You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 36 Next »

Action Item / Request

Entry Date

Target Date

Responsible Council Member (if applicable)

Responsible Staff member (if applicable)

Additional Notes

Status

Buenos Aires Meeting Planning:

  • Invite SG/C Chairs for weekend session
  • Consider adding working session at the end of Tuesday
  • Inform SG/C chairs that no formal updates are expected at the start of Council meeting, but written report would be welcomed
  • Consider new format for ccNSO - GNSO Council meeting
  • Provide input on possible meeting topics for Buenos Aires meeting
  • Plan for attendance at GNSO Council Development Session that will take place all day and on the evening of Friday 22 November 2013.
18/7 

Wolf

Glen de Saint Gery / Marika KoningsAction items follow from discussions during GNSO wrap up session as well as GNSO - ccNSO Council meeting.

Update on schedule to be provided during 31/10 Council meeting

GNSO Review

  • Form small committee to consider issues and possible next steps in relation to the GNSO review - reconfirm volunteers on existing mailing list
18/7

 

31/10

Jen Wolfe

Rob HoggarthQuestion for the Council from 5/9 meeting: Does this group have a role to play in the event that the Board decides to postpone the review?

 

 

BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3

1.    The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the Board Governance Committee (copying the New gTLD Programme Committee).

2.    The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ATRT2.

3.    The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ICANN Board.

13/610/10Jonathan RobinsonMarika KoningsThe objective of each of the above 3 can be summarised as follows:
 
1.       The Board Governance Committee – Drafted by [Jeff].
a.       To highlight and describe the key concerns with output of the committee i.e. with the rationalisation for the reconsideration decision.
b.      To make it clear that the desired outcome is to remove the current rationalisation from the record (and not to overturn the outcome of the reconsideration).
c.       To recognise that the Council’s intervention in these processes is for very specific reasons and because of the perceived potential impact on the GNSO and indeed the MS Model.
2.       The ATRT2 – Drafted by [Volunteer].
a.       To highlight concerns with the reconsideration process as a mechanism for ensuring accountability and transparency.
b.      To not propose a specific remedy but rather to leave that to the ATRT.
3.       The ICANN Board – Drafted by [Jonathan].
a.       To summarise and refer to both 1 & 2 above
b.      To highlight on-going concerns about the issue of accountability for actions (implementation or policy) which are not in agreement with GNSO policy or policy advice.
c.       To propose solutions such as:
          i.      Agreement to effectively communicate with the GNSO in the event that a decision goes against such policy or policy advice
(something we have already agreed to on the back of our Beijing / recent discussions)
          ii.      Possible change/s to the ICANN bylaws
Jonathan sent proposed approach to Council list on 13 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14984.html). Council members were requested to provide feedback on possible next steps. Maria Farrell volunteered to take lead on item 2.

PDP Improvements

  • Staff to tabulate the proposed improvements taking into account feedback received during the Council meeting for further review and discussion.
  • Council members requested to encourage their groups to review the proposed improvements and consider which suggestions can be supported and implemented.
  • Confirm whether funding is available for Council liaison to the GAC per the existing travel guidelines
 18/7 10/10

 

 

 

All

 

Marika Konings

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glen de Saint Gery

 A paper on the proposed PDP enhancement was submitted to the GNSO Council and discussed / reviewed during the last meeting (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-22aug13-en.pdf). A tabulated version was shared with the Council on 23/9. Council is requested to provide further input.

SCI Charter

  • Jonathan to confirm the outcome of the Council discussions to the SCI (completed)
  • With regard to the decision-making methodology, Council members are encouraged to continue conversations on this issue on the mailing list on whether full consensus should be maintained or not.
 18/731/10

 

Jonathan

All

 

 

 Julie HedlundDuring its wrap up session in Durban, the GNSO Council discussed possible changes to the charter of the SCI to confirm that it is to serve as a standing committee as well as possible changes to the methodology for decision-making. These items were further discussed during the September meeting in which it was agreed that the charter should be modified to confirm it is a standing committee and that the Council would like the SCI to undertake the work to propose any other changes it deems necessary and then to submit these to the Council.Jonathan confirmed the outcome of the Council discussions to the SCI. Revised charter to be considered at the 31/10 GNSO Council meeting. Council members encouraged to share their feedback on decision making methodology.

Policy Issues surrounding String confusion

  • Send letter to the ICANN Board / new gTLD committee that the GNSO Council has noted inconsistencies with previous GNSO recommendations in the application of string confusion decisions and will explore this issue further. (completed)
  • Councillors are to encourage SG/Cs to consider / discuss how to move forward on this issue and share their feedback with the Council mailing list
5/931/10

 

Jonathan Robinson

 

All

Marika Konings 

Christine Willett participated in Council meeting on 10/10. Following that it was agreed that the GNSO Council, in conjunction with Staff, would initiate some work within the GNSO, subject to seeking legal advice from ICANN legal Counsel that this would be potentially usable in the implementation and consistency of the decisions on string similarity. Feedback from ICANN legal is expected in time for consideration at the next meeting.

 

  • No labels
For comments, suggestions, or technical support concerning this space, please email: ICANN Policy Department
© 2015 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers