In preparation for the ICANN#69 virtual meeting, the ALAC reconfirmed Cheryl Langdon-Orr as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for a further term of office, being the period between the 2020 AGM to the 2021 ICANN#72 AGM.

In January 2021, Hadia El Miniawi was appointed as the shadow ALAC Liaison to the GNSO.

In 2017, the ALAC re-appointed Cheryl Langdon-Orr as the ALAC Liaison 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.

Previously Serving as ALAC Liaison:

*to the DNSO was Thomas Roessler 2002-2003 (in October 2003 the Names Council of the DNSO become the GNSO) and 2003-Feb 2005

Bret Fausett 2005-2006

Anyone is welcome to listen to GNSO Council Meetings

Listen in Option in ZOOM

GNSO Council Meeting Webinar Room**

https://icann.zoom.us/j/96826336141

**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 ALAC Meetings and here in colour from time to time.

Upcoming meetings of interest during ICANN 71 - you must register to attend and receive the Zoom link details ... Remember the ICANN71GNSOPolicy Briefing document provides a snapshot of the status of GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) working groups/teams, and information about other GNSO policy-related activities.

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).

2021 meetings.

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

23 September 1900 UT

27 October 1900 UTC

18 November 1900 UTC

16 December 1900 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 meeting records.

GNSO Council Meeting Agenda's and Records for 2021 will be listed below when available:

Draft GNSO Council Meeting Agenda for 19 August 2021 at 1900 UTC

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/IwEuCg

GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95268677198?pwd=c1lTQW0rZ1Vad3o1aEZFY0VZTnZtQT09

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 16 June 2021 were posted on 03 July 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 22 July 2021 were posted on 06 August 2021.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (25 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 - EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) (30 minutes)

In January of 2020, the GNSO Council approved an Addendum to the All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs PDP charter to support work related to Recommendation 5 from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protections Mechanisms PDP. During its September 2020 Council meeting, the Council launched the IGO Work Track to operate against the Addendum, while Phase 1 of the RPMs PDP was still in operation. Phase 1 of the RPMs PDP concluded in January of 2021, with the Council adoption of all final recommendations. The Council has recognized that re-chartering is necessary before launching Phase 2 of the RPMs PDP, which leaves the IGO Work Track unattached to a PDP WG and therefore unable to develop Consensus Policy recommendations.

The GNSO Council understands that the IGO Work Track has made substantial progress in its deliberations and that it is important to maintain the group’s momentum, so as to allow the community to attempt to reach consensus on a long-standing issue. As Consensus Policy recommendations can only be made by a PDP or EPDP, the Council is electing to take the procedural step of initiating an EPDP to allow the efforts of the IGO Work Track to continue. The Council believes that initiating the EPDP is merely a procedural action to allow an existing effort to continue in an uninterrupted manner, to the extent possible; the Council has stressed that the EPDP charter must substantively mirror the Addendum governing the IGO Work Track, in further recognition of the procedural nature of this action.

The EPDP initiation request and EPDP Charter were sent to the Council on 9 August 2021.

Here, the Council will vote to initiate the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs and approve the EPDP Charter.

4.1 – Presentation of motion (TBD)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: GNSO Supermajority for both the initiation of the EPDP and for approval of the EPDP Team Charter)

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 and Annex A-1: GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process of the ICANN Bylaws.

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - CSC Effectiveness Review Terms of Reference (20 minutes)

The ICANN Bylaws and CSC Charter require that the “… effectiveness of the CSC will initially 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.”

The CSC was established in accordance with Article 17.3 (b) of the ICANN Bylaws and conducted its first meeting on 6 October 2016. On 27 September 2018, the GNSO Council approved the process for the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review and appointed Donna Austin and Philippe Fouquart to serve as the GNSO representatives on the team. In the review team’s Final Report, the team concluded that the CSC is operating effectively against 14 requirements from the CSC’s Charter.

In order to meet the timeline for the second review of the CSC Effectiveness, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will need to determine the method for conducting the review before 1 October 2021. The template for the second review was shared to the Council list on [date]. The Council was also informed on [date] that Donna Austin and Jonathan Robinson have volunteered to serve as the GNSO representatives for the second review.

The ccNSO has conditionally adopted the template for the 2nd CSC Effectiveness review, contingent upon adoption of the template by the GNSO Council.

Here, the Council will vote to approve both the method of review and the GNSO representatives for the team.

5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Council vote (Voting Threshold: simple majority vote of each House)

Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as outlined in ICANN’s Bylaws in Section 17.3, which state “[t]he 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...”

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Planning for the Virtual AGM, ICANN72 (25 minutes)

On 15 July 2021, the ICANN Board resolved that ICANN72 would be held as a virtual only event. The GNSO Council, having increased its number of meetings for ICANN71, believes it is important to start planning for ICANN72 to seek to make the meeting as productive as possible. Where as for previous virtual meetings, where the Council had limited its meeting requests to the GNSO Council meeting and PDP WG meetings, the Council added additional meetings during ICANN71 to include both a working session and a wrap-up, both of which would normally occur in a face to face ICANN meeting.

Here, the Council will discuss what meetings and advance planning will be needed to promote a successful second virtual AGM for the GNSO Council.

6.1 – Update (Council leadership)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (15 minutes)

7.1 - Strategic Planning Session Planning

7.2 - Expressions of Interest process for the expected SubPro Operational Design Phase liaison

7.3 - EPDP Phase 2a status update

_______________________________

Please find below the resolutions from the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 22 July 2021 which will be posted shortly on the GNSO resolutions page.

20210722-1

CONSENT AGENDA

Approval of the Chair for the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names - Edmon Chung (SOI)
Acknowledgment of the GNSO Council liaison to EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names - Farrell Folly
Motion to adopt the GNSO Review of the GAC ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board
- Submitted by: Tatiana Tropina
- Seconded by: Pam Little
- Whereas,

The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) 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’s review of the GAC Communiqué is intended to 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 ICANN71 GAC Communiqué (see https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann71-gac-communique) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Council Review of the ICANN71 GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Liaison to the GAC also informs the GAC of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Vote results

20210722-2

Motion to confirm the formation of and instructions to the Accuracy Scoping Team

Submitted by Pam Little

Seconded by Olga Cavalli

Whereas,

The GNSO Council adopted a proposal on 21 October 2020 which recommended that a Scoping Team addresses the effects of GDPR on Registration Data accuracy requirements and the Whois Accuracy Reporting System (ARS), stating, “a scoping team would be tasked to, ‘facilitate community understanding of the issue; assist in scoping and defining the issue; gather support for the request of an Issue Report, and/or; serve as a means to gather additional data and/or information before a request [for an Issue Report] is submitted’.
On 4 November 2020, GNSO SG/Cs as well as ICANN SO/ACs were informed of the Council’s intent to form a Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team and were requested to indicate if they would be interested in sending representatives to this effort.
At the same time, the GNSO Council also requested that ICANN org develop a briefing document that outlines both (i) existing accuracy requirements and programs and (ii) the corresponding impact that GDPR has had on implementing / enforcing these requirements and programs. This briefing paper was delivered to the Council in February 2021.
Following the Council discussion of the ICANN org briefing paper in April 2021, Council leadership put together a first proposal outlining possible instructions to the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team.
As a result of input that was provided by different Council members on the first proposal, the Council decided at its May 2021 meeting to form a small team to further review and revise the instructions to the scoping team.
The small team, consisting of one Council member from each GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency, two NomCom appointed Council members and the GNSO Liaison to the GAC (as an observer), submitted its recommendations in relation to the formation as well as the instructions for the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team to the Council on 9 July 2021 for Council’s consideration

Resolved,

The GNSO Council adopts the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Formation and Instructions

The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to request interested SO/AC/SG/Cs to confirm their representatives to the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team as well as invite the Board and ICANN org to appoint a liaison noting that the first meeting of the Scoping Team is not expected to be scheduled until the EPDP Phase 2A delivers its Final Report.
The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Policy Staff Support Team to launch a call for expressions of interest for candidates to serve as the Chair of the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team. Council leadership will review the applications received and make its recommendation to the GNSO Council.
The GNSO Council thanks the small team for its efforts.

Vote results

GNSO Council Agenda 22 July 2021 at 1900 UTC

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/cYL8CQ

This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.5, updated on 24 October 2019

For convenience:

An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.

GNSO Council meeting held 19:00 UTC

Coordinated Universal Time: 19:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/ybavc84m

12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 22:00 Moscow; (Friday) 05:00 Melbourne

GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: https://icann.zoom.us/j/99805526507?pwd=MlRKaTAzdDZIQ3Q1azJsc2JSWXRSZz09

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 20 May 2021 were posted on 03 June 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 June 2021 were posted on 03 July 2021.

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 (5 minutes)

Approval of the Chair for the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names - Edmon Chung (SOI)
Acknowledgment of the GNSO Council liaison to EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names - Farrell Folly
Motion to adopt the GNSO Review of the GAC ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Accuracy Scoping Team (15 minutes)

During its October 2020 meeting, the GNSO Council confirmed its intent to launch a scoping team on the topic of accuracy based on a proposal from the previous Council leadership team (see here for the proposal). On 4 November 2020, the GNSO Council wrote to ICANN org, requesting the preparation of a briefing document outlining both the existing accuracy requirements and programs as well as the impact that GDPR has had on implementing and enforcing the identified requirements and programs. This briefing is intended to inform an accuracy scoping team that the GNSO Council envisioned initiating, which would be tasked with furthering the community’s understanding of the issue and assist in scoping and defining the issue (see here). On 10 December 2020, ICANN org responded to confirm its understanding of the request and to commit to delivering that briefing by 26 February 2021. ICANN org timely delivered the briefing. In addition to the briefing providing an overview of accuracy requirements and programs and the impact of GDPR on these, ICANN org also included a suggestion that a study to measure accuracy of registration data might be beneficial. In parallel to the request for the briefing, ICANN SO/AC/SG/Cs were requested to start thinking about whether their groups would be interested to participate in a scoping team once created. At or around that time, the BC, ISPCP, RySG, IPC and GAC expressed an interest and identified potential volunteers with relevant knowledge and expertise. The Council discussed this briefing and potential next steps during its Extraordinary Meeting on 08 April 2021. Following the meeting, Council leadership, with the support of the GNSO Support Staff, worked together to develop a set of proposed next steps for dealing with the topic of accuracy, which was shared on 23 April 2021.

Feedback was sought from Councilors by 07 May 2021 and the topic was discussed again during the Council’s May meeting. The Council agreed to convene a small team to refine the proposed next steps, particularly around clarifying the remit of the eventual scoping team. That small team met regularly to clearly document the remit of the scoping team and provided a brief update during the June Council meeting. The small team has reached agreement on the formation and instructions to the scoping team, which it shared with the Council on 9 July 2021.

Here, the Council will vote to confirm the formation and instructions to the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team as developed by the Council small team.

4.1 – Presentation of motion (Pam Little, Council vice-chair)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council vote (Voting Threshold: simple majority vote of each House)

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Operational Design Phase (ODP) on the Standardized System for Access/Disclosure - Update from the GNSO Council Liaison (15 minutes)

On 25 March 2021, the ICANN Board launched the Operational Design Phase (ODP) for the System for the Standardized Access/Disclosure to Nonpublic Registration Data (SSAD) policy recommendations as set out in the SSAD ODP Scoping Document.

As part of the general ODP process, it is recommended that a GNSO Council liaison be appointed, in order to serve as primary contact between the ODP team and Council to facilitate and streamline communications on identified issues that pertain to the intent or substance of the policy recommendations. On 12 April 2021, the Council received a letter from the Board, recommending the appointment of a Council liaison to the ODP. On 20 May 2021, the GNSO Council appointed Janis Karklins, the Chair of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 2 Expedited Policy Development Process.

Here, the Council will receive an update from the Council liaison to the ODP.

5.1 - Presentation (Janis Karklins)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Next steps

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDP Phase 2, Review of UDRP Next Steps (15 minutes)

On 21 January 2021, the GNSO Council approved the recommendations from the Phase 1 Final Report of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs, covering RPMs applicable to gTLDs launched under the 2012 New gTLD Program. The Council has discussed the need to review the RPMs charter in advance of launching Phase 2 of the PDP, which is focused on the UDRP.

Council leadership has considered the best path forward to initiating this work and has shared their thoughts for advancing this effort on [date], which considers a Policy Status Report (PSR) as a possible next step. The leadership team recognizes that a significant amount of time has passed since the 2011 UDRP Issue Report such that it will be helpful to know if new issues or information have emerged that could be relevant to a comprehensive policy review. Leadership also believes that a PSR will support a data-driven policy development effort and will result in a more tightly scoped Charter, that is consistent with the principles of PDP 3.0.

Here, the Council will discuss possible next steps, including a PSR for advancing RPMs Phase 2.

6.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - IGO Work Track Questions for Council (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.”

In respect of that resolution, the GNSO Council prepared an Addendum to the RPMs PDP charter to support work related to Recommendation 5 and approved it during its January 2020 Council meeting. During its September 2020 Council meeting, the Council agreed to 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. Led by Chris Disspain as the Chair, the Work Track has been meeting since late February of 2021. The Work Track has sought to make meaningful progress within the bounds of the Addendum, with members recognizing that this foundational discussion will influence how the group will work and thus, what its work plan should look like. During its April meeting, the Council received a brief update and acknowledged the work track’s Work Plan (April package here).

In chartering this work, the GNSO Council expected that the work should be completed in an efficient manner and that frequent updates to the Council would be helpful to ensure an effective outcome. The Council has already received updates during the April and May meetings.

The Work Track has made steady progress in evaluating recommendation 5 and determining an appropriate policy path forward. According to the work plan, the Work Track is expected to deliver its Initial Report for public comment in early August, but due to the need to migrate the current Public Comment platform on the ICANN org website to a substantially new feature that will be compliant with the Information Transparency Initiative and its requirements, ICANN org needs to impose a moratorium on launching Public Comment proceedings between late July and end August. The Work Track has submitted a Policy Change Request in light of this external factor.

With the Work Track nearing a stage where it will be able to publish its Initial Report, notwithstanding the moratorium, it is timely to bring two questions to the Council for their consideration. The first question relates to the fact that the IGO Work Track was originally convened under the auspices of the then-ongoing Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group, which has since delivered its Final Report to the Council and subsequently approved; planning for Phase 2 of the RPM work is ongoing, which leaves the Work Track without a parent Working Group. The second question relates to the requirements imposed on the Work Track via the Addendum. The Work Track has kept Recommendation #5 (regarding IGO jurisdictional immunity) at the forefront in its work. However, it has concluded that a feasible and appropriate policy solution cannot be crafted simply by looking at that recommendation in isolation. Accordingly, the Work Track is seeking feedback to determine whether the approach and solution are in accordance with the limitations in the addendum. The Work Track leadership and staff have drafted a briefing document to support this agenda item.

Here, the Council will discuss the two questions and seek to reach agreement on answers/solutions.

7.1 – Update (John McElwaine, GNSO Council Liaison)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE - Update on the Customer Standing Committee and Next Steps for the Council (10 minutes)

The GNSO Council will soon have two responsibilities regarding the Customer Standing Committee, per the ICANN Bylaws. The first requirement is that, 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. This is expected to occur no later than September of 2021.

The second responsibility relates to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review, which would represent the second such review. 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." The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) was established and conducted its first meeting on 6 October 2016, so the first review needed to take place in 2018. As required, the GNSO and ccNSO established a process to conduct the review, which per the Council’s resolution “concluded that the most practical and efficient path forward is for the ccNSO and GNSO to each appoint two members to conduct the CSC Effectiveness Review that will consider the effectiveness of the CSC in performing its responsibilities as outlined in the CSC Charter and that the findings of the Review, as adopted by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils, will become an input to the IANA Naming Function Review.” The Council approved this process in September of 2018. After completing an Initial Report and publishing it for public comment, the Final Report was delivered 05 March 2019; the Council adopted the Final Report on 13 March 2019.

With an October 2016 first meeting for the CSC, the time for the second review of the CSC is October 2021. The GNSO and ccNSO will need to establish the terms of reference for the second review, which may be able to highly leverage the ToR from the first review. At a minimum, this second review will need to include a determination whether the recommendations from the first effectiveness review were successfully implemented.

Here, the Council will discuss the expectations of the Council as it relates to the two CSC items.

8.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)

9.1 - Transfer Policy Review PDP - Review of Work Plan

GNSO Council Meetings at ICANN 71

10:30 - 12:30 UTC on Wednesday, 16 June

In this particular session, community members are invited to provide their input on the topics under discussion with the Council as it conducts its meeting.

ICANN71 GNSO Policy Briefing: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/14G1CQ

Motions: https://community.icann.org/x/2YG1CQ

Documents: https://community.icann.org/x/1YG1CQ

Please find below the resolution from the GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday 16 June 2021 which will be posted shortly on the GNSO resolutions page.

Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project

Submitted by Tatiana Tropina

Seconded by Kurt Pritz

Whereas,

Council leadership started conversations with the GNSO Council and GNSO community, via Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs, on how to address several items on the Council’s Action Decision Radar (ADR) 0-1 month timeframe dealing with process and procedural improvements such as Accountability Work Stream 2, Accountability and Transparency Review Team 3 and PDP 3.0.
This resulted in a proposed GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Oversight and Implementation. Following the circulation of an initial proposal in January 2021, Council leadership solicited feedback via email as well as a dedicated call with SG/C Chairs as well as Council. Taking into account the input received, an updated proposal was circulated to the Council and SG/C Chairs on 26 May 2021 (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-May/024730.html).
This updated proposal includes a proposed pilot which allows for a more limited roll out of the Framework from which lessons can be drawn and possible updates can be made, should the Council and GNSO community decide that it is worthwhile to continue.
The Council and SG/C Chairs reviewed this updated proposal.

Resolved,

The GNSO Council initiates the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot as outlined in section 4 of this document where step 4 of Section 4 is replaced with the third resolved clause below.
The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to circulate the call for volunteers to form the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement.
Once formed, the GNSO Council expects regular updates from the Chair of the Council Committee to the Council as well as SG/Cs in relation to progress made.
Once the pilot completes, the Council, in close collaboration with SG/Cs as well as the Council Committee and Pilot Task Force, will review the functioning of the Framework and decide whether to continue with the other assignments as outlined in the updated proposal (see section 3), make modifications to the framework and continue with the other assignments, or, identify another path through which the assignments identified are to be addressed.
For the time being, the items that are expected to be addressed as part of the Framework (inlc. WS2, Policy & Implementation, PDP 3.0, Empowered Community, ATRT3, GNSO Review) will be moved to a section in the ADR with no timeframe associated with them as the timing will be determined as a result of the pilot. However, this does not prevent the Council from determining if one or more of these items need to be addressed in a different manner before the pilot concludes, for example, as a result of external factors or changes in the dependencies that were identified (see section 5).

Vote results

GNSO EPDP Phase 2A Community Update and Consultation

14:30 - 15:30 UTC on Thursday, 17 June

Session Details

The Expedited Policy Development Process ("EPDP") Phase 2A Team is expected to present an update on the status and content of its Initial Report and provide an opportunity for the ICANN Community to ask questions. The EPDP Phase 2A is tasked to review two issues: (i) whether any updates are required to the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation regarding legal vs. natural topic (“Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so“), and (ii) whether it is feasible for unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email addresses.

The EPDP Phase 2A also discussed what guidance can be provided to assist Contracted Parties who would like to (i) differentiate between legal and natural persons and/or (ii) implement uniform anonymized email addresses.

During this session, the EPDP Phase 2A Team will present its findings on the above questions and solicit community input on the recommendations as outlined in its Initial Report.

ICANN71 GNSO Policy Briefing: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/koC1CQ

GNSO Council Wrap-Up

10:30 - 12:00 UTC on Thursday, 17 June

Session Details

The GNSO Council meets to discuss the input from the meetings during the week and plan ahead. The meeting is open to anyone interested.

Who should attend: All interested in gTLD policy issues.

ICANN71 GNSO Policy Briefing: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/j4C1CQ

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 16 June 2021

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 10:30 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/4wy66z7y 03:30 Los Angeles; 06:30 Washington; 11:30 London; 12:30 Paris; 13:30 Moscow; 20:30 Melbourne

List of attendees: Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli Contracted Parties House Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale Non-Contracted Parties House Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Mark Datysgeld, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly, Tomslin Samme-Nlar Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers : Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison Jeffrey Neuman– 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 – Senior Director Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant Emily Barabas – Policy Manager Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom Recording Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters
1.1 - Roll Call Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, welcomed all to the June 2021 Council meeting. 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest. There were no updates to the Statements of Interest. 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda The agenda was accepted 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 22 April 2021 were posted on the 06 May 2021 Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 20 May 2021 were posted on 03 June 2021.
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List 2.1 - The review of the Projects List and Action Item List Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, reminded councilors that progress is shared monthly on the GNSO Council mailing list, and thanked Maxim Alzoba, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) for his diligent monitoring of content. One of Maxim’s questions was in relation to the EPDP P2 SSAD recommendations that Council adopted and passed to the Board, and also in relation to the initiation of the Operational Design Phase (ODP) which will force a change of the program tool timelines. Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, added that the program management tool was a complex document, and that he was always available to assist councilors should they wish.
Item 3: Consent Agenda: no item.
Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Initiation of the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) seconded by Kurt Pritz, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), submitted a motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project. Whereas, Council leadership started conversations with the GNSO Council and GNSO community, via Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs, on how to address several items on the Council’s Action Decision Radar (ADR) 0-1 month timeframe dealing with process and procedural improvements such as Accountability Work Stream 2, Accountability and Transparency Review Team 3 and PDP 3.0.
1. This resulted in a proposed GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Oversight and Implementation. Following the circulation of an initial proposal in January 2021, Council leadership solicited feedback via email as well as a dedicated call with SG/C Chairs as well as Council. Taking into account the input received, an updated proposal was circulated to the Council and SG/C Chairs on 26 May 2021 (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-May/024730.html). 2. This updated proposal includes a proposed pilot which allows for a more limited roll out of the Framework from which lessons can be drawn and possible updates can be made, should the Council and GNSO community decide that it is worthwhile to continue. 3. The Council and SG/C Chairs reviewed this updated proposal. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council initiates the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot as outlined in section 4 of this document where step 4 of Section 4 is replaced with the fourth resolved clause below. 2. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to circulate the call for volunteers to form the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement. 3. Once formed, the GNSO Council expects regular updates from the Chair of the Council Committee to the Council as well as SG/Cs in relation to progress made. 4. Once the pilot completes, the Council, in close collaboration with SG/Cs as well as the Council Committee and Pilot Task Force, will review the functioning of the Framework and decide whether to continue with the other assignments as outlined in the updated proposal (see section 3), make modifications to the framework and continue with the other assignments, or, identify another path through which the assignments identified are to be addressed. 5. For the time being, the items that are expected to be addressed as part of the Framework (inlc. WS2, Policy & Implementation, PDP 3.0, Empowered Community, ATRT3, GNSO Review) will be moved to a section in the ADR with no timeframe associated with them as the timing will be determined as a result of the pilot. However, this does not prevent the Council from determining if one or more of these items need to be addressed in a different manner before the pilot concludes, for example, as a result of external factors or changes in the dependencies that were identified (see section 5).
Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, reminded councilors there had been interactions with the Stakeholder Group (SG) and Constituency (C) Chairs on the matter, as well as several drafts of the proposed framework document circulated to the Chairs and to councilors. Kurt Pritz, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), had seconded the motion and submitted an amendment proposal on 14 June 2021. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) accepted the amendment as friendly. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, NCSG introduced the motion outlining its direct relationship to the Council work on the Action Decision Radar (ADR), more specifically, the 0 - 1 month timeframe items which have been on the ADR for a long time. She clarified that this motion initiated a pilot project focussing on two small tasks as outlined in the framework document, which will be reviewed and
reassessed when the pilot is completed. The larger tasks in the 0-1 month timeframe would be moved to a section of the ADR with no associated timeframe. Comments about limited resources and representation were expressed by the SG/C Chairs, and were taken into account. Kurt Pritz, RySG, presented his amendment which requested that Council, and not the committee formed for the pilot, be the body deciding whether the committee would stay in place after the first efforts. He added that further time for discussion with the RySG would have been welcome, mainly on topics of representation and consensus, but that the SG did not want to delay the initiation of the pilot project. He raised concerns about the potential increase in administrative burden the pilot might trigger. He added that improving on the Policy Development Process (PDP), making better use of PDP3.0 and the Consensus Playbook, would also increase the efficiency of the GNSO Council work. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, NCSG, thanked Kurt and clarified that consensus levels would be also revised during the pilot reassessment. John McElaine, Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), raised that the IPC believed certain items assigned to the Framework for Continuous Improvement were outside of the GNSO’s remit and that there were other processes already in place that would serve the same goal. The IPC supports increasing the GNSO Council’s efficiency, but did not have time to discuss the amendment with the IPC membership as it was submitted too close to the GNSO Council meeting. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, NCSG, confirmed that the items for consideration were of the GNSO’s remit. She added that whilst there were Council small teams formed to tackle certain issues, the lines surrounding the notion of ownership of issues were sometimes blurred between the Council’s remit and that of the SG and Cs. Olga Cavalli, NomCom Appointee (NCA) asked for further information regarding the pilot project and what could be the final Framework for Continuous Improvement. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, NCSG, clarified that the pilot project was to allow for re-adjustment of resources, composition with the SGs and Cs and further discussion with the GNSO Council before moving onto a more definitive structure. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, accepted that the concern regarding administrative burden was a valid one. He expressed hope that using the consensus building decision process would alleviate concerns over composition. Flip Petillion, IPC, confirmed that he agreed with his fellow IPC councilor John McElwaine, regarding the lack of time for discussion with their constituency members. Kurt Pritz, RySG, offered to withdraw his amendment to allow for voting on the original motion. John McElwaine, IPC, declined the proposal, as the late amendment had impacted IPC discussions on the original motion. Councilors voted in favour of the amended motion. There were two abstentions (John McElwaine, Flip Petillion, IPC). Vote results
Action Items:
● The GNSO Secretariat to circulate the call for volunteers to form the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement. ● The Chair of the Council Committee to provide regular updates to the Council as well as SG/Cs in relation to progress made. ● Once the pilot completes, the Council, in close collaboration with SG/Cs as well as the Council Committee and Pilot Task Force, to review the functioning of the Framework and decide whether to continue with the other assignments as outlined in the updated proposal (see section 3), make modifications to the framework and continue with the other assignments, or, identify another path through which the assignments identified are to be addressed. ● Staff to move the items that are expected to be addressed as part of the Framework to a section in the ADR with no timeframe associated with them as the timing will be determined as a result of the pilot. ● Staff to update this document to reflect the change required in resolved clause 1 of the motion.
Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Potential Next Steps for the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Operational Track Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, introduced the topic reminding councilors that the IDN Implementation Guidelines are contractual requirements for both registries and registrars. The GNSO Council requested the deferral of IDN Guidelines 4.0 due to concerns around the process but also specific requirements. In May 2021, Council discussed these concerns taking dependencies into account. On 4 June 2021, the Contracted Parties House (CPH) suggested a path forward.
Kurt Pritz, RySG, presented the proposed path. He explained that the proposal was to reconsider the GNSO Council’s recommended approach for proceeding with an operational track as initially discussed. This operational track was intended to review issues that would have been raised with regard to the IDN Implementation Guidelines and to develop a path forward. In the meantime, Council initiated the IDNs Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) which will consider some of the same issues addressed by the IDN Implementation Guidelines, so there is an overlap and the risk of contradicting results. Dennis Tan Tanaka, Chair of the IDN Charter Drafting Team, as well as the rest of the RySG, suggested pausing the operational track, given the issues raised would be better dealt with in the EPDP. There are no stability nor security issues being addressed within the IDN Guidelines v.4.0 so the pause would be of low impact. A draft letter from the RySG could begin the discussion on these issues. The ccNSO is also beginning a related PDP, collaboration between both Supporting Organisations (SOs) would be beneficial.
Tomslin Samme-Nlar, NCSG, asked if there were any other items within the operational track to be dealt with which wouldn’t be included in the IDN EPDP.
Dennis Tan Tanaka, Chair of the IDN Charter Drafting Team, confirmed that there were no issues left out pertaining to the operational track. The operational track was envisioned to look at issues raised by the RySG pertaining to the IDNs Guidelines v.4.0. Other items were not to be considered. V.3.0 of the IDN guidelines is in full force, and covers all security and stability concerns.
John McElwaine, IPC, asked for further information regarding the differences between the work, deliverables, resource, composition of the operational track and the IDN EPDP. He agreed pausing the operational track seemed like a good idea. Action Items: ● The RySG to provide further information to Council regarding the differences between the work, deliverables, resource, composition of the Operational Track and the IDN EPDP. ● The GNSO Council to defer the work of the IDN Guidelines v4.0 Operational Track. ● The GNSO Council to advise the Board that the Council will defer the work of the IDN Guidelines v4.0 Operational Track and recommend that the Board continue deferring the adoption of the IDN Guidelines 4.0 until the issues overlapping with the IDN EPDP can be fully deliberated and resolved by the IDN EPDP. Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Accuracy Scoping Team Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, reminded Council a small team was convened to work on the set of instructions to be provided to the Accuracy Scoping Team. The work is still in progress, with all SGs & Cs bar the NCSG represented on the small team. The topic is challenging but there is agreement on the task and focus areas, staff help will be needed to update the document and submit before the July 2021 document deadline. Marie Pattullo, Business Constituency (BC), added the progress had been made, and that completion was close. The BC is very eager to begin the work, and is grateful to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) for their input. Jeffrey Neuman, GNSO Liaison to the GAC, informed the Council that he was on the small team to improve GNSO/GAC relations, and not on the GAC’s behalf. Action Item: ● Staff to include the Accuracy Scoping Team as a topic on the agenda for the 22 July 2021 GNSO Council meeting. Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Interactions with the GAC Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, introduced the topic which was in context of the annual confirmation or renewal of the GNSO Liaison to the GAC role. The 2020 GNSO Liaison to the GAC Annual Report referred to the need to evaluate the effectiveness of the role. Pam Little, GNSO Vice Chair, RrSG, added that this was a long overdue exercise, given the way in which the interactions between the two groups seem to have changed over the years. For example there is a higher GAC participation in the GNSO PDPs and regular interactions with the GAC during ICANN meetings. Previously there had been the need for mechanisms such as the Quick Look Mechanisms for the GAC to be informed of the content of Issue Reports, as well as the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
role. The aim here is to improve on the quality of the GAC - GNSO interactions given the importance of the relationship between the two groups. Jeffrey Neuman, GNSO Liaison to the GAC, presented his update on interactions with the GAC. He agreed that the GNSO-GAC relations had changed over the years, and for the better. Previously the GAC communicated to the Board directly with little or no GNSO involvement. It was important to bring the GAC into GNSO processes earlier which is what he and Cheryl Langon-Orr, as New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP Working Group (WG) co-chairs, did frequently. He also emphasised that addressing GAC concerns does not necessarily imply adopting them as recommendations. He added that the main reason why the GAC is not active in all GNSO PDPs is generally due to lack of resources. However, certain GNSO PDP WG Chairs are invited to present updates to the GAC frequently. The role of the GNSO Liaison to the GAC has changed a lot: monthly meetings with the GAC point of contact the week after the GNSO Council meeting to discuss GNSO resolutions and outcomes, increased communication of GAC input to the GNSO Council, GNSO Council & GAC leadership prep meetings ahead of bilateral sessions. Jeffrey, as GNSO Liaison to the GAC, attends all possible GAC sessions during ICANN Public Meetings, but is not invited to intersessional meetings which are closed to non-GAC members. He added that he represents the policy work of the GNSO in a neutral manner and provides as much information as possible to ensure the GAC understands the GNSO position. He mentioned that an area of concern was the briefing on GNSO activity that the GAC receives from GAC Support staff prior to every ICANN Public Meeting, which would benefit from initial review by the GNSO Support staff to avoid misunderstanding. In addition, bringing back GNSO Council prep sessions for bilateral meetings with the GAC would be helpful. He suggested having GNSO topic leads invited to bilaterals to create better understanding and engagement as well as holding leadership bilaterals after ICANN meetings as well as before. He advocated for more honest tackling of issues during conversations with the GAC. Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, clarified that this discussion was about the role itself and not about the person. She asked councilors to focus their attention on the GNSO Liaison to the GAC job description. Olga Cavalli, NCA, commended Jeffrey Neuman for his great work, and emphasised the importance of the GAC briefing materials which are highly valued by GAC members. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, added that he found the GNSO GAC bilaterals interesting and useful and that feedback had been positive. Stephanie Perrin, NCSG, joined the many in the chat congratulating Jeffrey on his active role, and on his recommendations to improve the relationship. She however noted that information provided seemed to be mostly in one direction, from the GNSO to the GAC. Action Item: ● The GNSO Council to continue discussion on the issue of its interactions with the GAC.
Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE - Status Update Regarding EPDP Phase 2A Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Council Liaison to EPDP P2A, reminded councilors the team published the Initial Report for early Public Comment early June 2021. This Initial Report includes preliminary recommendations and a number of questions. The Public Comment period closes on 19 July 2021. He highlighted the tremendous effort put in by the EPDP P2A team. Action Item: none Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION -EPDP Phase 1 Rec 27 (Wave 1.5) Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, informed staff that the ICANN Org Global Domains Strategy (GDS) input on EPDP Phase 1 Rec 27 next steps had been received. Karen Lentz, ICANN Org, GDS, reminded councilors that EPDP P1 Rec 27 contemplated that some of the existing policies and procedures might need updating in light of the work in Phase 1. Both wave 1 and 1.5 identified possible areas of impact for Council to consider in determining whether any updates were needed to Proxy/Privacy or to Translation and Transliteration recommendations. In April 2021, the GNSO Council requested an estimated level of effort and an understanding from the former Implementation Review Team (IRT) members as to who would be willing to continue the work effort. Action item: ● Council leadership, with help from staff support team, to develop proposed response to ICANN org in relation to restarting PPSAI in line with Council's feedback during the wrap up session. Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS 10.1 - Review of topics to discuss with the ICANN Board Proposed topics are: 1. New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP WG (ODP Timeline & SAC114) 2. IDN Guidelines 4.0 3. DNS Abuse, potential next steps? Stephanie Perrin, NCSG, added that a discussion topic on accuracy would be helpful. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, asked that councilors submit additional comments on the GNSO Council mailing list. Action Item:
● The GNSO Council Chair to post the suggested topics to the GNSO Council mailing list for review. 10.2 - GNSO Council Liaison to IDNs EPDP Staff mentioned that one councilor had expressed interest in the Liaison role, and that staff were discussing the role requirements and responsibilities with the councilor. 10.3 - Open Microphone Martin Sutton, Brand Registry Group (BRG), informed the councilors of a BRG session held on 15 June 2021, where the BRG heard from future potential applicants and their frustrations at the perceived delay since the completion of the work of the SubPro PDP WG, worsened by uncertainty linked to the initiation of the SubPro ODP. He added that the community urged activities to move forward more efficiently and questioned the use of an ODP in this situation. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, took this as an item to be raised to the Board, and added that there were Board members attending the GNSO Council meeting, Susan Payne, IPC, raised concerns about GNSO Council levels of transparency especially regarding lack of feedback from certain Council small team efforts. She supported the small team structure wholeheartedly but wished to see more input on the work being undertaken on the GNSO Council public mailing list for all community members subscribed as observers to be able to follow. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, replied that members from the GNSO Community should rely on their councilors to, insofar as possible, join small team efforts, to be able to report back effectively to the community groups they represent. He then insisted on the importance of the Council’s representative model. He also appreciated that the disappearance of informal information channels made possible during face-to face events, implies information received currently is mainly only accessible on the Council mailing list. He acknowledged that the process could improve in efficiency. Maxim Alzoba, RySG Councilor, added that small team work is not possible via mailing lists as it focuses mainly on document editing. Once the document is ready, it is then circulated on the GNSO Council mailing list. He mentioned that the level of transparency expected of councilors should be reasonable. John McElaine, IPC Councilor, added that whilst the GNSO Council small team working on SAC114 has yet to provide any output, the SAC114 paper is listed as a discussion topic for the upcoming bilateral with the ICANN Board, Rafik Dammak mentioned that GNSO councilors needed to be able to cover different topics and that small teams were necessary to that process. There needs to be trust conveyed to councilors representing the different Constituency and Stakeholder Groups, these councilors should then be reporting back to
their groups accurately. Councilors should be allowed the necessary flexibility to complete their work as efficiently as possible. Amr Elsadr’s question posted in the chat in relation to agenda item 4 was read out: “Why is this being treated as a pilot program when there have been previous groups within the GNSO that have pretty much done this exact type of work, I’m thinking of the SCI and the GNSO Review Working Group.” Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, replied that this question was considered in the initial stages of the discussion around the Framework for Continuous Improvement. The idea is not to replicate those past initiatives, as the remit in the pilot program is much more limited in scope. Action item: none Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, adjourned the meeting at 12:30 UTC on Wednesday 16 June 2021

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 20 May 2021

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 19:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/kd22xp43

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase (apologies, temporary alternate Owen Smigelski), Owen Smigelski

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

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

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly, Tomslin Samme-Nlar

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Jeffrey Neuman– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer

Guest speakers: Dennis Tan Tanaka (IDNs EPDP DT Chair, Rod Rasmussen and Jeff Bedser (SSAC speakers), Keith Drazek (EPDP P2A Chair)

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 – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom Recording

Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, welcomed all to the May 2021 Council meeting.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest.

There were no updates to the Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

The agenda was accepted 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 08 April 2021 were posted on 22 April 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 22 April were posted on the 06 May 2021

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

2.1 - The review of the Projects List and Action Item List

In the interest of time, the item discussion is deferred to the GNSO Council mailing list.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There was one item on the Consent Agenda for the GNSO Council to confirm.

Appointment of the GNSO Council liaison to the System for Standardized Access/ Disclosure Operational Design Phase - Janis Karklin

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, reminded council members of the proposed approach circulated by Council leads, namely to reach out to persons of interest for the role of GNSO Council liaison. Janis Karklin very kindly accepted to take on the additional responsibility.

Councilors voted unanimously in support of the Consent Agenda item.

Vote results

Action Item:

Staff will notify Janis Karklins & ICANN Board of the GNSO Council’s approval of his appointment as GNSO Council Liaison to the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure Operational Design Phase

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of the motion for the GNSO Council response to GAC ICANN70 Communique

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, seconded by Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), submitted a motion to adopt the GNSO Council response to GAC ICANN70 Communique.

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 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 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 Review of the ICANN70 Virtual Community Forum GAC Communiqué and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the ICANN70 Virtual Community Forum GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.

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

After reviewing the process of sending the draft GNSO response to the GAC ICANN70 Communique to the Board - once reviewed by Council via the Council mailing list - in order to get it to the Board in time to assist their deliberations prior to the Council vote, councilors voted unanimously to approve the motion.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, noted the need for future improvement in terms of timing and cadence for producing a timely response and to allow enough time for a proper review by the Council before being sent to the Board.

Vote results

Action Items:

The GNSO Council Chair will communicate the GNSO Council Review of the ICANN70 Virtual Community Forum GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.

The GNSO Council Chair will inform the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Initiation of the Expedited Policy Development Process on Internationalized Domain Names and Approval of the EPDP Team Charter

Maxim Alzoba, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), seconded by Tomslin Samme-Nlar, NCSG, presented the motion for GNSO Council to vote to initiate the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) .

Whereas,

On 14 March 2019, the ICANN Board approved a set of recommendations developed by ICANN org on how to allocate Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) variant TLD labels. The ICANN Board requested that the GNSO and ccNSO take into account those IDN variant TLD recommendations while developing their respective policies to define and manage IDN variant TLDs for the current TLDs and future TLD applications, while keeping each other informed of the progress in developing the relevant details of their policies and procedures to ensure a consistent solution for IDN variant gTLDs and IDN variant ccTLDs.

On 26 June 2019, the GNSO Council established a Scoping Team to develop recommendations for the GNSO Council’s consideration on how to address the IDN variant TLD recommendations, as well as issues in the Final Proposed Draft version 4.0 of Internationalized Domain Name ("IDN") Implementation Guidelines (“IDN Guidelines v. 4.0”), for which the ICANN Board had agreed to the GNSO Council request [gnso.icann.org] to defer its adoption. The Scoping Team met between 15 August 2019 and 12 December 2019.

On 23 January 2020, the GNSO Council discussed the Final Report [gnso.icann.org] from the Scoping Team, which suggested tackling IDN related issues in two tracks: Operational Track and Policy Track. The Policy Track would be tasked to deliberate on: i) the definition and management of IDN variant TLDs, and ii) the change process of the IDN Guidelines and any policy issues related to the IDN Guidelines v. 4.0 identified by the Operational Track Team (consisted of members in the GNSO Contracted Parties House) and agreed upon by the IDN

Guidelines Working Group.

On 26 January 2020, the ICANN Board approved the Recommendations for the Technical Utilization of the RZ-LGR on how to employ the RZ-LGR to determine valid IDN TLDs and their variant labels. The ICANN Board requested that the GNSO and ccNSO take into account those RZ-LGR Technical Utilization recommendations while developing their respective policies to define and manage IDN variant TLDs for the current TLDs and future TLD applications.

On 21 October 2020, the GNSO Council agreed to establish a Drafting Team to develop both a draft charter and an Initiation Request for an EPDP on IDNs. The GNSO Council agreed with the Scoping Team’s suggestion that an Issue Report is likely not needed in order to initiate the Policy Track work, and an EPDP is the desired approach. The Drafting Team met between 8 December 2020 and 4 May 2021.

On 10 May 2021, the Drafting Team submitted the draft EPDP charter and the Initiation Request for the GNSO Council’s consideration.

On 20 May 2021, the Drafting Team Chair provided a briefing to the GNSO Council on the content of the draft charter prior to the Council vote to initiate the EPDP and adopt the charter.

RESOLVED,

The GNSO Council hereby approves the Initiation Request for the EPDP on IDNs and as such initiates the EPDP.

The GNSO Council approves the Charter of the EPDP on IDNs.

The GNSO Council directs staff to:

(a) communicate the results of this motion to the GNSO SG/Cs as well as ICANN SO/ACs and invite them to identify Members for the working group following the working group composition described in the Charter;

(b) communicate the results of this motion to the ICANN Org GDS Team and invite them to identify at least one (1) staff liaison for the working group;

(c) launch a call for expressions of interest seeking interested candidates to Chair the EPDP on IDNs; and

(d) solicit candidates for the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP on IDNs.

Dennis Tan Tanaka, Chair of the IDN EPDP Drafting Team (DT), presented to the GNSO Council. He reminded councilors that ICANN Board had deferred the adoption of the IDN Implementation Guidelines v.4.0 in June 2019 and that the IDN Variant Scoping Team had been initiated by the GNSO Council in August 2019. In January 2020, the GNSO Council adopted the Scoping Team suggestion for Operational and Policy tracks. In October 2020, the GNSO Council established a Drafting Team (DT) for the Policy Track (IDN EPDP). The DT based its work on an existing body of work: SubPro recommendations under topic 25, Variant TLD Management Staff Paper, RZ-LGR Technical Study Group (TSG) and other IDN related studies. The IDN EPDP is expected to provide policy recommendations on: a definition of all TLDs and the management of variant labels as well as how the IDN Implementation Guidelines should be updated in the future. The mission and scope of this EPDP may be expanded as a result of the Operational Track. The DT agreed that the EPDP should not revisit SubPro recommendations in the context of future new gTLDs but will consider questions asking whether such recommendations would be extended to existing gTLDs. It also agreed that where SubPro does not have a recommendation that corresponds to the Staff Paper of TSG recommendation, include questions about the impact of such recommendations on future and existing gTLDs. Finally, it suggested that SubPro IRT and IDNs EPDP should coordinate on addressing implementation issues to achieve.

There are 48 charter questions divided into 7 groups by topic.

Topic A is about the consistent definition and technical utilization of RZ-LGR. Topic B deals with the “same entity” (as a registry operator) for the Top level Domain Name, Topic C deals with the ‘same entity” for the Second Level domain names. Certain items in Topic C overlap with items of concern in IDN Implementation Guidelines version 4.0 (same entity impact to the current rules for registry operators, mutually coherent second-level IDN tables, method for IDN table harmonisation) as identified by the RySG.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, noted that there is an overlap between the Charter

questions and items 6, 11 and 13 of the IDNImplementation Guidelines v.04.

Kurt Pritz, RySG, clarified that there are two tasks: approve the charter and initiate the EPDP, and then discuss the collision between the operational track and the EPDP. The first task has no impact on the second.

Dennis Tan Tanaka, IDN EPDP DT Chair, continued onto topic D, which will focus on policies and procedures related to the domain name lifecycle, for example transfers. Topic E covers objections, string similarity, string contention. Topic F covers dispute resolution procedures and trademark protection mechanisms. Topic G focuses on the process to update IDN Implementation Guidelines. Regarding expected deliverables, the intention is for the working group to submit its work plan to the GNSO Council. The group may decide to break out the work in different phases and deliver in different pieces. At the minimum they need to deliver an Initial and Final Report. The completion date would be no later than 12 months after the EPDP first convenes, given the charter questions are tightly scoped, and that there is an existing body of work to serve as basis. However it will be up to the EPDP to decide, based on resources available, what their timeline will be.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, agreed that the timeline seemed aggressive, but depended on the remit of the EPDP. He asked, given this timeline was in the charter, whether councilors were comfortable with it, or whether it should be removed and leave the timeline to the EPDP to decide.

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, mentioned that other timelines need to be determined prior to this EPDP determining its timeline. There will be an Operational Design Phase (ODP) for instance for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) IRT, which has not begun yet. It would be good to change the charter language to something softer.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, added that removing the timeline would make sense, and that the EPDP team would be directed to consider the timeline as a first point of focus.

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, agreed to not include the timeline, as anything in the Charter ought to be reasonable and achievable. She added that Maxim seemed to be advocating for a longer period, and given that there is also the proposal of

an element of coordination between the SubPro Implementation track, there are uncertainties which would be challenging for the working group to meet the 12-month timeline. She reminded councilors that the Project Change Request (PCR) ought to only be a last resort.

Jeff Neuman, GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC, member of the Drafting Team, clarified that a year ago, ICANN Board sent a letter to Council about the fact the next round was contingent on the IDN work being completed. Any expectation of a longer timeframe would need to be communicated to the Board.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, agreed that that specific dependency would explain the urgency, but added that he was hearing no objection to removing the timeline from the charter.

Mark Datysgeld, Business Constituency (BC), congratulated the team on its work, and underscored the importance of its effort, which has been delayed for too long.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, suggested removing the timeline from the charter and going back to the DT and DT Chair with this proposed update to the charter, without delaying the creation of the EPDP team, and avoiding at all costs a PCR.

Dennis Tan Tanaka, IDN EPDP DT Chair, finished his presentation with the formation of the EPDP, which will be based on a representative and open model. Each community group will be able to assign up to 3 members, One Chair and one Vice Chair will make up the leadership team.

In the interest of time, the discussion about the overlap between EPDP work and the Operational Track was postponed. Kurt Pritz, RySG, formally requested that the discussion take place soon, with the ICANN Board informed of the development.

Vote results

Action Items:

Staff will revise the charter and the Initiation Request to remove the reference to the 12-month deadline for completion of the work as the first deliverable for the Working Group is to develop a work plan.

Staff will communicate the results of the adopted motion to the GNSO SG/Cs as well as ICANN SO/ACs and invite them to identify Members for the working

group following the working group composition described in the Charter;

Staff will communicate the results of the adopted motion to the ICANN Org GDS Team and invite them to identify at least one (1) staff liaison for the working group;

Staff will launch a call for expressions of interest seeking interested candidates to Chair the EPDP on IDNs; and

Staff will solicit candidates for the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP on IDNs.

Item 6: COUNCIL BRIEFING - Briefing on SAC115

Rod Rasmussen and Jeff Bedser, SSAC, presented a briefing on SAC115 to the GNSO Council. Rod Rasmussen, SSAC Chair, thanked the Council for having them here today. Jeff Bedser, Work Party Chair, then introduced the topic. The report is based on the understanding that the reduction of DNS abuse leads to the reduction of Internet user victims. To achieve this, an interoperable approach based on universal standards is necessary. SSAC115 should act as a catalyst. DNS abuse in SAC115 refers to the use of domain names to perpetuate abusive activities, a definition commonly used in the ICANN community: malware, botnet, phishing, pharming, spam. Many other forms of DNS exist, new types of abuse are commonly created, but these are out of scope. There are entities to block and filter abuse, processes involving notifications and takedowns, leading efforts from various groups focussing on detecting DNS abuse, and reacting to notification. The framework for interoperable approach has a primary point of responsibility for abuse resolution, escalation paths, evidentiary terminology and standards, reasonable timeframes for action, availability and quality of contact information. Each incident of DNS abuse should have a reporting entry point in the DNS ecosystem where that abuse is resolved by policy and process. When a reporter either reports to the wrong party or does not get a response, there needs to be a documented and actionable escalation path. Reporters of abuse should have the responsibility of providing evidence and documentation. Setting objective standards of evidence to support action will enhance transparency and accountability for service providers. The timely mitigation of DNS abuse is extremely important to minimize victimization of the abuse. Remediation should be no longer than 96 hours. Accurate, thorough, and accessible contact information for entities in the DNS ecosystem is critical to establishing escalation paths and mitigating abuse. Lack of coordination leads to inconsistent approaches to DNS abuse management, there is therefore an

opportunity for a common abuse response facilitator. Recommendations from SAC115 suggest that the ICANN community continue to work together.

Rod Rasmussen, SSAC Chair, talked about findings regarding the common abuse response facilitator. Requirements would include a common space for convening among parties beyond ICANN ecosystem, evidentiary standards for people providing reports and those receiving them, ensuring the requirements are understood across the ecosystem, encouraging standardization of methodology, periodic reporting and education. He added that these recommendations are aimed at the community, not specifically ICANN Board.

Jeff Bedser, SSAC, acknowledged that not all actors will want to take part, but the facilitator’s role would be involved in helping approach a common ground.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, praised the approach which spreads beyond ICANN.

Action Item: none

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - IGO Work Track Update

John McElwaine, GNSO Liaison to the IGO Work Track (WT), provided the update. The WT has made good progress and is currently on schedule for the delivery of the Initial Report by the mid-August deadline. The WT is still struggling with the narrow scope of the charter, but members are working around it and it is not hindering issues being discussed. Legal advice may be needed to look at different ways possible for IGOs to agree to certain jurisdictions and different ways to handle appeals.

Action Item: None

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Status Update Regarding EPDP Phase 2A

Keith Drazek, Chair of the EPDP P2A, provided a status update to the GNSO Council. The group is on track at this stage to publish an Initial report for publication for public comment early June, as 31st May is an ICANN holiday. This is an important phase for the process to gather community input. At this time, there will be no consensus on new

consensus policy recommendations on differentiation on topics of legal vs natural as well as feasibility of unique contacts, but there will be agreement that voluntary guidance will be useful. There is one possible change to an existing EPDP P1 requirement which could result in the addition of a data element to the minimum public data set which was covered in recommendation 10. Timing is important, the expectation was that the group provided an update in March 2021, following public comments received and development of Final Report, the latter will be delivered August 2021.

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, mentioned that the expectation when the EPDP started was 3 months, with an extension possible when requested. When will there be a checkpoint to evaluate if consensus items have been found?

Keith Drazek, EPDP P2A Chair, replied that that was the original expectation, in March 2021, he provided the update that he thought there would be consensus on certain voluntary measures, and that is still the case. The next checkpoint should be following the publication of the Initial Report, once the group reconvenes to assess if there is a possibility for consensus on the Final Report.

Action Item: None

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Accuracy Scoping Team

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, mentioned that this has been a longstanding topic within the Council. She provided a background of what has happened to date. It stemmed from EPDP P1 recommendation and a footnote about accuracy being further discussed. It did not however get discussed in EPDP P2, but Council had committed to address it in a separate effort. Late 2020, under the consent agenda, Council confirmed its intent to initiate the Scoping Team effort, and what the responsibilities would be. This discussion picked up from the previous Council leadership proposal following a then Council small team’s findings. February 2021, there was a briefing paper from ICANN Org, recommending a study on how to measure accuracy, among other things. The current Council leadership team gathered reactions and comments from various councilors following their proposed next steps:

#1Identify what problems if any are expected to be addressed and how

#2: Work with ICANN Org and contracted parties to identify how to gather additional data to assess accuracy and confirm problems

#3. Report back to council on 1) what problems have been identified and how these are expected to be addressed 2) how these problems can be quantified/ confirmed 3) propose next steps.

She added that in the 12 May 2021 Board resolution, the Board recognized the Council response to the GAC Advice and that the Board has been very explicit about their view of accuracy, they have a different understanding of the meaning of accuracy under GDPR.

Kurt Pritz, RySG, mentioned that #1 was extremely broad and would need honing. The next steps need to include a definition of accuracy.

Marie Pattullo, BC, stated that the BC is eager for the work to start as soon as possible. It is important to remember that this effort could be leading to a charter, but initiating a Scoping Team is the step prior. She agreed a definition would be essential, but given that data accuracy experts will be taking part in the effort, they will be the ones scoping where the problems are.

Kurt Pritz. RySG, agreed in most part, but insisted that the characterizing of the problems needs to be approached and would not necessarily restrain the group.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, summarized that there would need to be a small team to further hone the paper, without necessarily going as far as providing a definition, at least clarifying the remit.

Stephanie Perrin, NCSG, recommended early external legal advice in the EPDP 1, regarding data protection. Bird&Bird should fully define and look into what accuracy means in GDPR terms and data protection more generally, before starting another PDP with disagreements on definition.

Jeff Neuman, GNSO Liaison to the GAC, mentioned that the GAC perception was that the various definitions of accuracy were irrelevant, what was important was how it was defined under the contract

Jeff Neuman, Marie Pattullo, John McElwaine, Carlton Samuels, Olga Cavalli, Owen

Smigelski and Kurt Pritz volunteered for the small team effort.

Action item:

Staff will form a Small Team to review the path forward document and suggest changes / edits to further guide the scoping team in its work. Volunteers are: Kurt Pritz, Marie Patullo, John McElwaine, Carlton Samuels, Olga Cavalli, Jeff Neuman and Owen Smigelski.

Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.1 - Presentation of GNSO Council sessions for ICANN71 and their set up

An email will be sent to the Council mailing list shortly.

10.2 - Next steps regarding the proposed Framework for Continuous Improvement

A meeting has been held with the SG/C Chairs to further work on the framework and launch a pilot with SG/C SMEs assisting the Council small committee working on specific topics, this will begin in June.

Action item:

GNSO Council leadership will send the revised proposal to the GNSO Council list.

10.3 - Next steps regarding Working Group Self Assessments drawing on results of RPMs and SubPro surveys

A call has been scheduled with the former leadership and liaisons for each of those PDPs, Council will be updated after the call.

Action item:

GNSO Council leadership will meet with the SubPro and RPMs PDP Co-Chairs to review the results.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, adjourned the meeting at 21:06 UTC on Thursday 20 May 2021

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 22 April 2021

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 19:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/53pezj7x

12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 22:00 Moscow; (Friday) 05:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase (apologies, temporary alternate Owen Smigelski), Owen Smigelski

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

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

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly (apology, proxy to Tatiana Tropina), Tomslin Samme-Nlar

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Jeffrey Neuman– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer

Guest speakers: Reg Levy, Brian Cimbolic, Jim Galvin from the Contracted Party House (CPH) DNS Abuse Group.

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 – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom Recording

Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, welcomed all to the April 2021 Council meeting.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest.

There were no updates to the Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

The agenda was accepted as presented. It was noted item 5 on the agenda had been previously part of the Consent Agenda, but removed and added to the main agenda as a standalone item.

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

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 February 2021 were posted on 4 March 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 08 April 2021 were posted on 22 April 2021.

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

2.1 - The review of the Projects List and Action Item List

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, drew Council attention to the number of items in the Council’s pipeline and the connection with the Framework of Continuous Improvement.

Steve Chan, ICANN Org, reminded councilors about a communication from Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, with updates to the program management documents. He then mentioned the Project List, the Action Decision Radar (ADR), and Program Management Tool which are all new tools. Focussing on the ADR, he pointed out there are a number of items which have been on the 0 to 1 month timeline for a while. This timeline can appear overwhelming. A different perspective could be to take a decision on stagnant items, without necessarily taking action to begin working on an item. The decision could be that something needs to be on hold because of external dependencies for instance and the item could be moved on the ADR or removed from it. Staff is currently reviewing the ADR range marker implications to allow Council to efficiently manage its workload.

Maxim Alzoba, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), reminded Council that from a program management perspective, this is not delaying the start of a project, it’s a managerial decision. If councilors were to start all the efforts, there would be a bandwidth problem.

Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, added that the suite of tools still lacks a prioritization direction and a resource management component. He noted that the two rows of the ADR are dealing with the two Implementation Review Teams (IRTs) which are paused, and this is related to the decision Council needs to make. The Council decision on the ADR items needs to be made in reference to the Project List. These tools are to be used as a suite, and not in isolation.

He highlighted two changes: 1) the Project List used to be attached in an email to Council, but to monitor document views, they were posted on the wiki page, and the url posted to Council. Viewing numbers are dwindling, councilors are encouraged to review these documents prior to all Council meetings. 2) Project Management Framework is to be reviewed too for a broader understanding of the tools. To mark the consideration of an item, resolutions, consent agenda items, and minutes can be progress trackers as well as the shifting of an item to a later time-range. Completed items are also logged at the end of the ADR.

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, added that the Council’s goal is not only to make the ADR look better, but to take care of the whole Policy process.

Action Item:

GNSO Council leadership to propose by the 20 May 2021 GNSO Council

meeting how to address the items on the ADR in the 0-1-month range.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There were two items on the Consent Agenda for the GNSO Council to confirm.

Acknowledgment of the GNSO Council liaison to Transfer Policy PDP - Greg Dibiase

Approval of the Chair for the Transfer Policy PDP - Roger Carney (SOI)

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, noted that one item had been removed from the Consent Agenda and was a stand alone item 4 on this meeting’s agenda, another was for discussion under Any Other Business.

Councilors voted in support of the Consent Agenda item.

Vote results

Action Item:

The GNSO Secretariat to notify by Friday, 23 April 2021 Roger Carney of the Council acknowledgement of Greg Dibiase as Liaison and of approval of Roger Carney as Chair of the Transfer Policy PDP.

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Second GNSO Representative to the Community Representatives Group (CRG) to nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel

Carlton Samuels, Non Contracted Party House (NCSP) NomCom Appointee, seconded by Marie Pattullo, Business Constituency councilor, submitted a motion to approve the second GNSO representative to the Community Representatives Group (CRG) to nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel.

Whereas,

The SO/AC Chairs agreed to the formation of a Community Representatives Group (CRG) to select nominees for the Bylaws-mandated Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel.

The GNSO has the opportunity to appoint up to two members to serve on the CRG, but only one application was received by the GNSO in response to the initial Expression of Interest process. The sole candidate, Heather Forrest, was considered and recommended by the GNSO Standing Selection Committee and subsequently appointed by the GNSO Council to serve as a GNSO representative to the CRG.

The SG/C Chairs agreed to initiate a second Expression of Interest process to identify an additional GNSO representative to serve on the CRG. The process opened on 8 March 2021.

The GNSO SG/C Chairs and GNSO Council Leadership agreed that the SSC should be deployed to select the GNSO's second representative to the CRG.

The SSC reviewed the three applications received, taking into account the guidance provided by the SG/C Chairs.

The SSC submitted its full consensus recommendation to the GNSO Council on 12 April 2021, by way of submission of the relevant motion.

The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC.

Resolved,

The GNSO appoints Donna Austin to serve as a second GNSO representative to the Community Representatives Group that will nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel.

The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to the SO/AC Chairs and ICANN.

The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the nominated candidate of the Council's decision.

The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who were not nominated, noting that all three candidates were highly qualified, thanking them for their interest and willingness to step forward for this role, and encouraging them to apply for future opportunities as they arise.

Kurt Pritz, RySG, recused himself from the discussion as Donna Austin is his spouse, but Council received an RySG Voting Direction for his vote in favour of the motion.

Carlton Samuels, Chair of the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC), reminded councilors Heather Forrest had already been selected as the first GNSO representative. There was an opportunity for a second representative, with criteria approved by Stakeholder Group (SG) and Constituency (C) Chairs. Three candidates presented themselves, and the SSC, as per procedure, held a poll on the candidates

submitted. The SSC then reviewed criteria and had a unanimous committee decision to recommendDonna Austin as the preferred candidate.

Flip Petillion, Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), raised that he had been one of the three candidates to the role, but that it did not in any way taint his statement, wishing all the best to Donna Austin. However, he mentioned that a new criterion of representation from the Contracted Party House (CPH) had been added by the SSC during their deliberations, but it was not communicated during the call for Expressions of Interest. He wished this had been communicated beforehand. He added that it triggered the question of representation over the best skilled person for the task. Flip Petillion, IPC, has taken part in many Independent Review Processes (IRP) and often represents contracted parties.

Carlton Samuels, SSC Chair, responded that the SSC is a representative body, at a higher level, the GNSO is also a representative body. The topic of balance is not new within the GNSO. The EoI invited all those who had an interest in the role. However it is stated in the SSC Charter that when there are equal qualities in candidates, a more nuanced approach can then be taken by the SSC. In this case, it was useful for all the GNSO structures to be represented by having the second representative from the CPH.

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, mentioned that the SSC decision was unanimous, and with that, the IPC supported it. The SSC also cares about the best combined team when it’s possible, as it is better for the process. He added that this was therefore possibly a personal comment by an IPC member.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, agreed but also noted that councilors had the right to discuss the decision. In this case, the SSC had been spoiled with excellent candidates with an extremely difficult decision to take.

Pam Little, RrSG, stated that Council could have adjusted when the call for the second candidate was being prepared, and clarified that balance of representation was important. She mentioned that the Charter of the SSC was revised in May 2018, originally intended for various ICANN Review Team (RT) efforts, and that the SSC shall strive to achieve balance, representativeness, diversity and sufficient expertise appropriate for the applicable selection process.

Carlton Samuels, SSC Chair, agreed with Pam, on the point of the Charter requesting members striving for diversity and balance. He added that that point could have been clarified in the criteria for the role.

Flip Petillion, IPC, thanked Pam Little and Carlton Samuels for their acknowledgement that the process could have been improved on.

GNSO Councilors voted in support of the motion, with abstentions from Flip Petillion and John McElwaine, both IPC councilors. Flip Petillion provided his reasons at the start of the discussion and John McElwaine added that there had not been enough time to discuss with IPC members the vote of this motion following its removal from the Consent Agenda, un-related to the choice of representative.

Vote results

Action Items:

The GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 of the motion to the SO/AC Chairs and ICANN.

The GNSO Secretariat to inform Donna Austin of the Council's decision

The GNSO Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who were not nominated, noting that all three candidates were highly qualified, thanking them for their interest and willingness to step forward for this role, and encouraging them to apply for future opportunities as they arise.

Item 5: COUNCIL BRIEFING - Briefing from the CPH DNS Abuse Group

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, Registrar Stakeholder Group, introduced the briefing. The DNS Abuse topic came to Council via the CCTRT recommendations which the Board passed through to the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group (SubPro) and the SubPro Co-chairs then advised the Council to take a holistic approach. Currently there are many efforts on the topic, especially for the GNSO, in the CPH.

Jim Galvin, from the CPH DNS Abuse Group, presented to councilors. There are many groups within the CPH working the DNS Abuse Topic. There are many different processes by which it is being handled and they are all geared to combating abuse. Statistics on the matter must be taken at face value as DAAR reported in 2020 there was a downward trend in DNS, the US Federation Report showed an increase in the number of victims of DNS Abuse. The CPH acts on a certain area of abuse, which is mostly under control. The CPH does not control the existence of internet abuse and

therefore cannot be held accountable. The Framework for DNS Abuse, was a voluntary effort of registries and registrars launched in 2017 and drafted the DNS Abuse Definition which is endorsed by both registries and registrars. The definition covers five areas of harmful activity which align to the contracts of the CPH. There is a difference also between DNS abuse and website content abuse. Whilst some content abuse can fall under phishing and pharming, it is very clearly defined. Other parties are responsible in the DNS Abuse ecosystem: site operators, hosting providers, registrants. In the case of abuse, often the only option for the DNS Actors is to remove a domain name from the zone file. In this case, there will be collateral damage, which must be avoided.

Brian Cimbolic, CPH DNS Abuse Group, added that ofen the hosting provider can work with the registrant to solve the issue without the domain name being removed. In the RySG Abuse Group, the DAAR Working Group (WG) put together a report to improve DAAR and make it more useful for registries and the broader community. Outreach is intended to affect outputs here, with the aim of continuing community wide conversation. The group is working with the GAC, the Public Safety Working Group on the Framework for Registry Operators to respond to Security Threats and a new Framework to Address Malware and Botnets at Scale. Future endeavours will be working on a Framework on Trusted Notifiers and Evidentiary Guidelines for Reporting Abuse.

Reg Levy, CPH DNS Abuse Group, covered the RrSG Abuse Work. The group has been active and have published guides for reporting various types of DNS Abuse, a breakdown for how registrars reacted to the Covid-19 crisis, DNS abuse is rarely linked to the domain name itself and evidence has been gathered to that point, The group also published a guide for previously requested Whois Data, a white paper on the Incentivisation Programs, Registrant Protections. A central resource for registrants dealing with DNS Abuse complaints is currently in the works. The RrSG and the RySG have formed the CPH DNS Abuse Outreach effort and have met with other ICANN SG groups. These sessions are in a Q&A format, to cover practices, approaches. A community questionnaire is being considered, as well as a DNS Abuse newsletter and a DNS Abuse “trifold” information pamphlet.

Jim Galvin provided comments on SAC115, two RySG members contributed to the

SSAC Work Party which produced this document, along with a Public Safety Working Group member. Comments: the SSAC115 took into account there are various definitions of DNS Abuse, which can be problematic. The discussion is often led from the point of view of the victim. There is a need for greater interoperability between all parties including the non-ICANN community. Actions being considered are evidentiary guidelines for abuse reporting, as further consistency is needed in this area, and a trusted notifier framework.

Mark Datysgeld, BC, welcomed the conversation taking place at a GNSO Council level. He added that he believed people looked at the CPH to solve the issue, as any given computer could become a host. Here, in the case of the CPH, the community is regulated, with known and accessible (for the ICANN community) players. He mentioned that it would be interesting to see how definitions on spam align, and to better understand where consensus lies within the CPH, in order to move the discussion forward.

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, thanked the speakers for their presentation and clarified that there are items within ICANN’s remit and constraints, there are only certain items which are for the CPH to take action. ICANN does not act on spam, but for the CPH, spam is taken into account when it serves as a delivery for malware and other abuse activities.

John McElwaine, IPC, thanked the presenters. He added that he would like to know more about the work on accuracy of registrant data within the CPH DNS Abuse group, and whether it had helped deal fairly and equitably with registrant complaints.

Reg Levy on behalf of the RrSG, answered that the data was not always accurate, but that it wasn’t always helpful in identifying any bad actors. Brian Cimbolic added that between the CPH and another constituency, there are going to be areas of alignment and misalignment, and there needs to be a discussion on the common ground. Given that, the group hasn’t yet discussed the privacy area as it relates to DNS Abuse. The path forward will be to work on engagement.

John McElwaine followed up and asked if there were any work streams that are not being tackled by the GNSO Council which would be useful to the CPH work on DNS

Abuse.

Jim Galvin, IPC, responded that the group has its own agenda and was now reaching out to others with successful output results, so there are no asks at this time of other groups. Reg Levy added that having the GNSO deal at this time with DNS Abuse would be superfluous, as outreach is the stage the work is at.

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, encouraged councilors to think about whether hearing other groups’ perspectives would be helpful.

Action Item:

GNSO Council Leadership to add DNS abuse as a discussion item for the agenda of the 20 May 2021 Council meeting.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - IGO Work Track and Council Acknowledgement of Work Plan

John McElwine, GNSO Council liaison to the Work Track, provided an update to Council: the IGO Work Track (WT) has been meeting on a weekly basis for 90 mins. The initial proposed timeline indicates a few more months of work, At this point, a revised work place should have been provided, but the group is not ready, without being off track, There is a slight struggle with the scope restriction of the charter but member are positive that recommendations will be made, to then be discussed at the Council level. There will be a more substantive update in May or June 2021.

Action Item: none

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Status Update Regarding EPDP Phase 2A

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Liaison to the EPDP Phase 2A, provided the update. The EPDP is 5 weeks away from the Initial Report, there has been a tremendous amount of work and effort on the two topics they’re chartered to work on. There is no stumbling block identified as such, but it's crunch time for the report. On the topic of feasibility of unique contacts, the group is considering the question of whether or not having a

uniformed anonymised email address is feasible and if yes, if it is a requirement or guidance to the CPH. The team is reviewing guidance from Bird&Bird on legal questions. On the legal vs natural distinction, the EPDP is reviewing various approaches from SG and Gs, as to whether there are any updates on the EPDP P1 recommendations. These approaches are building up from the report received by Council during the March meeting. The group is meeting twice a week and is hopeful to converge to consensus on the Final Report.

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, asked GNSO Council leadership if given that the Council granted an extension already, would that be the last extension, and if this is going to be the last phase of the EPDP, or will there be others?

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Liaison to the EPDP Phase 2A, replied that it was too early to say, it depends on the conclusion of Phase 2A but also on the external elements, the evolution of the reglementary environment for instance related to personal data protection.

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, agreed to give the group its allocated time to end of May and let all decisions be made then.

Kurt Pritz, RySG, asked if there are any actions Council should prepare in advance of the May discussion. Will councilors be called upon to vote on the continuation of the EPDP P2A or does it depend on the EPDP P2 A Chair’s update?

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Council to the EPDP Phase 2A, encouraged councilors to review Bird&Bird input.

Action Item: None

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Wrap-up from the Extraordinary Meeting

In the interest of time, this item was postponed to the mailing list.

Action Item:

GNSO Council leadership to provide the wrap-up from the extraordinary meeting on the Council email list by Friday, 30 April 2021.

Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.1- Timeline for GNSO Chair election

The GNSO Chair election procedure starts with the announcement during the GNSO Council meeting: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-council-chair-08apr21-en.pdf

9.2 - GNSO Council liaison to the SSAD Operational Design Phase

Further information and a draft framework will be circulated shortly to the list.

Action item:

Council leadership to share its proposed framework for identifying the GNSO Council liaison to the SSAD ODP by the next GNSO Council meeting on 20 May 2021. [COMPLETED 23 April 2021]

9.3 - GNSO Review of ICANN70 GAC Communique

Jeff Neuman, GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC, along with Olga Cavalli, Tom Dale and Carlton Samuels, have been working on the GNSO Review, and have been running into difficulties given most team members are unfamiliar with the response process. Given that, having more volunteers from experienced council members would be helpful.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, added that voting on the response would possibly take place electronically.

Action Item: none

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, adjourned the meeting at 21:06 UTC on Thursday 22 April 2021

During ICANN 70 - GNSO Council Meeting is on 24 March 2021 at 17:30 UTC.

GNSO Council Agenda 24 March 2021

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/jgxACQ

This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.5, updated on 24 October 2019

For convenience:

An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.

An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.

GNSO Council meeting held 17:30 UTC (12:30 local time)

Coordinated Universal Time: 17:30 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/2dc33d7k

10:30 Los Angeles; 13:30 Washington; 17:30 London; 18:30 Paris; 20:30 Moscow; (Thursday) 04:30 Melbourne

GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation:

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 21 January 2021 were posted on 4 February 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 February 2021 were posted on 4 March 2021.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (0 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 the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of relevant Outputs from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP.

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - IANA Naming Functions Contract Amendment (10 minutes)

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Naming Function Review Team (IFRT) Final Report contains a recommendation that requires GNSO Council action. The IFR is an evaluation of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) performance of the IANA naming function against the contractual requirements in the IANA Naming Function Contract and the IANA Naming Function SOW. The IFR Review Team's Recommendation 4 (page 5 of the IFR Final Report [PDF, 2.2MB]) calls for an amendment to Article 7, Section 7.1 (a) of the IANA Naming Function Contract. Pursuant to ICANN Bylaws Article 18.6 (iv), there must be "public comment on the amendments that are under consideration by the IFRT through a public comment period that complies with the designated practice for public comment periods within ICANN." In addition, Article 18.6 (b) requires that in order for the recommendation of the IFRT that amends the IANA Naming Function Contract or IANA Naming Function SOW to become effective, one of the requirements is for GNSO approval by a Supermajority.

The IANA Naming Function Contract currently states at Article VII, Section 7.1 (a): Audits:

“Contractor shall generate and publish via the IANA Website a monthly audit report identifying each root zone file and root zone “WHOIS” database change request and its status. The relevant policies under which the changes are made shall be noted within each monthly report. Such audit report shall be due to ICANN no later than 15 calendar days following the end of each month.”

The IFRT recommends that this statement, "The relevant policies under which the changes are made shall be noted within each monthly report" be removed from the contract.

Per the letter from the Co-chairs of the IANA Naming Function Review (IFR), “This section refers to the Root Operations Audit Reports (https://www.iana.org/performance/root-audit) which is published monthly by PTI. This statement, carried over from the contract between ICANN and NTIA, is no longer required; further, implementation of this requirement has long been recognised as being operationally impracticable, as a single change request cannot be traced back to a single relevant policy. The IFRT is satisfied that there is no value to this statement remaining in the IANA Naming Function Contract, as the referenced line adds no value to the reports.”

Here, the Council will vote to approve the IFRT Recommendation 4.

4.1 – Presentation of the Motion (TBD)

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 a GNSO Supermajority is one of the required elements to allow for an amendment to either the IANA Naming Function Contract, IANA Naming Function SOW or CSC Charter, as set forth these Bylaws’ (Art.18.6).

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Charter for the Transfer Policy PDP (10 minutes)

During its February Council meeting, the GNSO Council resolved to initiate a PDP on the Transfer Policy, while also determining that further time was needed to draft the charter. The Preliminary Issue Report included a draft charter, which was included in the public comment proceeding. That draft charter is also included in the Final Issue Report, Annex A. Comment on the draft charter was solicited from Councilors via a pre-recorded webinar prior to this Council meeting. A small team of Councilors was convened to refine the charter, focusing primarily on the membership structure. After receiving input from various communities, the small team proposed a representative structure that it believes allows for appropriate levels of participation.

Here, the Council will vote to approve the Charter.

5.1 – Presentation of the Motion (Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice-Chair)

5.2 – Council discussion

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

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 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Nominating Committee Outreach Subcommittee Outreach (10 minutes)

The Nominating Committee (NomCom) initiated its application process on 25 January 2021 (with the deadline extended to 29 March 2021). For this cycle, the NomCom will be selecting two members of the GNSO Council, one representing the Contracted Parties House and one representing the Non-Contracted Parties House. The GNSO Council provided updated criteria to the NomCom in January 2021.

Here, the NomCom Outreach Subcommittee will provide information about the NomCom panel, about the positions being filled for the GNSO Council, and answer questions that the Council might have.

6.1 - Introduction of topic (NomCom Outreach Subcommittee)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Status Update Regarding EPDP Phase 2A (20 minutes)

On 21 October 2020, the GNSO Council approved the initiation of EPDP Phase 2A, to examine the topics of legal/natural and feasibility of unique contacts. In doing so, the Council required that:

"[a]t the latest 3 months after reconvening, the Chair of the EPDP Team and GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP will report back to the GNSO Council on the status of deliberations. Based on this report, which is expected to include an update on progress made and the expected likelihood of consensus recommendations, the GNSO Council will decide on next steps, which could include providing additional time for the EPDP to finalize its recommendations or termination of the EPDP if it is clear that no progress is being made or consensus is unlikely).”

Here, the Chair of the EPDP Team and GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP will provide an update to the Council.

7.1 – Introduction of topic (EPDP Team Chair, Keith Drazaek and GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP, Philippe Fouquart)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE - EPDP Phase 1 Rec 27 (Wave 1.5) (10 minutes)

Recommendation 27 from the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report, “... recommends that as part of the implementation of these policy recommendations, updates are made to the following existing policies / procedures, and any others that may have been omitted, to ensure consistency with these policy recommendations as, for example, a number of these refer to administrative and/or technical contact which will no longer be required data elements.” In support of this recommendation, ICANN org prepared the Wave 1 report, an updated version of which was shared with the Council on 19 February 2020. ICANN org has performed additional analysis for recommendation 27, resulting in the Wave 1.5 Report that focuses on Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) and Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (T/T) policy recommendations, for which implementation has been started but not completed.

For the Wave 1 Report, the staff support team conducted a first analysis of the report, identifying possible next steps for Council consideration that the Council subsequently reviewed to determine next steps. The Council may elect to follow a similar approach to the Wave 1.5 Report, to determine appropriate next steps.

Here, the Council will discuss the Wave 1.5 Report.

8.1 – Introduction of topic (Council Leadership)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: Council Discussion - Debrief on the Consultation with the ICANN Board on the Financial Sustainability of the SSAD (15 minutes)

In the adoption of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification Phase 2 Final Report and Recommendations, the Council resolved that:

“Noting some of the questions surrounding the financial sustainability of SSAD and some of the concerns expressed within the different minority statements, the GNSO Council requests a consultation with the ICANN Board as part of the delivery of the GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board to discuss these issues, including whether a further cost-benefit analysis should be conducted before the ICANN Board considers all SSAD-related recommendations for adoption.”

The GNSO Council communicated its Recommendations Report to the Board 29 October 2020, in which the Council proposed, “to form a small team consisting of GNSO Council and ICANN Board members to develop a proposed approach and agree on expectations in relation to this consultation.” The ICANN Board responded on 1 December 2020, stating that it believed the Operational Design Phase (ODP) it envisioned, will help facilitate the consultation with the Council. The Council responded on 22 January 2021, suggesting that it is more important to agree upon the elements of the operational impact assessment, rather than relying on the ODP framework exclusively.

That consultation between the Board and the GNSO Council took place on 22 February 2021. The Council will meet with the Board again, connected with ICANN70, on 1 April 2021. There, the Operational Design Phase for the SSAD will be one of the topics for discussion. A small team of Councilors is preparing a letter to be sent to the Board, in advance of the 1 April 2021 meeting, which is expected to be available for this 24 March Council meeting.

Here, the Council will hold a debrief on the 22 February consultation and plan for the 1 April meeting.

9.1 – Introduction of topic (Council Leadership)

9.2 – Council discussion

9.3 – Next steps

Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Introduction to the Briefing Paper on Accuracy Requirements and Programs from ICANN’s Global Domains & Strategy (GDS) (5 minutes)

On 4 November 2020, the GNSO Council wrote to ICANN org, requesting the preparation of a briefing document outlining both the existing accuracy requirements and programs as well as the impact that GDPR has had on implementing and enforcing the identified requirements and programs. This briefing is intended to inform an accuracy scoping team that the GNSO Council envisioned initiating , which would be tasked with furthering the community’s understanding of the issue and assist in scoping and defining the issue. On 10 December 2020, ICANN org responded to confirm its understanding of the request and to commit to delivering that briefing by 26 February 2021. ICANN org delivered the briefing on the 26th. In addition to the briefing providing an overview of accuracy requirements and programs, ICANN org included a suggestion that a study to measure accuracy of registration data might be beneficial. In parallel to the request for the briefing, ICANN SO/AC/SG/Cs were requested to start thinking about whether their groups would be interested to participate in a scoping team once created. To date, the BC, ISPCP, RySG and GAC have expressed an interest and identified potential volunteers with relevant knowledge and expertise.

Here, the Council will discuss next steps as it relates to the briefing as well as the scoping team.

10.1 – Introduction of topic (Council Leadership)

10.2 – Council discussion

10.3 – Next steps

Item 11: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Consideration of SAC114 (5 minutes)

On 15 February 2021, the SSAC shared SAC114 with the GNSO Council, which are the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)’s comments on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP’s Draft Final Report, but are directed at the ICANN Board for its consideration. While the comments are directed at the ICANN Board, they pertain to the work of the GNSO and as a result, the Council may benefit from considering SAC114 and formulating its impressions of the recommendations.

Here, the Council will consider SAC114 and discuss next steps, if any.

11.1 – Introduction of topic (Council Leadership)

11.2 – Council discussion

11.3 – Next steps

Item 12: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement (5 minutes)

The GNSO Council has sought an approach to address work that focuses on GNSO structural, procedural and process improvement related work. The proposal from Council leadership is to create a GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement that will help provide structure to manage the numerous non-PDP related efforts residing on the Council’s Action Decision Radar (ADR). An overview was developed and shared on 20 January 2021.

Based on initial feedback from Councilors and other GNSO stakeholders, a much more detailed draft document was prepared and shared on 2 March 2021, which provides additional information about the structure and potential work assignments. Input was sought from the Council and SG/C Chairs.

Here, the Council will consider whether the framework serves as an appropriate path forward, as well as relevant next steps.

12.1 – Introduction of topic (Council Leadership)

12.2 – Council discussion

12.3 – Next steps

Item 13: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)

13.1 - Open Microphone

GNSO Council Minutes

18 February 2021 1900 UTC

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/QwtACQ

___________________________________

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 18 February 2021

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 19:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/yxdh3opz

11:00 Los Angeles; 14:00 Washington; 19:00 London; 20:00 Paris; 22:00 Moscow; (Friday) 06:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

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

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly, Tomslin Samme-Nlar

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Jeffrey Neuman– 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 – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom Recording

Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Philippe Fouquart welcomed all to the GNSO Council meeting.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest.

There were no updates to the Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

Philippe Fouquart announced the removal of the IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFRT) item from the Consent Agenda as the approval of the item requires a supermajority vote. The vote will take place during the March 2021 GNSO Council meeting. 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 17 December 2020 were posted on 3 January 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 21 January 2021 were posted on 4 February 2021.

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

2.1 - The review of the Projects List and Action Item List

Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, provided the latest updates to the Action Decision Radar (ADR) , the Action items and the Project List to Council:

Today the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group (SubPro PDP WG) Final Report will be voted on by

Council.

Confirmation of the EPDP P2A Project Plan will be considered under AOB.

The GNSO Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) completed its drafting of comments on the GNSO Council FY22 Operating Plan and Budget Cycle. The comments were submitted on 15 February 2021. Berry Cobb thanked John McElwaine and the SCBO team for their efforts.

On the Action Decision Radar (ADR) the RPM Phase 1 recommendations were approved by the Council. A Recommendations Report is being voted by Council during this meeting and a Public Comment will open shortly. The EPDP Phase 1 IRT, on the topic of recommendation 27, will send the Wave 1.5 report to Council. It was reviewed by the IRT, staff is adjusting the report based on that feedback.

IGO Work Track will be holding its first meeting on the 22 February 2021.

The ICANN Org Briefing document on Registration Data Accuracy will be published on 26 February 2021.

The Action Item list is now empty (at the time of the call) for the first time. Moving forward, a log of all closed action items will be maintained for the period from the prior Council meeting to the current one. The Action Decision Radar has taken over certain Action items, the new Action item system is also proving efficient.

Philippe Fouquart asked about having a similar framework across the Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs). Berry Cobb agreed that it would be a desirable change, accompanied by an improvement in program management across all departments, with an increase in commonalities. The aim is to streamline the organisation of work across the SOs and ACs, with an internal program management framework which will also be flexible to accommodate differences across the different groups.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There were three items on the Consent Agenda for the GNSO Council to confirm.

Confirmation of Philippe Fouquart to serve as the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP 2A.

Non-objection from the Council for the EPDP Team to appoint a non-EPDP Team member as vice-chair.

Confirmation of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of all recommendations from the Phase 1 Final Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs PDP.

In accordance with the ICANN Bylaw requirements of a supermajority vote, the approval of the IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFRT) recommendation requiring an amendment to the IANA Naming Function Contract was postponed to the March 2021 GNSO Council meeting.

Councilors voted unanimously in support of the Consent Agenda items.

Vote results

Action Items:

GNSO Staff to inform the EPDP 2A about Philippe Fouquart’s appointment as the GNSO Council Liaison and non-objection from the Council for the EPDP Team to appointment a non-EPDP Team member as vice-chair

GNSO Staff to send the RPM Phase 1 Recommendations Report to Board Ops in preparation for the Board review

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval to Initiate a Two-Phased Policy Development Process on the Transfer Policy

Pam Little, seconded by Carlton Samuels, submitted a motion to initiate a two-phased PDP to review the Transfer Policy, as recommended in the Final Issue Report.

Whereas,

The GNSO Council issued a call for volunteers for a Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team on October 3, 2019. The Scoping Team was tasked with providing recommendations on the approach to a potential review and future policy work related to the Transfer Policy; composition of the review team or PDP working group; and scope of the review;

2. The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team delivered a Transfer Policy Initial Scoping

Paper on April 6, 2020 in which it recommended the GNSO Council instruct ICANN Policy staff to draft a Preliminary Issue Report, outlining, et. , the issues described within the Transfer Policy Initial Scoping Paper;

3. On 24 June 2020 the GNSO Council requested 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;

4. On 20 August 2020, the GNSO Council agreed to extend the timeline for delivery of the Issue Report to 10 October 2020;

5. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review the Transfer Policy for public comment on 12 October 2020, with the public comment forum closing on 30 November 2020;

6. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments on 14 December 2020 and updated the Issue Report accordingly;

7. The Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review the Transfer Policy was delivered to the GNSO Council on 12 January 2021;

8. The Final Issue Report includes a recommendation that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) that will address the following topic areas in sequence:

Phase 1(a): Form of Authorization (including Rec. 27, Wave 1 FOA issues) and AuthInfo Codes

Phase 1(b): Change of Registrant (including Rec. 27, Wave 1 Change of Registrant issues)

Phase 2: Transfer Emergency Action Contact and reversing inter-registrar transfers, Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (including Rec. 27, Wave 1 TDRP issues), NACKing transfers, ICANN-approved transfers

9. The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated that the topics recommended for review are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council hereby initiates a two-phased PDP to Review the Transfer Policy which will determine if changes to the policy are needed to improve the ease, security, and efficacy of inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers.

2. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP.

Philippe Fouquart reminded councilors the work started a year ago by the Transfer Policy Scoping Team. The motion suggests a two-phased, three-item approach.

Pam Little, submitter of the motion, provided background information to the motion and reminded councilors that a pre-recorded webinar had been circulated to the GNSO Council mailing list ahead of the February meeting. She highlighted that this is the second time the policy is being reviewed, as the first review took place almost 15 years ago. The impetus was also triggered by EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 27. After receipt of the Final Issue Report, Council now needs to decide whether to initiate a PDP or not. The mission and scope of the PDP is to conduct a holistic Review of the Transfer Policy. She then outlined the sequence of milestones anticipated by the draft charter.

Kurt Pritz asked for confirmation as to whether the mission of the PDP was to bring theTransfer Policy and Registrar Accreditation Agreement RRA into line with GDPR and also why the draft charter PDP was broken up into phases. Pam Little replied to his first question that one of the broader goals of the PDP will be to review existing policies and that they serve the purpose as intended. Regarding the phases, it was a result of scoping and taking into consideration PDP3.0 efforts, in particular, ensuring the work is of a manageable size with accurate prioritization.

Greg Dibiase commented on the importance of the PDP, adding that the gaining Form of Authorisation cannot currently be done. Therefore part of the policy was rendered hard to use due to GDPR, here there will be a review of transfers to ensure they are as secure as possible under GDPR.

GNSO Councilors voted unanimously in support of the motion.

Vote results

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Final Report and Outputs from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP

Flip Petillion, seconded by Kurt Pritz, submitted a motion for Council to adopt the Final Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process

(SubPro PDP).

WHEREAS

On 17 December 2015 the GNSO Council resolved to initiate a PDP to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro PDP) to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains from 08 August 2007 are needed.

On 21 January 2016 the GNSO Council approved the Charter for the SubPro PDP and directed ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for the SubPro PDP Working Group.

After initiating a call for community comment in June of 2016 (Community Comment 1), the SubPro PDP divided its work into four Work Tracks culminating in a second call for community comment (Community Comment 2) in March of 2017, that provided an insight into the work of each of the initial four Work Tracks, and asked a series of questions of the community for further consideration.

In November of 2017, a fifth Work Track (WT5) was created solely for the purpose of examining the issues related to Geographic Names as the Top Level. In recognition of the broad interest in the topic and to encourage participation from the ICANN community, it was set up to include four WT5 leaders, one each from the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC and At-Large.

The SubPro PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, including the publication of the following Reports for public comment:

an Initial Report on 08 July 2018 for public comment.

a Supplemental Initial Report on 30 October 2018, covering certain issues not included in the Initial Report.

a Supplemental Initial Report on Geographic Names at the Top Level on 5 December 2018.

a Draft Final Report on 20 August 2020.

On 18 January 2021, the SubPro PDP Working Group submitted its Final Report to the Council for its consideration.

On 21 January 2021, the GNSO Council received a high-level briefing of the Final Report by the GNSO Council Liaison to the SubPro PDP Working Group.

On 28 January 2021, the GNSO Council Liaison to the SubPro PDP Working Group and its Co-Chairs held a webinar, directed at the GNSO Council, to discuss the Final Report’s 41 Topics, which included hundreds of Affirmations, Recommendations and Implementation Guidance (Collectively referred to as “Outputs”) in more detail.

Each of the Outputs in the following topics obtained a Full Consensus designation (Topics 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40).

Each of the following topics received an overall designation of Consensus, with all of the Outputs obtaining at least a Consensus designation (Topics 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 34, and 41).

One Topic obtained a Strong Support but Significant Opposition designation (#35); However, within that one Topic, three of the five Outputs obtained a Consensus designation, and two of the five Outputs, Recommendations 35.2 and 35.4, obtained the designation Strong Support but Significant Opposition.

While not seeking to affirm that the status quo prevails in any particular instance, the GNSO Council notes that the Working Group operated under the assumption that, in the event the Working Group was unable to reach consensus in recommending an alternate course of action, the “status quo” should remain in place as a default position, with the status quo consisting of the 2007 policy, the final Applicant Guidebook, and any implementation elements that were put into practice in the 2012 application round.

The GNSO Council notes that Topic 23: Closed Generics was identified as an Output category of No Agreement, which did achieve Full Consensus. However, the GNSO Council believes No Agreement is functionally equivalent to the designation of Divergence as detailed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, meaning that the Working Group was unable to reach consensus in recommending an alternate course of action. The GNSO Council further notes that especially as it relates to Topic 23: Closed Generics, there were diverging interpretations within the Working Group of what constitutes the “status quo”.

Given the large number of topics and the interdependency of many of the

subjects, the SubPro PDP Working Group recommends that all Outputs be considered as one package by the GNSO Council and subsequently the ICANN Board, notwithstanding any Outputs that did not achieve Consensus or Full Consensus.

RESOLVED

The GNSO Council approves, and recommends that the ICANN Board adopt, the Affirmations, Recommendations, and Implementation Guidance (Collectively referred to as “Outputs”) that were determined to have received either Full Consensus or Consensus designations as documented in the SubPro PDP Working Group's Final Report

Recognizing that nearly a decade has passed since the opening of the 2012 round of new gTLDs, the GNSO Council requests that the ICANN Board consider and direct the implementation of the Outputs adopted by the GNSO Council without waiting for any other proposed or ongoing policy work unspecific to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to conclude, while acknowledging the importance of such work.

Further, the GNSO Council requests that the ICANN Board initiate an Operational Design Phase on the Final Report of the SubPro Working Group and its Outputs as soon as possible, to perform an assessment of GNSO Council recommendations in order to provide the Board with relevant operational information to facilitate the Board’s determination, in accordance with the Bylaws, on the impact of the operational impact of the implementation of the recommendations, including whether the recommendations are in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.

The GNSO Council requests ICANN org to convene an Implementation Review Team to work on the implementation of these Outputs. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with assisting ICANN org in developing the implementation details for the New gTLD Program, evaluating the proposed implementation of the Outputs as approved by the Board, and working with ICANN staff to ensure that the resultant implementation conforms to the intent of the approved Outputs. The Implementation Review Team shall operate in accordance with the Implementation Review Team Principles and Guidance

approved by the GNSO Council in June 2015.

The GNSO Council extends its sincere appreciation to the Co-Chairs, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeffrey Neuman, as well as past Co-Chair Avri Doria, the SubPro PDP Work Track leaders, the SubPro Working Group members and support staff of the SubPro PDP for their tireless efforts these past five years to deliver this Final Report.

Philippe Fouquart reminded councilors that the Final Report was submitted to Council on 18 January 2021. A briefing followed on the January Council meeting, as well as a webinar after that. Early February, an initial motion was proposed by leadership, with subsequent amendments and revisions to the motion text on recommendations 35.2 and 35.4, as well as resolved clause 1. The amendments were submitted by the seconder, considered friendly by the proposer.

Flip Petillion, GNSO Council liaison to the SubPro PDP WG, introduced the motion. He reminded councilors that the Final Report is the result of the work of 5 years by WG members, headed by Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr. He brought to Council’s attention that in the whereas clauses of the motion, there are “affirmations” rather than the distinctions of the term which were made in the Final Report. He pointed out the different outputs and designations (Full Consensus and Consensus for most). The WG leadership took a conservative approach to the designations of the outputs. He however pointed out that for three recommendations, there were particular values of designations: topic 23 (no agreement but consensus on the fact there was no agreement), whereas clause 12 on the status quo of 2012, recommendation of 35.2 and 35.4 (Strong Support with Significant Opposition). The Resolved clauses no longer mention these recommendations.

John McElwaine shared a statement from the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) on the topic of DNS abuse. The IPC supports as a whole the SubPro Final Report. The IPC was split on one of the recommendations on DNS Abuse. The SubPro WG was tasked with addressing DNS Abuse and determined itself that DNS Abuse should be handled in a holistic manner. DNS Abuse is the most pressing item on the Action Decision Radar, and high on the GAC’s list of issues in their communique, ICANN Org is also considering it of high importance. The IPC believes it is high and imperative the GNSO Council look at the issue of DNS Abuse. Not doing so would grant bad actors

more time. The IPC believes the security and stability of the Domain Name System will continue to be under attack, a solution needs to be worked on. The IPC asks the Council to begin a PDP on DNS Abuse as soon as possible.

Pam Little asked about resolved clause 4 and proposed to make a change from “The GNSO Council directs ICANN Org to convene an Implementation Review Team” to “The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Org convene an Implementation Review Team (IRT)”. This change was accepted as friendly by both proposer and seconder of the motion.

Jeff Neuman, GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC, shared the GAC’s communication to the GNSO Council on the Final Report. The GAC noted membership is still reviewing the Final Report, but are seeking clarification on aspects of the Final Report in view of GAC input which has not been fully considered: Public Interest Commitments, DNS Abuse mitigation, Safeguards for gTLDs in Highly Regulated Sectors, GAC Early Warnings and Advice, Next Rounds of new gTLDs (costs and benefits of new gTLD rounds), Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets. GAC Leadership intends to hold a preparatory webinar intersessionally on the SubPro PDP WG Final Report and next steps, and further discuss topics of priority to the GAC relative to Subsequent Procedures of New gTLDs at ICANN70.

Maxim Alzoba asked Jeff Neuman if he expected the GAC to deliver their consensus-based advice during ICANN70. Jeff Neuman replied that the GAC would only be able to pronounce itself during ICANN70 GAC sessions.

Councilors voted unanimously in support of the motion. Philippe Fouquart thanked the SubPro WG co-chairs and members for their efforts.

Vote results

Action item:

GNSO Staff to develop a recommendations report for the SubPro PDP Final Report for Council’s consideration as a consent agenda item during the March 2021 meeting

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Charter for the Transfer Policy PDP

Philippe Fouquart informed councilors that the proposal of the representative model, resources available and timeline had been circulated to the SO/AC Chairs asking for their interest in the effort. The ccNSO will have no representative to put forward. The GAC, ALAC and SSAC indicated that they would have an interest from a registrant’s perspective with no representative to put forward at this time. Within the GNSO, the NCSG expressed their support for the initiative but will not have a member to put forward. The RrSG have a strong interest in this, and approve of the representative model, but will have a high number of members interested. The RySG are equally interested but will put forward fewer members.

Pam Little reminded councilors that now the initiation of the Transfer Policy PDP has just been approved, the next step will be to consider and vote on the draft charter. The draft charter included in the Final Issue Report still has open questions which need resolving prior to the document being ready for a Council vote. The Working Group composition (slide 23) proposed in the draft charter follows PDP3.0 recommendations. The draft charter is looking at the representative model for its membership structure. It was first used in the EPDP because of the unique nature of the work. It may not be the best one for the Transfer Policy PDP. There is also an open question about timing, given that two major PDPs have only just wrapped up their work, that EPDP Phase 2A is ongoing, soon to be launched RPM Phase 2 (review of UDRP) as well as Implementation Review Team efforts. This could be a heavy burden on the community as well as ICANN Org staff. The RrSG Chair indicated there would be 8 - 15 people assigned to the effort. The RySG Chair can put forward 2 - 5 people. Ideally, it should not exceed 30 people to allow for the group to function in the representative model.

Kurt Pritz mentioned that a group of 30 could be too large for the representative model. He added that it would be preferable that the RrSG group have more members than other groups, given the expertise of the group and the impact the change would have on it.

Pam Little clarified that the representative model, in this particular context, needs to reflect the diversity which exists even within the RrSG representation, there are very different business models within that very stakeholder group. She asked councilors for

assistance in finalising the remaining items: membership structure and timing. Pam Little added that this would help avoid the extra work a Charter Drafting Team would bring to Council.

Kurt Pritz highlighted the sense of urgency with which Council should approach this as several registrars were in violation of current policies. He added that a new PDP accompanies a new Form of Authorisation or new law and is therefore too cumbersome. He suggested that a PDP be worded in a more high level manner with mechanisms to tweak or adjust the implementation, to avoid having to create a new PDP each time.

Philippe Fouquart invited councilors to express their interest in joining a Council small team to finalize the charter on the Council mailing list.

Action Item:

GNSO staff to organize a Council small team to begin finalizing the proposed charter for the Transfer Policy PDP, with a specific focus on the composition of the working group and the timing to start the PDP

Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE - Update from the Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) EPDP Charter Drafting Team

Dennis Tan, Chair of the IDNs EPDP Charter Drafting Team (DT), provided an update on the latest activities of the IDNs EPDP Charter DT. There are councilors, RySG, CSG and NCSG members. The main deliverables of the DT are to develop a draft charter along with the EPDP Initiation request. The DT started early January 2021, the initiation request and the draft charter ought to be delivered to Council by May 2021. This is a tentative timeline, but members are keen to stay on track. The DT agreed SubPro recommendations are generally consistent with the Staff Paper and the Technical Study Group (TSG) recommendations, SubPro did not address some of the recommendations from the Staff Paper and TSG. It was decided the EPDP should not revisit SubPro recommendations, as this would be dealt with in the SubPro IRT which may also address some of the implementation questions of the IDN EPDP. The DT also agreed that the GNSO Council would be likely to adopt all SubPro recommendations which would impact future rounds of new gTLDs and not existing ones. Therefore the charter should pertain to whether SubPro recommendations for future tLDs should be extended to the existing tLDs as well as to the TSG & Staff Paper recommendations not addressed by SubPro.

Maxim Alzoba insisted on the importance of the drafting of the charter for the registry world.

Dennis Tan presented the DT framework : when there is a consistent approach between SubPro, TSG and Staff paper, the question needs to be asked whether it’s consistent with the existing tLDs. If there is a gap, when there is no SubPro recommendation that corresponds to the Staff Paper/TSG findings the EPDP will address questions about the impact of such recommendation on both the future and existing gTLDs. The SubPro IRT and IDN EPDP will coordinate on addressing implementation issues relating to recommendations consistent with SubPro, Staff Paper and TSG findings. There have been bi-weekly meetings in the ccPDP4 for which GNSO Council appointed Dennis as liaison. The ccPDP4 has been focussing on the Policy proposals for IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes. The Variant Management subgroup will start in March 2021. The ccNSO will appoint a liaison to the GNSO IDNs EPDP.

Kurt Pritz asked about the risks in different policy outcomes between the ccNSO and the GNSO parallel work efforts which could confuse registrants.

Dennis Tan replied that the issues in variant tLDS fundamental questions between who controls and has operational control of them. If you deem two tLDs are the same, it ought to be the registry operator who has the control. It can also work at the second level. There are differences though in practices in the gTLD and ccTLD world to register tLD variants (emojis cannot be registered in gTLDs, but you can in ccTLDs) which can create confusion amongst registrants.

Philippe Fouquart thanked Dennis Tan for his presentation.

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1 - EPDP-P2A Project and Work Plan commitment

The EPDP P2A began in January 2021, focussing on the legal vs natural persons distinction and the feasibility of unique contacts. The EPDP initiated an EPDP P2A Legal sub-team chaired by Becky Burr, proposed definitions for consideration of liability issues for contracted parties as well as identifying policy questions. The work is driven through the Legal sub-team. Council may expect a request from the EPDP to extend the project and the timeline. End of May is planned for the Initial Report, prior to that Keith Drazek, EPDP P2A Chair will provide an update to Council. Maxim Alzoba stated that as the efforts of this phase were initially time-limited, if no progress was made, the Council would need to take action after the update from the Chair.

8.2 - Update from the GNSO Council liaison to the GAC, including his discussion with the GAC point of contact, Jorge Cancio

Jeffrey Neuman: A month ago, the GAC appointed Jorge Cancio as GAC point of contact for the calendar year. This is a new position and covers the GNSO rather than the GNSO Council. Jorge and Jeff are meeting monthly, scheduled around GNSO Council meetings. Discussion will revolve around GAC issues, and increased dialogue and collaboration.

8.3 - ICANN70 GNSO sessions and agenda topics for bilateral sessions (ccNSO, GAC, ICANN Board)

Philippe Fouquart reminded councilors of the three scheduled meetings with the ccNSO, GAC and ICANN Board. For the meeting with the ccNSO, topics of discussion already raised are: IDNs, SubPro, cooperation between SCBO and SOPC on the ICANN budget, EC regulation and NIS 2 Directive and Digital Services Act, Empowered Community. Sebastien Ducos, GNSO liaison to the ccNSO, invited IDN EPDP DT colleagues to join the session to share their expertise. For the meeting with GAC, Jeff Neuman will liaise with Jorge Cancio. For the meeting with the ICANN Board, topics SSAD and Operational Design Phase (ODP), SubPro ODP.

Mark Datysgeld added that there had been discussion on the chat about DNS Abuse and would encourage the topic to be added to the GNSO Council agenda for a future meeting.

Philippe Fouquart adjourned the meeting at 21:02 UTC on Thursday 18 February 2021

GNSO Council Minutes 21 January 2021 1900 UTC

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 21 January 2021

Agenda and Documents

Zoom Recording

Transcript

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

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

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly, Tomslin Samme-Nlar

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Jeffrey Neuman– 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 – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Philippe Fouquart welcomed all to the GNSO Council meeting.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest.

Kristian Ørmen (SOI) raised he is no longer with the same employer but in a similar position to the previous one held. Maxim Alzoba (SOI) informed councilors that he is no longer the RySG representative to the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.

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 19 November 2020 were posted on 3 December 2020.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 December 2020 were posted on 3 January 2021.

Action item:

GNSO Secretariat to check whether Kristian Ormen’s and Maxim Alzoba’s SOIs reflect the update that they provided during the Council meeting

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

2.1 - The review of the Projects List and Action Item List

Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, provided the latest updates to the Action Decision Radar (ADR) , the Action items and the Project List to Council:

All tools are now located on the wiki, access is being tracked regularly.

The Transfer Policy Issue Report was sent to the Council and therefore moved into the Initiation phase.

Today the RPMs Phase 1 Final Report is being voted on by Council.

The Subsequent Procedures PDP WG has sent its Final Report to Council.

Councilors need to provide input on the NomCom role description document, the Additional Budget Request and the updated Operational Design Phase document.

On the Action Decision Radar (ADR), in February, Council needs to decide whether to initiate a PDP stemming from the Transfer Policy Issue Report. The EPDP Phase 2A will send its monthly project package, in February it will also include a notification of a project plan from EPDP P2A leadership holding it accountable for reaching milestones.

IGO Work Track will be holding its first meeting in February

EPDP Phase 1 IRT is providing feedback on the Wave 1.5 report and will send it to Council.

The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) will be submitting a final draft on the Public Comment for the close of FY22 draft documents around 11 February 2021 for Council consideration.

Org is expected to provide a briefing document on the registration data accuracy.

Continued discussion around the Standing Committee on Continuous Improvements.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There was one item on the Consent Agenda confirming three GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) processes:

GNSO Non-Registry Liaison to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - Milton Mueller (motion)

2021 GNSO Appointed Mentor to the ICANN Fellowship Program - Farell Folly (motion)

GNSO’s Representative(s) to the Community Representatives Group that will nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel - Heather Forrest (motion)

Councilors voted unanimously in support of the motion.

Vote results

Action Items:

GNSO Secretariat to inform: 1) the CSC about Milton Mueller’s appointment as the GNSO Non-Registry Liaison; 2) the ICANN Fellowship Program about Farell Folly’s appointment as the GNSO appointed mentor for three consecutive ICANN meetings, beginning with ICANN72; and 3) the Community Representatives Group about Heather Forrest’s appointment as the GNSO Representative

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Affirm of intent of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7 (EPDP 1 Rec 7)

Pam Little seconded by John McElwaine submitted a motion to affirm the intent of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7. This motion was submitted in time for the 17 December 2020 meeting, but after Council discussion, was deferred to the GNSO Council meeting on 21 January 2021.

WHEREAS

The Thick RDDS (Whois) Transition Policy for .COM, .NET and .JOBS (Thick Whois Transition Policy) is an ICANN consensus policy resulting from the implementation of the policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Thick WHOIS Policy Development Process(“Thick Whois PDP”).

2. Section 16 of ANNEX 2: Policy Development Process Manual to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.5 provides: “Approved GNSO Council policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been implemented by ICANN Staff may only be amended by the initiation of a new PDP on the issue.”

3. On 17 May 2018, the ICANN Board adopted the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (“Temporary Specification”).

4. On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council initiated an Expedited Policy Development Process (“EPDP”) and chartered the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD

Registration Data Team to determine if the Temporary Specification should become an ICANN consensus policy as is, or with modifications (emphasis added).

5. Recommendation #7 in the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report (“Final Report”) makes transfer of registrant contact information optional, depending on whether the registry operator in question has an appropriate legal basis to require the data and a data processing agreement is in place.

6. To the extent the Thick Whois Transition Policy is modified by Recommendation #7, the EPDP Team recommends the Thick Whois Transition Policy and other impacted consensus policies be updated to ensure consistency (see Recommendation #27 of the Final Report).

7. Recommendation #7 was developed in response to the questions in Section C of the EPDP Charter, with a consensus designation of “Full Consensus / Consensus” (see Annex E of the Final Report).

8. On 4 March 2019, the GNSO Council adopted all the policy recommendations in the Final Report, including Recommendation #7, with the required GNSO Supermajority.

9. On 15 May 2019, the ICANN Board passed a resolution adopting most of the policy recommendations contained in the Final Report, including Recommendation #7 and noting Recommendation #7 does not repeal or overturn the Thick WHOIS Policy [sic] and directed “ICANN org to work with the Implementation Review Team to examine and transparently report on the extent to which these Recommendations require modification of existing Consensus Policies, including the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy”.

10. Section 7 of Annex A-1 to the ICANN Bylaws provides: “Upon a final decision of the Board adopting the EPDP recommendations, the Board shall, as appropriate, give authorization or direction to ICANN staff to implement the EPDP Recommendations. If deemed necessary, the Board shall direct ICANN staff to work with the GNSO Council to create a guidance implementation plan, based upon the guidance recommendations identified in the Final EPDP Recommendation(s) Report.”

11. Section III. A of the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework provides: The GNSO Council may continue to provide input on the implementation of a policy, for example, if the GNSO Council believes that the implementation is inconsistent with the policy [recommendation]”.

RESOLVED

The GNSO Council confirms that the EPDP had the mandate to modify the Thick Whois Transition Policy under the EPDP

2. The GNSO Council determines that in light of the EPDP being chartered by the GNSO Council, among other things, to address the questions in Part 2(c) under “Mission and Scope” to specifically address the transfer of data from registrar to registry, the resulting recommendation #7 appropriately fulfills this purpose. Furthermore, the requirement of Section 16 of the PDP Manual is deemed satisfied for the purpose of amending the Thick Whois Transition Policy.

3. The GNSO Council determines, notwithstanding the absence of a clear statement, the intent of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #7 to modify the Thick Whois Transition Policy is implied, taking into account the history, background, context and purpose of the EPDP, the specific language of Recommendation #7 and the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report in its entirety.

4. The GNSO Council determines that the Recommendation #7 language, “must be transferred from registrar to registry provided an appropriate legal basis exists and data processing agreement is in place” should be included in the Registration Data Policy in order to conform with the intent of the EPDP Phase 1 Team’s policy recommendation and the subsequent GNSO Council adoption (“GNSO Council Input”).

5. The GNSO Council instructs the Council’s Liaison to communicate the GNSO Council Input to the Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team pursuant to Section III.A of the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework.

6. The GNSO Council shall communicate the GNSO Council Input to the ICANN Board of Directors.

RATIONALE

The Thick Whois PDP Final Report anticipated that its recommendations might be affected by evolving privacy regulation. In particular, Recommendation 3 states,

“As part of the implementation process a legal review of law applicable to the transition of data from a thin to thick model … due consideration is given to potential privacy issues that may arise from the discussions on the transition from thin to thick Whois … Should any privacy issues emerge from these transition discussions that were not anticipated by the WG and which would require additional policy consideration, the Implementation Review Team is expected to notify the GNSO Council of these so that appropriate action can be taken.”

In addition, the implementation advice (“Other Observations”) mentions in part,

“...the increasing number of data protection and privacy laws and regulations around the world, as well as specific Whois-related concerns raised by the public. While recognizing that this exceeds the scope of our remit, we suggest that, as part of the development of the registration data directory system model currently in process, ICANN ensure that the ramifications of data protection and privacy laws and regulations with respect to Whois requirements be examined thoroughly.”

In effect, the Temporary Specification and the EPDP accomplished the legal review of the ramifications of data protection laws required by Recommendation 3 of the Thick Whois PDP Final Report .

The requirements set out in the Temporary Specification supersede and replace the contractual requirements in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the Registry Agreements, which incorporate by reference all ICANN consensus policies.

There is a conflict between the data processing principles under the Temporary Specification and the requirements under existing gTLD Registry Agreements as well as the Thick Whois Transition Policy. In other words, the Thick Whois Transition Policy was modified by the Temporary Specification and further modified by Recommendation #7 in the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report, as the EPDP Team was mandated to do.

While there is no explicit reference to the Thick Whois Transition Policy, this consensus policy and others that are affected by the GDPR and other relevant data privacy laws fell squarely within the scope of the Temporary Specification and hence they are also within the scope of the EPDP. The EPDP Charter states:

“Mission and Scope

This EPDP Team is being chartered to determine if the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, as is or with modifications, while complying with the GDPR and other relevant privacy and data protection law. As part of this determination, the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions. The EPDP Team shall consider what subsidiary recommendations it might make for future work by the GNSO which might be necessary to ensure relevant Consensus Policies, including those related to registration data, are reassessed to become consistent with applicable law.”

Specifically, Section C of the EPDP Charter contains a set of questions regarding “transfer of data from registrar to registry”:

c1) What data should registrars be required to transfer to the registry?

c2) What data is required to fulfill the purpose of a registry registering and resolving a domain name?

c3) What data is transferred to the registry because it is necessary to deliver the service of fulfilling a domain registration versus other legitimate purposes as outlined in part (a) above?

c4) Is there a legal reason why registrars should not be required to transfer data to the registries, in accordance with previous consensus policy on this point?

c5) Should registries have the option to require contact data or not?

c6) Is there a valid purpose for the registrant contact data to be transferred to the registry, or should it continue to reside at the registrar?

While the Final Report does not contain express language that the policy recommendations are intended to supersede the requirements in the existing ICANN consensus policies, in this case, the Thick Whois Transition Policy, such intent is implied (i.e., it goes without saying in light of the history, background, context and purpose of the EPDP).

The EPDP was conducted in an open and transparent manner with representatives from all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as some ICANN Advisory Committees. As such, Recommendation #7 cannot be considered to be a “shadow repeal” of the Thick Whois Transition Policy.

The recommendations contained in the Thick WHOIS PDP Final Report anticipated that the implementation of those recommendations might be affected by new privacy regulations and the GNSO should address such an occurrence. Therefore, while there is no “clear statement in new consensus policy recommendations that the new policy is intended to supersede (in whole or part) requirements in existing consensus policies,” claiming otherwise ignores the history, background, context, purpose of the EPDP as well as the Thick Whois PDP Final Report itself.

The intent and meaning of Recommendation #7 is clear. It is the role of the Implementation Review Team (IRT) to ensure that the implementation of Recommendation #7 conforms to the intent of the policy recommendation. The IRT is not a forum for opening or revisiting policy discussions (see III.A and III.B, Implementation Review Team (IRT) Principles and Guidelines https://www.icann.org/resources/files/1201611-2016-08-23-en).

The Policy Development Process Manual makes clear that “Approved GNSO Council policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been implemented by ICANN Staff may only be amended by the initiation of a new PDP on the issue.” It can therefore be concluded that where there is a conflict between an existing consensus policy and subsequent policy recommendation(s) on the same subject matter, the newer policy recommendation prevails. While the EPDP was scoped differently and under different circumstances than the Thick Whois PDP, it is undeniable that the two policy development processes overlapped in covering the same issue of transfer of Registration Data from registrar to registry, and therefore, the IRT should implement Recommendation #7 as written and intended.

Pam Little presented the motion, which seeks to affirm the intent of Rec 7 and clarify that the Thick Whois Transition Policy was modified as a result of the Rec 7. If there were to be a conflict, Rec 7 would prevail. The motion is presented in three parts: the Whereas where the background is set out, the Resolved Clauses and the Rationale. Usually there is no rationale, but given the complexity and importance of the matter, it was important to go into further detail. She noted that John McElwaine submitted proposed revisions to the motion.

John McElwaine circulated a proposed amendment to the motion on the Council mailing list on the 18 January 2021. He thanked Pam Little and mentioned they had made good progress in working the revisions. They were unable to reach a final agreement on resolved clause 4. He added that the changes in the document were not controversial. The statement which garnered agreement is that Rec 7 is a substantial revision to a prior and acted ICANN Consensus Policy: the Thick Whois Transition Policy. Nothing in the EPDP Phase 1 Charter instructed them to consider the Thick Whois Transition Policy however it was in the scope of the charter to address the transfer of data elements collected in the domain name registration process which would impact Thick Whois policy. Lastly, the labelling of particular data elements as optional creates an ambiguity: available to be chosen but not obligatory. What happens when it is obligatory when it’s a law, a contract between a registry and a registrar and considered mandatory by ICANN policy? The aim of the revision therefore of the amendment is to confirm that the Thick Whois policy was modified not repealed, and that modification of Thick Whois data elements was within the scope but not a clear mandate of the EPDP. It also clarified what the meaning was between mandatory and optional. He emphasized the importance of handling an issue where one PDP’s recommendation impacts an existing policy.

Pam Little, as proposer of the motion, did not consider the amendment as friendly. She raised that John and her had worked together but had hit a roadblock on the impact of Rec 7 on the Thick Whois Transition Policy. The fundamental difference is her interpretation of Rec 7 as an attempt to adhere to the data minimization principle under GDPR. The proposed amendments would maintain as much as possible the status quo, which would be inconsistent with the exercise of the EPDP. Going back to the EPDP Final Report and the history of the Thick Whois policy, the intentions of the EPDP team are not reflected nor consistent with the proposed amendments.

Kurt Pritz added that the discussion about the wording of the amendment was difficult because conversations with Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies were had virtually, via text mainly. The difficulty is enhanced by the fact EPDP efforts are still ongoing. He agreed the contracted parties could be put in difficulty by the proposed amendments.

A first GNSO Council vote on the proposed amendment failed to pass.

A second vote on the original motion passed with objections from the BC (statement) and the IPC (statement).

Vote results

Philippe Fouquart thanked Pam Little and John McElwaine for the efforts. Pam Little expressed her regrets at not having reached agreement with John McElwaine and thanked him for his collaboration.

Action Items:

Sebastien Ducos to communicate the GNSO Council input to the Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team per the resolved clauses of the motion regarding the EPDP Phase 1 Rec 7.

GNSO Council leadership to communicate the GNSO Council input to the ICANN Board of Directors per the resolved clauses of the motion regarding the EPDP Phase 1 Rec 7.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Final Report and Recommendations From the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs PDP WG

John McElwaine, seconded by Maxim Alzoba, submitted a motion for Council to approve the recommendations from the Phase 1 Final Report of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms

(RPMs) in all gTLDs, covering RPMs applicable to gTLDs launched under the 2012 New gTLD Program.

WHEREAS:

On 18 February 2016, the GNSO Council resolved to initiate a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP), to review all existing rights protection mechanisms (RPMs in all gTLDs.

On 9 March 2016, the GNSO Council approved the PDP Charter, thereby initiating Phase One of the PDP that focused on the RPMs developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program.

The PDP Working Group has followed all the necessary steps and processes required by the ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO PDP Manual and the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including the publication of an Initial Report for public comment (on 18 March 2020) and consideration of the public comments received thereto.

On 24 November 2020, the PDP Working Group submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its review and action.

The PDP Working Group has reached Full Consensus for thirty-four (34) out of the thirty-five (35) final recommendations documented in the Final Report, and Consensus for the remaining one (1) final recommendation (concerning Final Recommendation #1 for the Trademark Clearinghouse).

RESOLVED:

The GNSO Council approves, and recommends that the ICANN Board adopt all thirty-five (35) final PDP recommendations as documented in the PDP Working Group’s Final Report.

Should the PDP recommendations be adopted by the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that ICANN org convene an RPM Implementation Review Team, to assist ICANN org in developing the implementation details for the PDP recommendations and ensure that the resultant implementation conforms to the intent of the approved recommendations. The Implementation Review Team shall

operate in accordance with the Implementation Review Team Principles and Guidance approved by the GNSO Council in June 2015.

The GNSO Council thanks all the various Co-Chairs and members of the PDP Working Group for their commitment and hard work in completing Phase One of this PDP.

Philippe Fouquart introduced the topic reminding council members they had attended a webinar on the topic earlier in the month.

John McElwaine, GNSO Council liaison to the PDP, raised that he had received no negative feedback from the community. The PDP received full consensus on 34 out of 35 final recommendations.

Jeff Neuman asked if the motion would allow Council to join this RPM IRT with a potential SubPro IRT.

Stephanie Perrin raised that the dissenting report on the recommendation on Work Marks was troubling. It suggests that by accepting this policy, Council would in this case be getting ahead of law and it would be worth bringing this to ICANN Board’s attention. She agreed to have this captured in the accompanying letter to the Board.

Kurt Pritz disagreed with amending any of the resolutions to combine RPM IRT and SubPro IRT, but to encourage the Board to look at ways to improve the efficiencies in the accompanying letters. He thanked PDP members and John McElwaine’s liaison efforts. He added that the joint experience of the PDP group and members needed to be put to use in keeping with PDP3.0.

Philippe Fouquart agreed with Kurt, that the experience should not be allowed to fade away.

Maxim Alzoba disagreed with combining the IRTs as SubPro is for the next round and RPMs is for ensuring the Rights Protections, it would be consensus policy combined with policy.

Mary Wong, Org, added that a combined IRT would not be prohibited by the motion. To Stephanie Perrin’s point, a group submitted a minority statement, without lacking support for the overall recommendation. It was therefore not considered dissent.

After the GNSO Council discussion, councilors voted in full support of the motion.

Vote results

Action items:

GNSO Staff to inform the RPM PDP WG on the GNSO Council approval of all its thirty-five (35) Phase 1 Final Recommendations as documented in the PDP WG’s Final Report.

GNSO Staff to prepare the Recommendations Report for the RPM Phase 1 Final Report for voting at the Council meeting in February 2021.

Item 6: COUNCIL BRIEFING - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP Final Report

Flip Petillion, GNSO Council liaison to the SubPro Working Group (WG), presented a brief report on the topic. The PDP was chartered in early 2016. The Final Report includes final recommendations, implementation guidance and other outputs on more than forty topics within the WG Charter. There were several Public Comments and GAC, ALAC, ccNSO had leadership roles in the Geographic Names at Top Level Work Track. Topics in the Final Report are ordered in groupings. There are five types of output: affirmations, affirmation with modification, recommendations, implementation guidance and no agreement. The latter applies to one case only. All but one topic received the designation of full consensus (25), consensus (16), strong support but significant opposition (1). Annex C provides details about the consensus designations.

Four topics require further discussion: Topic 9 (mitigating DNS Abuse) which the WG referred back to the GNSO Council and did not make recommendations on. Topic 9 (Public Interest commitments and Registry Voluntary Commitments), ICANN Board raised questions, which the WG believes should be answered by the Board itself and the broader community (not a PDP). Topic 23 received full consensus that the WG could not come to an agreement on what, if anything, should be done in respect to Closed Generics in subsequent rounds. Expertise in competition law, public policy and economics would be needed to move the discussion forward. Topic 35 (Mechanisms of Last Resort/ Private Resolution of Contention Sets), the only topic with Strong Support

but Significant Opposition. There was no consensus on whether private auctions should be allowed in future rounds, whether auctions of last resorts and private auctions should be allowed to resolve contention.

A webinar on the topic will take place on 28 January 2021.

Action Item:

Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE - Update from the Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO)

John McElwaine, Chair of the SCBO, provided an update on the latest activities of the SCBO. The committee is made of councilors and subject matter experts from across the community. The remit is to review ICANN’s Strategic Plan and the ICANN Fiscal Year Budget. They have been meeting weekly and have prepared budget comments on PTI and IANA. The Fiscal Year 2022 ICANN plan has been released and the SCBO is drafting comments. ICANN is now using the same format for the Operations and Financial Plan as well as Operations and Strategic Plan, sections are similar, it enabled the committee to track where the SCBO comments have been taken into account. Now the SCBO can analyse how things have changed and how to lay down markers. Various members have been assigned to issues. The SCBO will meet with the ccNSO counterparts (ccNSO’s Strategic and Operational Standing Committee (SOPC) to further discuss issues. A draft comment will be available in February for the GNSO Council.

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1 - GNSO Standing Committee for Continuous Improvement - objections to expanding upon the high-level outline and developing a more detailed draft proposal?

GNSO Council leadership with staff have developed a high level approach which was circulated to Council. Concerns regarding the overhead and the split responsibilities with the SGs and Cs have been taken into account and an updated version was sent subsequently.

8.2 - GNSO Council feedback on the updated Operational Design Phase (ODP) concept paper - objections to draft Council feedback (if input is available)

Philippe Fouquart provided councilors with updates. The small Council team provided initial input on the first draft of the ODP. The updated document has now integrated several changes: the Design Feedback group has been replaced by a liaison to Council, added safeguards that the ODP does not deal with policy, early start of the ODP is now considered possible, a review mechanism once the ODP has been applied. Kurt Pritz added that the specification of one GNSO Liaison may be restrictive, one or more Liaisons would be preferable. Marie Pattullo mentioned that the ODP webinar was interesting but that there was a slide with a diagram covering a feedback loop. The diagram seemed to state that if anybody in the community had a question about a recommendation or a query on a PDP, they could address Council directly. When the question was asked in the webinar, the reason provided was that Council needs to address policy. However, there needs to be a framework or a clarification of intention. Jeff Neuman mentioned that the slide was an oversimplification of the process via a diagram. He also added that he is separately submitting a proposal that the GNSO Liaison position (not necessarily a GNSO councilor) be held by at least three people (from PDP leadership, Council liaison to the PDP, and another person from the GNSO). This would be needed to cover all responsibilities of the role. Maxim Alzoba added that during the webinar, the presented process had a potential for loops in bureaucratic terms. Without a time limit or a limit on iterations, it has the potential to lengthen the processes significantly.

8.3 - GNSO Council Additional Budget Requests (if applicable)

There will be no ABR this year.

8.4 - Update on the ICANN Meetings strategy

ICANN70 is virtual, and preparation is on the way. GNSO feedback on the ICANN Meetings strategy was taken into account. There is a question about considering 2021 as a whole rather than approaching each meeting individually, to improve on visibility.

8.5 - Update on the IGO Work Track kickoff

The team is now on board, Chris Disspain, IGO WT Chair, has reached out to

constituencies to increase representation on the team. The first meeting will take place on the 15th February 2021.8.6 - Small team proposed input to the ICANN Board regarding the SSAD consultation

An email with the output of the small team was circulated on 14 January 2021 with no ensuing discussion on the list. Council leadership will forward to the Board. Pam Little added that the Board Workshop taking place this weekend with an agenda item on the SSAD, it would be good for the Board to receive the input in time for the workshop.

8.7 - GNSO liaison between the IDN Policy Track / EPDP and the ccPDP4 (Dennis Tan)

Dennis Tan has accepted to take on the role of GNSO liaison between the IDN Policy Track and the ccPDP4. There was no objection stated, Dennis Tan’s GNSO Liaison role is considered confirmed. The liaison effort will be done in coordination with the GNSO Liaison to the ccNSO, Sebastien Ducos.

Action items:

GNSO Staff to send an informal Council communication to the ICANN org on the updated Operational Design Phase concept paper, including concerns expressed by some Councilors.

Council members to provide input by end of day tomorrow (22-Jan-2021) at the latest on the Proposed Messaging to the ICANN Board in relation to the SSAD Consultation. GNSO Staff to send the proposed messaging to the ICANN Board by EOD 22-Jan-2021.

Pam Little mentioned that the Council is looking for a Council liaison to the EPDP 2A. It was confirmed this position would fall to a GNSO Councilor.

Philippe Fouquart adjourned the meeting at 20:57 UTC on Thursday 21 January 2021

_______________________________

GNSO Council Meeting Agenda's and Records for 2020 are listed below, in reverse monthly order (most recent first)

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 18 December 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 17 December 2020

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y3f7xoof

04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Paris; 15:00 Moscow; 23:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

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

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly, Tomslin Samme-Nlar

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Jeffrey Neuman– 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 – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom Recording

Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Philippe Fouquart welcomed all to the GNSO Council meeting.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest.

Maxim Alzoba informed the Council that he was standing in tor Criag Schwartz in the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) until early 2021.

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 meetings part 1 and part 2 on the 21 October 2020 were posted on 6 November 2020.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 19 November 2020 were posted on 3 December 2020.

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

2.1 - The review of the Projects List and Action Item List

Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, provided the latest updates to the Action Decision Radar (ADR) , the Action items and the Project List to Council:

Transfer policy issue report is due in near time, in January the Council may consider launching the PDP for the transfer policy review

IDN Charter DT have met already in December, work is progressing toward launching the EPDP

There are Chair appointments for EPDP Phase 2A and IGO Work track

GNSO Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO): They completed their Council comments submitting about the draft PTI and IANA FY22 budgets and operating plan. New Public Comment to open shortly and the SCBO is expected to review the materials.

IRP IOT was listed as a project but has been removed as is not of Council’s purview, further updates will be handled by the SSC and the Action item list.

The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP Working Group Final Report will be delivered later than anticipated.

Wave 1.5 report is also expected from PPSAI and Translation and Transliteration IRTs.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There were five items on the Consent Agenda.

3.1 - Approval of SSC Leadership for 2020-2021: Carlton Samuels, Chair and Sophie Hey, Vice-Chair

3.2 - Approval of Heather Forrest to serve an additional term as GNSO nominated member of the Fellowship Selection Committee

3.3 - Approval of Keith Drazek to serve as EPDP 2A Chair

3.4 - Approval of Chris Disspain to serve as IGO Curative Rights Work Track Chair

3.5 - Confirmation of Council liaisons to respective efforts:

All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs / IGO Curative Rights Work Track - John McElwaine

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - Flip Petillion

EPDP Phase 2 - Olga Cavalli

EPDP Phase 2A - TBD

Standing Committee on Budget & Operations (SCBO) - Philippe Fouquart (ex officio)

Standing Selection Committee (SSC) - Tatiana Tropina (ex officio)

IRT: EPDP Phase 1 - Sebastien Ducos

IRT: Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Recommendations (PPSAI) IRT - TBD (paused)

IRT: Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (T/T) - Maxim Alzoba (paused)

GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO - Sebastien Ducos

GNSO Council liaison to the GAC - Jeff Neuman (already approved but included for completeness)

Councilors voted unanimously in support of the motion.

Vote results

Action Items:

Staff to inform Fellowship Selection Committee of GNSO Council’s approval of Heather Forrest as the GNSO nominated member for an additional term.

Staff to send a call for volunteers for the EPDP Phase 2A Liaison position, with the aim to fill the position by the 21 January 2021 Council meeting. (EPDP Phase 2 liaison position is not needed)

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Affirm of intent of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7 (EPDP 1 Rec 7)

Philippe Fouquart reminded Council that there has been significant work on this topic, but no common ground has been found within the IRT, Council was asked by the Board to further work on the topic, the result of which was presented today.

Pam Little, prior to presenting the motion, explained the rationale to Council (slide deck). The motion requires Rec 7 be implemented as written and intended, the Thick Whois Transition Policy was modified and if there is a conflict, Rec 7 prevails. She reminded the Council that this was an unprecedented occurrence. The difference between Rec 7 and Thick Whois Policy is that for Rec 7, transfer of registrant contact information is optional, whereas for the Thick Whois Policy, the transfer of registrant contact info from registrar to registry operations is mandatory.

Pam Little then provided further rationale to councilors. She highlighted the Board’s request for Council to further clarify the intent of Rec 7, a request which ought to have happened at an earlier stage of the policy development process bu tin this case, after ICANN Board adoption of the recommendation. The EPDP mapped out purpose and

processing activities, specifically purpose 1B - PA2 which suggests that Rec 7 intends the registry operator in question to determine whether they have a legitimate legal basis to require the data from the registrar. The role of the ICANN Board once recommendations are adopted is to give instructions to ICANN staff to implement policy recommendations. The GNSO Council within the consensus policy implementation framework, serves as a resource for staff about the background or intent of the policy recommendations. The Implementation review team (IRT) ensures the implementation conforms to the intent of policy recommendations and is not a forum for revisiting policy discussions. The GNSO Operating Procedures, Annex 2 article 16 also mentions that approved GNSO Council policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been implemented by ICANN staff may only be amended by the initiation of a new PDP on the issue and the EPDP is deemed satisfied for the purpose of amending the Thick Whois Transition Policy.

Marie Pattullo, from Business Constituency (BC) thanked Pam for the overview. On behalf of the BC, she requested a deferral due to the NIS 2 issued by the European Commission (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/proposal-directive-measures-high-common-level-cybersecurity-across-union). If the directive passes, it will provide the legal basis for Thick Whois, specifically article 23. She also raised that a deferral would not necessarily hold the IRT work back, and in the light of the directive, further time was needed.

John McElwaine supported the BC’s request due to the EC announcement which has bearing on this topic. He also has been working on amendments and agrees more work can be done. This is an important procedural issue to get right as it is a PDP reversing an act of consensus policy.

Philippe Fouquart asked councilors to appreciate the time spent working on the issue, in regards to a deferral, and that there have been several attempts to solve it, all have failed. Would there be some degree of freedom and additional time to work further on this?

Tatiana Tropina asked for further clarification on the deferral request motivation. The EC directive impacts the registrars and registries, but the last NIS directive took 3 years to negotiate, and there will be disagreement on several points.

Maxim Alzoba underlined that the NIS is at a draft-level, and thus should not delay policy development. It should be tracked, but not used as rationale for a deferral.

Kristian Ormen suggested that the directive wouldn’t necessarily impact rec 7.

John McElwaine replied that the reason why Rec 7 overturns Thick Whois Consensus Policy is because it makes it optional for data elements to be transferred and no longer mandatory.

Jeffrey Neuman asked about John’s mention of late changes to the motion. But there were no such late changes on the Council mailing list.

Pam Little clarified that the late changes refer to a previous draft of the motion within the small team, prior to the current motion submitted, however both versions were very similar. The one difference was the earlier version had the council initiating an EPDP on Thick Whois policy, the current motion does not, given the recent discussion with ICANN Board, which signalled if clarification of intent is done, there will be no need to initiate an EPDP process. John’s amendments have not been shared with Council. The Contracted Party House (CPH) looked into them and didn't think they would provide any further clarification, there was not enough time to look into them closely as they were submitted late.

John McElwaine agreed with Pam Little, adding that the main concern, highlighted by the EC announcement, was that the transfer of data elements from registrar to registry is going to be looked at and ought not to be made optional, as by doing that it would render Thick Whois void. He added that Pam and him collaborated in the small team with the aim of harmonising Rec 7 with Thick Whois. The way the motion is currently drafted, it doesn’t necessarily manage that, and another period of time would be worthwhile to attempt that.

Philippe Fouquart asked if councilors were ready to take a vote on the issue.

Kurt Pritz said that a deferral to arrive at a stronger agreement across Council on Rec 7 being implemented as written, with a strong direction for IRT, is reasonable. Basing a deferral on the NIS proposal would not be acceptable. A deferral would however affect the work of the IRT.

Pam Little, seconded by John McElwaine, submitted the motion for the GNSO Council to affirm the intent of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7.

Philippe Fouquart reminded the council that a deferral is at a chair’s discretion but encouraged others to speak up. His personal preference would be not to defer. He also raised that from the ISPCP perspective, there were questions about whether 30 additional days would make a difference to the work.

Maxim Alzoba proposed to second the motion if John McElwaine wished to withdraw his second.

Pam Little raised that given the requests from the BC and IPC to defer, and the knowledge that it is common practice to grant deferral, the aim ought to be to have a motion that will have as much of a Council full support as possible.

Tatiana Tropina asked if the small team would succeed in working towards reaching a conclusion. She added that voting on several amendments during the current Council meeting would be too time-consuming.

Stephanie Perrin added that at any given moment Congress could receive a draft bill which would impact the draft on Rec 7. This cannot be a delay caused by a draft law especially as nothing in the motion has been highlighted as conflicting with what is proposed in the motion.

Philippe Fouquart confirmed the deferral wouldn’t be based on the directive, but on the need for additional time to work on a motion acceptable to all.

Maxim Alzoba asked if the small team can work on this before the January meeting, given the small team does not appear to have common reading of the work.

Philippe Fouquart suggested that the small team work further on the topic with the caveat that the intent of Rec 7 is maintained. Even if the motion remains the same for the January meeting, there will be a Council vote.

The motion was deferred.

Action Item:

GNSO Council small team on EPDP Phase 1 Rec 7 to reconvene and further consider an improved approach and propose updated motion for the January 2021 Council meeting as a vote item, with the caveat that the intent of Rec 7 be maintained. Staff to send out a doodle poll to schedule a placeholder meeting (preferably before 11 Jan 2021) for the small team.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Update on Ongoing GNSO Policy Development Processes

John McElwaine, GNSO Council Liaison to the RPM WG, presented the Final Report delivered to Council on November 24th 2020. The full side deck can be found here. John thanked the co-chairs as 34 of the 35 recommendations achieved full consensus. He also thanked staff for summarizing discussions into the report. Several recommendations maintain status quo: TMCH (trademark Clearinghouse), Sunrise and Trademark Claims. Other recommendations suggested modifying operation practices, wiithin the URS and for other rights protection mechanisms. There were also suggestions for overarching data collection in addition to minority statements. Next steps are GNSO Council consideration of the Final Report and sending the recommendations report to the ICANN Board.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION -Update from Council small team on GNSO next step to implement WS2 recommendations,

In the interest of time this item was postponed.

Action Item:

Staff to place this item on the GNSO Council January 2021 meeting agenda (discussion deferred)

Item 7: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

7.1 - Notification of SG/C and Council discussion and agreement on process to appoint GNSO members for the Community Representatives Group to select IRP

Standing Panel (i.e., assign to SSC and provide the SSC with briefing document to help guide their selection process) (GNSO Chair - Philippe Fouquart)

Philippe Fouquart updated councilors on the latest developments on the agreement on the process to appoint GNSO members for the Community Representatives Group to select the IRP Standing Panel. The Standing Selection Committee (SSC) needs to receive the GNSO Briefing paper before the end of the week after review by the SG/C Chairs. There may be an extension possible for the Expressions of Interest.

Maxim Alzoba raised the issue of lack of volunteers.

7.2 - Update from SO/AC leadership roundtable (GNSO Chair - Philippe Fouquart)

Philippe Fouquart highlighted the following points:

Main focus was ICANN70 and results of the meetings survey.

Discussion on how to apply feedback to the new meeting format.

Summary paper was provided to SO/AC leaders and forwarded to SG/C leaders who are collaborating with Council leadership on a response.

7.3 - Update on SubPro PDP WG Final Report delivery (Council leadership & Flip Petillion)

Flip Petillion, Council liaison to SubPro, reminded councilors that the Final Plan was to be submitted to Council on the 23rd of December 2020. Co-chairs and staff have held countless meetings over the last few months. He shared on the Council mailing list the new updated Final Report delivery plan, which would aim for the January 2021 GNSO Council meeting with a vote during the February 2021 GNSO Council meeting.

Tomslin Samme-Nlar asked why a formal Project Change Request (PCR) wasn’t submitted.

Jeffrey Neuman responded that there was every intention of finishing the report on the 23rd December 2020, but in the last couple of weeks, Working Group members asked for more time for the consensus designations and minority reports. The PCR request would have been after the document deadline, so would have been submitted before

the January deadline, when the Final Report would have been finished.

Maxim Alzoba reminded the Council that under the previous Chair, it had been decided that no further PCR should be granted to the SubPro working group. Whereas here for a few weeks’ delay, it would seem insignificant to submit a PCR, from a project management perspective, it is poor time planning. The GNSO Council is the manager of the process, not the PDP co-chairs.

Flip Petillion replied that the email he sent around was to inform Council of the delay which is a very small time frame.

Kurt Pritz added that the Working Group was extremely active in aiming for the finishing line. The GNSO Council should not be in the process of accommodating small changes to the PDP schedule.

Philippe Fouquart agreed with the points raised but emphasized the importance of allowing the WG to finish work in a timely manner.

7.4 - Next steps for the letter from the Board regarding EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12

In the interest of time, this item was postponed.

7.5 - GNSO Council Additional Budget Requests (due 29 January 2021)

In the interest of time, this item was postponed.

Action Item:

Staff to circulate an email to the GNSO Council, providing context about previous Council Additional Budget Requests and seeking input for potential requests for the next fiscal year.

GNSO Council leadership to send a call for volunteers message to form a Council small team (likely composed of CPH Councilors) to prepare a draft response to the Board letter regarding EPDP Phase 1 Rec 12.

Philippe Fouquart adjourned the meeting at 14:06 UTC on Thursday 17 December 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 19 November 2020

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y6g9gnt5

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

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

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

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly, Tomslin Samme-Nlar

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Jeffrey Neuman– 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 – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom Recording

Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Philippe Fouquart welcomed all to the GNSO Council meeting.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest.

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 the 24 September 2020 were posted on 9 October 2020.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings part 1 and part 2 on the 21 October 2020 were posted on 6 November 2020.

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

2.1 - The review of the Projects List and Action Item List

Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, provided the latest updates to the Action Decision Radar (ADR) , the Action items and the Project List to Council:

Expressions of Interest for EPDP P2 A Chair will close on 23 November 2020.

RPM WG will submit its Final Report by end of November 2020.

IGO Protections is in stage 6 at a Board vote. The Board did resolve that the recommendations sent to them by the GNSO Council will be put on hold pending activity by the soon to start IGO Work track. A call for volunteers and for Chair for this group has also been circulated.

IRP IOT is not of Council’s purview but as it relates to onboarding the Standing Panel to IRPs, it was to be on Council’s radar. It will be removed next month.

The Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations (SCBO) kicked off its first meeting to review the draft PTI and IANA FY22 budgets and operating plan. The group will be completing its first draft and making it available for Council next week, as the Public Comment ends on the 30 November.

Standing Selection Committee (SSC) is reconfirming its membership coming out of this particular cycle.

The Action Item page has been updated and will be tracked on a Google sheet, which will be published to the same wiki page as before. A tracking method has been added, with clearer assignments now possible. Reporting metrics will also be available to track activity. The items will also be in keeping with Council program management codes.

Maxim Alzoba asked about the program management tool, cell 166, and why 540 days were projected for task completion of the SubPro implementation phase. Berry Cobb reminded councilors about how duration was estimated, with an anticipation of the maximum effort needed for the item to be completed. The duration also has to take into account additional steps needed once the effort leaves the Council’s remit, whilst relying on the best information available every month for the updates to the document.

Kurt Pritz noted that whilst reporting is key, not all items had the same relevance to Council. Several items would benefit from being even further detailed, PDPs for example. Berry Cobb responded that the program management tool is not based on priority, the intent being to identify everything which touches the GNSO from PDPs to ATRT4, for example with varying levels of involvement for the Council.

Action items: none

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There were two items on the Consent Agenda.

3.1 - Action Decision Radar - After discussing on the October 2020 meeting, Council to approve delay for the request for the Policy Status Report (PSR) for the Expired Domain Deletion Policy and the Expired Registration Recovery Policy . For clarity, delay should be considered to mean that while the Council recognizes the importance of the PSR for these consensus policies, they do not need to be at the top of the queue.

3.2 - Motion for the confirmation of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration

Councilors voted unanimously in support of the motion.

Vote results

Action Items:

GNSO Support staff to send GDS a formal communication regarding the approve delay for the request for the Policy Status Report (PSR) for the Expired Domain Deletion Policy and the Expired Registration Recovery Policy. For clarity, delay should be considered to mean that while the Council recognizes the importance of the PSR for these consensus policies, they do not need to be at the top of the queue.

GNSO Secretariat to communicate the following decision to the ICANN Secretary: Philippe Fouquart will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration until the end of his term at ICANN72.

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session (SPS)

Philippe Fouquart summarized the SPS sessions to date: a plenary session, a brainstorming session with Stakeholder Group (SG) and Constituency ( C) Chairs, two breakout sessions on separate topics. He thanked all councilors for their participation and the SG C Chairs for their willingness to provide their input to the new Council. The

SPS wrap-up session is scheduled for next week. The aim is to help councilors to prioritise their work for the coming year. Pam Little echo-ed Philippe and thanked all for their attendance despite the time zone difficulties in scheduling virtual sessions rather than the usual face-to-face.

Maxim Alzoba agreed that the SPS was an extremely good idea and an event to be continued annually.

Action Item: none

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Update on Ongoing GNSO Policy Development Processes

John McElwaine, GNSO Council Liaison to the RPM WG, reminded all that the WG was chartered over four years ago and that a huge debt of gratitude is owed to the members and the co-chairs, as well as Julie Hedlund, Mary Wong and Ariel Liang, GNSO Staff support. The group will be delivering the Final Report to the Council on 25 November 2020. There will be 35 recommendations of those 34 received full consensus, 1 received consensus with an accompanying minority statement. 15 recommendations concerned the URS, 4 on the Trademark Clearinghouse, 8 recommendations on trademark policy, 6 recommendations on trademark notices, 1 for over arching data collection.

Flip Petillion, GNSO Council Liaison to the SubPro WG, reminded Council that the WG submitted a Project Change Request, committing to deliver the Final report to Council no later than the end of 2020. Over the last few months, an important amount of work has been carried out by co-chairs and GNSO Staff support. The WG will deliver on time, after having met twice a week, in addition to leadership meetings. Membership has been motivated and engaged in this final effort. The co-chairs will soon distribute red-lined draft texts for members to share their final comments on the final report. There are several points still in discussion, one in particular would concern the Council. There are outstanding issues regarding IDN variants, some members want these issues solved before the next round of new gTLDs, some believe this is out of the WG’s scope. Council will need to address these issues.

Jeffrey Neuman, GNSO Liaison to the GAC, but in his capacity as SubPro co-chair, added that the topic of IDNs is important and has been looked at by the WG extensively. The GNSO Council IDN Scoping team recommended an EPDP to further look at this topic. Therefore in the case the Council might launch a PDP, the question of interrelation ought to be looked at now, and an emphasis on the IDN scoping work might be beneficial. ICANN Org and Board have also mentioned that this would need to be resolved prior to launching the next round.

Maxim Alzoba stated that the IDN variants topic within the WG did not have full consensus and therefore might not make it into the Final Report. The items should be kept separate, and any further discussion on the topic could further delay the next round. Philippe Fouquart added that this dependency was indeed in question at a community level.

Pam Little mentioned that, regardless of the question of dependency, the question of IDN variants is important, and is of Council’s remit to develop policy to address the topic. The question of dependency is yet to be determined. But the topic would need to be discussed with the IDN Scoping team to better understand the time needed once the charter is drafted. It could be possible that by the time the implementation of SubPro recommendations is finished, the IDN EPDP could quite possibly have completed their work. She agreed with the concerns expressed by ICANN Org and the Board as promoting diversity is one of the key goals in the 2012 round and the next and future rounds.

Philippe Fouquart agreed that the IDN scoping effort should be pushed to the top of the list

Jeffrey Neuman clarified that the WG did not believe there is a dependency, the WG will push forward to finish their work. The co-chairs only wanted to highlight the fact ICANN Org and Board had raised the possibility of a dependency.

Kurt Pritz added that there are legal and security issues linked to the question of IDN variants. Even if the EPDP were to be launched earlier, it would not necessarily be a guarantee of success.

Philippe Fouquart thanked the Council Liaisons for their updates.

Action Item: none

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - When to Launch the Review of Policy & Implementation Recommendations Review

Philippe Fouquart reminded the Council that 5 years ago this non-PDP WG provided a report on Policy and Implementation with recommendations on : a guidance process, an input process, Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF), IRT principles and guidelines. June 2020 was the date for the input to be reviewed.

Pam Little added that leadership had discussed this, and has suggested that the small team tasked with reviewing the Operational Design Phase (ODP) paper, also take a look and the Policy and Implementation Report to suggest to Council whether to take a closer look at the outputs, or postpone it to later. Several of the processes have not been used yet in the past 5 years, except the EPDP.

Maxim Alzoba suggested discussing item 6 and 7 of the Council agenda together. The GNSO Review has to wait for ATRT3 results to be implemented. The approval of the Policy & Implementation Recommendations review (with several processes never having been used) needs to be done in the correct order.

Pam Little agreed with Maxim but added that timing is not the only factor. She also mentioned that the CPIF and IRT Principles and Guidelines have been used, and raised by the small Council team working on recommendation 7 from EPDP 1. Certain concepts need to be focused on within the outputs, but also other reviews have overlaps.

Kurt Pritz, leading the Council small team on ODP, asked Council who would be willing to take an additional task to review the Policy and Implementation recommendations.

Tatiana Tropina agreed with Kurt and noted that a full review does not need to be launched but that it can be discussed within the overarching exchanges within the ODP small team.

Pam Little informed councilors that one of the deliverables of the ODP small team could be to explain why it would not be timely to launch the review right now. Greg DiBiase agreed with Pam and Maxim, that there are other dependencies to the GNSO review, and that the ODP Small team expertise could be increased by additional council members.

Jeff Neuman reminded councilors that the PDP2.0 asked for a Standing Committee for Improvement Implementation to be created to look at issues as they arose. He suggested re-building a similar committee rather than passing off items to the GNSO Council ODP small team.

Action Item: none

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Upcoming GNSO 3 Review

Philippe Fouquart informed councilors that this item was triggered by a letter sent by ICANN Board asking whether the review will take place in June 2021 in light of the dependency on ATRT3.

Tatiana Tropina asked councilors for their input concerning the response as time was running out to start the GNSO3 review on time.

Osvaldo Novoa suggested that given ATRT3 as well as the NomCom reviews suggested a holistic review of ICANN. These could also be considered dependencies, and the GNSO Council could also request such a review as ICANN Org has changed a lot in five years.

Stephanie Perrin raised that, whatever form it takes, the consultation should be posted in a consistent manner.

Maxim Alzoba, Tatina Tropina and Marie Pattullo agreed with waiting the ATRT3 review prior to beginning the GNSO3 review. Marie added that a lot of work will be triggered by the ATRT3 review.

Pam Little raised that consultation would need to be taken by the GNSO as a whole, as

GNSO Council is only one part of the GNSO but, procedurally, the Council could form a view or arrive at a position for the Council chair or leadership to take to the broader GNSO-wide discussion . Tatiana Tropina added that a consultation would need to be held with the SG/C as per recommendations in the Board letter.

Philippe Fouquart reminded councillors that during the SPS Brainstorming session, the need for the strengthened dialogue with SG and C was raised, and that this should be put in place for discussion around GNSO3 review.

John McElwaine, having looked at the Bylaws, noted that the notion of “feasibility” was raised as possible delaying factor, so Council would need to focus on this item in the response to the Board,

Action Items:

GNSO Council leadership to discuss with leaders of the GNSO SGs and Cs regarding potentially delaying the upcoming GNSO3 Review until the ATRT3 recommendations are implemented.

If such a view is agreed by SGs and Cs' leaders, GNSO Council to communicate this view to the ICANN Board in a timely manner; GNSO support staff to assist in conveying such a message.

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Continued Discussion on the Draft Motion to Affirm Intent of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7 and initiation of the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy EPDP

Pam Little: Recommendation 7 from EPDP P1 Final Report, if implemented, will mean registries will decide if registrars send thick whois data to them, so making it optional. The existing policy is the Thick Whois Transition Policy where it is a mandatory for registrars to send thick whois to the registry operator. The enforcement of this policy was deferred pending EPDP outcome. There are now different views on how Rec 7 should be implemented, this is the impasse the Board has written to Council about. A Council small team was formed to work on the issue. The topic is challenging, with different views within the small team. Pam encouraged councilors to look at the draft motion in its current form. It will be submitted to Council for the December meeting.

John McElwaine concurred with Pam as to the reasons for the impasse. The small team is fine with interpreting that rec 7 was to overturn existing consensus policy, but the question is how to communicate that to the IRT with rational inclusive language. There are two policies, one which conflicts with the other. How do we resolve that

conflict? Do we communicate that we implement rec 7 as written, and have an EPDP to look at Thick Whois which is no longer?

Pam Little agreed with the need for a new template or an agreed rule to apply when a new consensus policy recommendation conflicts with an existing policy, for instance that the more recent consensus policy recommendation should prevail.

Maxim Alzoba reminded councilors that the law prevails over ICANN policies, in this situation, the EPDP did not make Thick Whois become an out of date policy, it was GDPR.

Stephanie Perrin suggested that for the motion, there is new legal information, a subsequent precedent being set, therefore building the argument for a new EPDP to handle the issue.

Philippe Fouquart asked whether incoming councilors would like to join the small team given it was created before the new council was seated. Pam Little agreed that all should be able to join provided they can come up to speed swiftly.

Olga Cavalli had volunteered to be the liaison for the EPDP P2A and would like to join the small team to be kept in the loop.

Sebastien Ducos, GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP IRT, asked what information he could bring back to the IRT prior to the vote taking place next month. Philippe Fouquart suggested that early input could be shared informally prior to the December meeting.

Action Item:

GNSO Support Staff to launch another call for volunteers for the small team related to expediting the Thick WHOIS review as envisaged by the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation 27, noting that there is limited work left for the small team before it concludes its work prior to the December 2020 Council meeting. GNSO Support Staff to note that Olga Cavalli has volunteered to join the small team.

Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.1 - Update from the small team reviewing the Operational Design Phase concept paper

Kurt Pritz updated councilors on the methodology of the small team used to review the paper thoroughly, and devised questions which ICANN Org could use for clarity purposes. Most of the ODP small team was in alignment, and a draft response was sent to Council for input. This included specific topics on transparency considerations, recommendations for a framework over a procedure, suggestions that when needed the ODP be available in a flexible and discretionary way at various moments, and possible risks. (slide deck)

Action item:

Kurt Pritz to send the ODP presentation slides to the GNSO Council list asap; Councilors to provide comments by the SPS Wrap Up session on Tuesday, 24 November at 18:30 UTC.

9.2 - Next steps for the Expressions of Interest Process for the EPDP Phase 2A Chair

Pam Little informed councilors that there has been no application yet despite an extension. If no one from the community were to come forward, hiring an external facilitator could be a solution, however negative the precedent set. This is an exceptional situation, as the two topics have been discussed at length, and in this scenario, a mediator could be helpful.

Maxim Alzoba agreed with the possibility of an unbiased mediator and highlighted the importance of the fact the community is over-stretched.

9.3 - Proposed next steps for nomination of GNSO Fellowship Program Mentor and Selection Committee Member

Emily Barabas, ICANN Org, ICANN Org has requested SG and C recommend a Fellowship Program Mentor and Selection Committee member. Heather Forrest has held the latter for the last two years and has confirmed she is willing to carry the role forward. Regarding the Program Mentor, the SSC is available to work on the process.

Philippe Fouquart adjourned the meeting at 22:13 UTC on Thursday 19 November 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting Part 1 21 October 2020

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y3nxs8rf

04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 14:00 Moscow; 20:00 Tokyo; 22:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

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

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

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 – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator

Andrea Glandon - SOAC Collaboration Services

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom Recording

Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Keith Drazek welcomed all to the GNSO Council meeting.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

James Gannon announced that he had been appointed to the PTI Board, his SOI has been updated accordingly.

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 20 August 2020 were posted on 04 Sep 2020.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 24 September 2020 were posted on 9 October 2020.

Keith Drazek noted that eight councilors would be joining the GNSO Council for 2020-2021 and that it was an important turnover.

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

2.1 - The review of the Projects List and Action Item List

Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, provided the latest updates to the Action Decision Radar (ADR) and the Project List to Council:

New colour coding by program to build cohesion amongst the Program Management Tool, the ADR and the Projects List.

These documents are used in conjunction with one another to allow for prioritization and reporting on activity.

Several items on the 0 to 1 month range marker are on the Consent Agenda for today’s meeting.

On the Project List, the RPM WG co-chairs have submitted the Project Change Request (PCR) but the health of the project is still in trouble. The SubPro WG is reviewing comments from the Public Comment. Council has already voted on EPDP P2 consensus recommendations.

Keith Drazek reminded councilors of the Strategic Planning Session to come with a focus on prioritization.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There were five items on the Consent Agenda.

3.1 - Action Decision Radar - Next Steps for WHOIS Conflicts Procedure Implementation Advisory Group

Action Items:

GNSO support staff, in consultation with GNSO Council leadership, to draft communication to ICANN org. The communication is to deliver the GNSO Council request that ICANN org, in consultation with contracted parties, draft a proposal for a modification to the existing Procedure based on its past experience with both the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure and the registrar data retention waiver process.

Following receipt of the proposal from ICANN org, the GNSO Council to consider the proposal and assess next steps, including seeking input from the community, if appropriate, given the substance of the proposal. Following the GNSO Council’s consideration.

GNSO Council to proceed with action suggested in items 3.1(3-4) after the

completion of the prior two actions.

3.2 - Action Decision Radar - Per the rationale circulated on 11 October 2020, Council agrees to launch a call for volunteers for a small team to develop both a draft charter and an EPDP scoping document for the IDN Policy Track 2.

Action Items:

GNSO support staff, in consultation with GNSO Council leadership, to launch a call for volunteers for a small team to develop both a draft charter and an EPDP scoping document for the IDN Policy Track 2.

GNSO support staff to record the following members who already volunteered: Jeff Neuman, Tomslin Samme-Nlar, Maxim Alzoba, Dennis Tan, Juan Manuel Rojas, Edmon Chung, Mark Datysgeld

3.3 - Following the GNSO Council’s consideration of the proposed immediate actions and subsequent steps as outlined here, the GNSO Council directs on EPDP Phase 2a – Legal/natural and feasibility of unique contacts; EPDP Phase 2a –Accuracy

EPDP Phase 2a – Legal/natural and feasibility of unique contacts Action Items:

GNSO Support staff, in consultation with GNSO Council leadership, to draft communication to the ICANN groups that appointed members to the EPDP Team to:

Commence the process of confirming members availability and/or re- appointing members to work on these topics; new members are expected to be confirmed by 15 November.

Start developing proposals to address these topics, factoring in deliberations to date, that will allow the EPDP Team to kickstart deliberations on these topics when it reconvenes.

GNSO Support staff, in consultation with GNSO Council leadership, develop and publish a call for Expressions of Interest to identify a new Chair for EPDP Phase 2A.

Accuracy Action Items:

GNSO Support staff, in consultation with GNSO Council leadership, to draft communication to ICANN SO/AC/SG/Cs which requests:

Interested groups to start considering members that have relevant knowledge and expertise that should join this effort once the scoping team launches.

Interested groups to start compiling relevant information and suggestions that would allow kickstarting the discussions on 1. and 2. once the scoping team is formed (see here for resources already identified).

GNSO support staff, in consultation with GNSO Council leadership, to send GNSO Council request to ICANN org for a briefing document that outlines both (i) existing accuracy requirements and programs and (ii) the corresponding impact that GDPR has had on implementing / enforcing these requirements and programs. The document, once delivered, will be provided to the scoping team to inform its deliberations.

3.4 - Confirmation of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of recommendations 1-22 contained in the Final Report from the EPDP Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data – Phase 2.

Action Item:

GNSO Support Staff to work with Council leadership on transmittal letter of the EPDP Phase 2 Recommendations Report, including a request to the ICANN Board to form a small team to outline the proposed modalities of the consultation. The transmittal letter will be sent as a cover letter for the EPDP Phase 2 Recommendations Report.

3.5 - Appointment of the GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (motion)

Action Item:

The GNSO Council Leadership Team to coordinate with Jeffrey Neuman as well as the GAC Leadership Team and GAC Secretariat on next steps and the successful implementation of the GAC Liaison role.

Councilors present on the call voted unanimously in favour of the motion.

Vote results

Action Items:

GNSO support staff, in consultation with GNSO Council leadership, to draft communication to ICANN org. The communication is to deliver the GNSO Council request that ICANN org, in consultation with contracted parties, draft a proposal for a modification to the existing Procedure based on its past experience with both the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure and the registrar data retention waiver process.

Following receipt of the proposal from ICANN org, the GNSO Council to consider the proposal and assess next steps, including seeking input from the community, if appropriate, given the substance of the proposal. Following the GNSO Council’s consideration.

GNSO Council to proceed with action suggested in items 3.1(3-4) after the completion of the prior two actions.

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Discuss Draft Motion to Affirm intent of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7 and Initiation of the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy EPDP

Pam Little, Vice Chair, chaired this item, with Rafik Dammak, Vice Chair, Keith Drazek having recused himself from the discussion. She reminded councilors that during the September meeting, Sebastien Ducos provided a report to Council about the disagreement within the IRT which persists. The issue has been sent back to Council and covers two recommendations: 7 and 27. Recommendation 7 (Rec 7) deals with the transfer of registration data from registrars to registries. The ICANN Board also raised concerns about the impact on the Thick Whois transition policy as well as the fact the EPDP 2 Final Report did not explicitly repeal Thick Whois. The Council small team tasked with the issue referred to existing GNSO guidelines and principles for direction in this unique situation. Pam Little added that for her, Council’s only role should be one of providing guidance to the IRT about the intent of the recommendation.The draft motion put forward by the small team intends to confirm intent of the EPDP 1 recommendation and to initiate a PDP to review the thick Whois transition policy. The small team had diverging opinions and this is why the draft motion is being presented for discussion, instead of voting. The draft motion also provides a rationale for why Council is making

this decision.

Marie Pattullo, BC Councilor, agreed that the Council's role is to manage the process and not relitigate substantive issues. She also added that the diverging views visible in the Council small team reflected those existing in the IRT. The BC disagrees with the need for a PDP, given that from their perspective, a legal basis exists. Marie also expressed concern at the risk of repealing a consensus policy.

John McElwaine, IPC Councilor, echo-ed Marie and added that the impasse was not going to be solved by an interpretation of legal basis, but by discussing what the outcome would be of determining that a legal basis would include requiring the transfer of thick whois data elements.

Pam Little mentioned that the issue here was re-visiting a consensus policy, approved by both the GNSO Council and ICANN Board, with ICANN Org seemingly driving the policy language within the IRT in a way which is inconsistent with the actual recommendation.

Rafik Dammak agreed with Pam and emphasized that the GNSO Council is not the right place to be re-working Rec 7 but focus on the process management and provide guidance to the IRT to move away from the impasse. In addition to this, there is the work to be done on responding to ICANN Board’s main question on thick whois. Any delay to this will further delay the IRT from finalizing the implementation of a EPDP P1 recommendations.

Michele Neylon expressed his frustration at the fact councilors were still in disagreement on the topic. He reminded councilors that ICANN policies cannot break the law and that it was raised very early on that ICANN contracts would need to be revised. EPDP P1 recommendations on thick whois data and transfer of it are very clear. If there is a legal basis, then the work should be allowed to move forward without wasting time focussing on small issues. Thick Whois policy is consensus policy as are the EPDP recommendations, the focus needs to be on the conflict between the two, and that only.

Pam Little added that the Board has adopted the policy recommendations and directed ICANN org to implement them but in the course of a policy implementation, ICANN Org is accountable to the GNSO Council. If the implementation is inconsistent with the policy recommendation, then the GNSO Council has a role to play in the implementation process.

Keith Drazek thanked the small team for their efforts and also Sebastien Ducos for this work as liaison to the EPDP IRT. He then added that the next step would be to publish the proposed language for public comment and expressed his agreement with the points raised by Pam.

Pam Little confirmed that she intends to submit the motion for the November 2020 GNSO Council meeting to avoid the IRT work being delayed any further.

Action Item:

GNSO Support Staff to include the item of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7 in the agenda of the November 2020 Council meeting.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Draft Operational Design Phase for gTLD Policy Implementation

Keith Drazek reminded councilors ICANN Org had first introduced the Operational Design Phase (ODP) to the SOAC Chairs for an initial preview and discussion, the document was then circulated to the Council mailing list on the 5th October 2020. The ODP will have implications in terms of timing and process, and the GNSO Council will need to ensure it doesn’t impact consensus policy recommendations.

Rafik Dammak mentioned that this discussion was crucial and the GNSO Council needed to have a small team work on a Council response to this paper, without hindering SG/C discussion and input. The GNSO Council would take the lead on how to integrate this to the PDP itself, with the help of the PDP manual and other documents. He encouraged early community feedback as it is always more effective. The ODP

could be embedded in the Working Group Guidelines which did not previously cover cost, resource and human rights assessments. Whilst this will be a helpful endeavour for the Board, it will also help expedite the process which is in the GNSO Council’s interest.

Tatiana Tropina expressed her uncertainty about the rationale for the document which is presented by ICANN org as increasing transparency on Board deliberations but she upon reading saw a threat to the GNSO Council role as process manager. She added that stronger safeguards should be added to prevent further negotiations. To go ahead, the design phase needs to be perfectly streamlined and not become an obstacle.

Philippe Fouquart agreed with the idea of a Council small team to work on the topic. The ISPCP recognized that transparency is a good thing but that some elements of the ODP could overlap with the GNSO Council PDP management role. With deadline driven initiatives such as EPDP, there will be other policy issues to discuss, and thus rigour will be needed to ensure these issues remain under Council’s remit.

Action Item:

A GNSO Council small team to develop input/feedback for the concept of the Operational Design Phase (ODP) as well as the substance of the ODP paper. The following Councilors already volunteered: Jeff Neuman, Maxim Alzoba, Tatiana Tropina, Kurt Pritz, Juan Manuel Rojas, Tom Dale

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Board Consultation Regarding Questions Surrounding the financial Sustainability of the System for Standardized Access and Disclosure

Keith Drazek reminded councilors that Recommendation 1b of the EPDP P2 Final Report, which Council approved on the 24 September 2020, approved the SSAD package while noting questions surrounding financial sustainability of SSAD and concerns expressed in minority statements. The GNSO Council requested a consultation with the ICANN Board as part of the delivery of the GNSO Council recommendations report to discuss these issues, one of which being whether a further

cost benefit analysis should be conducted before ICANN Board considers all SSAD related recommendations for adoption. Keith added that there had been questions raised by Council regarding whether users of the system would find sufficient value versus the potential cost of building and sustaining it.

Michele Neylon noted that looking at financial sustainability and resources was excellent and necessary. He encouraged the ICANN Board to consider all aspects and assessments prior to signing off on any policy recommendation given the sources of revenue are registries and registrars and ultimately registrants and other users of domains.

Marie Pattullo mentioned that Alex Deacon, BC, has done scoping work on a Salesforce model for this already on the basis that ICANN is already using the tool as a ticketing system.

Keith Drazek then asked councilors to review the transmittal letter in the aim of clarifying the Council’s interest in the next steps on the topic.

Maxim Alzoba disagreed with using Salesforce as his registry experience raised flexibility issues with the tool, particularly regarding access levels.

Action Items:

GNSO support staff to include the item of financial sustainability of the SSAD topic in the Council working session agenda during SPS.

GNSO Council to form a small team to outline the proposed modalities of the consultation in coordination with the ICANN Board (see action item above).

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - ADR Item - Council to Consider Delay of the Request for the Policy Status Report for the Expiration Policy(ies)

Keith Drazek asked that councilors take this as an opportunity to consider when to request a policy status report to conduct a review of expiration policies, the expired domain deletion policy ( EDDP) and the expired registration recovery policy (ERRP). Taking into account current workload and exceptional circumstances, Keith Drazek

recommended Council request the policy status reports for these two consensus policies be delayed by 24 months, assuming no substantive issues arise during that time.

Berry Cobb added that this was key to the prioritization of GNSO Council work and that given there have been no issues in relation to these policies, the delay request made sense.

James Gannon and Rafik Dammak approved of the initiative which allows the Council to focus on bigger topics.

Pam Little agreed in the light of the Council initiating a PDP on the transfer policy shortly which would take up registrar time and effort.

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1 Open Mic

Jeffrey Neuman noted that he approved of the ODP which he likened to a business plan rather than a threat to policy making. The argument in favour being that policy participants are not the best qualified to make assessments on staff resources for example. He appreciated ICANN Org opening up and enabling early community input on those topics whilst acknowledging safeguards needed to be put into place.

Amr Elsadr, as former member of the Thick Whois PDP WG, asked that the GNSO Council take into account recommendation 3 of the Thick Whois PDP WG because of the nature of the recommendation on privacy and data protection law.

Alex Deacon, as former member of the EPDP P1 and current member of EPDP IRT, raised that the current impasse is procedural with a conflict between two consensus policies, both correct, both of them Board approved. He suggested a PDP be created to resolve the issue.

8.2 Farewell to outgoing councilors

Keith Drazek, outgoing Chair, thanked all councilors, Rafik Dammak and Pam Little in particular for their contribution to the Council leadership team and the staff support.

Pam Little praised Keith for his chair neutrality, his promotion of consensus and ensuring all views are heard. She thanked Rafik for his contributions as. amongst others, GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP, and leading PDP3.0. She commended Michele Neylon, outgoing RrSG councilor for his candour and keeping the RrSG updated on council activities. She also thanked staff for their extraordinary effort in supporting the Council.

Rafik Dammak talked about what a pleasure it had been to work with both Keith and Pam, and that despite the early hours, he had enjoyed the Council preparation meetings.

John McElwaine thanked all outgoing councilors, adding how welcoming the 2019-2020 councilors had been and how impressed he had been with the collegiality within Council. He expressed specific thanks to Keith and Rafik for their leadership.

Philippe Fouquart added that it was a tremendous shame these farewells could not be done face-to-face and that he looked forward immensely to meeting up in a physical set-up shortly.

Michele Neylon added his thanks to Pam’s regarding Keith’s unwavering neutrality as Chair, and commended both Pam and Rafik for their leadership despite considerable time zone issues.

Elsa Saade, outgoing NCSG councilor, thanked Rafik for his mentorship, Tatiana for her friendship, James and Amr Elsadr for his support. She also expressed thanks to staff support, and to Keith and Pam.

James Gannon, outgoing NCSG councilor, will remain in ICANN with a seat on the PTI Board, and praised the GNSO Council for its work, and Keith for his guidance over the last few years.

Keith Drazek thanked Pam for running this last portion of the meeting, and staff for pulling together the slide deck. He added that he was supremely confident in the next GNSO Council but asked that all councilors be involved, engaged and volunteer to the

work effort, as input is key. He acknowledged the effort was considerable given the lack of face-to-face opportunities. He thanked all for their friendship, professionalism and good work over the past few years.

Keith Drazek adjourned the meeting at 13:04 UTC on Wednesday 21 October 2020

------------------------------------------------------

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 21 October 2020 part II

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 13:15 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/yyor7bfj

06:15 Los Angeles; 09:15 Washington; 14:15 London; 16:15 Moscow; 22:15 Tokyo; (Thursday 22 October) 00:15 Melbourne

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg Dibiase,

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos,

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

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

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Tomslin Samme-Nlar, Farrell Folly

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Jeffrey Neuman– 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 – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator

Andrea Glandon - SOAC Collaboration Services

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom recording

Transcript

Item 1. Seating of the 2020 / 2021 Council

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Statements of Interest

Statements of interest were received from the new Councillors:

Kurt Pritz - SOI Registries Stakeholder Group

Kristian Ørmen - SOI Registrars Stakeholder Group

Mark Datysgeld - SOI Business Constituency

Stephanie Perrin - SOI Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group

Wisdom Donkor- SOI Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group

Tomslin Samme-Nlar - SOI Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group

Juan Manuel Rojas - SOI Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group

Olga Cavall- SOI - Non-Voting NomCom Appointee

Jeffrey Neuman - SOI - GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC

Pam Little, Contracted Party House Vice Chair, chaired the first portion of the call, and welcomed all incoming councilors to the 2020-2021 Council.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

The agenda was accepted without change.

Item 2. Election of the Chair

One nomination was received for this position, Philippe Fouquart. The GNSO Council held a question & answer session during the September GNSO Council meeting.

Pam Little reminded councilors that given the virtual aspect of the GNSO Chair election, voting via closed ballot, as is tradition during face-to face sessions, had been discarded by Council leadership in favour of an open roll call vote. This procedure had received no objection on the GNSO Council mailing list.

The Council proceeded to elect the chair according to the GNSO Operating Procedures.

GNSO OPERATING PROCEDURES

https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-18jun18-en.pdf

Section 2.2 Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs

The roll call vote was done by open ballot which had two options:

[] Philippe Fouquart

[] None of the Above

Nathalie Peregrine, ICANN Org, tallied the votes. At time of the vote, Carlton Samuels, Non Contracted Party House NomCom Appointee, was absent. He submitted his absentee ballot via email before the end

of the Council Meeting Part 2.

The results of the election were:

	Candidate 1	Candidate 2
Results:	Philippe Fouquart	None of the above
CPH	7	0
NCPH	13	0
	20	0

CPH	100.00%	0.00%
NCPH	100.00%	0.00 %
	200.00%	00.00%

With the 60% threshold attained in both the Contracted Party House and the Non Contracted Party House, Philippe Fouquart was elected GNSO Chair and GNSO Council Chair 2020-2021.

Philippe Fouquart thanked councilors and both Houses for their support, and promised he would do his utmost. He encouraged all feedback, including the negative.

Action items:

GNSO Secretariat to notify ICANN Board and SG/Cs of Chair election results within 2 business days following each election and runoff ballot, whether successful or unsuccessful (As per article 2.2.g of the GNSO Operating Procedures)

GNSO Secretariat to publish election results on GNSO Website

Item 3. Any Other Business

3.1 - Confirmation of Vice-Chairs

Appointed GNSO Council Vice Chairs are: Pam Little (Contracted Party House) and Tatiana Tropina (Non Contracted Party House).

Both Philippe Fouquart and Pam Little expressed their content at being part of the GNSO Council leadership team, and acknowledged the work the Council would have to face in the upcoming months.

3.2 - GNSO Chair to serve as the interim GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community (EC)

Administration

Philippe Fouquart reminded the GNSO Council that the GNSO Chair is interim GNSO Representative to the EC Administration until the November Council meeting at which point the Council will confirm the appointment via vote on the Consent Agenda.

Pam Little clarified that the term “interim” was used here as a formal motion was needed to confirm the GNSO Representative.

Action Item

GNSO Secretariat to notify John Jeffrey of interim GNSO Representative to the EC

Philippe Fouquart then invited incoming councilors to introduce themselves to the rest of Council.

Kurt Pritz, incoming RySG councilor, works for the .art domain name registry, after working for ICANN Org. He emphasized he would be listening to both the RySG and the GNSO Council for input.

Kristian Ørmen, incoming RrSG councilor, previous RrSG Secretary, works for a Danish registry, has worked with domain names for all his professional life and currently focuses on domain policy registry contacts, compliance and abuse.

Mark Datysgeld, from the LAC region, incoming BC councilor, runs an Internet Governance consultancy focused on SMEs. He was part of the NextGen program in 2015, and is delighted to now be on the GNSO Council. He has been very active in Universal Acceptance efforts as well as in policy making.

Stephanie Perrin, incoming NCSG councilor, served on Council from 2014 - 2018, after retiring from the Canadian government in 2013 shortly after joining the Experts Working Group on the RDS policy. She’s worked on data protection issues working in the Privacy Commissioner’s office and now provides consultancy services.

Wisdom Donkor, incoming NCSG Councilor, works for the African Data and Internet Research Foundation, he currently focuses on ensuring data protection policies are adopted and thanked the NCSG for electing him to the GNSO Council.

Tomslin Samme-Nlar, incoming NCSG Councilor, He was a GNSO co-chair of the IANA function review team. He works for NTT in Australia.

Juan Manuel Rojas, incoming NCSG Councilor, based in Colombia, is a journalist by trade but passionate about internet governance since 2010. He has worked as an e-governance consultant and director for an e-cluster in Colombia, He will bring the civil society perspective from Latin America to the GNSO Council.

Olga Cavalli, incoming NomCom Appointee, congratulated Philippe, Pam and Tatiana for their leadership roles. She used to be a NomCom Appointee from 2007 - 2011, and has been a GAC Vice Chair and co-chair of SubPro WT5. She has been involved in ICANN since 2006 but focuses primarily on capacity building activities and investigations about public policy related to the Internet.

Jeffrey Neuman, incoming GNSO Liaison to the GAC, served on the GNSO Council twice, is SubPro PDP WG co-chair and has been involved with ICANN from before it was ICANN. He is therefore very familiar with the policy development process. Thanks to his work as SubPro Chair he has gained newfound respect and admiration for the GAC, the way they operate, and how they have tried to become better familiarized with the GNSO policy development process.

Philippe Fouquart reiterated how delighted he was to be working with the new Council and the new Council leadership, with an emphasis on delegation and small team efforts.

ICANN Org support staff then organised an informal Zoom picture of the new 2020- 2021 Council.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, adjourned the meeting at 15:52 local time.

The next GNSO Council meeting will take place on Thursday 19 November 2020 at 21:00 UTC

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-09de c19-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:-

6 November

GNSO Council Meeting part I

13:00 EST

6 November

GNSO Council Meeting part II

15:15 EST

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:-

24 October

GNSO Council Meeting

12:00 UTC

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/stream0 1

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 -

Time	Agenda item	Materials	Presenter
09:30 -09:45	Welcome by the Chair		Keith Drazek
09:45 - 10:15	GDD Update: EPDP IRT and other IRTs		Dennis Chang
10:15 - 10:30	Coffee break
10:30 - 11:15	Board resolution EPDP phase 1		Keith Drazek
11:15 - 12:15	Prep for ccNSO, GAC, GAC IGO discussion and Board sessions	GAC (discussion topics: EPDP Phase 2 & Legislative tracker) ccNSO ( Agenda)	Keith Drazek
12:15 - 13:15	Lunch meeting with the Board	Discussion topics sent to Board: (1) IGO CRP Next Steps, (2) EPDP Phase 1 Consultation Next Steps, and (3) EPDP Phase 2 Ongoing Work.(4) IDNs (5) New gTLD SubPro (6) Review recommendations: prioritization and budgeting	Keith Drazek
13:20 - 13:50	PDP3.0 update	GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Plan - updated 20 June 2019.docx PDP 3.0 Gantt Chart PDP 3.0 Fact Sheet Mock-up	Rafik Dammak
13:50 - 14:20	EPDP Phase 2 update		Rafik Dammak
14:20 - 14:40	ATRT3 update	ATRT 3 Communication Community Digest 20 June 2019.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/kane-langdon-orr-to-icann-board-14jun19-en.pdf	Pat Kane & Cheryl Langdon-Orr
14:40 - 15:00	Update on CCT RT recommendations	https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-zuck-14mar19-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-zuck-et-al-05mar19-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-final-08sep18-en.pdf	Jonathan Zuck, Carlos Gutierrez, Waudo Siganga (remote)

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.

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

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

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)

Reminder of small team activities:

Input on the IRP Standing Panel (Volunteers: Flip, Elsa)
IDNs (Volunteers: Rubens, Maxim, Philippe, Edmon, Michele)

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

CCT-RT Recommendations (Volunteers: Pam, Carlos, Michele)
IGO-INGO Charter Drafting (Volunteers: Martin, Elsa, Paul, Carlos)

Correspondence and proposed next steps for:

Request for Clarification on Data Accuracy and Phase-2 of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data
ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs (assumptions document)

ICANN66 Meeting Planning

Whether to have an informal dinner (and volunteer to organize if yes)
Input to leadership for planning purposes

AOB

Council liaison replacement (Reconvened WG on Red Cross- IRT: Currently Keith)
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:

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.

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

Final GNSO Council Agenda

Please find below the resolution and the deferred motion from the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday, 29 November 2018 to be posted on the GNSO resolutions page shortly.

Approved - Consent Agenda: Motion for the confirmation of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration

Made by Pam Little

Seconded by Rafik Dammak

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Council confirmed in October 2018 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.

2. 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 19 November 2018.

Resolved,

1. 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 ICANN66.

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

3. 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.

Vote results [gnso.icann.org]

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 25 September 2018 were posted on the 13 October 2018

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

Item 3. Consent Agenda (5 minutes)

Motion to adopt the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communiqué.

Motion for the confirmation of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration.

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (15 minutes)
<explanatory text snipped>

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 [INSERT LINK WHEN READY] that lists issues raised by Councilors, options available, and potential considerations.

Here, the Council will consider the options available and discuss appropriate 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.

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 step

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

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

6.1 – Presentation of topic (Council Leadership)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Policy Status Report (15 minutes)

Here, the Council will receive an update on the report, discuss its initial reactions, and consider next steps.
7.1 – Presentation of materials (Brian Aitchison)
7.2 – Council discussion
7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)

8.1 - Update on the Council Strategic Planning Session

8.2 - Permanent GNSO representative to the Fellowship Selection Committee

Upcoming Meeting(s)

December Meeting - Dec 20 2100 UTC

Details of the most recent Face to Face GNSO Meeting (October) are accessible also below:-

MP3, Adobe Connect recording and chat of the GNSO Council meeting held on Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 13:00 UTC.

MP3

Part I: http://audio.icann.org/meetings/bcn63/bcn63-OPEN-2018-10-24-T1055-115-en-GNSO-Council-Meeting-Part-I.m3u

Part II: http://audio.icann.org/meetings/bcn63/bcn63-OPEN-2018-10-24-T1306-115-en-GNSO-Council-Open-Meeting-Part-I_.m3u

Adobe Connect Recording URL

Part I: https://participate.icann.org/p3j97hwa2ao

Part II: https://participate.icann.org/p8ykhei0r1e

Adobe Connect chat Part I at: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript-chat-council-1-24oct18-en.pdf

GNSO Council meetings 2017

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

15 Dec 2016 at 1200 UTC

07/08 November 2016

GNSO Council Public Meeting at ICANN 57 Hyderabad

13:45 IST

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)

29 September 2016

GNSO Council Teleconference

21:00 UTC

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.

1 September 2016

GNSO Council Teleconference

12:00 UTC

This agenda is also published on the Wiki page at:

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

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

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

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 21 July 2016 to be approved on 27 August 2016.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes)

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

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 minutes)

3.1 – Confirm dates for selection of GAC-GNSO liaison (motion passed on 30 June 2016) based on updated ICANN57 meeting dates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+30+June+2016

Motion as passed, with dates to be updated highlighted as indicated below:

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms the extension of the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC, Mason Cole, until the end of the ICANN AGM in Hyderabad.

2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the extended selection timeline (Nominations Accepted for Candidates - 1 OCT 2016; Council Chairs consider candidates and notify first choice - 20 OCT; Chairs submit motion to Council by 29 OCT (change to 28 October) for consideration during Council meeting on 8 NOV (change to 7 November); GAC Leadership notified of new Liaison by 9 NOV).

Motion Carried unanimously.

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Recommendations from the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements (10 minutes)

In April 2015 the GNSO Council requested that the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements (SCI) document the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council concerning (i) whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion before the Council is to be seconded, and (ii) the treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either “friendly” or “unfriendly”. The Council’s request also authorized the SCI to develop new processes for these practices if the SCI believed that the current practices are inappropriate. Separately, in November 2015, the GNSO Council requested that the SCI review Sections 2.2(b), (f) and (g) of the GNSO Operating Procedures with respect to, first, clarifying: (i) the eligibility of incoming Council members to run for the position of GNSO Chair; (ii) the start and end dates as well as the duration of the Chair and Vice-Chair terms in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws; and (iii) the timing of publication of the election results; and, secondly, recommending a general time table for election of the GNSO Chair.

In October 2015 and in accordance with the Council’s April request, the SCI sent its documentation of the Council’s practices on the seconding and amendment of motions to the Council (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/aikman-scalese-vansnick-to-robinson-09oct15-en.pdf). Subsequently, the SCI reached Full Consensus on a proposal to codify the current customary practices in the GNSO Operating Procedures as a new Section 3.3.3: Submitting, Seconding, and Amending Motions. With respect to its review of the rules governing the GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair elections, the SCI reached Full Consensus on modifications to Section 2.2 and a proposal for a new Section 2.2.1: Procedures for a Situation Where a New GNSO Chair Has Not Been Elected by the End of the Previous Chair's Term in the GNSO Operating Procedures.

The SCI’s proposals were published for public comment on 5 July 2016 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-op-procedures-2016-07-05-en). By the close of the public comment period on 14 August, two public comments had been received supporting the SCI’s proposals (https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-op-procedures-05jul16/). Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve the SCI’s recommendations for modifying the GNSO Operating Procedures as proposed.

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Amr Elsadr)

4.2 – Discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison notes: friendly amendment to be made that the Standing Committee is not "disbanded" but possibly "retired" - less negative language.

Motion carried unanimously.

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of Implementation Advisory Group Recommendations to Update Procedure on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws (15 minutes)

The GNSO’s 2005 Policy on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois-privacy/council-rpt-18jan06.htm) had recommended the creation of a procedure to address conflicts between a contracted party's WHOIS obligations and local/national privacy laws or regulations. Under the existing procedure dating from January 2008, a contracted party that credibly demonstrates that it is legally prevented from complying with its WHOIS obligations can invoke the procedure, which defines a credible demonstration as one in which the contracted party has received "notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action that might affect its compliance." The procedure has never been invoked.

In May 2014, ICANN launched a review of the procedure. An Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) was formed and began its work in January 2015. The IAG’s Initial Report was published for public comment in November 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/iag-whois-conflicts-privacy-2015-10-05-en). On 25 May 2016, the IAG’s Final Report, accompanying Appendices and a summary Memo to the GNSO Council was delivered to the GNSO Council. The IAG proposed modifications to the procedure that it believes do not affect the underlying Policy. The Council received an update on the proposed modifications at ICANN56 and discussed the matter further at its meeting on 21 July. Here the Council will confirm whether or not the IAG’s proposed modifications conform with the underlying GNSO Policy.

5.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

5.2 – Discussion

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison Notes: Volker Greimann expressed concerns from the Contracted Parties that the proposed policy is unworkable for them - mentioning, as an example, the need for a Registrar to break the law in order to obtain a waiver is unworkable and opens a Registrar to unwarranted risk. ALAC Liaison expressed support with the concerns raised by Volker. It is worth noting that the concerns expressed by Volker Greimann on behalf of the Registrar Constituency broadly echo the concerns expressed in the At-Large Community in At-Large IAG Initial Report and Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Procedure for Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws Workspace.

Donna Austin also had similar concerns. Others expressed a concern that the PDP working group had reached consensus but now the Council appeared not to have consensus, thus that was potentially going to raise a problem.

As a result to the discussion, the motion was withdrawn as a rejection of the motion during voting could have had worse effects than a current withdrawal.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (20 minutes)

On 5 August 2016, ICANN Board Chair Dr. Steve Crocker sent a letter to the GNSO Council concerning work on the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-05aug16-en.pdf). The Board wished to know the GNSO Council’s view of the current work in light of the existing GNSO policy and ongoing parallel review work on the 2012 New gTLD Program. The Board letter specifically asked for information on the PDP timeline and whether the GNSO believes that the current PDP must be completed prior to advancing a new application process under the current policy recommendations, including whether any consideration has been given in relation to whether a future application process could proceed while policy work continues and be iteratively applied to the process for allocating new gTLDs. On 16 August the GNSO Chairs sent a reply to the Board on behalf of the Council, acknowledging the Board’s request (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/council-leadership-to-crocker-16aug16-en.pdf). Here the Council will discuss the subject of the Board’s letter and its further response, including whether or not input from the PDP Working Group may be helpful.

6.1 – Status update on the Board letter and PDP progress (James Bladel / Paul McGrady)

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: expressed the ALAC's discussions in its new gTLD working group and read out to the record:

1. *do not start the process of a subsequent round until all necessary reviews have been completed* and their reports and recommendations have been fully considered by the ICANN community and Board. This includes not just the Subsequent Procedures PDP referenced in Chairman Crocker’s letter but also the RPM Review PDP and the Consumer Choice, Competition and Trust Review mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments.

A strong discussion took place about this. Expression about a pattern of abuse being undertaken by some Registries and ICANN compliance not helping was expressed by Susan Kawaguchi.

Discussion will continue for the next call, noting that the Board is expecting a response. The aim would be to respond to the Board by mid October. (before Hyderabad)

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Next Steps for the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (10 minutes)

The Charter for this Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) was ratified by the ccNSO Council (September 2014), the GNSO Council (October 2014), and the ALAC (April 2015). The ratified Charter provides that the CCWG scope includes doing “whatever it deems relevant and necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes”, with regular monthly updates to be provided to its Chartering Organizations and a periodic Progress Paper where appropriate. The Charter also provides that the Chartering Organizations should review the Charter and CCWG deliverables in order to determine whether the group should continue or be dissolved, with the proviso that the CCWG will continue if at least two of its Chartering Organizations extend the Charter and notify the other Chartering Organizations accordingly.

At ICANN55, there was some discussion over the most appropriate forum for SO/AC interaction on Internet governance matters, especially given the expected forthcoming finalization of a Uniform Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs. The co-chairs of the CCWG-IG provided the Council with a Progress Report on its recent activities at ICANN56. Here the Council will discuss appropriate next steps in relation to overseeing the work of the CCWG.

7.1 – Review of status of Council discussion (James Bladel)

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 - Next steps

Liaison Notes: skipped to a future call. Concern expressed by Marilia Maciel that this item keeps on being moved from meeting to meeting and

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Cost Control Mechanisms and Request for GNSO Council Validation of the Budget for the Cross Community Working Group on Ensuring ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) (15 minutes)

On 10 July, the GNSO Council requested that the ICANN Board Finance Committee and the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs conduct a webinar to brief the Council and broader GNSO community on the Proposed Cost Control Mechanisms and the CCWG-Accountability’s request for the GNSO Council to validate the proposed FY17 budget for the CCWG-Accountability (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-bfc-ccwg-accountability-chairs-10jul16-en.pdf). The proposed budget and costs had been reported to the GNSO Council on 21 June https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18841.html ) The requested webinar took place on 23 August. Here the Council will discuss the CCWG-Accountability’s request for the Council to validate the proposed FY17 budget in light of the further information provided during the webinar (recording and slides available at https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/.

8.1 – Status update (James Bladel)

8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Liaison Notes: The Council will be asked to approve the costs of CCWG Accountability. Concern expressed (Paul McGrady) about approving a plan that includes "Jurisdiction" in WS2. This is of concern to some. Otherwise, satisfaction was expressed at the level of detail given to provide ongoing updates for the cost control of WS2 topics.

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Planning and Scheduling for ICANN57 (15 minutes)

ICANN57 will take place in Hyderabad, India, from 3-9 November 2016. This will be the first “Meeting C” under the new ICANN Meeting Strategy as well as the Annual General Meeting for ICANN. A draft GNSO schedule for the meeting was circulated to the GNSO Council on 11 July 2016 and reviewed at the Council meeting on 21 July. Here the Council will review all proposed GNSO sessions for ICANN57 in relation to the meeting schedule, including the face to face Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group meetings, the customary annual Development Session for incoming and continuing GNSO Councilors, and the submission of High Interest Topics of interest to the GNSO.

9.1 – Overview of the proposed schedule (James Bladel)

9.2 – Discussion

9.3 – Next steps

Liaison notes: very short update made. (less than a minute) – and will be followed up on the mailing list.

Item 10: Any Other Business (10 minutes)

10.1 – Discussion of note from Chris Disspain on status of IGO acronyms protection work (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/disspain-to-gnso-council-22aug16-en.pdf)

Liaison Notes: GAC & Board have been meeting behind closed doors and none such discussion between GNSO and Board. (Phil Corwin)

10.2 – Confirmation of Council liaisons to the the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data PDP, IRTP-C PDP, IRTP-D PDP and GNSO Review Working Group

10.3 - Timeline for GNSO Chair/Vice-Chair elections leading up to and at ICANN57 to be shared following meeting – Councillors encouraged to share any questions / concerns with mailing list

10.4 Proposed Measures for Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels to Avoid Confusion with Corresponding Country Code

Liaison notes: most of these items will be raised and discussed on the mailing list.

21 July 2016

GNSO Council Teleconference

21:00 UTC

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

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

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

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

Minutes of the GNSO Council Public Meeting on 30 June 2016 to be approved on xxxxx 2016.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes)

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

Projects are being updated on a daily basis. No specifics.

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

(empty)

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Primary and Secondary Liaison Candidates for the Customer Standing Committee (20 minutes)

The package of proposals that was developed by the community in relation to the IANA Stewardship Transition called for the creation of a new structure to provide operational oversight of the performance of the IANA naming function, a role currently performed by the United States government through the National Telecommunications and Information Authority (NTIA). This new oversight structure is to be called the Customer Standing Committee (CSC), and its role is to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function against agreed service level targets. The CSC may also initiate reviews of and make recommendations for changes to service level targets. As a ICANN Supporting Organization, the GNSO may appoint a liaison to the CSC, in addition to the two gTLD registry operator members to be selected by the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG). The liaison appointment is of a primary and a secondary candidate, both of whom must meet the qualification requirements and be geographically diverse.

The final composition of members of and liaisons to the CSC is to be approved first by the RySG and the ccNSO, and secondly by the GNSO and ccNSO, who will also decide which members and liaisons will serve inaugural three-year terms. Liaison candidates are to be confirmed by 22 July 2016, and the final slate of members and liaisons, as determined by the ccNSO and GNSO, is to be sent to ICANN on 10 August.

The GNSO’s CSC Selection Committee consists of Councilors Susan Kawaguchi, David Cake, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Rubens Kuhl and Heather Forrest. At ICANN56, the Selection Committee updated the Council on its work to date and confirmed the timeline for CSC appointments. Here the Council will consider the recommendations of the Selection Committee for the primary and secondary GNSO liaison appointments.

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

4.2 – Discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

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

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

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

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

Action Items:

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

Staff to notify ICANN of the selection result

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Implementation Mechanism for the Adopted Recommendations from the 2014 GNSO Organizational Review (15 minutes)

In September 2015, the Independent Examiner that had been appointed to conduct the 2014 GNSO organizational review published its Final Report. At its meeting in April 2016, the GNSO Council adopted, with one modification, the proposed Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the Independent Examiner’s recommendations that was prepared by the GNSO Working Party (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201604). The Working Party had been formed to liaise between the GNSO, the Board’s Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) and the Independent Examiner. On 25 June 2016, the ICANN Board agreed with the OEC’s advice that the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis (as adopted by the GNSO Council) should guide the implementation process, and requested that the GNSO Council convene a group to oversee the implementation. The Board further requested that an implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, be submitted to the Board no later than six months after the adoption of the Board’s resolution, and the GNSO Council provide a regular report on the progress of the implementation effort (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e).

The GNSO Council had previously requested that ICANN staff prepare a paper on possible mechanisms for implementation upon Board approval of the GNSO organizational review recommendations. The Discussion Paper was circulated to the Council on 20 June 2016 and discussed by the Council at its Public Meeting during ICANN56. Here the Council will consider the suggestion and a draft Charter , stemming from its ICANN56 discussion, for repurposing the GNSO’s Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements to function as a Working Group to develop the implementation plan.

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

5.2 – Discussion

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison Notes: Wolf Ulrich Knoben explained the different options:

Option 1: close down the SCI and have a brand new group take over the implementation of the improvements

Option 2. use the GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) with working group that will be GNSO Review Implemenation team working alongside the SCI

There could be some possibiity of overlap between the two groups.

Friendly amendment regarding that all of the recommendations expected to be sent to council for consideration needs to reach full consensus threshold within the working group. Option 1 is the preferred option. Full consensus will apply to any recommendations suggesting a change to GNSO operating procedures. Some debate about needed to amend the motion on the fly prior to it being adopted.

