) suggested possible next steps as ICANN Org evaluating impact on GDPR in keeping with the accuracy topic. The framework for the suggested Accuracy Scoping team covers the description, the level and impact of not addressing the issue in a timely manner (need to better understand implications of GDPR on existing accuracy requirements). Next steps would be requesting ICANN Org take into consideration the evaluation of the impact of GDPR. Resources needed would be GDD staff, and the GNSO staff support and community volunteers should the Accuracy Scoping team be launched. This would have to be after the EPDP phase 2 Final Report.

8.4 - Expectations for ICANN68.
Keith Drazek informed the Council about the ICANN68 preliminary conversations.
- Kuala Lumpur time zone as a preference with the possibility of scheduling before, during and after.
- A four-hour block over four days where the core meetings will be held
- On-going discussions about priorities, and coordination with PDP Chairs, SG/ C leadership teams Councillors then raised the following points:
- Time zone issues were encountered by all community members at all times
- Which sessions should be prioritized
- It may be hard to focus on more than four hours
- Sessions scheduled must be done on a key priority basis and not to “save face”

8.5 - Letter from the ICANN Board regarding a potential impasse concerning the implementation of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7, related to Thick WHOIS Transition Policy.
Due to lack of time, this item was deferred to a discussion on the GNSO Mailing list.
Action item:
● Keith Drazek to initiate the Council list discussion on the ICANN Board letter regarding the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7.

Keith Drazek adjourned the meeting at 14:03 UTC on Thursday 16 April 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 11 March 2020

Agenda and Documents      Audio Recording     

Coordinated Universal Time: 20:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/qwknzmy

13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington DC; 20:00 London; (Thursday) 01:00 Islamabad; (Thursday) 05:00 Tokyo; (Thursday) 07:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Greg DiBiase

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Elsa Saade (apology, proxy to Tatiana Tropina), Tatiana Tropina , Rafik Dammak, Farell Folly, James Gannon

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer

ICANN Staff

David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional

Marika Konings – Senior Advisor, Special Projects

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Policy Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations

Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

There were no updates to councilor Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

Keith Drazek welcomed all to the first public GNSO Council session being held virtually and informed participants of the open mic session at the end of the agenda under Any Other Business.

There were no changes to the agenda as presented.

Keith Drazek reminded participants that having the Project List as its own agenda item was a decision made during the GNSO Strategic Planning Session (SPS) held in January 2020 in Los Angeles. The GNSO Council is the body managing the Policy Development Process (PDP) and the Project List is a crucial tool to discuss prioritization. During the SPS, councilors were encouraged to take part in a prioritization survey and to bring the results back to their Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) for review and further input.

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 23 January 2020 were posted on 10 February 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 20 February 2020 were posted on 6 March 2020.

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 Item List

Keith Drazek reminded councilors that the Project List review was an independent agenda item for the March Council meeting.

Maxim Alzoba mentioned that he had sent an email about the Project List. Keith Drazek clarified that this was in regards to Project Change Requests (PCRs) submitted by both the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP Working Group (WG) and the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP WG.

Open action items marked in yellow, therefore not being discussed as part of the main agenda, were reviewed:

PDP3.0 Final Report: Further work to be done here. Pam Little informed councilors that Council adopted all deliverables from the small team effort during the GNSO Council meeting in February 2020. The small team is in the process of sending out documents to WG leadership to assist them in their activities, once ICANN67 ends. Jeff Neuman, SubPro co-chair, asked in the Zoom chat for updates about the consensus building tools. Keith Drazek mentioned that there had been plans for PDP3.0 face-to-face updates during ICANN67. This has now been replaced by a webinar to take place shortly. Rafik Dammak replied that the consensus playbook is to be finalised later this month.

Managing IDN Variant TLDs: Council received a report from the IDN Scoping team including a recommendation for policy work to be initiated around some components of the topic on variants. This group would be chartered under PDP3.0 guidance after Council discussion.

Evolution of the Multi Stakeholder Model (MSM) of Governance: ongoing discussion since 2019 about challenges the community has in ensuring that the MSM can continue to evolve and be effective

and the Council’s PDP3.0 efforts are a significant step in the right direction.

Action item: none

Item 3: Consent Agenda: no item

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Projects List Review

Keith Drazek provided an overview of the Project List summary page which was discussed during the SPS, where the decision was made to set a baseline of understanding allowing future discussions to be based on significant changes only. At the issue scoping stage, there is the Transfer Policy – Policy Review Scoping Team. At the initiation phase, there is the PDP: Internationalized Domain Names, current stage of the IDN Scoping team. Under Working Groups, the current PDP WGs and Cross Community Working Groups are listed together. There are two items which have been pending a Board vote for a lengthy duration, which would warrant an engagement with ICANN Board. Last is the Implementation phase with items for which the Council has a responsibility to engage with ICANN Org. The GNSO Standing Committees are also available upon request.

Berry Cobb added that phases one through three are intended to highlight work in the pipeline, missing are items like the GNSO Review3, ATRT3 and others, focusing instead on PDP efforts. Ideally this scope would be broadened in the future. Regarding reviewing activity of each PDP, given the recent Project Change Requests submitted and the monthly Project Package submitted by the EPDP team, Council is up to date with activity status. Once items are in the Implementation phase, they are no longer under the Council’s strict remit.

Berry Cobb then provided further information on the changed steps, whether out of the scoping phase or into the implementation stage. He also added that “health” of completed projects had not been taken into consideration previously, for now, we have “status” and “condition” markers which will allow Council to understand when efforts will enter a problem phase. Yellow or red colouring on a task should be an alert to the Council and not a persisting condition of an effort or even an indication of the overall health of the project. Improvement 11 from PDP3.0 (creating a consistent work product of status reporting for each project) has been implemented by the EPDP with the development of the monthly package containing a summary timeline, a situation report and a Gantt chart showing each task that the group is to accomplish. This is easier to implement with an EPDP like structure rather than an longstanding PDP.

Keith Drazek asked about the “scary spreadsheet” (list of all GNSO Council impacting activities), and whether all its items would be incorporated into the Project list (EPDP Phase 1, wave 1 for instance). Berry Cobb responded that the list would become more difficult to handle, and could possibly cause loss of focus on policy development activity, but that it should be considered.

Pam Little noted that some projects were of the Council’s remit, and others no longer. She asked

whether there could be a manner of differentiating the latter. She also asked about the accrued days and percentage of completion counts, whether they were both marking the total days of the effort, or whether they were marked by phase.

Berry Cobb clarified that the number of days was not an exact count and that the clock would start when the Council decides to launch a PDP. For RPM PDP WG for example, when the Council resolved to launch the PDP, there was a two-year delay before efforts started. There is no correlation between day counts and percentage of completion, as the latter is largely based on guesstimates gathered thanks to Council leadership, Council liaisons et staff support input. Using the EPDP example with the monthly project package highlighting what is completed, he explained that this effort was a lot easier to track than others. He acknowledged that collapsing items for Implementation and Board vote in one row leading to a more detailed page outlining the projects could provide more clarity. It was important that they still remained visible to the Council.

James Gannon noted that for PDPs having begun their efforts before PDP3.0, it would be good to break them down into project phases with a raci matrix each and roll them into their own program. Once these PDPs enter the implementation phase, feedback loops would be helpful.

Keith Drazek reinforced that this Project List and the precision of its data is geared towards EPDP set ups and structures development with PDP3.0 improvements.

Councilors were then presented with a more detailed follow up:

Expired Registration Recovery policy - Policy Review: Could be further discussed as part of the Council prioritization, and part of the EPDP 1, recommendation 27 wave 1 item. Could be part of a policy status report.

Policy & Implementation Recommendations Review: Should be part of a prioritization discussion with a focus on processes developed to date.

Transfer Policy - Policy Review Scoping Team: Team will be delivering its scoping report by the April document and motions deadline, suggesting a PDP with several issues outlined.

IDN Scoping Team: Example of a project being reset for the initiation phase anticipating the work for the charter. After ICANN67, the drafting process will start for the draft charter. This does not mean the PDP needs to be initiated after the charter draft, several tasks could be considered for completion prior to initiating the PDP.

Whois Procedure Implementation Advisory Group: On hold due to the dependency on conclusion of EPDP work on the temporary specification. Council needs to take a decision as to whether this effort is still valid in light of EPDP developments. Rafik Dammak noted that there is recommendation 27 wave 1 report, and that this effort should no longer be on hold in the initiation phase but placed in another phase, such as a backlog for example.

RPM - IGO Curative Rights: referral of recommendation 5 of the IGO Protections Issue group to the RPM team. It’s a separate work track under the umbrella of RPM WG. The addendum and charter has been approved, the group now needs to be initiated under PDP3.0 improvement recommendations. The call for volunteers and expression of interest for the chair are now finalised.

EPDP Phase 2: the progress bar to the left of the condition codes marks 81%, it was at 73% when the team opened up for Public Comment. The monthly project package presented by the EPDP will be an essential step for all upcoming PDPs.

CCWG Auction Proceeds: After the past Public Comment, the group is reviewing input on the proposed Final Report. The Final Report is scheduled for May 2020.

RPM PDP WG: Project Change Request has been submitted to and approved by Council. The group went through a process of working with staff, the GNSO Council liaison and Council leadership. John McElwaine, GNSO Council liaison to the RPM PDP WG, reported that since the PCR was approved, the efforts promised by the three co-chairs, to work together, to have a method to reach agreement are visibly showing positive results. The RPM WG sessions for ICANN67 finished early as scheduled work was completed. Initial Report is due to be published on 18 March 2020.

SubPro PDP WG: Project Change Request has been submitted to and approved by Council with a planned end date of 20 December 2020. Flip Petillion, GNSO Council liaison to SubPro, added that work was going smoothly. Keith Drazek reminded councilors that having approved the Project Change Request, Council needed to commit to ensuring these new deadlines were met. Steve Chan, ICANN Org, clarified the difference of status (about timeline), and condition (which can be better defined by health). The latter might need to be discussed with co-chairs, but condition defines the overall health of the group and that the amount of topics to be discussed by the SubPro WG could potentially keep the condition at-risk. Keith Drazek noted Jeff Neuman, SubPro co-chair, disagreeing in the Zoom chat. He reminded councilors that the PCR had only just been approved. He added that there might need to be further coordination as to the codes of the tracking documents, such as the Project List.

Action item:none

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Work Prioritization - 2020 Work Plan

Keith Drazek introduced this item as a follow up from the informal survey undertaken by councilors during the SPS in January 2020. The results of the informal survey were to be shared by councilors with their groups, with the aim of sharing the ensuing input with the Council during today’s meeting to discuss which new work should be prioritized for initiation, when capacity within the community becomes available.

Michele Neylon mentioned that there was discussion among the RrSG about what could be an important topic. There was insistence on the limited bandwidth available. The highest priority item for the RrSG is related to transfer policy, the lowest priority would be around DNS abuse, which is important but has no specific asks.

Farell Folly asked for clarification regarding the fact the initial survey was filled in by councilors present at the SPS only and was concerned about the ensuing results. Keith Drazek reminded councilors that these results were to be brought back to the SGs and Cs for their input prior to the March GNSO Council meetings. He added that voting on the items wasn’t necessarily planned for, but that it was mostly a tool

to help inform the discussion.

Marie Pattullo communicated input from the Business Constituency, which consists of following up on items which have completed their PDP, or current steps: SSR1, ATRT3, CCT RT. Following those, EPDP, PDP3.0, IDNs and Universal Acceptable, which needs to move much faster to have results for the next round, and data accuracy.

Sebastien Ducos, for the Registry SG (RySG): expired registration recovery policy, Whois and IDNs. He added that not many registries provided input.

Rafik Dammak, for the Non Commercial SG (NCSG),priorities are: phase 3 EPDP and phase 2 RPMs. Further information is also required regarding Internationalized Registration Data (IRD).

Action item:

GNSO Council, in collaboration with GNSO Support Staff, to develop a framework of prioritization for upcoming GNSO policy work based on the input received from GNSO Councilors and their respective stakeholder groups/constituencies and input from the broader ICANN community/ICANN Board.

Keith Drazek to encourage councilors to share the survey feedback received from their groups on the Council mailing list (missing IPC and ISPCP)

Item 6: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

6.1 - Council discussion on the guidance sought from the EPDP team related to ICANN org's 5 December 2019 letter seeking clarifications on data accuracy and the EPDP Phase 2. The EPDP Team is hoping to receive guidance by 13 March 2020.

Keith Drazek informed councilors that the EPDP 2 team is asking for guidance regarding the topic of data accuracy stemming from the EPDP 1 report. Can the topic of data accuracy be reasonably handled by the EPDP 2 team within the time remaining? There is recognition that it is an important topic requiring discussion, but it does not need to take place within the scope of EPDP 2. He suggested the Council call for a small group to work on this out of the EPDP 2 effort.

Maxim Alzoba made the difference between the use of the term accuracy used in ICANN and the use for GDPR.

Tatiana Tropina agreed with Keith Drazek and noted that accuracy was not within the scope of the team, and certainly not within the timeframe remaining. Responding to Marie Pattullo’s point in the chat, she added that as part of the EPDP Legal team herself, not all members of the Legal Team agreed on accuracy, and that Bird & Bird had addressed the issue already and had concluded that the EPDP findings would not affect data accuracy. Data accuracy as defined by ICANN Org, is not within the very narrow scope of the GDPR compliance.

Greg Dibiase also agreed and added that the RrSG does not believe data accuracy is within the scope of the EPDP team, nor that there is enough time for the team to deal with it correctly.

Rafik Dammak, EPDP Vice Chair, asked for clarification regarding the feedback he should bring back from Council to the EPDP team and added that this would be needed by Friday 13 March 2020.

Keith Drazek asked councilors to provide their additional input on the Council mailing list, and noted that the Business Constituency disagreed in the chat with the previous comments made by councilors.

Action Item:

Keith Drazek to send an email to the GNSO Council mailing list regarding the possible next steps regarding the data accuracy issue, with the aim to provide a response to the EPDP Team by Friday, 13 March

6.2 - Open microphone

Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair of the SubPro PDP WG, complimented the Project List as a good visual tool to see where the different PDPs stand in terms of activity. He added that further work needed to be done to provide a better understanding of the meanings of the various statuses. He also mentioned that an escalation procedure, should a PDP status be in trouble, triggering Council action should be put into place.

Keith Drazek agreed and added that the Project List was a tool evolving with PDP3.0 improvements, the aim of which is also to hold the GNSO Council as well as PDP Leadership teams, accountable for the PDP meeting its obligations and timelines. He assured Jeff Neuman that staff would be engaging with Council PDP leadership teams regarding further work on statuses.

Amr Elsadr spoke about the data accuracy topic highlighting that there was no mention of this topic in the EPDP charter and directed councilors to the Expedited PDP manual which recommends substantially scoping an issue before initiating an EPDP, but the data accuracy topic has not been sufficiently scoped.

Keith Drazek thanked all for their input and participation in the GNSO Council session of ICANN67.

Keith Drazek adjourned the meeting at 23:05 UTC on Wednesday 11 March 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 20 February 2020

Agenda and Documents
Coordinated Universal Time: 22:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/vjx8bub
14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington DC; 22:00 London; (Friday) 03:00 Islamabad; (Friday) 07:00
Tokyo; (Friday) 09:00 Melbourne
List of attendees:
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann (apology)
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Greg DiBiase
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Sebastien Ducos
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo (absent, proxy to Scott McCormick), Scott
McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Martin Silva Valent, Elsa Saade, Tatiana Tropina , Rafik
Dammak, Farell Folly, James Gannon
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :
Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison
Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC
Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer (absent)
ICANN Staff
David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN
Regional
Marika Konings – Senior Advisor, Special Projects
Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement
Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
Steve Chan – Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant
Emily Barabas – Policy Manager
Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist
Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager
Jeff Graham - Technical Support
Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations
Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator

Item 1: Administrative Matters
1.1 - Roll Call
Keith Drazek welcomed Juan Manuel Rojas and James Gannon as new NCSG councilors.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
Elsa Saade announced that she was stepping down as GNSO Council liaison to the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG). James Gannon added that he had resumed employment with Novartis.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
The agenda was approved without changes. Keith Drazek mentioned that there would be time for a discussion about the ICANN67 virtual meeting between items 6 and 7 following the cancellation of the Cancun venue due to risks related to Covid-19.

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 19 December 2019 were posted on 02 January 2020
Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 23 January 2020 were posted on 10 February 2020
Action items:
● GNSO Support Staff to remove Elsa Saade as the GNSO Council liaison to the SubPro PDP WG following her formal resignation from the position during the Council meeting on 20 February 2020.
● Councilors who were unable to attend the pre ICANN67 GNSO Policy Update webinar to listen to the recording of the session prior to the week of ICANN67 (week of 9 March). Keith to send areminder to the Council list.

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 Item List
Keith Drazek reminded councilors that the Project List review was an independent agenda item for the February Council meeting.
As part of the Action Item list review, it was decided to remove an open task from the Evolution of the Multistakeholder Model. Berry Cobb confirmed that this topic had been discussed during a call between the GNSO Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) and the ccNSO Strategic and Operational Planning Standing Committee (SOPC) and could be further discussed at a ccNSO and GNSO Council level. Regarding the IDN Scoping team, the GNSO Council now needs to review the Recommendation Report which was delivered on 17 January 2020 and determine next steps taking into account discussions around PDP3.0 improvements which took place during the GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session (SPS) in January 2020. Maxim Alzoba raised the issue of a potential overlap of an IDN PDP with other GNSO PDPs.
Action items:
- GNSO Support Staff to remove the current open action item for the MSM evolution project
- GNSO Council to share with the ccNSO Council about the work done in PDP 3.0 that aligns with the MSM evolution project (during the next joint ccNSO-GNSO Council meeting?);

- GNSO Councilors to review the IDN Scoping team Recommendation Report by the March 2020 Council meeting; Keith to send a reminder to the Council list.
- GNSO Council to use the revised charter template and other related PDP 3.0 work products to develop a draft charter for a future PDP/EPDP for the IDN policy effort, consider potential overlap of IDN PDP with other GNSO PDPs
, and report to the GNSO Council on whether these PDP 3.0 work products help achieve the intended outcomes.

Item 3: Consent Agenda: no item

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – PDP3.0 implementation Final Report
Rafik Dammak, seconded by Pam Little, submitted a motion for Council to approve the PDP3.0 Implementation Final Report.
Whereas,
1. GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) 3.0 is a GNSO Council initiative aimed at introducing incremental improvements to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of GNSO PDPs.
2. On 24 October 2018, the GNSO Council resolved to adopt the GNSO PDP 3.0 Proposed Improvements Paper and provided full support for fourteen (14) improvements.
3. In January 2019 during the GNSO Council’s Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the GNSO Council decided that a Small Team of Councilors should be convened to support the implementation efforts in collaboration with the GNSO support staff. Led by Rafik Dammak, a GNSO Council Vice Chair, the Small Team met regularly between April 2019 and February 2020, with designated leads working with staff to advance the implementation of each improvement.
4. To facilitate the GNSO Council’s review, the Small Team delivered four packages to the GNSO Council in an incremental manner: Package one, on improvements 1, 2, 3, and 6 was delivered on 13 August 2019; Package two, on improvements 11, 12, 14, and 16 was delivered on 25 September 2019; Package three, on improvements 5 and 13 was delivered on 22 October 2019; and Package four, on improvements 9 and 15 was delivered on 21 November 2019.
5. During the process of developing and finalizing the proposed implementation, the ICANN community and the ICANN org were consulted for input and suggestions via various mechanisms, including but not limited to: interviews and small group discussions, GNSO Council mailing lists and meetings, invitation to provide written input, and a public webinar on 9 December 2019.
6. While the PDP 3.0 precedes ICANN’s Evolution of the Multistakeholder Model (MSM) project, the implementation is nevertheless connected. The GNSO Council commented on the Evolution of the MSM’s initial report and engaged with Brian Cute, the project’s facilitator, before and during the ICANN66 meeting in Montréal. In Appendix C of ICANN’s Draft FY21-25 Operating & Financial Plans and Draft FY21 Operating Plan & Budget, which documents the outcome of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project, three (3) out of the six (6) workstreams align with the PDP3.0 implementation; the GNSO is being proposed to lead the “Issue A: Consensus + representation and Inclusivity” workstream.
7. In January-February 2020, the Small Team conducted additional activities, including: 1) revising the GNSO PDP working group charter template; 2) identifying sections in the current GNSO Operating Procedures that could be revised after the GNSO Council reviews the effectiveness of PDP 3.0 implementation; and 3) discussing “Parking Lot” items that might benefit from future work.
8. In January 2020 during GNSO Council’s SPS, the GNSO Council dedicated several sessions to the discussion of PDP 3.0 and agreed on several action items as the next steps for the implementation efforts.
9. On 10 February 2020, the Small Team completed thirteen (13) out of fourteen (14) PDP 3.0 improvements and delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration. The Final Report provides an overview of the PDP 3.0 implementation process and outcomes, a consolidation of all of the work products incorporating community feedback as appropriate, and suggested effective time frame for deployment of the improvements.
10. The last remaining work product related, the Consensus Playbook, is originated from PDP 3.0 Improvement #4 and not complete. While, the Consensus Playbook is not strictly a PDP 3.0 product, it is intended to be utilized by the broader ICANN community beyond the GNSO. Its pending status should not prevent the GNSO Council adoption of the Implementation Final Report from the PDP 3.0 Small Team. Adoption of the Consensus Playbook will be voted upon by the GNSO Council at a later date.

Resolved,
1. The GNSO Council hereby adopts the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Final Report and instructs GNSO Support Staff to work with the GNSO Council leadership on the deployment of improvements based on the effective time frame proposed by the PDP 3.0 Small Team.
2. The GNSO Council requests future charter drafting teams of the GNSO Council to commence chartering for upcoming PDP efforts by utilizing the revised GNSO working group charter template and other related PDP 3.0 work products, and report to the GNSO Council on whether they help achieve the intended outcomes.
3. The GNSO Council requests that after all PDP 3.0 improvements are in effect, the GNSO Council conducts a review of the implementation effectiveness in a timely manner.
4. The GNSO Council requests that following the GNSO Council review of the PDP 3.0 implementation effectiveness, the GNSO Council considers any necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures and uses the relevant work product in the PDP 3.0 Implementation Final Report as a starting point.
5. The GNSO Council confirms that none but one (1) “Parking Lot” item (Statement of Interest Review) identified by the PDP 3.0 Small Team should be moved forward until the GNSO Council has the opportunity to evaluate the PDP 3.0 implementation effectiveness.
6. The GNSO Council thanks to the PDP 3.0 Small Team, GNSO support staff, and others who have contributed to the implementation of GNSO PDP 3.0 improvements as well as the proposed implementation work products to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of GNSO PDPs. John McElwaine had submitted an amendment to the motion, which, after discussion, was re-worded
and accepted as friendly by Rafik Dammak and Pam Little. Maxim Alzoba asked why the Consensus Playbook was not intended to be submitted to Public Comment.
Rafik Dammak , in response to Maxim’s question, reminded councilors that the Playbook is solely a resource for WG leadership to build consensus, via Additional Budget Request funding, and to be available to the broader community. Given it is a collaboration with external vendors, and given the need to limit community workload, it is not necessary to submit it to Public Comment.

Councilors voted unanimously in support of the amended motion. Rafik Dammak thanked the PDP3.0 members and staff for their efforts and reminded Council of the importance of the implementation next steps.
Vote results
Action items:
● GNSO Support Staff to work with the GNSO Council leadership on the deployment of
improvements based on the effective time frame proposed by the PDP 3.0 Small Team.
● GNSO Council to carry out the other future action items in the “resolved” clauses at appropriate
time, as directed in the motion.

Item 5: COUNCIL UPDATE – Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) in All gTLDs PDP Project Change Request
Keith Drazek reminded the Council that an updated Project Change Request had been received by the RPM PDP WG. An update on the WG activities had been provided the previous day during the pre ICANN67 GNSO Policy Update webinar. A discussion had been held between council leadership, RPM co-chairs and liaison to ensure that the new timelines being presented were reasonable and that the co-chairs were committed to meet them with efficient work methods and decision-making. John McElwaine, GNSO Council’s liaison to the RPM WG, provided context to the new updated request. He reminded councilors that this effort has been ongoing since 2016. The first Change Request had a date of conclusion for August 2020, however given the holiday period, an updated Project Change Request was subsequently submitted. John McElwaine pointed out that the co-chairs had committed to working together, to remain within scope and to avoid old issues being relitigated whilst recognizing that diversity of views existed. A clear work plan will also be submitted to members of the WG. Keith Drazek reminded councilors of the importance of the Project Change Request tool. He also raised  the issue of the three co-chairs leadership structure and that should the current structure be unable to move the effort forward, it would be within the Council’s remit to remove the co-chairs. Flip Petillion asked whether Project Change Requests would be put to motion moving forward as it might assist PDP leadership teams in their efforts. Keith Drazek clarified that this was not the case currently, as there had been no meaningful Council objection to the submitted requests to date, but that PDP co-chairs would receive formal notification of Council approval. Berry Cobb added that considering a motion could be a next step for Council in the future. Pam Little suggested mentioned that giving councilors extra time to consider the Project Change Request as the to provide a response to a Project Change Request should be on behalf of the whole Council and not just Council leadership. Keith Drazek confirmed that putting future Project Change Requests to formal vote was not excluded.
Action items:
● GNSO Councilors to consider using formal votes to approve future Project Change Requests (PCRs)

● GNSO Council to provide feedback with regard to the RPM PCR on list for one week (till 27
February 2020), which should help inform the GNSO Council decision on whether to approve the PCR. Keith to send a reminder on the Council list.

Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE – New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Project Change Request
Keith Drazek reminded councilors that a Project Change Request had been submitted by the SubPro working Group. Flip Petillion provided councilors with further context. The WG began its efforts in 2016 and is currently developing and reviewing its draft final recommendations whilst seeking to resolve open issues on a subset of topics. It was estimated that the WG could deliver its final report to the Council by the end of the second quarter of 2020 but that was based on the understanding that the additional public comment period would be limited to a subset of topics. However, there was an expectation of a new public comment period based on the entire draft final report which led to the Project Change Request new timeline of delivery by end of December 2020. Flip Petillion stressed that this was not a decision which the PDP co-chairs took lightly and that the WG was already ahead of schedule with extended meetings planned in April and May 2020. The issue of limited participation of WG members was also raised. Flip Petillion encouraged councilors to remind their stakeholder and constituency members of the import ance of the multistakeholder model need for consensus. Keith Drazek pointed out that adding structure and accountability to the PDP WG leadership teams
should help them in reaching their timeframes and that support of the GNSO Council to the WGs was essential in making this happen. Maxim Alzoba asked for clarification about the delivery date of the 31st December 2020, date at which ICANN offices are closed. Keith Drazek drew attention to the fact that “no later than” appeared before the mentioned date and thus delivery would need to be prior to the ICANN offices closing. Philippe Fouquart asked whether the current timeline would affect the first applications for the next  round of gTLDs. Keith Drazek asserted that the focus was the Policy Development Process. Next steps will be GNSO Council and ICANN Board consideration, followed by the implementation phase which would include the parameters for how ICANN builds the review process for how applications are submitted, the full timeline is as of today undetermined. The last phase would include a new process to manage the next round of applications.
Action item:
● GNSO Council to provide feedback with regard to the SubPro PCR on list for one week (till 27 February 2020), which should help inform the GNSO Council decision on whether to approve the PCR. Keith to send a reminder on the Council list.

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Projects List Review postponed & replaced by ICANN67
discussion
This agenda item was postponed in favour of a discussion on the announcement that ICANN67 will now be a virtual meeting.

Keith Drazek reminded all that ICANN Org announced that ICANN Board passed a resolution cancelling the face-to-face ICANN67 meeting in Cancun, a virtual meeting will be developed instead. He acknowledged that the decision taken was not an easy one. A community webinar was organized on 20 February 2020 to gather input. A call with community leaders is scheduled for the 21 February 2020 to determine next steps.
The following points were raised during the Council discussion:
- The ICANN67 schedule as it stands would not fit a virtual meeting.
- Prioritising sessions and establishing parameters will be key.
- The choice of timezone in which to conduct these sessions is crucial to encourage participation
- Are joint meetings and regular update sessions considered essential?
- PDPs are facing a considerable challenge as their work plans all depend on F2F meeting output.
- Acknowledgement that lengthy overnight and/or full days of conference calls and won’t be feasible over a long duration.
- Scheduling conference calls during the set ICANN67 dates would be preferable over impacting members availability beyond the planned end date.
- Some community members will still travel to Cancun, their time zone will need to be taken into account.
- For those whose day jobs are unrelated to ICANN matters, taking personal time off for conference calls will be difficult.
- To ensure active and constructive participation, all presentation materials need to be made available before the meeting and all recordings need to be published rapidly after the end of each session.
- Proper evaluation will need to be captured to consider the quality of the virtual format on
meetings of this scale. A positive outcome could be ease of access and financial savings.
- Regional gatherings could be an alternative albeit with its logistical difficulties (comparisons were drawn with the ICANN37 Nairobi meeting where remote participation was organised for hubs).
- Given the short timeframe, trying to re-organise a whole new schedule with a new time zone seems extremely difficult.
- There are no extremely urgent items for Council consideration, PDP efforts should be prioritized.

Outcome:
● GNSO Council deferred the discussion of the project list to the next Council meeting.

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Work Prioritization
At the Strategic Planning Session, Councilors participated in an informal and non-binding ranking survey,
which was used as a “sense of the room.” This informational survey result was shared with Councilors to then share with their respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to gain a better sense of the various groups’ top priorities. Keith Drazek reminded all that there were three PDPs currently heading to milestones and that community input on the upcoming workload was key. An example is the updated work on the EPDP recommendation 27 circulated to the mailing list earlier that day.

Rafik Dammak mentioned there was also follow up work on the IRD (Iinternationalized Registration Data) which had been the scope of the Expert Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data Registration Data Services PDP WG but which was no longer being dealt with. Keith Drazek also asked councilors to look at items which are easily achievable as well as those with the utmost importance. Michele Neylon added that the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) considered that the transfer policy was a high priority but that the list needed to be cleared of other items too. Pam Little stressed that feedback on the prioritisation list of items was key for a Council work plan to be developed for 2020. Steve Chan, ICANN Org, reminded councilors that IDN Variants were not scored as high priority item, however they could impact new gTLDs. In this regard, dependencies also need to be considered when ranking items.
Action Item:
● GNSO Support Staff to research and incorporate the deliberation on the Internationalized Registration Data
 (IRD) issue in the prioritization list, as appropriate.
● GNSO Councilors to continue consulting with their respective groups in preparation for further Council discussion and/or decision during the March 2020 Council meeting.

Item 9 Any Other Business
9.1 - ICANN67 Planning / Questions for lunch with the ICANN Board
This item was postponed as there will be no lunch meeting with the Board.
9.2 - Council consideration of the draft GNSO Council public comment to the Draft FY21-25 Operating & Financial Plan and Draft FY21 Operating Plan & Budget, due on 25 February. John McElwaine, chair of the SCBO, asked that councilors, especially those involved in the PDP3.0 work effort or with project management experience, review the comments and provide input. Berry Cobb added that the final draft would be submitted to Council on the 23 February 2020 for a last review, and then submitted as GNSO Council public comment on the 25 February 2020.
Action item:
● GNSO Council, especially the Councilors involved in the PDP 3.0 small team, to review the draft
and provide input for the PDP 3.0 related comments no later than 21 February 2020 at 23:59
UTC.

9.3 - Council consideration of whether a response is needed to ICANN org's 5 December 2019 letter related to clarifications on data accuracy and EPDP Phase 2. Keith Drazek reminded all a response is needed to the letter sent by ICANN org.
Action item:

● Keith Drazek to re-circulate the letter to the Council list with discussion points.
● GNSO Council to provide feedback.

Keith Drazek adjourned the meeting at 23:02 UTC on Thursday 20 February 2020

GNSO Council 23 January 2020

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/7gCJBw

GNSO Council meeting held at 22:00 UTC

___________________________________

Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 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 24 October 2019  were posted on 13 November 2019

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 19 December 2019 were posted on 02 January 2020

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (20 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 (10 minutes) 

• Motion to approve the nomination of Amr Elsadr to serve as the ICANN Fellowship Program mentor.
• Confirmation of Johan Helsingius as the Chair and Carlton Samuels as Vice-Chair for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC).

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Vote on the Addendum to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Charter to Integrate Recommendation 5 From IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report (20 minutes)

On 18 April 2019, the Council voted to approve recommendations 1-4 of the Final Report from the  IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG. The Council also resolved to not approve Recommendation 5 and, ” directs the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDP to consider, as part of its Phase 2 work, whether an appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent with Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report and:

• accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances;
• does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction; 
• preserves registrants’ rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and
• recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

The GNSO Council resolved also to, “amend the charter for the RPMs PDP Working Group to reflect this new instruction accordingly.” Some members of the GNSO Council met with certain members of the GAC and IGOs at ICANN65, where there appeared to be agreement from the GAC/IGOs to support the chartering of this separate work.

A small team of Councilors was convened to prepare a draft Addendum to the RPMs PDP charter, which was discussed during the Council’s September 2019 meeting. After integrating Councilor feedback, the revised Addendum was shared with the GAC and IGOs for their consideration. The Council considered  GAC/IGO feedback received on 1 November 2019, as well as feedback from the meeting with the GAC at ICANN66. 

Taking into account GAC and IGO feedback received and balancing with the goals of the GNSO Council, leadership prepared a revised draft for GNSO Council consideration. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the draft at the December 2019 Council meeting. A revised draft was prepared and shared on the Council mailing list. 

Here, the Council will vote to adopt the Addendum to the RPMs PDP charter.

4.1 – Presentation of motion (Council leadership)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: Simple majority)

Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as outlined in ICANN’s Bylaws as the GNSO ‘shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws’ (Art.11.1). Furthermore, this action complies with the requirements set out in Annex A: GNSO Policy Development Process of the ICANN Bylaws.

Item 5: COUNCIL UPDATE – Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs PDP (15 minutes)

Chartered in March 2016 to review all the RPMs that have been developed by ICANN, the PDP is focused on RPMs developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program (i.e., Trademark Clearing House, Sunrise, Claims, and Uniform Rapid Suspension). The WG is tasked with considering the overarching issue as to whether or not the RPMs collectively fulfil their purposes or whether additional policy recommendations will be necessary.

The PDP has worked diligently since launch and is preparing to publish its Initial Report for public comment. As of ICANN64, the WG had expected to be able to publish its Initial Report at the beginning of 2020. The WG is currently revisiting sub team and individual URS proposals and, when completed, will proceed to the development of its Phase One Initial Report, with a plan to publish in March of 2020. As a result of this delay in timeline, the PDP has submitted a Project Change Request [INSERT LINK] and this update is intended to both inform and gain approval from the GNSO Council.

Here, the Council will consider the Project Change Request.

5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership; John McElwaine, GNSO Council liaison to the PDP)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Next steps

Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE – Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds (15 minutes)

This CCWG was chartered to develop a mechanism to allocate new gTLD Auction Proceeds. The CCWG is expected to consider the scope of fund allocation, due diligence requirements that preserve ICANN’s tax status as well as how to deal with directly related matters such as potential or actual conflicts of interest. The CCWG will not make any recommendations or determinations with regards to specific funding decisions (i.e. which specific organizations or projects are to be funded or not).

The CCWG published its Initial Report for public comment on 8 October 2018 that later closed 11 December 2018 after requests for extension. 37 community submissions were received (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-17dec18-en.pdf). After additional deliberations, a decision was made to publish the CCWG’s Proposed Final Report for public comment to ensure that the community can review and provide input on changes that have been made since publication of the Initial Report. Input received through the second public comment period will be reviewed and incorporated as appropriate before the Final Report is published. The purpose of this update is to ensure that the GNSO Council, as a Chartering Organization, is familiar with the expected recommendations, but also to determine whether it might make sense for the Council to submit a public comment (14 February 2020 deadline).

Here, the Council will consider the proposed final recommendations and consider whether a public comment on behalf of the Council is warranted.

6.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership; Erika Mann, Chair of the CCWG)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE – IDN Scoping Small Team (15 minutes)

The ICANN Board resolved in 2010 that IDN variant TLDs will not be delegated until relevant work is completed and directed ICANN org to develop a report identifying what needs to be done with the evaluation, possible delegation, allocation and operation of generic top-level domains (gTLDs) containing variant characters IDNs, in order to facilitate the development of workable approaches to the deployment of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs. Based on analysis, ICANN org and the community identified two gaps to address: 1) that there is no definition of IDN variant TLDs, and; 2) that there is no IDN variant TLD management mechanism.

The Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels (RZ-LGR Procedure) has been developed by the community to define the IDN variant TLDs and, following the Board resolution in 2013 which approved the RZ-LGR Procedure, has been implemented to incrementally develop the Root Zone Label Generation Rules to address the first gap.

ICANN org has developed the Recommendations for Managing IDN Variant TLDs (the Variant TLD Recommendations), a collection of six documents finalized after incorporating the public comment feedback and published them as mechanisms for addressing the second gap identified by the community in the implementation of IDN variant TLDs.

On 14 March 2019, the ICANN Board resolved:

The Board approves the Variant TLD Recommendations and requests that the ccNSO and GNSO take into account the Variant TLD Recommendations while developing their respective policies to define and manage the IDN variant TLDs for the current TLDs as well as for future TLD applications.

 The Board requests that the ccNSO and GNSO keep each other informed of the progress in developing the relevant details of their policies and procedures to ensure a consistent solution, based on the Variant TLD Recommendations, is developed for IDN variant ccTLDs and IDN variant gTLDs.

Additionally, and separately, the ICANN Board anticipated adopting the IDN Guidelines v. 4.0 as part of its consent agenda for the 3 May 2019 meeting, but the GNSO Council requested that the vote be deferred, due in part to concerns around the process, as well as specific requirements within the guidelines (e.g.,“same entity” requirement on second level registrations, which are in both the guidelines and the Variant TLD Recommendations). The ICANN Board agreed to the deferral, allowing the GNSO Council additional time to consider the matter.

The Council convened an IDN Scoping Team, comprised of Councilors and other GNSO members, to consider the scope of issues (e.g., IDN Guidelines and IDN Variant Management solutions) related to IDNs and accordingly, recommend a mechanism to address those issues (e.g., leverage existing PDPs, convene new PDP/EPDP, other).

The IDN Scoping Team has thoroughly considered the scope of work that needs to be undertaken and accordingly, what mechanisms make the most sense to address. Most members of the IDN Scoping Team believe that two tracks of work can be undertaken:

• Operational Track 1:  In brief, a Contracted Party working/negotiation/implementation team would focused on IDN Implementation Guidelines 4.0 operational issues
• Policy Track 2: In brief, a PDP/EPDP should be initiated and would have a scope including the definitions, management, and coordination issues related to IDN Variant TLDs, as well as IDN variants at the second-level. Additionally, this track would consider the related issue of how the IDN Implementation Guidelines, which Contracted Parties are required to comply with, should be revised in the future.

The IDN Scoping Team shared the report [INSERT LINK} with the Council mailing list on [date].

Here, the Council will discuss the IDN Scoping Team’s recommendations report.

7.1 – Introduction of topic (Council Leadership; Edmon Chung, Scoping Team Lead)

7.2 – Update and council discussion

7.3 – Next step

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)

8.1 - ICANN67 Planning

8.2 - Council response [INSERT LINK] to the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group’s request for input on 27 recommendations.

8.3 - Council consideration of proposed GNSO Council Additional Budget Requests (ABRs) for FY21; review draft ABRs for the FY21 Strategic Planning Session and Travel support for PDP Leadership to  ICANN Public Meetings.

DRAFT Minutes of the December 19th GNSO Council Meeting

Audio Recording

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 19 December 2019

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/w82k6rn

13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington DC; 21:00 London; (Friday) 02:00 Islamabad; (Friday) 06:00 Tokyo; (Friday) 08:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Greg DiBiase (incoming RrSG councilor following Darcy Southwell’s resignation)

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa (arrived after first vote), John McElwaine, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Martin Silva Valent, Elsa Saade, Tatiana Tropina, Rafik Dammak, Farell Folly, Sam Lanfranco (temporary alternate after Farzaneh Badii’s resignation)

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels (arrived after first vote)

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer

ICANN Staff

David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional (apologies)

Marika Konings – Senior Advisor, Special Projects

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Policy Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations

Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator

Audio Recording

Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

There were no updates to Statements of Interest (SOI) on the call. It was noted that Julf Helsingius has circulated an update to his SOI on the Council mailing list prior to the call.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

Keith Drazek, in the interest of time, suggested moving Item 2 to the end of the call. This was accepted by councilors on the call.

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 24 October 2019 were posted on 13 November 2019

Minutes Part 1 Part 2 of the GNSO Council meetings on the 06 November 2019 were posted on 26 November 2019

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 Item List

In the interest of time, this agenda item was deferred to the end of the meeting.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

Tatiana Tropina, seconded by Michele Neylon, submitted a motion for GNSO Council approval GNSO Review of the ICANN66 GAC Communique for submission to the Board:

Whereas,

The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.

The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.

The GNSO Council has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.

The GNSO Council hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Montréal GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac-communique-09dec19-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Council Review of

the Montréal GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.

The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Pam Little, seconded by Rafik Dammak, submitted a motion for the GNSO Council to approve Keith Drazek as GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community:

Whereas,

The GNSO Council confirmed in November 2019 that the GNSO Chair (currently Keith Drazek) will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community (EC) Administration on an interim basis.

The GNSO Council leadership team subsequently met to agree who from the Council leadership should perform the role of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration and communicated this decision to the Council mailing list on 9 December 2019.

Resolved,

The GNSO Council hereby confirms that Keith Drazek, GNSO Chair will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration until the end of his term at ICANN69.

The GNSO representative shall act solely as directed by the GNSO Council in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and other related GNSO Operating Procedures.

The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this decision to the ICANN Secretary which will serve as the required written certification from the GNSO Chair designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration

As part of the Consent Agenda, there was equally a request the councilors to confirm Anne Aikman-Scalese as one of the GNSO appointees to the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Auction Proceeds.

Councilors present on the call unanimously voted in support of the Consent Agenda motions and vote.

Vote results

Action items:

ICANN Staff to send the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique to ICANN Board cc-ing the GAC Chair and GAC support staff,

ICANN Staff to inform the Empowered Community Administration the confirmation of Keith Drazek as the GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration

ICANN Staff to inform the Chair and support staff of the CCWG Auction Proceeds the confirmation of Anne Aikman-Scalese as on the GNSO appointees

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of the Supplemental Recommendation Related to the Non-

Adopted EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations (recommendation #12)

Keith Drazek reminded councilors that ICANN Board did not accept parts of two consensus policy recommendations which were approved previously by the GNSO Council after being submitted by the EPDP Phase 1 team. After discussions with the Board, it was decided to allay concerns about the organisation field data deletion. Following exchanges with the EPDP Phase 1 team, the GNSO Council reaffirmed the recommendation but included implementation guidance which would imply applying the EPDP Phase 1 approach to the administrative field, to the organisation field.

As maker of the motion, Rafik Dammak mentioned that following the Board’s feedback, he approached the EPDP Phase 1 team to ask for their feedback regarding the suggestion from the GNSO council, but that there had been no consensus from the team. Rafik Dammak said however that he believed the Board’s concerns had been dealt with and encouraged councilors to avoid delaying the process further, reminding Council that its responsibility was to the Policy Development Process (PDP) and not to substantive content.

Keith Drazek raised that Marie Pattullo had circulated an amendment on behalf of the Business Constituency (BC) on the email list prior to the Council call. Keith Drazek reminded councilors that the amendment could be accepted as friendly if the makers (Rafik Dammak and Pam Little) of the motion accepted, otherwise it would need to be voted on via simple majority by Council prior to voting on the motion itself.

Pam Little, as seconder of the motion and on behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG), did not accept the amendment as friendly given that the additional language and reference to Section 3.7.7.1 of the Registrar Amendment Agreement (RAA) would introduce additional obligations on the part of the registrar which is not contemplated in the original provision. Pam Little invited councilors to consider this in conjunction with 3.7.7 of the RAA which stipulates a number of provisions that the registrars must include in their registration agreements with registered name holders including 3.7.7.1. Pam Little added that 3.7.7.1 is an obligation on the part of the registered name holders to provide up to date contact information to the registrar. The proposed amendment would shift the responsibility to registrars. Pam Little also mentioned that the BC-proposed amendment have the potential of adding confusion as section 3.7.7.1 and other provisions of the RAA have already been amended or superseded by the temporary policy and by EPDP Phase 1 recommendations which are being development into policy by the Implementation Review Team (IRT).

Rafik Dammak stated that he would not accept the BC-proposed amendment as friendly based on the explanation provided by Pam Little but welcomed further input from Marie Pattullo.

Marie Pattullo, as proposer of the amendment, thanked Pam Little for her input. She also explained that the BC shared the same concerns as the ICANN Board regarding the data deletion and needed confirmation that there would still be ways to contact the registrant.

Sebastien Ducos mentioned that the IRT were in agreement with the position coming out of the last ICANN meeting. He agreed with Pam Little regarding the wording proposed by the BC. He also reminded councilors that the IRT were awaiting the result of the vote on the motion to continue their work.

John McElwaine supported Marie Pattullo’s concerns and emphasized that further clarity around contact information was needed.There are issues with terminology, “valid”, for instance as well as a need for better definition of contact information.

Flip Petillion expressed his appreciation of councilors’ input, but regretted that the amendment proposal

was provided last minute, with no time to take the input back to Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs).

Keith Drazek acknowledged the lateness of the amendment proposal, and reminded Council that while a deferral was possible, discussions had been held with ICANN Board who had confirmed that the additional implementation guidance sufficed to allay their concerns.

Michele Neylon clarified that there is no contact detail in the organization field in Whois, adding that registrars do not rely on Whois to contact a client, as there are other means (billing information, email information, social media for instance), and therefore opposed the deferral.

Keith Drazek added that the organisation field was an optional field in Whois.There is a process under recommendation 12 where registrars need to validate this information with their clients. The recommendation seeks to deal with the situation where a registrar is unable to validate this information, for instance if a registrant does not respond. Recommendation 12 then allows registrars to clean up the information after having followed a certain number of compulsory steps.

Philippe Fouquart, on behalf of the ISPCP, raised that whereas there had not been sufficient time to consult with his colleagues, he would follow the EPDP recommendations as GNSO Council should not be discussing substance.

There was no request for a deferral.

Councilors voted against the proposed amendment to the motion.

Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Philippe Fouquart, Sam Lanfranco, Flip Petillion abstained due to lack of time to consult with their groups.

Vote results

Councilors voted in favour of the motion.

Marie Pattullo shared a statement on behalf of the BC.

Vote results

Action item:

GNSO Chair to communicate the Supplemental Recommendation to the ICANN Board, including the vote result of the GNSO Council Supermajority supporting the Supplemental Recommendation.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion on the Addendum to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Charter to Integrate Recommendation 5 From IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report

Keith Drazek reminded Council that in April 2019 all recommendations from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report were approved, except for Recommendation 5 which should be handled by the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group. Discussions with the Governmental Advisory Committee and IGOs were held at ICANN64 to ensure IGOs’ participation in the new Work Track. Concerns had been raised on Council about the four GNSO Council approved recommendations not being approved by ICANN Board yet, and potentially being impacted by Work Track discussions.

The current draft revisions to the Addendum to the RPMs PDP charter developed by the GNSO Council leadership team, John McElwaine and Martin Valent, takes into account GAC redline edits, IGO input, PDP3.0 work and protects the GNSO Operating Procedures.

Keith Drazek added that Brian Beckham from WIPO had reviewed the document and expressed his support.

Tatiana Tropina thanked the small team for their work and asked for clarity regarding the term “policy proposal” on page 3, first paragraph. Keith Drazek explained that these referred to the recommendations currently submitted to the Board and thanked her for the input.

Maxim Alzoba raised that the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) had previously mentioned that the team composition should include members of the Contracted Party House to ensure the operational aim is feasible. The current terms of participation should therefore be modified to be more inclusive as it currently appears to exclude members who are not international law experts.

Keith Drazek pointed out that there is a requirement for the CPH to be consulted in regards to operational feasibility. Regarding membership criteria, the “must” requirement has been modified to “should”. He acknowledged that Maxim’s input would be considered by the small team.

Action items:

GNSO Councilors to ask additional questions and/or provide comments about the proposed charter addendum on the GNSO Council list before 13 January 2020.

GNSO Council small team, in consultation with the GNSO Council leadership, to finalize the charter addendum and submit the final version to the GNSO Council no later than 13 January 2020.

Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE - Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data - Phase 2 Work

Rafik Dammak, Council liaison to the EPDP, shared with the Council the adjustment to the EPDP Phase 2 work timeline and Project Change Request form which were circulated earlier this week on the GNSO Council mailing list. This is the first time a Project Change Request form is being used. The initial EPDP 2 aim was to publish the Initial Report in December 2019 and have the Final Report ready in April 2020. The new target date is early February for the Initial Report publication. The EPDP Phase 2 team will hold a face-to-face meeting in January 2020 and will be working on the report during the session. The key is to have the Final Report ready and published before the end of the fiscal year for budgeting reasons. The content of the Project Change Request highlights the ambitious timeline for the EPDP 2 team and the various dependencies the team has to take into account (European Data Protection Board (EDPB) advice, issues which require further legal consultation, awaiting cost prediction of a centralised SSAD

model).

Berry Cobb, policy consultant, added that councilors would be focusing on the topic of project change forms for PDP working groups during the Strategic Planning Session in January 2020.

Pam Little thanked both for their input. She questioned the date of the document submission being later than the deadline of submission for the Initial Report. The Project Change Request ought to be submitted prior to the target date. She suggested that the Change description field should be more explicit about the “ask” in the request.

Rafik Dammak mentioned that the decision was made in December 2019 to adjust the timeline based on EPDP team members comments .

Keith Drazek asked how the recently received letter from the EDPB impacted the EPDP 2 team’s next steps.

Rafik Dammak reminded councilors that an EDPB letter had been received a few days ago, confirming that policy regarding choice of model should come from the EPDP 2 team, and that the CPH cannot move all their liability to the joint controller. That is an initial analysis pending further discussion early 2020.

Action item: None

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session

The GNSO Council Strategic Planning (SPS) session will take place in Los Angeles from the 22-24 January 2020 with the aim of working together, prioritising the workload, promoting engagement with SGs and Cs and strategising efforts for the rest of the Council term.

Pam Little mentioned that a high-level draft agenda would be sent to the Council list shortly and that a webinar would be held early January 2020 to allow all to better prepare for the SPS.

Rafik Dammak added that there would be a focus on PDP3.0 next steps and reminded for those who couldn’t attend the PDP 3.0 webinar to listen to the recordings.

Keith Drazek insisted that reading the materials sent ahead of time was key to the success of the face-to-face meeting. The webinar will also allow for the SPS to begin with more substantive discussions on Council engagement.

Maxim Alzoba added that the best way to understand PDP3.0 work efforts would be to join the small team.

Steve Chan, ICANN Org, mentioned that PDP3.0 materials were at this stage fairly abstract, discussions amongst councilors at the face-to-face would allow them to become a reality.

Action items:

GNSO Council leadership to send the detailed proposed agenda for SPS2020 on list by Friday, 20 December.

All GNSO Councilors to participate in a Pre-SPS webinar in January 2020 as part of the preparation.

GNSO Councilors to read all relevant materials/documents (e.g., PDP 3.0 implementation documents, GNSO guidelines related to its role & responsibility in the Empowered Community)

ahead of SPS 2020.

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1 - Consideration of previous GNSO Council Additional Budget Requests (ABRs) and whether they should be pursued in the future, as well as if other ABRs should be submitted

Berry Cobb, policy consultant, reminded councilors that the ABR submission period opened on the 11 December 2019 and would close at the end of January 2020. The Board Finance Committee approval process will take place mid-April 2020.

Steve Chan, ICANN Org, confirmed that this item concerned ABRs submitted on behalf of Council, SGs and Cs will submit their own requests. In the past, Council has submitted three: the SPS, the PDP Travel Pilot and a one time ABR for a consensus- building playbook stemming from PDP3.0 recommendations. He invited councilors to reflect on whether other areas the Council worked on would warrant additional funding.

Action item:

GNSO Councilors to provide ideas/suggestions, if any, for FY21 ABRs on list, in time for the Council review of potential ABRs during its January 2020 meeting. FY21 ABR submissions are due at the end of January 2020.

8.2 - Letter from ICANN org - EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 28

The GNSO Council received a letter from ICANN Org on the 18th December 2019 relating to the timing for implementation of the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations, acknowledging that the IRT will most likely miss the target date of 29 February 2019. This date was included in recommendation 28 from the EPDP, and the ensuing Board resolution. Council must now draft a response to ICANN Org after further discussion.

Action item:

GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with ICANN staff, to draft a response to the ICANN Org letter and share the draft with the Council by January 2020 Council meeting.

Keith Drazek then commented on the Project List, insisting on its importance and that it would be a key document for the SPS. He encouraged all councilors to familiarise themselves with the document and to follow the updates. Berry Cobb pointed out the importance of the status and condition codes and what Council actions should be when projects signal that they need extra attention to keep to deadlines. The addition of PDP3.0 improvements as well as the impact of dependencies need to be considered when reflecting what can be done to move a project forward.

Action item:

GNSO Councilors to review the entire Project List document as part of the homework for the SPS 2020 preparation.

Keith Drazek adjourned the meeting at 22:53 UTC on Thursday 19 December 2019.

November 6^th (ICANN66 Montreal)

Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab):

Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access:-

October 24^th: 12:00 UTC

Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab):

Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access:-

September 19th: 2100 UTC 

Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab):

https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/x3cNART9vmQ_giom1O4F9cOdxHIktnON5-2tcY6O0BOwIumekTziMw?startTime=1568926885000

Zoom chat: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/download/Jjx-DzQSvy7X2V6NnpYq8DP70gpLfCeKXT6LvaNq4biviR6VKpG4l8ii3nXDevxH

Agenda 19 September 2019

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/MY-kBg 

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

Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call.

___________________________________

Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 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 18 July 2019 were posted on the 02 August 2019

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 22 August 2019 were posted on the 6 September 2019

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 Item List

Item 3: Consent Agenda (0 minutes) 

• None

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Board referrals of CCT-RT recommendations to GNSO Council and GNSO PDP WGs (10 minutes)

On 10 June 2019, ICANN org communicated to the GNSO Council that the ICANN Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 – see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org] - calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, “recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action”:

• Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations;
• Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions;
• Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35).

The Council was specifically invited to review to pages 1-4 of the scorecard https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf[icann.org] which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to. The recommendations the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to the GNSO Council, in whole or in part, for its consideration:

• Recommendation 10.
• Recommendation 16 (in part) Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that “it is not accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider”.
• Recommendation 27.
• Recommendation 28.
• Recommendation 29. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, “should they choose to do so, defining the term ‘Global South’ or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org”.

The Board noted in its resolution that: “in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. […] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address”

A small group of Council volunteers reviewed the recommendations passed through to the GNSO Council as well as a number of Recommendations were passed through to gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group.  In order to have a better picture of where all the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its PDPs stand, the GNSO Chair is planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their feedback.

An initial draft with the small team's proposed GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to the GNSO were circulated to the GNSO Council on 23 July for review and consideration with an updated version circulated on 30 August [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-council-response-cct-review-team-recommendations-30aug19-en.pdf].

Here the Council will consider the initial draft and whether and how to coordinate with the PDP WGs to which recommendations were also passed through.

4.1 – Introduction of topic (Pam Little)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Next steps 

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Policy Status Report and Council next steps (15 minutes)

The Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) provides guidance to ICANN org and the community for implementing policy. However, there is minimal guidance in this document or in other documentation around the review of implemented policies adopted by the GNSO Council. In some cases, a review is explicitly mandated as an element of the PDP WG’s recommendations to the Council, but in some cases, the recommendations are silent in this respect.

ICANN org, in consultation with the Council, prepared a draft framework on the approach for post-implementation reviews of Council adopted policy recommendations. The framework provides guidance on a number of questions (e.g., When should a review be initiated when there is no PDP recommendation to do so? What triggers should initiate a review? What are the expected outcomes of the review? Etc.).

During its 26 April 2018 meeting, the Council agreed to have ICANN org conduct a review of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP). ICANN org utilized the draft framework for conducting the post-implementation review of the IRTP. On 14 November 2018, ICANN org published the IRTP Policy Status Report for public comment. ICANN org has worked to integrate elements identified in public comment and on 22 April 2019, shared a Revised Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Status Report. 

As noted in the report, there are no prescribed next steps once the Council is in receipt of the report.

As such, here, the Council will discuss possible next steps for the Transfer Policy taking into account the Transfer Policy Review briefing document prepared by staff and the recent feedback from the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) regarding its suggested approach. 

5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Next Steps

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Draft Amendments to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Charter to Integrate Recommendation 5 From IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report (15 minutes)

On 18 April 2019, the Council voted to approve recommendations 1-4 of Final Report from the  IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG. The Council also resolved to not approve Recommendation 5 and, ” directs the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDP to consider, as part of its Phase 2 work, whether an appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent with Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report and:

• accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances;
• does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction; 
• preserves registrants’ rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and
• recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

The GNSO Council resolved also to, “amend the charter for the RPMs PDP Working Group to reflect this new instruction accordingly.” Some members of the GNSO Council met with certain members of the GAC and IGOs at ICANN65, where there appeared to be agreement from the GAC/IGOs to support the chartering of this separate work.

A small team of Councilors was convened to prepare draft amendments to the RPMs PDP charter, which was shared with the Council on 10 September 2019. 

Here, the Council will discuss the draft, but take no action at this time. Consultation with the GAC/IGOs is still required before a motion can be submitted.

6.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership / Small team)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next Steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Org’s Request for Clarification on Data Accuracy and Phase-2 of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data  (10 minutes)

On 21 June 2019, the GNSO Council received a letter from ICANN Org, which was seeking a better understanding of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Team’s plans “to consider the subject of "data accuracy" as it relates to gTLD registration data and related services, such as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System (ARS).”

Further, “ICANN org notes that footnote #6 on page 7 of the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report states: “The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System.” However, it is not clear who would consider this topic and when. Therefore, ICANN org seeks the GNSO Council’s clarification on whether the Phase 2 EPDP Team will be considering the subject of data accuracy, including projects that utilize gTLD registration data, such as WHOIS ARS.” 

The GNSO Council prepared a response to acknowledge the  letter reception. However, the Council still needs to prepare its substantive input to the request from ICANN org. A small team has been working on that substantive response and will provide their initial thoughts on the key themes to be contained in the response.

Here, the small team will lead a discussion on the themes of the substantive response.

7.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership / small team)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION -  EPDP P1 Recommendation 27: ICANN Org’s Assessment of Impact From GDPR on Existing Policies / Procedures (15 minutes)

In the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process Team Phase 1 (EPDP P1) Final Report, recommendation #27 asked that during the implementation of the policy recommendations, existing policies / procedures be made consistent with the changes to required data elements.

ICANN org prepared a draft work plan to address EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 27, which was shared with the GNSO Council and IRT on 27 August.

Here, the Council will receive an update from ICANN Org on the status of its implementation work to date on this recommendation.

8.1 – Introduction of topic (ICANN org - Karen Lentz)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - PDP 3.0 Small Group Update/Discussion (10 minutes)

In advance of the 22 August 2019 GNSO Council meeting, the PDP 3.0 Small Team completed five (5) out of fourteen (14) PDP 3.0 improvements, provided an update, and requested feedback by 13 September 2019. Work continued on the rest of the nine (9) improvements in the pipeline, which are at various levels of progress. While a number of improvements are nearing completion, they are not yet at a point where they are ready for Council review.

The PDP 3.0 small group has prepared a work plan that covers items leading up to ICANN66, as well as additional elements needed to complete the project.

The PDP 3.0 small group is expected to provide a factual update of the work to date to the public comment period for the Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model. Given the connections between the topics, the PDP 3.0 small group believes that it is in a good position to provide that update.

Here, the Council will receive an update on progress made to date and the work plan to complete the PDP 3.0 implementation.

9.1 - Introduction of topic (Rafik Dammak)

9.2 - Council discussion

9.3 - Next steps 

Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Draft Response to the Verisign Request to Defer Enforcement of the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy (10 minutes)

On 29 July 2019, Verisign wrote to ICANN org again requesting an extension to the current implementation plan for the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy by one year. The ICANN Board wrote to the GNSO Council, asking for the Council’s views on whether it believes the request should be granted. The ICANN Board requested response during or immediately following the GNSO Council meeting on 19 September. A draft response was circulated on 6 September, which notes the expected policy work related to the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy, but also notes that the request for deferral is from an ICANN Contracted Party and is not a matter of policy development.   

Here, the Council will discuss the draft and the underlying conclusions and rationale.

10.1 - Introduction of topic (Rafik Dammak and Pam Little)

10.2 - Council discussion

10.3 - Next steps 

Item 11: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Draft Response to Questions on the Independent Review Process Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) (10 minutes)

On 09 May 2019, ICANN org published a Call to Action for the Independent Review Process Standing Panel, which was intended to help the Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) in its critical role of implementing the updated IRP. ICANN org published a series of questions, posed to the various Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, seeking input to pending issues.

The GNSO convened a small team, tasked with preparing a draft response on behalf of the Council. 

Here, the small team will seek feedback from the Council on its draft response.

11.1 - Introduction of topic (Small Team)

11.2 - Council discussion

11.3 - Next steps 

Item 12: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)

12.1 - Draft GNSO Council letter to the ICANN Board regarding potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. 

12.2 - Approval of the 2019 slate of Members and Liaisons on the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - possible email vote

August 22nd: 1200 UTC

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 22 August 2019

Agenda and Documents
Coordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y2qdox2m
05:00 Los Angeles; 08:00 Washington; 13:00 London; 17:00 Islamabad; 21:00 Tokyo; 22:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann (absent)
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Darcy Southwell
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba (apologies, proxy to Rubens Kühl) , Keith Drazek,
Rubens Kühl
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlos Raul Gutierrez
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo
Novoa, Paul McGrady, Flip Petillion
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Martin Silva Valent, Elsa Saade, Tatiana Tropina, Rafik
Dammak, Ayden Férdeline, Arsène Tungali (absent)
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Syed Ismail Shah
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison
Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC
Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer
Guest speakers: ICANN Org: Cyrus Namazi, Trang Ngyuen, Brian Aitchison
ICANN Staff
David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN
Regional (apologies)
Marika Konings – Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO
Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement
Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
Steve Chan – Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant
Emily Barabas – Policy Manager (apologies)
Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist
Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager
Sara Caplis - Manager, Meetings Technical Services
Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations
Andrea Glandon - Operations Support - GNSO Coordinator
MP3 Recording
Transcript

Item 1. Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call.
1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

Scott McCormick has left HackerOne and moved to Reciprocity (SOI to be updated). Flip Petillion has
been added to the lists of Panelists of NOMINET (SOI).

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
Keith Drazek reviewed the agenda. A 10.6 item was added to AOB.

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 26 June 2019 were posted on the 13 July 2019
Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 18 July 2019 were posted on the 02 August 2019

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

Keith Drazek reviewed the Action items which were not to be discussed under this meeting’s main
agenda:
- IRP IOT: There was a call from ICANN Board to repopulate the IRP IOT, seven GNSO
community members were recommended by the GNSO Council. A small team is finalising
questions for Council consideration which will be submitted to ICANN Org and presented to
Council before the September 2019 meeting.
- RPM Charter amendments specific to the IGO INGO protections: the first step is a focus on a
small team and then work on Charter updates in regards to the PDP3.0 improvements.
- Legislative Tracker: GNSO Council sent a draft letter with recommended improvements. Input
from ICANN Org is awaited.
- The CSC Effectiveness Review Final Report action item is ongoing.
- IRTP Policy Status Report: it was initially hoped that EPDP IRT would provide further input on the
gaining registrar FOA issue. Council can now expect a letter from the RrSG Chair for the Council
to write to ICANN Board and address the issue.
- IANA Functions Review team: there are further questions regarding repopulating the IANA
Review team in terms of availability of community members. This is an open action item for the
broader community.
- International Domain Names (IDN) Variant TLDs: the GNSO Council small team including subject
matter experts has set up a mailing list, has met for one conference call and is working on a time
rotation for future meetings, as well as mapping out the task at hand. The small team has an
action item to request the GNSO Council send two liaisons to the ccNSO parallel effort, once it
begins, to ensure consistency.
- IGO INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms action item regarding the 3.7 appeal process
is in progress.
- Evolution of the Multistakeholder model: there is an upcoming Public Comment for which the
GNSO Council will have to identify areas of concern and encourage Stakeholder Groups (SGs)
and Constituencies (Cs) to provide input. Staff has an open action item to look into the cost of the
effort.
- PDP Updates: GNSO Chair needs to draft letter to ICANN Board, cc-ing SSAC, regarding the
Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP). Engagement needs to be sought with the ccNSO on
discussions concerning NCAP, string similarity and IDNs.

Action Items:

● ICANN Staff to follow up with GSE staff about input from GNSO Council on the legislative tracker
(i.e., Global Engagement to take into account feedback, in particular, inclusion of rationale for
including a piece of legislation on the legal / regulatory tracker.)
● ICANN Staff to add to the existing action item that Council is anticipating input from RrSG on the
Review of the Transfer Policy as well as the request for the suspension of the contractual
compliance enforcement of the FOA.
● ICANN Staff to ensure that GNSO liaison(s) are assigned to the IDN ccPDP, when the ccNSO
initiates that effort.

Item 3: Consent Agenda (none)

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Letter on Status of Consultation in Relation to
Non-Adopted EPDP Phase 1 Parts of Recommendations (purpose 2 and recommendation #12)

On 15 May, the ICANN Board informed the GNSO Council of the Board’s action in relation to non-
adoption of two GNSO’s EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations. The GNSO Council has a responsibility
to follow through in instances where consensus policy recommendations from a PDP, approved by the
GNSO Council, are not approved in full by the Board. This was further discussed during ICANN65 during
the joint GNSO Council - ICANN Board session and during the Council meeting on 18 July 2019. The
GNSO Council leadership has updated the draft response which incorporated the different views among
the Councilors. The latest draft seeks to clarify Council’s understanding from the discussion with the
Board during ICANN65 in order to determine the next steps.
Marie Pattullo thanked Keith Drazek for the requested amendments to the draft, but stressed that the
Business Constituency was concerned by recommendation 1, purpose 2, would like the EPDP 2 team to
work on the placeholder language and would appreciate clarification that not all councilors agree with the
recommendation.
Keith Drazek explained that the GNSO Council is not challenging the Board’s decision but is
acknowledging that it is placeholder language and that there is further work for the EPDP 2 team.
Tatiana Tropina suggested bullet point 2 of the draft letter be modified to reflect the position of the
different constituencies.
Flip Petillion supported Tatiana Tropina’s suggestion whilst reminding councilors that the Council is
responsible for developing policy for the entire community. He equally supported Marie Pattullo’s
intervention, whilst encouraging Keith Drazek to promote the fact the EPDP 2 team should concentrate on
the issue.
Darcy Southwell raised that bullet point 2 needed clarification regarding what the GNSO Council was
asking of the ICANN Board.
Keith Drazek welcomed the suggestion and encouraged councilors to provide further edits. He agreed
that the letter was not communicating a decision, but requesting confirmation of common understanding
of the verbal conversation held during ICANN65.
Elsa Saade raised the notion of ‘global public interest” which was mentioned in the letter sent by ICANN
Board, and questioned its definition, noting that the GNSO Council should use such terms with care.

Keith Drazek responded that “global public interest” is one of thresholds that the ICANN Board must
attain in the event that it does not agree with policy recommendations. He agreed that the term could be
lacking in definition and noted that staff had provided further information in the Zoom room.
Michele Neylon expressed his dissatisfaction at the focus on minor points by one or two constituencies.
He reminded councilors that all constituencies were represented within the EPDP team and that it was
not the GNSO Council’s remit to rewrite recommendations. He supported Elsa Saade’s concern with the
expression “global public interest”.
Keith Drazek stated that the procedural issue was the focal point in order to set a constructive precedent.
Tatiana Tropina agreed that the Council cannot change recommendations substantively. She raised that
the Board’s letter and annex were lacking in clarity, and could be interpreted as asking the EPDP 2 team
to consider general public interest.
Rafik Dammak mentioned that recommendation 1, purpose 2 will be worked on with the Standardized
System for Access/Disclosure (SSAD).
Keith Drazek noted that further exchanges had taken place in the Zoom room chat.

Action items:
● Councilors to work to complete the letter, which may include integrating elements such as:
○ When the letter references that some Councilors having dissenting views, that the group
holding those dissenting views are identified.
○ Add clarity about the ask of the ICANN Board (e.g., confirm that the Board and Council
have a common understanding).

● Rafik Dammak to confirm when recommendation one, purpose 2 will be expected to be discussed
by the EPDP phase 2.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Org’s Request for Clarification on Data Accuracy and
Phase-2 of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for
gTLD Registration Data

Keith Drazek reminded the councilors that on 21 June 2019, the GNSO Council received a letter from
ICANN Org requesting clarification on data accuracy and specifically the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting
System (ARS), which was then discussed during the GNSO Council meeting on the 19 July 2019. On the
15 August, a draft response was circulated on the mailing list acknowledging receipt of the ICANN Org’s
letter, but Keith Drazek confirmed that Council needed to provide a more substantive response shortly.
Elsa Saade raised the concern that accuracy was not mentioned in the EPDP charter and should not be
of the EPDP 2 team’s remit. Keith Drazek added that a review has been initiated with ICANN Org to
assess EPDP 1 recommendations impacted contracts or policy, and where there are inconsistencies and
incompatibilities with existing policies, specifically regarding the Whois ARS.
Marie Pattullo raised that the Business Constituency had no issue with the draft letter, but that they
would need clarification regarding ICANN Org next steps and confirmation from the GNSO Council that
ARS is included in the EPDP 2 team’s work.

Keith Drazek agreed that having further information about ICANN Org’s next steps would be useful.
Elsa Saade clarified that her point was procedural and that EPDP 2 team should only focus on tasks with
which the group was chartered. If there are points which are not in the charter, they should be discussed
within the broader community.
Keith Drazek suggested a small team of councilor with a focus on accuracy broadly and the Whois
accuracy more specifically especially within the discussion about what will replace Whois eventually.
Michele Neylon expressed his objection to the above suggestion as it would be unproductive given the
lack of clear definition of the term “accuracy” but supported an exchange with ICANN Org.
Keith Drazek reminded councilors that a substantive response needed to be sent to ICANN Org within a
short timeframe and that volunteers were needed for that task. Marie Pattullo volunteered for the small
group.
Action items:
● ICANN staff to include an agenda item on the September Council meeting, inviting ICANN Org to
speak on the impact of GDPR as well as the EPDP 1 recommendations on the enforcement and
implementation of existing policies, procedures, and contractual provisions related to accuracy
(including ARS).
● Council to convene a small group to draft a substantive response on data accuracy for Council
review to send to ICANN Org in response to 21 June letter
(https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-21jun19-en.pdf) (volunteers: Marie,
Darcy, Flip)

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Board referrals of CCT-RT recommendations to GNSO
Council and GNSO PDP WGs

In the interest of time, agenda item 6 was deferred to the September 2019 Council meeting.
Action item:
● Councilors to review draft text and provide input, if applicable, prior to the September 2019
Council meeting, 13 September 2019 at the latest.

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - ICANN Org assumptions for new round of new gTLDs

ICANN org compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the
preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization and circulated these to the GNSO
Council on 17 June 2019. The Global Domains Division (GDD) is now awaiting community input. Cyrus
Namazi,Trang Nguyen, Christine Willett and Chris Gift joined the call to exchange with councilors.
Cyrus Namazi provided background on the origins of the document insisting on the complexity of the
implementation of the policies into a new gTLD round. The first steps were to focus on the operationality
of the program. Four assumptions were made and feedback was received from ICANN Board. Cyrus
reminded councilors that these are assumptions based on incomplete information as community input has
not yet been received in total.

Keith Drazek acknowledged that the effort was not presupposing what the policy work would entail, but
establishing baseline structures.
Darcy Southwell asked about the underlying data which supports some of the assumptions, for instance
the number of 2000 applications. This data is key to understanding the processing and how ICANN Org
will support the effort.
Cyrus Namazi responded that the number 2000 is an operational assumption on which to build future
capabilities. Any number above 2000 will increase the complexity and have impacts on cost.
Philippe Fouquart raised that the document refers to 1000 gTLDs a year, maximum delegation rate, and
asked whether given the experience gained since the last round, processing could be speedier.
Cyrus Namazi replied that at its peak during the 2012 round, the maximum number TLDs delegated into
the root, was 400 a year. SSAC and RSSAC have advised the Board in terms of the rate at which the root
is going to expand and have asked ICANN Org to maintain a reasonable rate.
Darcy Southwell followed up raising concerns about the significant impact on cost with working on
assumptions, and encouraged marketing research be done by ICANN Org to better estimate numbers.
Cyrus Namazi acknowledged that having more realistic expectations would be helpful and welcomed
community input on the matter.
Michele Neylon understood the challenge of having exact numbers but insisted on the considerable
impact on staff and resourcing. One solution would be to look at it by tranches of scale, looking at the
number of applications per fiscal year for instance.
Cyrus Namazi responded that closer to the application window, it will be easier to build appropriate
systems. Regarding staffing, there will be core staff, but certain functions are short term and would be
staffed with temporary positions. ICANN Org will update the assumptions paper with community input
whilst observing EPDP work in parallel and present the Board with updated assumptions to receive the
authorisation to begin planning the next round. Input provided by the GNSO Council by the end of
September 2019 would be ideal.
Keith Drazek stated that GNSO Council input would be received within the deadline.
Action items:
● Council to consider if they would like to provide a written response to ICANN Org, to be delivered
by the end of September. Councilors to inform their respective SG/Cs of the timeline for providing
input.

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Amendments to Consensus Policy Implementation
Framework (CPIF)

Brian Aitchison, ICANN Org, joined the GNSO Council to present the latest updates concerning CPIF.
He reminded councilors that the CPIF was being constructed as a roadmap for the community to follow
as GDD implements policy recommendations. ICANN Org is mandated to continuously review the

framework, this was done in 2018 for the first time. For 2019, the review should be more structured and
this is reflected in the amendments. Two new sections have been added: the Post-Implementation
Consensus Review Process which has been in discussion for a long time, with precise guidelines being
sought and an amendment process has also been added, with proposals to undertake it every five years
rather than every time a review is initiated. Efforts have been made to remove inconsistencies.
GNSO councilors are being asked to provide feedback on the amendments by the 25th October 2019
deadline.
Keith Drazek suggested a small team focus on providing feedback on behalf of the Council.
Rafik Dammak thanked Brian for his presentation and asked about what will happen past the input
deadline.
Brian Aitchison replied that the process would be similar to 2018. The input will be reviewed and added
to the document in collaboration with those who provided the input.
Pam Little inquired as to the process of providing input, as previously individual councilors had provided
input without constituency or stakeholder group differences having to be reconciled. The Registrar
Stakeholder Group (RrSG) is already working on input which could be put to the Council as starting
document for their deliberations.
Keith Drazek acknowledged that this would be the best solution moving forward and thanked Brian
Aitchison for his efforts.
Action items:
● Councilors to ensure that their respective SG/Cs are aware that they are able to provide input to
ICANN Org by 25 October 2019 at the latest. To the extent the Council can agree on any unified
feedback, Council to provide written input by 25 October as well.
● Pam Little to share proposed edits from the RrSG with the Council.

Item 9 - PDP 3.0 Small Group Update/Discussion

Keith Drazek reminded councilors of the importance of the PDP3.0 small group efforts.
Rafik Dammak provided an update to the Council on PDP3.0 small team activities. Work on 5 out of 14
of the improvements has been completed by the small team, but only 4 submitted to the Council as a
package for review as they cover similar topics. The team is continuing to work on the other
improvements. The chosen approach is to have a designated small team member per improvement as
lead to collaborate closely with ICANN staff. Improvements completed are: terms of participation for
Working Group members which was based on collaboration with EPDP leadership, three alternatives to
open working group models to assist the charter drafting teams in defining the structure of the future
Working Group, criteria for new members joining once PDP work has begun and expectations for Working
Group leaders.
The PDP3.0 team has a deadline to complete the work by the Annual General Meeting, and will therefore
welcome councilors input.
Rafik Dammak thanked the PDP3.0 team members and staff for their dedication to the task at hand.

Action Item:
● Councilors to review and provide feedback on the finalized implementation elements (1, 2, 3, 6)
by 13 September 2019 at the latest.

Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.1 - ICANN66 Draft Schedule Review & travel booking reminder
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/icann66-draft-gnso-schedule-21aug19-en.pdf
Keith Drazek reminded councilors to review the schedule ahead of ICANN66.
Action item:
● ICANN Staff to send reminder to Councilors to book their travel

10.2 - GNSO Strategic Planning Session January 2020
Keith Drazek reminded councilors to plan their travel in keeping with the communicated session dates.

10.3 - Confirmation of volunteers for Council liaisons to PDP/IRTs beginning at the AGM:
● Sebastian Ducos – EPDP IRT
● Maxim Alzoba - Translation/Transliteration IRT
● John McElwaine – RPMs PDP WG
Keith Drazek stated he would keep this topic open on the Council list for a week following the Council
meeting for any input.
Action items:
● If applicable, Councilors to ask questions or note objections by 28 August.
● Subsequently, ICANN Staff to facilitate handover meetings between incoming and outcoming
liaisons, as well as PDP/IRT leadership.

10.4 - EPDP Phase 2 Work plan package (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-
attach/epdp-phase-2-project-management-work-plan-15aug19-en.pdf)
Keith Drazek asked councilors to review the Work Plan package as early as possible.
Action item:
● Councilors to review EPDP Phase 2 work plan package and share any comments or questions
with the mailing list
10.5 - ATRT3 Survey - volunteers to develop Council response
Keith Drazek requested a small team of councilors volunteer to draft a Council response.
Action item:
● Councilors to draft response to ATRT3 Survey (volunteers: none)

10.6 - Questions from the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working
Group Co-Chairs [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/beckham-et-al-to-gnso-
council-rpm-pdp-liaison-19aug19-en.pdf] and GNSO Council leadership reply
[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-council-to-rpm-pdp-co-chairs-22aug19-
en.pdf]
Keith Drazek encouraged councilors to review the exchanges and submit any comments or questions to
the GNSO Council leadership team and Council liaison, Paul McGrady.
Action item:
● Councilors to review Council leadership response to RPM leadership (see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-rpm-pdp-co-chairs-22aug19-en.pdf)
and advise Council leadership of any questions, comments or concerns in relation to the
response.

Keith Drazek adjourned the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 22 August 2019 at 14:04 UTC.

July 18^th: 21:00 UTC

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 18 July 2019

Agenda and Documents

MP3 Recording

Transcript

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann (apologies)

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon (apologies, proxy to Darcy Southwell), Darcy Southwell

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Rubens Kühl (apologies, proxy to Maxim Alzoba)

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlos Raul Gutierrez

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, Paul McGrady, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Martin Silva Valent, Elsa Saade, Tatiana Tropina, Rafik Dammak, Ayden Férdeline (apologies, proxy to Martin Silva Valent), Arsène Tungali (apologies, proxy to Rafik Dammak)

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Syed Ismail Shah (apologies, proxy to Elsa Saade)

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer

Guest speakers: Jeff Neuman, Kathy Kleiman, Phil Corwin, Brian Cute

ICANN Staff

David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional (apologies sent)

Marika Konings – Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO (apologies sent)

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Policy Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager

Sara Caplis - Manager, Meetings Technical Services

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations

Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator

GNSO Council Meetings at ICANN 65 - Marrakech

GNSO Council Working Session - June 24 Tichka (GNSO)

Council Working Session Slide Deck

Pre-ICANN65 Policy Report: https://go.icann.org/pre65

Audio: http://audio.icann.org/meetings/rak65/rak65-OPEN-2019-06-24-T0823-tichka-en-GNSO-Working-Session.m3u      Download ZIP of All Audio: 

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/CoaGBg - 

GNSO Council Meeting

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/SoaGBg Motions: https://community.icann.org/x/TIaGBg Documents: https://community.icann.org/x/SIaGBg

Final Proposed Agenda 26 June 2019

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/SIaGBg

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

GNSO Council meeting held in Marrakech ICANN65: 13:00 - 15:00 local time

Coordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC:  https://tinyurl.com/y5qgfetw

___________________________________

Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 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 16th April 2019 were posted on the 4th May 2019

Minutes of the extraordinary GNSO Council meeting on the 28th May 2019 were posted on the 13th June 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 (0 minutes)

• None

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Re-populating the Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP IOT) / GNSO Input to the Independent Review Process Standing Panel  (15 minutes)

As part of the work from the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 (WS1), the Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP IOT) was created in 2016. The IRP IOT has the critical role of implementing revised IRP provisions. The Council understands that attendance and attention to this important community activity has been less than ideal. As a result, the Council believes that repopulating the GNSO membership for the IRP IOT is critically important, especially in relation to the request for input on seating the Standing Panel.

In relation to the seating of the Standing Panel, ICANN org published a Call to Action, stating that “The IRP is an accountability mechanism provided by the ICANN Bylaws that allows for third-party review of actions (or inactions) by the ICANN Board or staff that are allegedly in violation of the Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. The IRP was updated through the work of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, to make the IRP more transparent, efficient, and accessible, and designed to produce consistent and coherent results that will serve as a guide for future actions. One feature of the updated IRP is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute as initiated.” At this stage, ICANN org is seeking to consult with the SOs and ACs to establish the process by which members are selected to serve on the standing panel to hear IRPs.

The Call to Action included a series of questions to help resolve pending issues. Additional questions can also be found on the Wiki. However, there was concern within the ICANN community that the Call to Action was not widely seen, as it was an alternative form of soliciting public input (e.g., the expectation is generally public comment).

Here, the Council will emphasize the need to repopulate the membership of the IRP IOT and determine the best path forward for providing feedback in seating the IRP Standing Panel.

4.1 – Update (Council leadership)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Next steps

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Next Steps (15 minutes)

On 9 July 2018, the PDP WG submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus recommendations, along with three Working Group member minority statements, documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the Final Report.

On 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, where it noted that it would consider the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of the 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 submitted 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 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. On the 24 January 2018 Council meeting, the Council discussed the proposal prepared by Council leadership. On 14 February 2019, the Council further discussed next steps and agreed to consult with the Governmental Advisory Committee, both before and at ICANN64. The GNSO Council and GAC had productive discussions, where the Council discussed procedural options that it is considering. The GAC’s Kobe Communique noted the GAC’s “fruitful exchanges with the GNSO Council regarding the possibility of restarting the PDP on curative protections, under conditions amenable to all interested parties, including IGOs and interested GAC members, with a view to achieving mutually acceptable results [with] a timeline with a targeted date associated with such a course of action.” Based on the Council discussions and consultation with the GAC, the Council believes that it has thoroughly considered the available options. On 18 April 2019, the Council resolved to approve recommendations 1-4 and refer recommendation 5 to be considered by the RPMs PDP as part of its Phase 2 work.

As part of its Consent Agenda, on 16 May 2019, the Council confirmed the transmission of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board. On 23 May, the GAC sent a letterto the GNSO Council, noting that approving recommendations 1-4 and referring recommendation 5 to the RPMs PDP is contrary to longstanding GAC Advice. The GAC therefore hopes the Council can confirm its willingness to participate in a Board facilitated discussion and requests response by 31 May 2019. In a meeting between the leadership of the GNSO and GAC, the prospect of a facilitated dialogue was discussed. Subsequently, the GAC and the GNSO exchanged further l correspondence regarding the GNSO Council’s willingness to engage in a facilitated dialogue.

Here, the Council will consider the latest letters from the GAC to the GNSO, to the ICANN Board and discussions at ICANN65, and consider the best path forward.

5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Next steps

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Next Steps For Internationalized Domain Names (15 minutes)

On 14 March 2019, the Board resolved to approve the Recommendations for Managing IDN Variant TLDs, developed by ICANN org. In doing so, the Board requested that “the ccNSO and GNSO take into account the Variant TLD Recommendations while developing their respective policies to define and manage the IDN variant TLDs for the current TLDs as well as for future TLD applications.” On 9 April 2019, the GNSO Council received a letter from ICANN org, noting their willingness to provide any support as needed for this effort.

The ICANN Board was scheduled to consider and vote to approve the IDN Guidelines 4.0 during its 3 May 2019 meeting. The GNSO Council, in light of the Board’s resolution on IDN variants as well as the intended action on the IDN Guidelines 4.0, determined that additional time was needed to consider the policy implications under its remit. Accordingly, the Council sent a letter to the ICANN Board, asking that their consideration of the IDN Guidelines 4.0 be deferred. That request to defer was granted by the ICANN Board. On 4 June 2019, the ICANN Board sent a letter to the GNSO Council requesting “the GNSO Council to share its plan on how it intends to move forward with IDN Implementation Guidelines at its earliest convenience, ideally before ICANN66 meeting in Montreal, Canada.”

The GNSO Council is in the process of studying the full extent of impacts from the Variant TLD Recommendations and the IDN Guidelines 4.0, and the proper mechanism to resolve any policy implications.

Here, the GNSO Council, after having benefited from conversations with other impacted parties (e.g., ccNSO, ICANN org, ICANN Board), will discuss possible next steps.

6.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Board Consultation on the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification Phase 1 - Next Steps (15 minutes)

On 15 May, the ICANN Board informed the GNSO Council of the Board’s action in relation to the GNSO’s Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data policy recommendations. The Board did not adopt two of the recommendations in full, where the Board has identified that portions of those recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN Community or ICANN and is initiating the consultation process between the Board and the GNSO Council. This concerns recommendation #1, purpose 2 and recommendation #12, deletion of data in the Organization field. As required under the ICANN Bylaws at Annex A-1,Section 6.b, a Board Statement is attached as Annex A to the letter, articulating the reasons for the Board’s determination on these two items. As per the Bylaw requirements (Annex A-1, Section 6.c), “the Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement.” During the Council’s Extraordinary Meeting on 28 May 2018, it reviewed the Board Statement and conducted a lengthy discussion on the best path forward.

On 30 May 2019, Keith Drazek, the GNSO Chair provided an update  to the EPDP Team on the expected next steps in relation to Board action on Phase 1 recommendations and requested that the EPDP Team provide input to identify any questions, comments or concerns in relation to ICANN Board’s action on the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations. Subsequently, on 9 June 2019, Janis Karklins, Chair of the EPDP, informed the GNSO Chair of the following preliminary input noting that there was not sufficient time to formalize and agree on an EPDP Team response:

“•         In relation to purpose 2, there is general understanding for why the Board decided to not adopt this purpose and the EPDP Team confirms that it considers it firmly within its scope for phase 2 to further review this purpose in the context of the System for Standardized Access / Disclosure (SSAD);

•         For recommendation #12, some additional context has been provided that may help explain the thinking behind the EPDP Team’s original recommendation. However, there is no agreement at this stage on whether or not the Board’s non-adoption should be supported.”

Here, the Council will continue to consider the next steps, especially in light of conversations held at ICANN65.

See also Annex A-1, Section 6. Board Approval Process below for further details.

Section 6. Board Approval Processes

The Board will meet to discuss the EPDP recommendation(s) as soon as feasible, but preferably not later than the second meeting after receipt of the Recommendations Report from the Staff Manager. Board deliberation on the EPDP Recommendations contained within the Recommendations Report shall proceed as follows:

• Any EPDP Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. If the GNSO Council recommendation was approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.

