- Category: (replace this text with one of the following categories: Administration/Budget, Board, ccTLD, gTLD, IP, ICANN Structure, International Agreement, Root Zone)
- Topic: (replace this text with a keywords from title)
- Board meeting date: 1 October 2008
- Resolution number: 2008.10.01.10, 2008.10.01.11, 2008.10.01.12, 2008.10.01.13, 2008.10.01.14, 2008.10.01.15
- URL for Board minutes/resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm
- Status: (replace this text with: Completed, Ongoing, Suspended)
Summary
(replace this text with the a one-sentence summary of the resolution)
Text
Denise Michel indicated that the Board's original implementation timetable for seating the new Council was January 2009. She said concerns have been raised in the GNSO community that the schedule is too aggressive. Denise Michel indicated that in light of those concerns the Staff recommends that the Board adopt a multi-phase schedule for the implementation with a completion target of June 2009 for seating the new Council. The timetable would include specific interim steps and deadlines and the Board would direct the GNSO Council to submit an implementation plan soon..
The Chairman asked Susan Crawford to provide insights regarding implementation timing based upon her work on the GNSO Implementation Planning Team. Susan Crawford noted that the groups wanting a delay include the IPC, BC and ISPCP. The Registry and Registrar constituencies and the NCUC want the new structure implemented as soon as possible. ALAC is concerned at the aggressive schedule but has not objected. She noted that the process has been dragging on since 2006.
Susan Crawford noted that it is realistic and important to transfer to a bicameral structure by end of 2008 and give the groups the chance in the Cairo meeting to work it in. The alternative is more lobbying and some gaming. The Chairman noted that the counter-point is that we have to allow implementation to happen and the timetable must be achievable by all parties and potential parties to the process - bearing in mind most participants are volunteers with time constraints. Susan Crawford added that the NCUC has the most outreach to do and expects to meet the timeline.
The Chairman asked whether the quick timeline was achievable. Steve Goldstein inquired whether staff would be ready to do its part by January, bearing in mind the holiday season. Denise Michel noted that staff would bring all the resources it has to bear to make the implementation happen. She noted concerns expressed about the significant amount of work needed by the constituencies themselves to transition - not just the NCUC but also the ISP, and IPC and BC.
Denise Michel also noted that people interested in forming new constituency groups had approached staff and Board Members. With a 2008 deadline we wouldn't be able to assist new groups going through the process in time to participate in the transition in a meaningful way. To fulfill the role of expanding and diversifying the participants, trying to complete this by January would be aggressive, and she recommended that the Board look at the timing issue carefully.
Steve Goldstein noted how important it is that ICANN be able to meet the commitments it has made regarding timing and suggested that we need to hold off until the ICANN Mexico City Meeting in March 2009.
Wendy Seltzer indicated that the board should simply dictate that the organization must get its resources together to orchestrate what is needed to make this happen.
Susan Crawford noted that to make a bicameral structure work, the stakeholder groups will be named but not complete, and that is why it was set up this way.
The Chairman asked the CEO about resourcing constraints between the meeting and January. Paul Twomey noted that there are resourcing constraints with new gTLDs and other important issues being worked on as well, and he indicated that January is a very difficult date to make successful.
The Chairman noted general agreement with Wendy Seltzer that the Board should just set the direction and staff should work to make it happen, but that it is just not a question of bodies in seats. Denise Michel pointed out that it is not just a question of staff resources, and noted that there are many activities going on in the GNSO, and that it may even be harder to get volunteer time between now and January.
Wendy Seltzer noted her understanding that this is not a fixed set of constituencies set in January and static from that point forward, and that we could give the volunteers the resources they need to set up. The Chairman agreed noting that it is a question of staff providing the support to the volunteers to write the charters and do the work. Dennis Jennings noted his support for the staff's concerns and the alternative process.
Bruce Tonkin indicated that he remains wary of the Board imposing its own timetable, and asked Denise about the path forward with the GNSO implementation group. Denise Michel noted that the small implementation group has discussed it and, believe that it is not their responsibility.
Denise Michel noted that as for the deadline, we've heard from each constituency. The ISPCPs have suggested June, IPC - December, and some others a general concern that it's just too aggressive (acknowledging that a quicker transition is less difficult for the Registries and Registrars) . She also indicated that others raised the issue that if you rush this and require a January deadline you lock in the existing constituencies and structure and you won't have effected much change.
The Chairman inquired about the likely community reaction to a new timetable, indicating that it looked like a middle course. Denise Michel agreed.
Wendy suggested that participants are wearing out with processes that don't have fixed time table and don't conclude. Bruce Tonkin responded that this does have a fixed timetable. He confirmed that having reviewed the GNSO agenda, they're packed and that the GNSO has limited resources, as well. He noted that if you want the GNSO to do policy work, than they cannot concentrate on these issues solely in the meantime.