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

Action Items:

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

Staff to note in Council meeting minutes that Option #1 was selected

Staff to prepare notice of Council decision to SCI

Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Response to GAC Communique from ICANN56 (25 minutes)

The GAC Communique from ICANN56 contained GAC advice on several gTLD policy issues, including future gTLD policies and procedures, privacy and proxy services accreditation, and protections for International Governmental Organizations’ (IGO) names and acronyms. Starting in July 2015, the GNSO Council has reviewed each GAC Communiqué for issues relating to gTLD policy, with a view toward providing feedback to the ICANN Board as well as the broader community concerning past, present or future GNSO policy activities relating to advice provided by the GAC. A draft response was circulated to the GNSO Council on 19 July 2016. Here the Council will consider whether or not to provide a response to the Board concerning the relevant gTLD issues raised by the GAC in its Helsinki Communique.

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

6.2 - Council discussion

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison Notes: it is worth noting that some feel there is an increase in understanding and collaboration between GAC/Board/GNSO. Several Councillors have followed the discussions and shared their point of view, espcecially on topics such as IP Rights, IGO, PPSAI, etc. Pointing out to outputs of GNSO PDP – and an interest in having GAC members takng part in the GNSO PDPs. Concern expressed about the target of the Response.

Decision made to refine the Response further with amended language that was uploaded. The Council will defer the response to let more Councillors study the response.

Withdrawn/Deferred to Electronic Voting 6-9 August 2016

Action Items:

Staff to amend last sentence in draft response on IGO protections issue, to reflect Board-GNSO discussions in Helsinki

Councillors to provide feedback on amended draft response by Wednesday 27 July)

Staff to work with Mason Cole (GNSO Liaison to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) to ensure follow up communications with/from the GAC after formal response is submitted to the Board and cc’d to the GAC

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Next Steps on Proposed Modifications to the Procedure to Address WHOIS Conflicts with National Law (20 minutes)

The GNSO’s 2005 Policy on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois-privacy/council-rpt-18jan06.htm) had recommended the creation of a procedure to address conflicts between a contracted party's WHOIS obligations and local/national privacy laws or regulations. Under the existing procedure dating from January 2008, a contracted party that credibly demonstrates that it is legally prevented from complying with its WHOIS obligations can invoke the procedure, which defines a credible demonstration as one in which the contracted party has received "notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action that might affect its compliance." The procedure has never been invoked. In May 2014, ICANN launched a review of the procedure. An Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) was formed and began its work in January 2015. The IAG’s Initial Report was published for public comment in November 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/iag-whois-conflicts-privacy-2015-10-05-en).

On 25 May 2016, the IAG’s Final Report, accompanying Appendices and a summary Memo to the GNSO Council was delivered to the GNSO Council. The IAG is proposing modifications to the procedure that do not affect the underlying Policy. The Council received an update on the modifications at ICANN56. Here the Council will discuss its next steps, which may include confirming whether the IAG’s proposed modifications conform with the underlying GNSO Policy.

7.1 – Review of status of Council discussion (James Bladel)

7.2 - Council discussion

7.3 - Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: Pushback by NCSG about the procedure that is proposed above. The policy was not referred to a PDP. Chair Bladel mentioned that there was indeed an RDS PDP but this would not be long term. Concern from others that the above proposal was already rejected and there is a "groundhog day" feeling about this. There is a difficulty in differentiating between the policy itself & the triggers that invoke the policy – even though neither the policy nor the trigger for the policy are liked. Others think that this is a contractual discussion thus it should be discussed under other circumstances.

Result: discussion to be continued on the GNSO Council mailing list.

Action Items:

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

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Schedule for ICANN57 (20 minutes)

ICANN57 will take place in Hyderabad, India, from 3-9 November 2016. This will be the first “Meeting C” under the new ICANN Meeting Strategy as well as the Annual General Meeting for ICANN. A draft GNSO schedule for the meeting was circulated to the GNSO Council on 11 July 2016. Here the Council will review the proposed schedule, including the need to possibly accommodate face to face Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group meetings and the customary annual Development Session for incoming and continuing GNSO Councilors.

8.1 – Overview of the proposed schedule (James Bladel)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

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

Action Items:

Councilors to continue review of proposed draft schedule

Council to confirm selection of GNSO PDP Working Groups for face-to-face meetings at ICANN57 on 3 November as soon as possible (most likely candidates – RDS and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures)

Clarification from Nick Tomasso on visas for India

Item 9: Any Other Business (10 minutes)

9.1 – Update on Council representatives from the Registrars Stakeholder Group

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

9.2 – Update on status of progress on the Drafting Team that is to identify new and additional rights and responsibilities for the GNSO under the revised ICANN Bylaws

GNSO Liaison Notes: Staff to send an update about the timeline to the Council mailing list.

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

GNSO Liaison Notes: problem about a member of the RPM working group. Request for GNSO Council to look into available actions when an individual sends unsollicited communication to other community members and staff. ICANN Legal to be consulted.

30 June 2016

GNSO Council Public Meeting in Helsinki

07:45 UTC

Meeting Minutes (from GNSO Staff)

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

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

Minutes of the GNSO Council Public Meeting on 12 May 2016 were approved on 30 June 2016.

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

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

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

Item 3: Consent agenda

No items on the consent agenda

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

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

Motion proposed by Donna Austin seconded by Carlos Gutierrez.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Voting results

Action Item:

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

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

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

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

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Voting results

Action Item

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

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

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

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

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Voting results

Action Item

GNSO Secretariat to inform the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the extended selection timeline (Nominations Accepted for Candidates - 1 OCT 2016; Council Chairs consider candidates and notify first choice - 20 OCT; Chairs submit motion to Council by 29 OCT for consideration during Council meeting on 8 NOV; GAC Leadership notified of new Liaison by 9 NOV).

Staff to include consideration of a uniform selection process as part of the work associated with implementing the post-transition bylaws

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

Copy of official minutes:

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

Acknowledging receipt of the request,

referring the request to the Chairs of the Translation and Transliteration PDP Working group

referring the request Chairs of the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Working Group.

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

Action Items:

Staff to note that GNSO Council will proceed with the Board request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Item:

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

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

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

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

Item 12: Any Other Business

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

14 April 2016

GNSO Council Teleconference

21:00 UTC

(preliminary report pending addition of Recorded Action Items)

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

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

Minutes of the meeting of the Special GNSO Council session 29 February 2016 will be posted as approved on 22 April 2016.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes)

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

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

Item 4: PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION – Possible Next Steps in Resolving the Issue of Permanent Protection of Certain Red Cross Identifiers (20 minutes)

In November 2013, the GNSO Council approved the final recommendations from its Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs. Subsequently, in April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s PDP recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice received on the topic. For the Red Cross movement, the protections adopted were for the full names Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun at the top and second levels, in the 6 official languages of the United Nations, with an Exception Procedure to be designed during the implementation phase for the affected organizations. However, with respect to the names and acronyms of the 189 national Red Cross societies and the names of the International Red Cross Movement (as noted by the GAC in its Singapore Communique), the Board requested more time to consider the GNSO’s recommendations as these are inconsistent with GAC advice received on the topic. In the interim period, the Board adopted temporary protections for the Red Cross national society and international movement names noted in the GAC’s Singapore Communique.

At ICANN55, representatives of the Red Cross met with the GNSO Council leadership to discuss possible next steps. Here the Red Cross representatives will brief the Council on the scope of the Red Cross’ continuing request for permanent protections for those of its national society and international movement identifiers that are not currently covered by the policy recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

4.1 – Introduction (James Bladel)

4.2 – Presentation by representatives of the Red Cross (by invitation)

4.3 – Q&A / next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: International Red Cross providing evidence as to why Red Cross should be given protection in the Red Cross / Red Crescent mark.

The Red Cross maintains that they do not fit in the IGO/INGO Protection.

Item 5: VOTE – Approval of Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations from the GNSO Review (10 minutes)

As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (now known as the Organizational Effectiveness Committee) appointed Westlake Governance as the independent examiner to conduct the current review of the performance and operations of the GNSO. A GNSO Working Party, chaired by former Councillor Jennifer Wolfe and comprising representatives of all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, was formed to consult with Westlake over the design and conduct of the review. Westlake's Draft Report was published for public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including from the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its Final Report on 15 September. The Working Party reviewed all the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board in relation to the implementability and prioritization of the recommendations. The Council received a written update from the Working Party chair on 29 January, and the Working Party’s proposed Implementation and Feasibility Analysis was sent to the Council on 28 February.

Here the Council will review the Working Party’s Implementation and Feasibility Analysis, and vote on its adoption as well as agree on next steps in the process.

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

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison Notes:

Long discussion about several concerns which were expressed about how to go forward with some of the recommendations and what additional issues they may be raising as a consequence. Amr El Sadr expressed his concerns about what

Important to differentiate the output of the recommendations vs. the recommendations of a PDP working group. The Working Party is an unchartered group. During the WP deliberations there was a conscious decision to seek council endorsement of the assessment. Emphasis on “endorsing the recommendation” rather than “adopting the recommendation”.

Suggestion: vote to continue the work based on the comments that were received. “adopting” as in not actually endorsing it.

Adopted unanimously. (less Marilia Maciel who was absent)

Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Procedures Governing the Selection of the GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (10 minutes)

As part of a two-year pilot program initiated in June 2014, the GNSO Council and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) agreed, through its joint GAC-GNSO Consultation Group, to appoint a GNSO Liaison to the GAC. The purpose of the Liaison role was to facilitate more effective early engagement by the GAC in GNSO policy activities and to contribute toward better information flow between the two bodies. Following Consultation Group review of the pilot program, the Consultation Group recommended that the Liaison role be made a permanent one in March 2016. Here the Council will review and approve the scope of such a permanent Liaison role as well as the application, selection and confirmation process.

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

Applications are made confidentially. Candidates may share their application if they wish. An evaluation sheet will be used to decide on the candidate. Agreement that if there are more than one candidate there might be a balance between contracted & non-contracted parties house.

GNSO Liaison Notes: Approved unanimously.

Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of GNSO Input to the ICANN Board on the GAC’s Marrakech Communique (20 minutes)

Beginning in mid-2015 with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique, the GNSO Council developed a mechanism for reviewing and commenting on aspects of that Communique that are relevant to gTLD policy. The resulting GNSO input on both the GAC’s Buenos Aires and Dublin Communiques were approved by the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board and the GAC Chair (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/robinson-to-icann-board-gac-chair-29jul15-en.pdf and http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-gac-review-31dec15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the draft response to the GAC’s Marrakech Communique, drafted by a volunteer group of Councillors, and, if appropriate, approve its being forwarded to the ICANN Board and GAC Chair.

7.1 – Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)
7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

GNSO Liaison Notes: Response approved.

Item 8: COUNCIL APPROVAL – Public Comment on ICANN’s FY17 Proposed Budget (15 minutes)

On 5 March 2016, the draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan and Budget was published for public comment (closing on 30 April). The GNSO Council had previously provided public comments to the FY16 Operating Plan and Budget. At ICANN55, a small group of Councillors had volunteered to work on possible Council comments to the draft FY17 budget. Here the Council will review and, if appropriate, agree to send in the proposed comments.

8.1 – Update and summary of comments (Keith Drazek / Edward Morris / Carlos Raul Gutierrez)

8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: Cut short. Taken to list.

Item 9: DISCUSSION – Implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan (10 minutes)

At ICANN55, community discussions were held concerning the upcoming implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan, including at a session on 7 March. Several GNSO community members voiced concerns about whether the proposed implementation plan would meet the requirements of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Proposal on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). On 25 March a Call for Volunteers was issued for additional CCWG participation, including for implementation of the adopted Work Stream 1 recommendations.

Here the Council will discuss the community concerns that have been raised, and review possible next steps in relation to the CWG-Stewardship and ICANN staff that have been charged with developing the implementation plan.

9.1 – Summary & update (James Bladel)

9.2 – Discussion

9.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: Briefly discussed. Follow-up on mailing list due to time running out.

Item 10: DISCUSSION – Planning for “Meeting B” (ICANN Policy Forum) (10 Minutes)

At ICANN55, the GNSO held several discussions, including with the ICANN Board, concerning the focus, duration and meeting schedule for the first designated ICANN Policy Forum, to take place in Helsinki as ICANN56 (i.e. the initial so-called “Meeting B”). Specific concerns were raised about the apparent lack of time for actual policy work in the overall Meeting B schedule when all the current draft SO/AC/Board proposals were put together, and about the lack of opportunity for different SO/AC/Board groups to interact with one another. A small group of SO/AC volunteers has been formed to address these concerns.

Here the Council will hear from its representatives to this group, and discuss further plans for finalizing the GNSO’s schedule for ICANN56 so as to maximize the policy focus for Meeting B. This includes confirmation of the PDP Working Group(s) to be invited to consider conducting a face-to-face working meeting in Helsinki, on a day either precedent or subsequent to the ICANN56 schedule.

10.1 – Update (Donna Austin / Volker Greimann)

10.2 – Discussion

10.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: Update that work is ongoing and preparations including the coordination with other SOs & ACs is ongoing.

Item 11: DISCUSSION – Status of Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (10 minutes)

The Charter for this Cross Community Working Group was ratified by the ccNSO Council (September 2014), the GNSO Council (October 2014), and the ALAC (April 2015). The CCWG Charter states its scope as doing “whatever it deems relevant and necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes”, with regular updates to be provided to its Chartering Organizations and a periodic Progress Paper where appropriate. The Charter also provides that the Chartering Organizations should review the Charter and CCWG deliverables in order to determine whether the group should continue or be dissolved, with the proviso that the CCWG will continue if at least two of its Chartering Organizations extend the Charter and notify the other Chartering Organizations accordingly.

During the CCWG co-chairs’ update to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils at ICANN55, there was some discussion over whether a CCWG format or other arrangement might be the most appropriate form for SO/AC interaction on Internet governance matters, especially given the expected forthcoming finalization of a Uniform Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs by the CCWG-Principles. Here the GNSO Council will continue that discussion, with a view toward agreeing on the appropriate next steps for the CCWG on Internet Governance.

11.1 – Introduction and summary (Carlos Raul Gutierrez)

11.2 – Discussion

11.3 – Next steps

GNSO Liaison Notes: Deferred to mailing list due to time having run out.

Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes)

12.1 – Proposed approach to Expert Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Final Report

GNSO Liaison Notes: Deferred to mailing list due to time having run out.

18 February 2016

GNSO Council Teleconference

12:00 UTC

(preliminary report pending addition of Recorded Action Items)

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

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

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

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

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

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 minutes)

3.1 – Approve Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group

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

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

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

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

4.2 – Discussion of the motion

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

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

4.5 – Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2 – Discussion

5.3 – Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.1 – Update (James Bladel)

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Next steps

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

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

ITEM 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – GNSO Review (10 minutes)

As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (now known as the Organizational Effectiveness Committee) appointed Westlake Governance as the independent examiner to conduct the current review of the performance and operations of the GNSO. A GNSO Working Party, chaired by former Councillor Jennifer Wolfe and comprising representatives of all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, was formed to consult with Westlake over the design and conduct of the review. Westlake's Draft Report was published for public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including from the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its Final Report on 15 September. The Working Party has been reviewing the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board’s consideration in relation to the implementability and prioritization of these recommendations. The Council received a written update from the Working Party chair on 29 January. Here the Council will receive a further update, following the Working Party’s meeting in early February where it is expected to finalize its recommendations that are to be sent to the GNSO Council for approval and submission to the Board’s Organizational Effectiveness Committee for its consideration.

7.1 – Update (Jen Wolfe)

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

8.1 – Discussion

8.2 – Next steps

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

Item 9: Any Other Business (5 Minutes)

None.

22 January 2016

GNSO Council Teleconference

21:00 UTC

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

1.4 – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of the GNSO Council on 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on 27 January 2016

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

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

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (20 minutes)

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

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

4.2 – Discussion

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

Motion Passed Unanimously

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

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

5.1 – Presentation of the motion (Donna Austin)

5.2 – Discussion

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

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

After small friendly amendment, Motion Passed Unanimously.

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

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

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (Amr Elsadr)

6.2 – Discussion

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

Withdrawn

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

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

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

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

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

7.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

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

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

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

8.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr)

8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: Any Other Business (10 Minutes)

14 January 2016

GNSO Council Teleconference

12:00 UTC

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

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

ACTION ITEMS:

Letter explaining GNSO Council response - James to prepare draft for Council consideration before 21 January, assisted by Keith and Ed

Rec 5, 11 - James to draft additional language along the lines of what was discussed/agreed on the call, assisted by Ed and Paul

Rec 1 - reinsert BC note about strong right of inspection (perhaps with cross-reference in/to Rec 3?)

Rec 2 - change "unanimous support" to "broad support"

Rec 3, 4 - no change

Rec 6 - remove last sentence; add note that certain questions remain to be resolved in WS2

Rec 7 - no change

Rec 8 – further elaboration needed on note about timeliness (including replies and deadlines)

Rec 9 - Review whether IPC comment on AOC section 8(b) and direct constituency participation in review teams should be included; review generally for accuracy

Rec 10 - emphasize need for it to be a community-led effort

Rec 12 - no change

18 December

GNSO Council Teleconference

18:00 UTC

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

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

Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings of 19 November have been posted as approved on 5 December 2015

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

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

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION – Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes)

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

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Donna Austin)

4.2 – Discussion

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

Liaison Notes:

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

It was mentioned that this was not the case.

Vote was unanimous. 100% both houses.

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

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

ACTION ITEMS:

Vote on Motion #1 (initiation of PDP) – PASSED

Vote on Motion #2 (adoption of Charter) – DEFERRED

Susan Kawaguchi, Philip Corwin and ICANN staff to work on appropriate language to clarify scope of Charter vis-à-vis rights protection mechanisms (which is the subject of a separate Issue Report on which the Council is expected to consider in January 2016) and circulate to Council list prior to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting

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

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

5.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

5.2 – Discussion

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

Liaison Notes:

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

ACTION ITEMS:

Vote on Motion - DEFERRED

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

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

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (Stephanie Perrin)

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

Liaison Notes:

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

Motion passes unanimously.

ACTION ITEMS:

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

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

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

7.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

Liaison Notes:

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

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

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

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

Motion approved unanimously.

ACTION ITEMS:

Vote on Motion - PASSED; candidates named in the motion are endorsed by GNSO Council (Calvin Browne, Gregory DiBiase, Ben Anderson, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Nacho Amadoz, Carlos Gutierrez, Jonathan Zuck, Waudo Siganga, Michael Graham, Greg Shatan, David Taylor, Stacie Walsh, Viktor Szabados, Cecilia Lee Smith, YJ Park, Jeremy Malcolm, Kinfe Michael Yilma Desta)

Actions outlined in motion to be carried out by GNSO Secretariat (i.e. inform Review Team selectors including specific advice (see below) - COMPLETED; inform endorsed candidates as well as candidates that did not obtain endorsement -COMPLETED)

Susan Kawaguchi to assist staff in drafting specific advice concerning GNSO role in New gTLD Program implementation and need to ensure representation of all relevant GNSO stakeholders - COMPLETED

NPOC & NCUC to send specific candidate lists (if wished) directly to selectors, but to note that these are not candidates endorsed by the GNSO Council

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

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

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

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

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

8.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert)

8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Liaison Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACTION ITEMS:

Council to develop process to document support for CCWG-Accountability from GNSO SG/Cs and synthesize into a consolidated, GNSO position

Council to work on appropriate resolution for adoption

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

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

ACTION ITEMS:

Council to discuss on mailing list (COMPLETED)

Item 10: Any Other Business (10 Minutes)

10.1 – Confirming schedule of GNSO Council meetings for 2016

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

GNSO Election results for 2015-2016:

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

19 November

GNSO Council Teleconference

15:00 UTC

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 – Roll call

1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 – Review/amend agenda.

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

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

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

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

Action Items

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

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

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

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

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

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)

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

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

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

4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Susan Kawaguchi)

4.2 – Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2 – Discussion

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

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

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

6.1 – Presentation of the motion (Stephanie Perrin)

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert)

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Next steps

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

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

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

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

8.1 – Presentation of the candidate list (Volker Greimann)

8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Council decision and next steps

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

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

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

9.1 – Update (Steve Chan)

9.2 – Discussion

9.3 – Next steps

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

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

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

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

10.2 – Discussion / Q&A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11.1 – Introduction of candidate (James Bladel)

11.2 – Q&A

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

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

Item 12: Any Other Business (5 Minutes)

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

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

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

24 September

GNSO Council Teleconference

18:00 UTC

Action Items

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

Item 3: Consent agenda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – New ICANN Meeting Strategy

Action Item: Item deferred to the next meeting.

Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes)

10.1 GNSO Council appointment to the Leadership Training in Dublin.

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

3 September

GNSO Council Teleconference

15:00 UTC

GNSO Council Call

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

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

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

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

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

NOTES: project list has been updated.

Item 3: Consent agenda (10 minutes)

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

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

Notes: Unanimously agreed.

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

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

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

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council decision and next steps

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

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

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

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

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

5.1 – Council discussion

5.2 – Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

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

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

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

7.1 – Update (Jonathan Zuck)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.1 – Summary and status update (Thomas Rickert)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.2 – Council discussion

9.3 – Next steps

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

Item 10: Any Other Business (15 minutes)

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

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

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

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

August

No GNSO Council Conference Call due to Summer Recess

23 July

GNSO Council Teleconference

11:00 UTC

GNSO Council Call

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

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

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

Action Items:

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

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

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

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

All projects are going according to plan.

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

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

Approved unanimously.

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

Action Items:

· GNSO Council Chair to communicate the GNSO Review of Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board

· GNSO Council Chair to inform the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

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

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

Action Item:

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

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

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

Action Items:

· Encourage GNSO SG and C’s to review the notes from the Paris meeting.

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

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

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

Action Item:

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

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

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

Action Item:

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

Item 9: Any Other Business (15 minutes)

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

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

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

Action Item

· Accept request for time extension in preparing the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report

· Note Council discussion – some councilors expressed concern about the delay

· Council to further discuss and resolve the length of the public comment period

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

Some volunteers needed. Communication out ASAP.

Action Item

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

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

Process on its way.

Action Item

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

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

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

Action Item

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

9.5 – Planning for ICANN54

Action Item

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

More AoB

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

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

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

Action Item

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

21 May

GNSO Council Teleconference

15:00 UTC

GNSO Council Call

4 & 5: Updates on IANA Stewardship & ICANN Accountability

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

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

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

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

Action Items:

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

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

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

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

Action Items:

The gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group to talk directly to the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs (RySG Councillors)

Council to discuss the issue with the GAC – Council leaders commit to commence the communication with the GAC leadership (Chair / Staff)

Request guidance from the Council by posting the substantive issues to the Council list (Heather Forrest)

Heather Forrest to track the outcomes of the discussion and ensure that the Council is responding to the request (Heather Forrest)

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

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

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

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

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

Action Items:

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

Topic for future Council discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

Action Item:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Items:

Councillors are encouraged to review the GNSO Review report (All)

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

16 April

GNSO Council Teleconference

11:00 UTC

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

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

The charter is to be amended:

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

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

It is hereby amended to read:

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

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

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

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

Item 6 - CCWG Accountability

Simple update by Thomas Rickert.

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

Simple update by Jonathan Robinson.

Item 7 - DISCUSSION – Proposed ICANN FY16 Budget

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

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

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

Item 10

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

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

10.3 Appointment of a Liaison will proceed forward.

10.4 N/A

19 March

GNSO Council Teleconference

18:00 UTC

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

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

2.2 - Comments or questions arising.

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

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Carried.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: none specific in addition to the briefing

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

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

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

Outcome: none specific in addition to the briefing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 9: UPDATE: GNSO Review (15 minutes)

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

Outcome:

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome:

Action Item:

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

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

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

Outcome:

Action Item:

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

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

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

Outcome: no specific outcome at this time.

Item 13: Any Other Business (5 mins)

13.1 – CWG on Auction Proceeds

Outcome:

Action Item:

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

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

Jan 2015:

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

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

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

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

19 March

GNSO Council Teleconference

18:00 UTC

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

11 February

GNSO Council Public meeting Singapore

Date:

Wed, 11 February 2015 - 13:00 to 15:00 SGT Room: Canning

29 January

GNSO Council Teleconference

12:00 UTC

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

GNSO Council meeting audio cast

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

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

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 mins)

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

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

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

Include review of Projects List and Action List.

Comments or questions arising.

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 6: Any Other Business (5 mins)

Past Meetings in 2015

15 January

GNSO Council Teleconference

18:00 UTC

Agenda

Transcript
Chat Transcript

Mp3

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

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 mins)

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

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

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

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

Include review of Projects List and Action List.

Comments or questions arising.

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.1 Update (Thomas Rickert)

5.2 Discussion

5.3 Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

6.1 Status update (Donna Austin)

6.2 Discussion

6.3 Next steps

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

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

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

7.1 - Update

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

8.3 – Discussion

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

Item 10: Any Other Business (10 mins)

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

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

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

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

Content

Space Tools

GNSO Liaison Reports

In preparation for the ICANN#69 virtual meeting, the ALAC reconfirmed Cheryl Langdon-Orr as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for a further term of office, being the period between the 2020 AGM to the 2021 ICANN#72 AGM.

Anyone is welcome to listen to GNSO Council Meetings

Listen in Option in ZOOM

GNSO Council Meeting Webinar Room**

https://icann.zoom.us/j/96826336141

Occasional News Updates.

Any Notes of relevance to the ALAC / At-Large from GNSO Council Meetings will be highlighted at ALAC Meetings and here in colour from time to time.

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).

2021 meetings.

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 meeting records.

GNSO Council Meeting Agenda's and Records for 2021 will be listed below when available:

Draft GNSO Council Meeting Agenda for 19 August 2021 at 1900 UTC

GNSO Council Agenda 22 July 2021 at 1900 UTC

GNSO Council Meetings at ICANN 71

GNSO EPDP Phase 2A Community Update and Consultation

Session Details

GNSO Council Wrap-Up

Session Details

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 16 June 2021

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 20 May 2021

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 22 April 2021

During ICANN 70 - GNSO Council Meeting is on 24 March 2021 at 17:30 UTC.

GNSO Council Agenda 24 March 2021

GNSO Council Minutes

18 February 2021 1900 UTC

GNSO Council Minutes 21 January 2021 1900 UTC

GNSO Council Meeting Agenda's and Records for 2020 are listed below, in reverse monthly order (most recent first)

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 18 December 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 19 November 2020

GNSO Council Agenda 24 September 2020 at 1200 UTC

Draft GNSO Council Agenda 24 September 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 20 August 2020 2100 UTC

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

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

GNSO Council Minutes 24 June 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 21 May 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 16 April 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 11 March 2020

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 20 February 2020

GNSO Council 23 January 2020

DRAFT Minutes of the December 19th GNSO Council Meeting

November 6th (ICANN66 Montreal)

October 24th: 12:00 UTC

September 19th: 2100 UTC

Agenda 19 September 2019

August 22nd: 1200 UTC

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 22 August 2019

Agenda and DocumentsCoordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y2qdox2m05:00 Los Angeles; 08:00 Washington; 13:00 London; 17:00 Islamabad; 21:00 Tokyo; 22:00 Melbourne

Item 1. Administrative Matters

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

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

Item 3: Consent Agenda (none)

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

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

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Board referrals of CCT-RT recommendations to GNSOCouncil 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 2019Council meeting, 13 September 2019 at the latest.

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

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Amendments to Consensus Policy ImplementationFramework (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 followas GDD implements policy recommendations. ICANN Org is mandated to continuously review the

Item 9 - PDP 3.0 Small Group Update/Discussion

Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

July 18th: 21:00 UTC

GNSO Council Meetings at ICANN 65 - Marrakech

GNSO Council Working Session - June 24 Tichka (GNSO)

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

GNSO Council Wrap-up

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

May 16th - 12:00 UTC

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.

Final GNSO Council Agenda

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

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting

March 13th (ICANN64 Kobe)

Final GNSO Council Agenda

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

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

November 6^th (ICANN66 Montreal)

October 24^th: 12:00 UTC

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

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

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

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)

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

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 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

July 18^th: 21:00 UTC

May 16^th- 12:00 UTC

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

March 13^th (ICANN64 Kobe)