• In the event that the Board determines, in accordance with paragraph a above, that the proposed EPDP Recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council.
• The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement. The Board shall determine the method (e.g., by teleconference, email, or otherwise) by which the Council and Board will discuss the Board Statement.

At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for the then-current recommendation. In the event that the Council is able to reach a GNSO Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board determines that such guidance is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. For any Supplemental Recommendation approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board shall be sufficient to determine that the guidance in the Supplemental Recommendation is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN.

7.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Consideration of Updates From PDPs and Determination if Follow-Up or Council Action is Needed (10 minutes)

On a 17 June 2019 webinar, in advance of ICANN65, the leadership teams of the various GNSO PDPs currently operating will have provided an update to the GNSO Council on current status, timeline, current issues, and potential ways in which the GNSO Council may be able to provide assistance. The GNSO Council, after having received this update, will consider if any of the PDPs currently under its management may benefit from additional analysis/consideration and/or Council action.

Here, the Council will discuss whether any additional steps are needed as it relates to its management of the GNSO PDPs.

8.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Consideration of Competition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice  Review Team (CCT-RT) Recommendations Passed to the GNSO (10 minutes)

As was required under ICANN’s Affirmation of Commitments, the community-led Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) was established on 23 December 2015. The CCT-RT completed its work and delivered its Final Report to the ICANN Board on 8 September 2018.

On 1 March 2019, the ICANN Board resolved to take action on the 35 recommendations as specified in the scorecard titled Final CCT Recommendations: Board Action (1 March 2019), which fell in three categories: Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations; Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions; Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration

On 10 June 2019, the GNSO Council received a communication informing them of the CCT-RT recommendations passed to it, along with an offer to provide additional information or context. The email highlighted the following text: “in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. […] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address”.

Here, the Council will discuss possible next steps to take in regards to the CCT-RT recommendations passed through to the GNSO.

9.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

9.2 – Council discussion

9.3 – Next steps

Item 10: COUNCIL UPDATE – Progress Made For the Implementation of PDP 3.0 (10 minutes)

The GNSO Council identified a number of challenges as well as possible improvements related to the Policy Development Process (PDP), as a result of a number of discussions throughout 2018. These efforts started in the form of a staff discussion paper, shared on 10 January 2018 and discussed at the GNSO Council’s 2018 Strategic Planning Session.

In order to engage the broader GNSO community in this discussion, the GNSO Council organized a collaborative session involving the members of the current PDP Leadership Teams as well as the broader community to summarize key points from the Strategic Planning Session, elaborate on the challenges that PDPs presently face and identified, and begin to brainstorm possible solutions.

On 11 May 2018, an updated paper was prepared, taking into account feedback received. The GNSO Council solicited additional feedback from the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, summarizing input received. An updated report was prepared as well as an Implementation Plan. On 24 October 2018, the Council resolved to adopt the Final Report and begin implementation, as well as report on progress no less than on a quarterly basis.

At the 2019 GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session, the Council discussed early drafts for select implementation areas, ultimately agreeing that a small team of Councilors be convened to support implementation efforts. That small team of Councilors first convened at ICANN64 in Kobe, Japan and has since been meeting on a bi-weekly basis.

Here, the Council will receive an update on the implementation efforts from the PDP 3.0 small team of Councilors.

10.1 – Introduction of topic (Rafik Dammak, lead for PDP 3.0 small team)

10.2 – Council discussion

10.3 – Next steps

Item 11: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)

11.1 - Open microphone

GNSO Council Wrap-up

27 June - Orangeraie Room main Conference Centre - Attended by ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council.

An informal and open meeting where the GNSO Council discussed the inputs and outcomes   from the GNSO meetings held during ICANN 65, and where relevant noted any action items and next steps, as well as allocated Councillors responsible for or liaison to these activities and actions. The full transcript of this meeting can be found here.

As a general Policy Meeting it is also useful to reference the  Pre-ICANN65 Policy Report: https://go.icann.org/pre65

      The agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/VoaGBg

Agenda annotated with volunteers form Council now responsible for AI’s and follow up.

1. Review of ICANN65 GAC Advice (Julf, Paul, Michele, Martin and Tatiana) 

https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann65-marrakech-communique 

1. Next steps for ATRT3 (Council will consider the need or otherwise to replace Erica who needs to retire from ATRT3 at end of Aug - Selection Standing Committee and LT to follow up) 
2. Reminder of small team activities:
1. Input on the IRP Standing Panel (Volunteers: Flip, Elsa)
2. IDNs (Volunteers: Rubens, Maxim, Philippe, Edmon, Michele)

1.     Seek additional volunteers outside of Council at this stage? If so, how?

1. CCT-RT Recommendations (Volunteers: Pam, Carlos, Michele)
2. IGO-INGO Charter Drafting (Volunteers: Martin, Elsa, Paul, Carlos)
1. Correspondence and proposed next steps for:
1. Request for Clarification on Data Accuracy and Phase-2 of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data
2. ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs (assumptions document)
2. ICANN66 Meeting Planning 
1. Whether to have an informal dinner (and volunteer to organize if yes)
2. Input to leadership for planning purposes
3. AOB
1. Council liaison replacement (Reconvened WG on Red Cross- IRT: Currently Keith)
2. Reminder - Attend Impacts of EPDP Phase 1 session from 15:15-16:45 (https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058195)

extract copy  from At-Large Reporting Document from ICANN 65

 Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting Tuesday, 28 May 2019 at 21:00 UTC for 90 mins.

On 15 May, the ICANN Board informed the GNSO Council of the Board’s action in relation to the GNSO’s Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data policy recommendations (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to-drazek-et-al-06may19-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org])  The Board did not adopt two of the recommendations in full, where the Board has identified that portions of those recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN Community or ICANN and is initiating the consultation process between the Board and the GNSO Council. This concerns recommendation #1, purpose 2 and recommendation #12, deletion of data in the Organization field. As required under the ICANN Bylaws at Annex A-1,Section 6.b, a Board Statement is attached as Annex A to the letter, articulating the reasons for the Board’s determination on these two items. As per the Bylaw requirements (Annex A-1, Section 6.c), “the Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement.” 

During this meeting, the Council shall review the Board Statement and consider next steps. See also Annex A-1, Section 6. Board Approval Process for further details (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexA1 [icann.org]).

___________________________________

Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 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 18th April were posted on the 4th May 2019

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 16th May will be posted on the 31st May 2019

Item 2: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification Phase 1 (50 minutes)

On 15 May, the ICANN Board informed the GNSO Council of the Board’s action in relation to the GNSO’s Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data policy recommendations. The Board did not adopt two of the recommendations in full, where the Board has identified that portions of those recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN Community or ICANN and is initiating the consultation process between the Board and the GNSO Council. This concerns recommendation #1, purpose 2 and recommendation #12, deletion of data in the Organization field. As required under the ICANN Bylaws at Annex A-1,Section 6.b, a Board Statement is attached as Annex A to the letter, articulating the reasons for the Board’s determination on these two items. As per the Bylaw requirements (Annex A-1, Section 6.c), “the Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement.” During this meeting, the Council shall review the Board Statement and consider next steps. See also Annex A-1, Section 6. Board Approval Process below for further details.

Section 6. Board Approval Processes

The Board will meet to discuss the EPDP recommendation(s) as soon as feasible, but preferably not later than the second meeting after receipt of the Recommendations Report from the Staff Manager. Board deliberation on the EPDP Recommendations contained within the Recommendations Report shall proceed as follows:

1. Any EPDP Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. If the GNSO Council recommendation was approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.
2.  In the event that the Board determines, in accordance with paragraph a above, that the proposed EPDP Recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council.
3. The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement. The Board shall determine the method (e.g., by teleconference, email, or otherwise) by which the Council and Board will discuss the Board Statement.

At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for the then-current recommendation. In the event that the Council is able to reach a GNSO Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board determines that such guidance is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. For any Supplemental Recommendation approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board shall be sufficient to determine that the guidance in the Supplemental Recommendation is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN.

2.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

2.2 – Council discussion

2.3 – Next steps

Item 3: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (25 minutes)

On 9 July 2018, the PDP WG submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus recommendations, along with three Working Group member minority statements, documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the Final Report.

On 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, where it noted that it would consider the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of the 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 submitted 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 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. On the 24 January 2018 Council meeting, the Council discussed the proposal prepared by Council leadership. On 14 February 2019, the Council further discussed next steps and agreed to consult with the Governmental Advisory Committee, both before and at ICANN64. The GNSO Council and GAC had productive discussions, where the Council discussed procedural options that it is considering. The GAC’s Kobe Communique noted the GAC’s “fruitful exchanges with the GNSO Council regarding the possibility of restarting the PDP on curative protections, under conditions amenable to all interested parties, including IGOs and interested GAC members, with a view to achieving mutually acceptable results [with] a timeline with a targeted date associated with such a course of action.” Based on the Council discussions and consultation with the GAC, the Council believes that it has thoroughly considered the available options. On 18 April 2019, the Council resolved to approve recommendations 1-4 and refer recommendation 5 to be considered by the RPMs PDP as part of its Phase 2 work.

As part of its Consent Agenda, on 16 May 2019, the Council confirmed the transmission of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board. On 23 May, the GAC sent a letter to the GNSO Council, noting that approving recommendations 1-4 and referring recommendation 5 to the RPMs PDP is contrary to longstanding GAC Advice. The GAC therefore hopes the Council can confirm its willingness to participate in a Board facilitated discussion and requests response by 31 May 2019.

Here, the Council will consider the letter received from the GAC and consider the best path forward.

3.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

3.2 – Council discussion

3.3 – Next steps

Item 4: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)

May 16^th  -   12:00 UTC  

Recordings  of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday 16 May 2019 at 12:00 UTC.

Audio only: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/7chaageXjtD577e0IfIMzryKmnXiTQj6Q8nLdSHzyXHBVrA1n6MsenG_-HPouUN2

Zoom Recording URL:   https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/lNjmiwkSEHRtDnIGP--zrEWGZoYTVnjC97-Wams37oywIumekTziMw 

Zoom chat at:    https://icann.zoom.us/recording/download/0bkY3hvplbo1bX37iHVuMYSHVVyutjTB7whngIWs9ArlqIPr8N60iYTKhqgZM8iE

Consent Agenda resolution and vote result from the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday 16 May 2019 and has been posted on the GNSO resolutions page.

Consent Agenda

• Confirmation of Julf Helsingius to serve on the CCWG on New gTLD Auction Proceeds, replacing Stephanie Perrin
• Confirmation of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of recommendations 1-4 contained in the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/council-recommendations-pdp-igo-ingo-crp-access-final-16may19-en.pdf)

 Vote results

Final GNSO Council Agenda

Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 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 13th March were posted on the 30 March 2019

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 16th April were posted on the 4th May 2019

1.5 - Introduction to Zoom

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 (10 minutes)

• Confirmation of Julf Helsingius to serve on the CWWG on New gTLD Auction Proceeds, replacing Stephanie Perrin
• Confirmation of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of recommendations 1-4 contained in the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP.

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Amendments to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Charter to Integrate Recommendation 5 From IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report (15 minutes)

On 18 April 2019, the Council voted to approve recommendations 1-4 of Final Report from the  IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG. The Council also resolved to not approve Recommendation 5 and, ” directs the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDP to consider, as part of its Phase 2 work, whether an appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent with Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report and:

• accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances;
• does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction;
• preserves registrants’ rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and
• recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

The GNSO Council resolved also to, “amend the charter for the RPM PDP Working Group to reflect this new instruction accordingly.”

Here, the Council will begin initial conversations on how best to integrate Recommendation 5 into the RPMs PDP Charter.

4.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Next Steps

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Policy Status Report (10 minutes)

The Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) provides guidance to ICANN org and the community for implementing policy. However, there is minimal guidance in this document or in other documentation around the review of implemented policies adopted by the GNSO Council. In some cases, a review is explicitly mandated as an element of the PDP WG’s recommendations to the Council, but in some cases, the recommendations are silent in this respect.

ICANN org, in consultation with the Council, prepared a draft framework on the approach for post-implementation reviews of Council adopted policy recommendations. The framework provides guidance on a number of questions (e.g., When should a review be initiated when there is no PDP recommendation to do so? What triggers should initiate a review? What are the expected outcomes of the review? Etc.).

During its 26 April 2018 meeting, the Council agreed to have ICANN org conduct a review of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP). ICANN org utilized the draft framework for conducting the post-implementation review of the IRTP. On 14 November 2018, ICANN org published the IRTP Policy Status Report for public comment. ICANN org has worked to integrate elements identified in public comment and on 22 April 2019, shared a Revised Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Status Report.

As noted in the report, there are no prescribed next steps once the Council is in receipt of the report.

As such, here, the Council will discuss possible next steps for the Transfer Policy.

5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership and Brian Aitchison, ICANN org)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Next Steps

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Legislative / Regulatory Report (15 minutes)

As a result of the community’s experience in dealing with the European Commission’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation, and what is widely perceived as a late start in addressing the impact, the community has sought to become more aware of local law that may have an effect on the ability to create policy, conduct ongoing policy development, or enforce compliance with existing policy.

In seeking to advance this goal, ICANN org, and in particular its Governmental Engagement (GE) team, has been identifying and reporting on high-level legislative developments around the world. The GE has released three reports, the first in April 2018, the second in August 2018, and the third in January 2019. At ICANN64 in Kobe, the Council discussed the usefulness of these reports and believe that there is room for improvement, for instance, identifying the potential impact of these local laws on the GNSO and/or other ICANN communities. The Council has expressed a desire to meet with GE to help determine how the Legislative / Regulatory Reports can be made more effective and useful.

Here, the Council will receive an update from GE and discuss areas for improvement.

6.1 – Update (Mandy Carver, ICANN org)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Input to the Independent Review Process Standing Panel  (15 minutes)

Per the ICANN org’s Call to Action, “The IRP is an accountability mechanism provided by the ICANN Bylaws that allows for third-party review of actions (or inactions) by the ICANN Board or staff that are allegedly in violation of the Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. The IRP was updated through the work of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, to make the IRP more transparent, efficient, and accessible, and designed to produce consistent and coherent results that will serve as a guide for future actions. One feature of the updated IRP is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute as initiated.” At this stage, ICANN org is seeking to consult with the SOs and ACs to establish the process by which members are selected to serve on the standing panel to hear IRPs.

The Call to Action included a series of questions to help resolve pending issues. Additional questions can also be found on the Wiki. However, there was concern within the ICANN community that the Call to Action was not widely seen, as it was an alternative form of soliciting public input (e.g., the expectation is generally public comment). While the GNSO Council recognizes the importance of providing input, it wishes to better understand precisely what is being asked of it.

Here, the Council will receive an update and discuss next steps.

7.1 – Update (David McCauley, Chair of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team, Samantha Eisner, ICANN org, Liz Le, ICANN Org)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Non-registry GNSO Liaison to the Customer Standing Committee (10 minutes)

A key element of the IANA Stewardship was the establishment of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC), whose role under the ICANN Bylaws is to, “monitor PTI's performance under the IANA Naming Function Contract and IANA Naming Function SOW.

The mission of the CSC is to ensure continued satisfactory performance of the IANA naming function for the direct customers of the naming services. The direct customers of the naming services are top-level domain registry operators as well as root server operators and other non-root zone functions.”

In establishing the membership of the CSC, the GNSO has the option to appoint a non-registry liaison. Since the CSC’s inception in 2016, that role has been filled by James Gannon, whose term is set to expire in October of 2019, though he has indicated a willingness to continue to serve in that role for another term. The Council believes it will benefit from gaining a better understanding of James’ experience serving on the CSC on behalf of the GNSO.

Here, the Council will receive an update from James and discuss next steps.

8.1 – Update (James Gannon)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Evolution of the Multistakeholder Model of Governance (15 minutes)

At ICANN63, the ICANN Board asked the community, “How should ICANN’s multistakeholder model of governance and policy development process evolve to balance the increasing need for inclusivity, accountability and transparency, with the imperative of getting our work done and our policies developed in a more effective and timely manner, and with the efficient utilization of ICANN’s resources?” Based on community input to that question, as well as other input that resulted in the inclusion of Strategic Objective 2 in the Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021-2025, “Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model of governance,” the ICANN Board organized a session at ICANN64, led by Brian Cute as an independent facilitator,  to continue the conversation with the community.

Here, recognizing the similar objectives within the Council’s own PDP 3.0, Brian would like to provide an update on the efforts to improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model of governance.

9.1 – Update (Brian Cute)

9.2 – Council discussion

9.3 – Next steps

Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)

10.1 - GNSO Chair election timeline

10.2 - Possible next steps for IDNs (IDN Implementation Guidelines and Variant TLD Recommendations)

April 18^th   -  21:00 UTC  -  Notes or Action Items will be shown in italics until Draft/Final Minutes posted.

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting

Agenda and Documents

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann (joined first 30 minutes)

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Darcy Southwell

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Rubens Kühl

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlos Raul Gutierrez

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, Paul McGrady, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Martin Silva Valent, Elsa Saade (absent, apology sent - proxy to Ayden Férdeline), Tatiana Tropina, Rafik Dammak, Ayden Férdeline, Arsène Tungali (absent, apology sent – proxy to Martin Silva Valent)

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Syed Ismail Shah

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer (first meeting as ccNSO liaison)

ICANN Staff

David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional

Marika Konings – Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO (apology sent)

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Policy Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager (apologies sent)

Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations

Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator

Sara Caplis – Technical Support

MP3 Recording

Transcript

Item 1. Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

There was no update to Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

The agenda was approved with the Approval of the Appointment of Janis Karklins as Chair for the Expedited Policy Development Process Team item removed from the Consent Agenda upon Ayden Férdeline’s request on behalf of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and placed in the main agenda to allow for Council discussion prior to the vote.