The Chairman suggested some escalations to the proposed timetable moving the June dates back to March. Denise Michel responded that it would be useful to have face-to-face time to resolve outstanding issues in Mexico City.
The Chairman noted the value of having Board review in Mexico City, and Denise Michel agreed, noting that the Board would need to explicitly approve each stakeholder group.
Denise Michel confirmed that the existing council processes would stay in effect until June.
The Chairman asked for specific discussion of the following proposed resolution and moved for their adoption, with Dennis Jennings seconding the following motion to approve the resolution:
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.15), the Board amends its previous implementation timetable and directs that the transition to a new bicameral GNSO Council voting structure take place over a phased implementation schedule that begins immediately and ends in June 2009 with the seating of the new Council. The implementation phases will be as follows:
Phase 1 – GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting;
Phase 2 – Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting;
Phase 3 – Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and
Phase 4 – Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting.
A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present, and the motion was approved by a vote of 12 to 1 with one abstention, with Susan Crawford opposing, and Harald Alvestrand abstaining.
The Chairman asked for specific discussion of the following proposed resolutions and the board agreed with the approach and moved for adoption of the following resolutions, with Steve Goldstein seconding the following motion to approve the resolutions:
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.10), the Board acknowledges Staff's development of the "Notice of Intent" documentation for potential new constituencies and directs Staff to develop a formal petition and charter template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative criteria (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's evaluation of petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is directed to work with the existing GNSO constituencies to design and develop a streamlined process along with appropriate mechanisms that will assist with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing constituencies.
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.11), the Board reinforces its support for the following principles pertaining to the formation of the new Stakeholder Groups, and requests that all constituency members and other relevant parties comply with the principles included in the BGC Working Group's GNSO Improvements Report approved by the Board in establishing the newly formed structures, including:
- The need to better represent the wide variety of groups and individuals that compose the global ICANN community, in a structure that can change more easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders.
- The inclusion of new actors/participants, where applicable, and the expansion of constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable.
It is, further Resolved (2008.10.01.12), that the Board further directs Staff to work with existing constituencies to develop a set of streamlined processes (along with appropriate templates, tools, or other mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder Groups and also facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of those structures.
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.13), the Board directs that plans for each of the four new Stakeholder Groups, that are consistent with the above principles, be submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting. The plans must be reviewed and approved by the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. The Board will consider the need for interim action to fill Council seats in the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be deficient or delayed.
A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present for each resolution, and the motions were approved by a vote of 14 to 0, with no abstentions.
Role of Individual Internet Users and Related Issues
Denise Michel noted that the last issue on the Council restructuring agenda is the role of individual Internet users and their representation in the ICANN structure, especially in the non-contracted party house of the GNSO. She noted that the Staff recommendation is to have the current NCUC work with the ALAC and the broader At-Large community and other GNSO constituencies to jointly develop an implementation plan to be submitted to the Board for approval.
Steve Goldstein indicated that he would like to postpone this discussion because of the late hour and the significance of the issue – especially as it impacted the action of the NCUC. The Chairman asked about the potential impact of postponing this issue.
Denise Michel noted that a potential consequence is that it leaves unresolved the issue of the standing and involvement of potential individual users in the new GNSO structure and community uncertainty would continue until a decision was reached.
It was agreed that this issue should be discussed at a later date and the following resolution was put on the table by the Chairman and seconded by Steve Goldstein:
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.14), The Board requests additional community dialogue and input on the appropriate role and representation of individual Internet users, including individual commercial and non-commercial Internet users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the ALAC and At-Large community, and any relevant applicants for new constituencies, would be particularly helpful and should address the inclusion of registrants and individual users in the GNSO in a manner that compliments the ALAC and its supporting structures, and ensures that registrants' and individual Internet users' gTLD interests are effectively represented within the GNSO.
A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present for the resolution, and the motion was approved by a vote of 14 to 0, with no abstentions.
Implementation Actions
- (replace this text with specific Action Item)
- Responsible entity: (replace this text with the responsible entity: ICANN department, ICANN Community Structure, Board, U.S. Department of Commerce)
- Due date: (replace this text with Due Date)
- Completion date: (replace this text with Date action was implemented)
- (replace this text with specific Action Item)
- Responsible entity: (replace this text with the responsible entity: ICANN department, ICANN Community Structure, Board, U.S. Department of Commerce)
- Due date: (replace this text with Due Date)
- Completion date: (replace this text with Date action was implemented)
Other Related Resolutions
- (replace this text with links to related resolutions)
Additional Information
- (replace this text with any additional notes related to this resolution, i.e. funding considerations)
