Draft motion – Confirmation that modification to the procedure that implements the Whois conflicts with privacy law policy recommendation with the Contracted Party Request and Legal Opinion triggers is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendation
Submitted by: Keith Drazek
Seconded by: Heather Forrest
Whereas,
1.In November 2005, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) concluded a policy development process (PDP) on Whois conflicts with privacy law, which recommended the creation of a procedure to address conflicts between a contracted party's Whois obligations and local/national privacy laws or regulations.
2. The ICANN Board of Directors adopted the recommendations in May 2006 and the final procedure was made effective in January 2008.
3. As noted in the GNSO Operating Procedures, “Periodic assessment of PDP recommendations and policies is an important tool to guard against unexpected results or inefficient processes arising from GNSO policies”. As called for in Step 6 of the ICANN Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/whois-privacy-conflicts-procedure-2008-01-17-en), “ICANN will review the effectiveness of the process annually”.
4. Following a a review of the procedure in May 2014 and the submission of the Final Report of the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) in May 2016, the GNSO Council concluded that the proposed modification to the procedure with the alternative trigger as outlined in Appendix I of the IAG Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iag-review-whois-conflicts-procedure-appendix-1-23may16-en.pdf) conforms to the intent of the original policy recommendations and confirmed its non-objection to the modification being implemented by Global Domains Division Staff.
5. In conjunction, the GNSO Council requested that ICANN staff, based on their experience of administering the modification, assess the practicality and feasibility of this new trigger in comparison to the existing trigger as well as the other triggers discussed in the IAG Final Report and reports back accordingly to the GNSO Council.
6. ICANN organization kicked off the requested review of the Whois Procedure by publishing for public comment (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-privacy-law-2017-05-03-en) a paper outlining the new Alternative Trigger and soliciting public feedback on its implementation on 3 May 2017.
7. On 1 August 2017, Akram Atallah, President, Global Domains Division at ICANN wrote (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/atallah-to-bladel-et-al-01aug17-en.pdf) to the GNSO Council to provide the GNSO Council with an update on the comments received and outlined possible next steps for the GNSO Council to consider.
8. One of the possible next steps in the letter suggested that “the GNSO Council may consider incorporating a Contracted Party Request and/or Legal Opinion triggers, as previously discussed by the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG). However, the Council would need to first assess whether these triggers are consistent or not with the underlying policy recommendations noting that these two additional triggers previously did not obtain consensus support from the IAG, which recommended adoption of the Alternative Trigger”. The Council also observed that the staff public comment report concluded that “Almost all commenters expressed concern regarding the practicality and feasibility of getting the necessary documentation from the relevant government agency as part of the “Alternative Trigger” in step one of the revised Whois Procedure, in the absence of a Whois Proceeding”.
9. The GNSO Council emphasizes that the trigger is only step 1 of the procedure which is followed by additional steps such as consultation and General Counsel analysis and recommendation before a resolution is considered by the ICANN Board.
10. The GNSO Council reviewed all the related materials and received and discussed the possible next steps.
Resolved,
1. The GNSO Council has reviewed the Contracted Party Request and Legal Opinion as outlined in Appendix 2 and 3 of the IAG Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iag-review-whois-conflicts-procedure-23may16-en.pdf) and concludes that the proposed modifications to the procedure conform to the intent of the original policy recommendations and as such the GNSO Council confirms its non-objection to the modification being implemented by Global Domains Division Staff as outlined in Appendix 2 and 3 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iag-review-whois-conflicts-procedure-appendix-1-23may16-en.pdf) as soon as practically feasible.
2. The GNSO Council recommends that as soon as the modification has been implemented all affected parties are informed accordingly.
3. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff outlines it proposed approach and timeline to review the effectiveness of the procedure annually going forward as foreseen called for in Step 6 of the ICANN Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/whois-privacy-conflicts-procedure-2008-01-17-en).
Nomination of GNSO Replacement Candidate for Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR2) Review Team
Submitted by Susan Kawaguchi
Seconded by Rafik Dammak
WHEREAS,
1. On 19 January 2017, the GNSO Council nominated (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201701) the following candidates to serve on the SSR2-RT (in alphabetical order): James Gannon, Denise Michel, and Emily Taylor as its primary three candidates for the SSR2-RT, noting that these candidates under the new ICANN Bylaws are entitled to be selected. Furthermore, the GNSO nominated (in alphabetical order): Howard Eland, Scott McCormick, Rao Naveed bin Rais, and Norm Ritchie to be considered for inclusion in the SSR2-RT by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available.
2. On 14 February 2017, ICANN announced the selection of the 16-member team (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-02-14-en), which included the three primary candidates nominated by the GNSO Council.
3. Following the resignation of Emily Taylor on 16 July 2017 (see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/2017-July/000468.html), the GNSO Council tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) with recommending a candidate for this vacancy. The SSC recommended Norm Ritchie, who was subsequently nominated by the GNSO Council on 24 August 2017 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201708).
4. On 8 December 2017, James Gannon submitted his resignation to the SSR2-RT (see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/2017-December/000920.html)
5. The GNSO Council asked the SSC to consider an analysis of the skills that existing SSR2-RT members possess (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79433986/SSR2%20Skills%20Matrix%20for%20SO%20%26%20AC%20Chairs.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1518099841494&api=v2) in order to identify if one of the candidates might have specific skills that are currently underrepresented in the Review Team. The GNSO Council further tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) with recommending a replacement candidate, taking into account the analysis of existing and needed skills on the Review Team, the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers, as well as the desire to ensure a RT that is balanced for diversity and expertise (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2016-06-30-en).
6. Out of the three candidates that were nominated in the initial selection process for consideration, beyond those that were entitled to be selected, the following two expressed that they were still interested in serving on the SSR2-RT: Scott McCormick and Rao Naveed bin Rais.
7. The SSC submitted its recommendation to the GNSO Council on 12 February 2018.
8. The GNSO Council considered the recommendation of the SSC.
Resolved,
1. The GNSO Council nominates Rao Naveed bin Rais to replace James Gannon on the SSR2-RT.
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to the staff supporting the SSR2-RT as soon as possible.
3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the selected applicant that he has been chosen and that the GNSO Council expects that the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in his work on the SSR2-RT, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the SSR2-RT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team Members.
4. The GNSO Council asks the GNSO Secretariat to send a response to the applicant who was not selected, thanking him for his continued interest. The response should also encourage him to follow the SSR2-RT work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions.
5. If the Council is in a position to nominate an additional candidate for the SSR2-RT in the future, the Council will consider Scott McCormick as a first choice for this position, following the SSC’s recommendation that he is also a strong and qualified candidate.