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 4th March were posted on the 18 March 2019

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 13th March were posted on the 30 March 2019

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

Keith Drazek, in the interest of time, updated the GNSO Council of the status of following Action Items:

An email has been sent to the Stakeholder Group (SG) and Constituency (C) Chairs reminding them that ICANN Travel deadlines for funded travellers have changed from 90 to 120 days. This will impact SG and C officer elections.

The IRTP Policy Status Report and PPSAI items are in progress. Pam Little provided an update on the Council draft response to the PPSAI letter sent by Cyrus Namazi and on the IPC-proposed edits to include certain “factual background”, including the Kobe GAC Communiqué on this topic, in the response letter. There were several views on whether PPSAI implementation should continue to pause within the Council. Regarding the IRTP Policy Status Report, Pam Little reminded Council that they were waiting for the updated Status Report to be provided by ICANN Org.

Cross Community Working Group Auction Proceeds item: Erika Mann, co-chair of the CCWG, said the group was reviewing the public comments received, with support from staff, and would appreciate additional face-to-face time during the Policy Forum in Marrakech. It was agreed the review effort would not be finalized in Marrakech, but the CCWG would provide a “zero paper” ahead of the meeting.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There were three items for Council consideration on the Consent Agenda:

Motion to adopt the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique

Confirmation of the GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data PDP WG, Phase 1.

Approval of the suggested amendments to the GNSO’s Fellowship Selection criteria. (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/fellowship-application-criteria-13apr19-en.pdf)

Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Whereas,

The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.

The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.

The GNSO Council has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.

The GNSO Council hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the coordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Kobe GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac-communique-18apr19-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Council Review of the Kobe GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.

The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

The GNSO Council voted unanimously in favour of the Consent Agenda.

Vote results

Action items:

GNSO Chair to communicate the GNSO Council Review of the Kobe GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.

GNSO Chair to inform GAC Chair of communication between GNSO Council and ICANN Board on the Kobe GAC Communiqué.

Staff to communicate EPDP P1 Recommendations Report to Board Ops

Staff to communicate approval of selection criteria to GNSO rep to the Fellowship Selection Committee

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of the appointment of Janis Karklins as Chair for the Expedited Policy Development Process Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data

This item was removed from the Consent Agenda by Ayden Férdeline’s request to discuss the appointment and next steps prior to the vote.

Ayden Férdeline reassured councilors that the NCSG would vote in favour of the candidate, Janis Karklins, but that it had process questions about the GNSO Council & Selection Standing Committee (SSC) leadership teams’ selection of one candidate over the other and their notifying thereof prior to the motion vote. He also raised questions about the impartiality of the selected candidate regarding his involvement with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Governmental Advisory Committee, as well as the skill sets retained over others. He also suggested keeping the second candidate, Chris LaHatte, in a leadership position.

Keith Drazek reminded Council that the current leadership structure of the EPDP team was decided with the argument of member representation equality. He agreed that the vice-chair role may need to be re-visited. To consider a co-chair role would imply re-opening the EPDP charter.

Tatiana Tropina echoed Ayden’s concerns about the connections of Janis Karklins to WIPO and a possible conflict of interest, whilst insisting this would not hinder the NCSG vote. She reminded councilors about a previous conversation on resources, and that Chris LaHatte is a professionally qualified mediator.  

Keith Drazek shared Tatiana’s thoughts about resources and services when triggered by needs, as outlined in the list of preliminary resources requested by the EPDP team which would need to be confirmed by the incoming Chair. He also confirmed that Janis Karklins had mentioned his WIPO connection in his EPDP Phase 2 Chair application, and asked for further clarification about conflict. He also reminded councilors that most community members come from a known group, and have potential conflicts of interest, but are expected to be neutral when taking on a Chair role.

Maxim Alzoba added that the historical experience is to be taken into account also, regarding Chris LaHatte’s previous role as ICANN Ombudsman.

Pam Little explained to councilors that the GNSO Council and SSC leadership teams did discuss potential conflicts of interest, but did not come to any negative conclusion given the near impossibility of finding a candidate with no potential conflict interest. Council needed to discuss what perceived or actual conflicts are of concern, and the EPDP team will, moving forward, be able to communicate any related issues to the GNSO Council.

Paul McGrady asked whether the EPDP team should be addressed the question as to how Chris LaHatte could be of service with a reminder of the charter restrictions and what next steps should be.

Keith Drazek suggested giving the new Chair, Janis Karklins, the space to get the new EPDP team work started, whilst being available to assist if need be. He also clarified that the emails sent to both candidates, which informed them of the recommendation made by both leadership teams, which would then be voted on by the GNSO Council during this session.

The GNSO Council voted unanimously in favour of the motion.

Vote results

Keith Drazek thanked his fellow councilors for providing the opportunity for a productive discussion prior 

to the vote.

Action items:

GNSO Chair to inform Janis Karklins of his approval

Rafik Dammak, EPDP Interim Chair to announce the new chair to EPDP team and finalize with staff the handover letter to Janis Karklins

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms

Keith Drazek reminded Council that this item had been under discussion since the Final Report was published ten months ago. Councilors would be voting here to approve the first four recommendations to the ICANN Board and refer recommendation 5 to the Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) by re-chartering the WG, or creating a sub-group chartered by the Council under PDP3.0 guidelines. This was proposed by Council leadership in December 2018. Keith Drazek admitted that there were many diverse views on the topic within the Council but that this proposal would be a good compromise. He also mentioned that the GAC had sent a letter on the matter on the 17th April 2019 expressing surprise and disappointment at the direction chosen by the GNSO, preferring a standalone structure without the GNSO Council approving the first four recommendations. He reminded Council that ICANN Board could still reject the GNSO Council’s recommendations.

Paul McGrady requested clarification on what the Council vote would imply for all five recommendations. An approval vote would concern approval of 1-4 recommendations only, not recommendation 5. A vote against the motion would imply none of the recommendations would be approved.

Carlos Gutierrez expressed his support of a single motion whilst understanding the GAC position given the previous simple solution found for the Red Cross discussion.

Keith Drazek acknowledged the challenge before the Council taking into account the GAC reaction, but reminded councilors that the GNSO Council needed to follow procedures. He asked that if the effort were to be referred to the RPM PDP WG that the GNSO Council provide all the assistance required to see the work through to completion.

Tatiana Tropina reminded Council of GNSO procedures and the PDP specifically, and that there had already been compromises made since ICANN63 in Barcelona, in not voting for recommendation 5.

Philippe Fouquart stated that he understood the difficulty of the situation, but insisted that the position of the Council be one of process management and not substance management, by highlighting that the reason for not approving recommendation 5 was because it was out of scope.

Marie Pattullo thanked Keith Drazek for the information provided, and the solution suggested, given the complexity of recommendation 5.

Keith Drazek added that creating a small team within the RPM PDP would benefit from the experience and knowledge of the existing PDP membership.

Martin Silva Valent reminded councilors that the RPM PDP WG is a review working group, which would be very different from creating an effort from scratch, which would be warranted for recommendation 5 where mechanisms would need to be created.

Keith Drazek agreed that the subgroup would need to be able to take into account impacts in diverse areas, and that the chartering effort would be key in setting up the group to succeed.

Carlos Gutierrez asked whether a narrowly chartered RPM subgroup could deal with issues like a protection list similar to the Red Cross case.

Mary Wong reminded the Council that previously the IGO INGO WG was focussing on a list of GAC IGOs (192) and then asked the Council to amend their charter to broaden it to all eligible IGOs. Regarding recommendation 5, it is therefore focussing on a wider list that the original GAC list. But if the new subgroup were to come to the conclusion that the better rationale may be a more limited list, this would still be possible.

Rafik Dammak agreed that there would be flexibility from the Council regarding how to deal with recommendation 5.

Martin Silva Valent agreed that the RPM charter would need to be adjusted, but warned that Phase 2 of the RPM work would be difficult, and that any adjustment could be of negative impact.

Keith Drazek recognized the sensitivity of the subject and thanked councilors for their time and effort on the subject. He acknowledged that cooperation with the GAC to construct a path forward would be key moving forward as all interested parties would need to be able to contribute.

For the Contracted Party House there were 7 votes in favour, no vote against and no abstention. For the Non Contracted Party House, there were 11 votes in favour, 2 against and no abstention. The motion passed with 100% in the Contracted Party House and 84,62% in the Non Contracted Party House. (Rationale for objections from Flip Petillion and Paul McGrady can be found here)

Keith Drazek admitted this had been a difficult topic with no perfect solution, especially as ICANN Board could reject the recommendations, and there is still work to be done on recommendation 5.

Vote results

Action items:

GNSO Chair to prepare communication to GAC/IGOs to explain rationale for vote and demonstrate how they will be able to participate

Staff to prepare recommendations report IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report

Council leadership/staff to prepare draft changes to RPMs Charter

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Managing IDN Variants TLDs

Sarmad Hussein, ICANN Org, presented to the GNSO Council latest updates on the IDN Variant Top Level Domains (TLDs) (slide deck and presentation comments: pg 50 - 55 of the transcript) and helped councilors better understand the responsibilities of the ICANN IDN Program as dispensed by the ICANN Board resolution of 14 March 2019.

Sarmad Hussein provided background information for context and then listed the possible next steps the GNSO could take.

Maxim Alzoba asked what had happened to IDN tables for the current TLDs which were approved by IANA, as during the GDD conversations, it was mentioned they would be considered legacy and not be changed. He also raised that historically, similarity between “1” and”l”, “0” and”O” caused many issues in English ASCII script, were they any investigations?

Sarmad Hussein replied that as far as IDN tables are concerned, they are relevant for second level domains, not top level domains. The IDN tables currently approved are already being applied, moving forward there are changes proposed to re-evaluate them.

Rubens Kuhl noted that IDN guidelines are similar to policy guidelines, so could need policy effort both from the GNSO and ccNSO.

Sarmad Hussein replied that IDN guidelines are developed by the community and are focused on reducing consumer confusion and therefore revised on community request, for example, the GNSO review request during the ICANN London meeting.

Keith Drazek suggested a small group of councilors work on providing further questions to Sarmad and thanked Sarmad for his participation. He reminded that this was just the beginning of a difficult and technical conversation which will need tight collaboration with the ccNSO.

Action item:

Small group of Councilors to convene and then coordinate with ICANN to get further understanding, and potentially propose next steps for IDN TLD Variants. Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE – Status of the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 1 Informal Implementation Review Team

Russ Weinstein, ICANN Org, standing in for provided an update on the EPDP Temp Spec Informal Implementation Review Team. The Implementation Project Team (IPT) , a cross functional team of ICANN staff, has been established to coordinate across all Implementation Reviews. The IPT is currently reviewing all recommendations, trying to define what the required deliverables are and creating the implementation plan with the February 2020 deadline in mind. Having a target date is a new feature in an IRT. A call for volunteers for a pre-IRT has been circulated, and the work is focussing on clarifications, with membership from the EPDP team. A Council liaison to the IRT is not mandatory but is possible if requested. For the moment, there are 12 community members signed up, all part of the EPDP Phase 1 team, and an observer mailing list. The team has agreed to meet up bi-weekly on Wednesdays.

Keith Drazek thanked Russ Weinstein and Council will discuss the need for a Council liaison. 

Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE – Status of the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 1 Informal Implementation Review Team

Russ Weinstein, ICANN Org, standing in for provided an update on the EPDP Temp Spec Informal Implementation Review Team. The Implementation Project Team (IPT) , a cross functional team of ICANN staff, has been established to coordinate across all Implementation Reviews. The IPT is currently reviewing all recommendations, trying to define what the required deliverables are and creating the implementation plan with the February 2020 deadline in mind. Having a target date is a new feature in an IRT. A call for volunteers for a pre-IRT has been circulated, and the work is focussing on clarifications, with membership from the EPDP team. A Council liaison to the IRT is not mandatory but is possible if requested. For the moment, there are 12 community members signed up, all part of the EPDP Phase 1 team, and an observer mailing list. The team has agreed to meet up bi-weekly on Wednesdays.

Keith Drazek thanked Russ Weinstein and Council will discuss the need for a Council liaison.

Action Item:

Council Chair to confirm that Rubens Kuhl has volunteered to serve as the Council liaison to, at a minimum, the informal IRT for the EPDP phase 1.

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Updated Timeline for the PDP on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDS

Keith Drazek noted that in Kobe, the GNSO Council and RPM PDP WG leadership teams met, the outcome was a request for an updated timeline for Phase 1 recommendations. The new deadline is the 26th April, after the RPM co-chairs asked for an extension.

Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.1 - Reminder for funded travelers to book their travel for ICANN65

9.2 - GNSO Council - Input to Establish IRP Standing Panel

These items were postponed to the GNSO Council mailing list due to lack of time.

Keith Drazek adjourned the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 18 April 2019 at 23:07 UTC.

March 13^th (ICANN64 Kobe)

Final GNSO Council Agenda

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 13th March were posted on the 30 March 2019

Agenda and Documents

Local time in Kobe: 13:00 JT Coordinated Universal Time: 04:00 UTC: http://tinyurl.com/y3nkmj82

(Thursday) 21:00 Los Angeles; 00:00 Washington; 04:00 London; 09:00 Islamabad; 13:00 Tokyo; 15:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann

Contracted Parties House

Registrars Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Darcy Southwell

Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Rubens Kühl

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlos Raul Gutierrez

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa (apologies, proxy to Philippe Fouquart) , Paul McGrady, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Martin Silva Valent (apologies, temporary alternate, Amr Elsadr), Amr Elsadr, Elsa Saade, Tatiana Tropina, Rafik Dammak, Ayden Férdeline, Arsène Tungali

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Syed Ismail Shah (apologies, proxy to Rafik Dammak)

GNSO Council Liaisons/ Observers:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Adebiyi Oladipo – ccNSO observer

ICANN Staff

David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager

Marika Konings – Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Policy Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager (apology)

Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager

Sara Caplis – Technical Support

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations Support

Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator

MP3 Recording

Transcript

Item 1. Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

There was no update to Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

Agenda was approved without objection.

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 21st February were posted on 7 March 2019

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 4th March will be posted on the 18 March 2019

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

Keith Drazek reviewed the Projects list and brought the following points to councilors’ attention:

Several Policy Development Process (PDP) items were part of the main agenda and would be discussed further into the call.

The GNSO Council had received updates from the co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on Auction Proceeds, the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP, the PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in all gTLDs during the GNSO Working Session on Sunday 10 March 2019.

There is an ongoing discussion around the PDP for curative rights protections for IGOs and INGOs, with an exchange on the topic held during the joint GNSO & Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) meeting on Sunday 10 March 2019. Keith Drazek confirmed that he expected a resolution of the issue during the 18 April 2019 GNSO Council meeting following updated recommendations to be circulated to the GNSO Council mailing list shortly.

Keith Drazek then reminded the GNSO Council of the status of following Action Items:

An outstanding action item for Heather Forrest and Susan Kawaguchi to provide a report on the 3.7 appeal process in relation to the IGO INGO Curative Rights PDP Working Group. Keith Drazek updated Council on the joint GNSO GAC meeting outcomes. The GAC indicated interest in, should the GNSO Council not vote on recommendation 5 or all recommendations of the Final Report, taking part in re-engaging in the effort.

Keith Drazek to send communication to the CCEG IG regarding the GNSO not taking part as a Chartering Organization.

Further steps regarding the seating of the IANA functions review team will be taken once ICANN Board and the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) communicate input on the matter.

The Technical Study Group has finished its work, GNSO Council would need further information regarding its next steps.

Action Items:

Council leadership to look into the status of existing action item related to 3.7 appeal after action report.

Council Chair to follow up on the existing action item regarding the drafting of a response to CCWG/EG on Internet Governance.

ICANN Staff to mark EPDP/TSG as complete

Council leadership to confirm expectations of TSG are well understood, next steps. Reach out to find out next steps of TSG.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There were two items for Council consideration on the Consent Agenda:

Reappointment of Becky Burr to seat 13 on the ICANN Board. The CPH has re-appointed Becky Burr for Seat 13 on the ICANN Board of Directors. This agenda item is intended to acknowledge the selection and confirm that the notification process as outlined in Section 7.25 of the ICANN Bylaws will be completed subsequently.

Adoption of the CSC Effectiveness Review Team Final Report.

Approval of the final report of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review

WHEREAS,

The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) was established as one of the post IANA Transition entities and conducted its first meeting on 6 October 2016.

The ICANN Bylaws, Section 17.3 (b) states, "The effectiveness of the CSC shall be reviewed two years after the first meeting of the CSC; and then every three years thereafter. The method of review will be determined by the ccNSO and GNSO and the findings of the review will be published on the Website."

On 27 September 2018, the GNSO Council approved the process for the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review and appointed GNSO representatives (motion 20180927-1) https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201809.

On 16 January 19, the Initial Report for the CSC Effectiveness Review prepared by the CSC Effectiveness Review Team was published https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/csc-effectiveness-initial-16jan19-en.pdf.

The public comment on the Initial Report on CSC Effectiveness opened from 16 Jan 2019 to 25 Feb 2019 and comments were received. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-csc-effectiveness-initial-16jan19/

On 5 March 2019, the final report of the Customer Standing Committee Effectiveness Review was published at https://community.icann.org/x/VQpIBg, as a revision of the initial report in light of the comments received.

Resolved,

The GNSO Council adopts the final report of the Customer Standing Committee Effectiveness Review https://community.icann.org/x/VQpIBg.

If ccNSO Council also adopts the Report and supports finding and recommendations contained in it:

The review process is closed and CSC Effectiveness Review team is dissolved.

In accordance with the terms of CSC Effectiveness Review Template, the Chair of the GNSO Council and the Chair of the ccNSO Council are requested to recommend report to IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFRT) as soon as that is established.

The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to share the results of this motion with the CSC.

The GNSO Council expresses its sincere appreciation to the members of the CSC Effectiveness Review Team, the liaison, expert advisors and support staff who contributed to the review.

GNSO Council voted unanimously in favour of the Consent Agenda. Keith Drazek, on behalf of the GNSO Council, thanked the CSC Effectiveness Review Team and staff support for their efforts. He then thanked Becky Burr for her first term as Contracted Party House (CPH) appointed Board member, and noted that despite not working for a registry anymore, the CPH had no issue with her re-appointment for a second term.

Vote results

Action items:

In accordance with the terms of CSC Effectiveness Review Template, the Chair of the GNSO Council and the Chair of the ccNSO Council are requested to recommend report to IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFRT) as soon as that is established.

The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to share the results of this motion with the CSC.

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team (PPSAI IRT)

The PPSAI IRT is currently paused at ICANN Org’s direction because of concerns about interrelation with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ongoing work of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) replacing the Temporary Specification and potentially into phase 2.

Darcy Southwell added that the IRT had received a communication from Global Domains DIvision (GDD) recommending that they remain on hold. Several factors enter into consideration, such as limited resources and risk of duplication of EPDP Phase 1 Implementation.

Keith Drazek confirmed the receipt of a letter on the 4th of March from Cyrus Namazi, head of GDD recommending that the IRT continues to be on hold or delay the reinitiation of this effort until such time the EPDP concludes its work.

Pam Little informed councilors that this letter also seeks input from the Council regarding the transfer policy issue involving change of registrant process for proxy/privacy registrations. Registrars encountered some problems when implementing that new change of registrant process policy in the transfer policy but given that the transfer policy PDP working group didn't really consider the proxy and privacy issue, it was actually deferred to the IRT.

Paul McGrady provided a statement and background information to the PPSAI and reminded councilors that the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) was very keen that the IRT resume its work as it does not agree with the interdependency with EPDP conclusions.

Göran Marby, ICANN Org, intervened to thank the GNSO Council and the Contracted Party House in particular for the letter they sent during ICANN63 for triggering the idea of the Technical Study Group.

Returning to the topic of the PPSAI IRT, Michele Neylon stated that he would oppose the PPSAI IRT moving forward without taking into account recent GDPR related developments.

Marie Pattullo, on behalf of the Business Constituency (BC), supported the IPC’s statement to continue the implementation work, given that privacy and proxy issues are still present.

Rubens Kühl asked in the Adobe Connect chat if there was a way to split the IRT’s work into EPDP dependent and non-EPDP dependent parts and find a path forward.

In response to Michele, Paul McGrady confirmed that in his point of view that there had been GDPR awareness in the PPSAI IRT.

Elliot Noss, Tucows, RrSG, came to the microphone to remind councilors that many practical developments were taking place in regards to GDPR: registrars creating facility to allow registrants actively to make their WHOIS data available and work on data accessibility. Elliot Noss agreed that parts of the PPSAI IRT such as the accreditation process could resume as were not impacted by GDPR.

Jennifer Gore, Winterfeldt IP Group, IPC, mentioned that information relating to the PPSAI IRT and to this matter specifically was visible on the IRT’s wiki page. She raised that work of the IRT had been put on hold in 2018 for a legal review to take place and that the IRT had always planned to discuss the change of registrant when the privacy/proxy agreement went to public comment.

Pam Little nuanced the previous intervention stating that Council had deferred the change of registrant transfer issue to the IRT for consideration after the Public Comment period, not during the IRT.

Action items:

Council to prepare response to letter from Cyrus, considering whether the PPSAI IRT should remain on hold and whether the transfer policy referral needs to be continued and consider trying to parse out EPDP related items versus non-EPDP related.

Item 5: COUNCIL UPDATE – GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 Implementation

Rafik Dammak updated councilors on recent developments from the PDP3.0 Implementation plan. A small group of councilors is working on implementing PDP3.0 recommendations whilst providing Council with regular updates, with an aim to completion by the Annual General Meeting (AGM). Maxim Alzoba volunteered to take part representing the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG).

Keith Drazek encouraged all to understand and acknowledge the importance of the PDP3.0 effort.

Paul McGrady commented on PDP3.0 in regards to how consensus was built, in light of the recent EPDP Final Report which was approved by the GNSO Council when the BC and the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) councilors voted against. He cited the significant financial weight of industry contributions represented by the BC and IPC members and called for better acknowledgment and representation in future PDPs. This was disputed by Michele Neylon as being against the multistakeholder model. Ayden Férdeline agreed that consensus building was in need of a discussion, he also argued the NCSG participation and stakes in the multistakeholder model being as important as those moving forward without taking into account recent GDPR related developments.

Keith Drazek agreed that better understanding PDP and EPDP representation moving forward was key. However, questions of consensus and assessing consensus were defined in the GNSO Operating Procedures and were at the discretion of the Chair’s assessment. Keith reminded councilors that PDP 3.0 focuses on improvement Council management of the PDPs and not on substantive changes to the PDP operating procedure.

Paul McGrady confirmed his support of the PDP3.0 effort.

Pam Little encouraged IPC councilors to join the PDP3.0 effort as the deadline is tight and it will be important to move the small group to completion by November 2019.

Amr Elsadr mentioned that the NCSG appreciated the positive impact that PDP3.0 had on non-commercial representation in PDP WGs. He also raised that any change to the GNSO Working Group guidelines regarding representation would need to be approved by the GNSO Council.

Action items:

Small group of Councilors to ensure that recurring update are provided to the Council (e.g., on no less than a quarterly basis)

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Policy Status Report (PSR)

Brian Aitchison, ICANN Org, presented to the GNSO Council latest updates on the IRTP Policy Status Report. (slide deck and presentation comments: pg 61 - 67 of the transcript). The Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) requires that after a certain period of Policy Implementation, a Policy Status Report (PSR) be produced. The PSR was built according to the three overarching goals of the IRTP: domain name portability, transfer-related abuse prevention, and transfer-related information provision. After outlining the most recent developments, Brian Aitchison then asked Council for their input and feedback regarding next steps.

Michele Neylon provided comments on transfers, the Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC), and the CPH Tech Ops group working on transfers and post-GDPR situations. He encouraged Brian and his team to take the latter into consideration.

Darcy Southwell raised that there were many technical factors and policy issues affecting transfers and that a holistic approach would be preferred.

Action items:

Council to seek to determine options and next steps for the Transfer Policy review and provide GDD information/response and/or seek additional information as it considers the Transfer Policy holistically.

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Next steps related to the ICANN Procedure of Handling WHOIS conflicts with Privacy Law

Keith Drazek reminded councilors that the GNSO Council decided to put the call for a drafting team for the implementation advisory group on hold until EPDP phase 1 work was finalised at which point the Council would revisit the topic.

Pam Little, on behalf of the RrSG, proposed to defer the call for volunteers by 12 months to allow for the implementation of phase 1 and phase 2 efforts to progress. Michele Neylon and Tatiana Tropina were also in support of the 12-month deferral after reassurance from Keith Drazek that should there be a need to revisit the issue prior to the 12 months ending, Council would take the necessary steps.

Action Items:

Extend out call for volunteers for another 12 months.

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data - Phase 2 Work

Rafik Dammak updated the councilors on discussions around EPDP phase 2 taking place during ICANN64. The EPDP team met with the Technical Study Group (TSG) and discussed implementation and the creation of a small informal team in a separate session with the GDD team. The aim for the following session of the EPDP team was to better define the work plan proposal.

Michele Neylon raised the question of the membership requirements of the IRT, the timing of both the IRT and EPDP Phase 2, and expressed concern about available volunteer time and the lack of a Chair

Keith Drazek acknowledged Michele Neylon’s concerns whilst outlining that important scoping work, as well as administrative and logistical could still start immediately.

Rafik Dammak encouraged the stakeholder groups (SGs) and constituencies (Cs) to put forward EPDP phase 2 Chair candidate names.

Action Items: none

Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.1 - New GNSO Chair election timeline with travel guidelines (120 days for funded traveller submissions) 

Julie Hedlund, ICANN org, reminded councilors of the new travel guidelines of 120 days, impacting for the Annual General Meeting, the usual officer election timelines, given that funded traveller names need to be submitted a lot earlier than when the election results would be available. The GNSO Operating Procedures will need to be updated to reflect these changes.

Elsa Saade noted that this would heavily impact SG and C election timelines but also charter content.

Action item:

Councilors to continue discussion with their respective groups to help understand the impact and react accordingly.

9.2 - Open microphone

Thomas Rickert proposed a co-chair structure for the EPDP Phase 2 leadership position. Keith Drazek noted that the leadership structure of Chair and Vice Chair was already outlined in the EPDP Charter.

Nathalie Coupet raised the point that EPDP work was not doing justice to Whois.

Keith Drazek adjourned the GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday 13 March 2019 at 15:05 local time.

March 4th 2019 - Special Purpose Meeting for EPDP issue discussion - 2100 UTC   

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 4th March were posted on the 18 March 2019

February 21st 2019 - Special Purpose Meeting for EPDP issue discussion - 1200 UTC   - 

Final GNSO Council Agenda  

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:

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 (0 minutes)

• None

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of the Final Report on Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (40 minutes)    -    

Vote deferred until the 4 March 2019 Special GNSO Council Meeting

Action items:

Councilors to engage with and consult with their Stakeholder Group / Constituency and ensure their respective communities understand current status and have provided instructions on how to vote for the EPDP Team Final Report on 4 March (where applicable).

Rafik Dammak to inform the EPDP Team of decision to defer the vote and explain next steps.

On 11 May 2018, ICANN released the Temporary Specification on gTLD Registration Data, which served as the main agenda topic for the subsequent Board Workshop in Vancouver. This proposed Temporary Specification provides an interim solution until the community completes a policy development process on the temporary specification which is expected to complete within a one year period.

On 17 May 2017, the ICANN Board approved the proposed Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, which establishes temporary requirements for how ICANN and its Contracted Parties will comply with both ICANN contractual requirements and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

On 12 June 2018, the Council held an Extraordinary Council Meeting to discuss next steps on addressing the Temporary Specification. There, the Council agreed in principle that an EPDP was the right way to address the issue and took steps to draft the charter and prepare for EPDP initiation. On 19 July 2018, the Council voted to initiate an EPDP on the Temporary Specification, as well as to adopt the EPDP’s charter.

The EPDP Team held its first meeting on 1 August 2018 and on 21 November 2018, the EPDP published its Initial Report for public comment. After taking into account public comment received, the EPDP Team has worked to deliver its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Due to the unique circumstances concerning the deadline for implementation, and in order to minimize the transition period, the EPDP Leadership and Team informally recommends that discussion around implementation deliverables be initiated immediately. This preliminary work will inform the deliberations of the formal Implementation Recommendation Team upon Board approval of the Policy Recommendations.

Here, the Council will vote to adopt the Final Report of the EPDP Team.

4.1 - Presentation of motion (Rafik Dammak)

4.2 - Council discussion

4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: Supermajority)

Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as outlined in ICANN’s Bylaws as the GNSO ‘shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws’ (Art.11.1). Furthermore, this action complies with the requirements set out in Annex A: GNSO Policy Development Process of the ICANN Bylaws.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data - Phase 2 Work (15 minutes) 

This Item as it was linked to Item 4 above is also deferred until the 4 March 2019 Special GNSO Council Meeting

As noted in the charter for the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, work on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data can only commence after the work on a series of gating questions are complete. With the EPDP Team’s delivery of its Final Report to the GNSO Council, the work on the gating questions can be considered to be completed and the work on the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, or otherwise known as phase 2 of the EPDP, should be allowed to commence. However, per the EPDP Team Charter, beginning that work is dependent upon non-objection of the GNSO Council (which is captured and granted in the resolution language for item 4 of this agenda). As part of the resolved clause, “...The Council does request that the EPDP Team, as a first step, develops its work plan for phase 2 and, furthermore, identifies whether the GNSO Council should consider any updates to the EPDP Team Charter to facilitate the EPDP Team’s work.”

The Council recognizes that suggestions to update the structure of the EPDP Team and any changes to the Charter are best delivered by the EPDP Team. However, the Council believes that it is constructive to have a preliminary discussion on the subject to see if there are any areas that Councilors believe will require revision for phase 2.

Here, the Council will have preliminary discussions on possible changes needed for phase 2 of the EPDP.

5.1 – Introduction of topic(Council leadership)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Next steps

Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE – Status of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG (20 minutes)

On 17 December 2015, the GNSO Council resolved to initiate the PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which was tasked to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures and Applicant Guidebook to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations are needed. TheCharter was subsequently adopted on 12 January 2016 and the WG began meeting in February of that year.

Given the broad scope of the topics captured in the WG’s Charter, the WG established four sub teams to help streamline its work. The WG published an Initial Report on those subjects in July of 2018. The WG also considered several topics that it believed did not undergo adequate deliberations and in October of 2018 published a Supplemental Initial Report on those additional subjects.

In addition, the WG convened Work Track 5, which is dedicated to the singular topic of geographic names at the top-level. WT5 published its Supplemental Initial Report in December of 2018. The WG is in the midst of considering the extensive public comment received to its three reports and will begin substantive discussions shortly. The WG hopes to be able to conclude all aspects of its work and deliver a single Final Report to the GNSO Council.

Here, the Council will receive a detailed update from the WG’s Co-Chairs, Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr.

6.1 – Presentation of topic (WGCo-Chairs, Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (15 minutes)

7.1 - ICANN64 Planning

7.2 - Lessons learned from the Council public comment formulation for the ICANN Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update and the ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025

7.3 - Public Comment: First Consultation on a 2-Year Planning Process

February 14th 2019 - Special Purpose Meeting for EPDP issue discussion - 2100 UTC

Final GNSO Council Agenda  DRAFT Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 14 February 2019

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/yaxwuj6w

13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; (Friday) 02:00 Islamabad; 06:00 Tokyo; 08:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Erika Mann (apologies sent)

Contracted Parties House

Registrars Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Michele Neylon, Darcy Southwell

Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Keith Drazek, Rubens Kühl

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlos Raul Gutierrez (on audio only)

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Scott McCormick, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa , Paul McGrady, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Martin Silva Valent, Elsa Saade, Tatiana Tropina, Rafik Dammak, Ayden Férdeline (apology, proxy to Martin Silva Valent), Arsène Tungali

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Syed Ismail Shah (absent)

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Julf (Johan) Helsingius– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Adebiyi Oladipo – ccNSO observer

Special guests:

Kurt Pritz and Heather Forrest

ICANN Staff

David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager

Marika Konings – Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO (apology)

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Policy Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager (apology)

Ariel Liang – Policy Support Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Senior Manager

Sara Caplis – Technical Support

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations Support

Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator

MP3 Recording

Transcript

Item 1. Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

Cheryl Langdon-Orr notified the GNSO Council that she will be a co-chair to the third Accountability and Transparency review (ATRT3).

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

Agenda was approved without objection.

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 20 December 2018 were posted on the 7 January 2019

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 24 January 2019 were posted on the 7 February 2019

1.5 - Welcome to new ISPCP councilor

Keith Drazek welcomed Osvaldo Novoa (SOI) to the GNSO Council as ISPCP councilor. Tony Harris resigned from his position as previous ISPCP councilor.

Item 2. Consent Agenda (none)

Item 3: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Final Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the ICANN Board Temporary Specification on gTLD Registration Data

Keith Drazek reminded councilors that this was an opportunity to discuss short term next steps with the current EPDP Leadership. There is also a call scheduled for the 21 February 2019 for councilors to consider and possibly vote on the EPDP Final Report. If a deferral is to take place on the 21 February 2019 there will be a second opportunity to vote during a special Council meeting on the 4th March 2019. It will be key for the Final Report to be approved prior to ICANN64 in Kobe. Once the GNSO Council approves the Final Report there will be a 40 day Public Comment period, followed by Board consideration and vote which must take place before the 25th May 2019 before the Temporary Specification expires.

Kurt Pritz, chair of the EPDP, encouraged councilors to review the current draft Final Report of the EPDP team as the timeline is extremely tight. He noted that every group within the EPDP team made compromises necessary to consensus in an extraordinary multistakeholder effort. (discussion snipped)

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms

Keith Drazek reminded councilors that they received the Final Report of the IGO INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (CRP) in 2018. Due to the complexity of the matter, and a low membership, the recommendations in the Final Report are being challenged. Keith Drazek encouraged councilors to pay close attention to the issues raised as the GNSO Council is at crossroads depending on the decision it decides upon. GNSO Council leadership put forward proposals on how to deal with the five recommendations:

Approve the four recommendations which do not impact consensus policy and forward the fifth (impacting consensus policy) to the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG)

Approve the four recommendations and maybe create another group to focus on the 5th recommendation or the larger issues.

Approve the Final Report and forward it to the Board, despite recommendations being in conflict with Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) advice

Reject all recommendations.

Heather Forrest, invited to speak to the IGO INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms topic. (discussion snipped)

January 24th Meeting was held during the Face to Face STrategic PLanning session for GNSO Councillors (NOT Liaisons etc., to the Council)  the Report of this complete meeting is here

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 the browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01

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

Notes:

An additional Item 1.5 was added with an introduction of the Ombuds to the GNSO general conversations included the offices availability in Policy Development Groups regarding standards of behaviour in calls and meetings, as well as proposed new 'powers' of PDP Leadership and Council Liaison to WG's with the ability to example have WG Members removed or suspended from WG activities. The GNSO noted a possible role for the Ombuds Office in this and these possible future actions. There was also a question on if the Office has sufficient mechanisms to deal with say removal actions, the response was that the GNSO Council itself needs to have the ability and Rules to enforce any actions, (other than if say harassment is involved where there is clear sanction from the Ombuds available) so the Offices role would be in a facilitation, and supportive function to the action of the SOs Rules and any actions arising from violation of those. There is an intention to work further with the Ombuds Office to engage further on discussion of these matters.

___________________________________

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.