GNSO Open Council Meeting in Brussels Minutes 23 June 2010

Last Updated: 16 July 2010
Date: 
23 June 2010

Proposed agenda and documents

The meeting started at 08:05 CET; 06:05 UTC.

List of attendees:

Andrei Kolesnikov NCA – Non Voting

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Chuck Gomes, Caroline Greer, Edmon Chung

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Terry Davis

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Jaime Wagner, David Taylor, Kristina Rosette, Zahid Jamil, Mike Rodenbaugh

Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Rafik Dammak, Debra Hughes; Rosemary Sinclair, Wendy Seltzer, Mary Wong; William Drake (joined the meeting late).

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer

ICANN Staff
David Olive - Vice President, Policy Development
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN Policy Support
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

For detailed information of the meeting, please refer to:

Item 1: Administrative Items

1.2 Update any Statements of Interest

No updates

1 3 Review/amend the agenda

  • Item 3 - delayed until Bill Drake joins the meeting.

1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

* 10 June 2010 meeting – Scheduled for approval on 25 June 2010.

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09165.html

Item 2: Prioritization of GNSO work

Liz Gasster provided the Council with an overview of the prioritisation exercise the Council undertook on Saturday, 19 June 2010.

Olga Cavalli, seconded by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, and amended by Jaime Wagner proposed a resolution re: Work Prioritization

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 April 2010 meeting, adopted a resolution and timeline to conduct its first Work Prioritization effort according to a set of procedures (proposed Chapter 6 and ANNEX) recommended by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT);

WHEREAS, the adopted timeline outlined four major process steps the first three of which have been completed as follows:

1) Step 1: ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO Council a recommended Work Prioritization Project List (v1.0), including a Cover Letter, on 30 April 2010 Council approved on 20 May 2010..

2) Step 2: Eighteen Councilors and one Liaison (19 total) submitted individual Value Ratings for all 15 Eligible Projects (approved in Step 1) on or before 9 June (deadline extended from 7 June), which were then successfully processed and aggregated by Staff for input to Step 3;

3) Step 3: The GNSO Council held a Work Prioritization group discussion session on 19 June 2010 in Brussels and successfully finalized a set of Value Ratings for 14 Eligible Projects (Note: the IDNF project was determined by the Council to be “Ineligible”);

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the GNSO Work Prioritization Value Ratings finalized in its group discussion session held on 19 June 2010 and directs Staff to publish those Value Ratings on the GNSO website according to Step 4 of the adopted timeline.

The motion carried unanimously in the Contracted Parties House; in the Non Contracted Parties House there was one abstention noted.

Zahid Jamil (CBUC) provided the following reason for abstaining:

I am unclear of the efficacy of this item in light of the fact that the priorities in regards the work that the Council has to undertake are often set by externalities (eg. Board, the AoC endorsements). I note that 9 out of 20 of the work items are Board initiated.

In particular I am concerned by the view expressed by the Chair of the Board at the CSG Breakfast that the workload of the Council is within the Council’s control (I paraphrase) and that the council should address this issue itself.

This is disconcerting since deadlines at times are set by the Board or other externalities. I would suggest that from now on the Council always set its own deadlines and priorities in regards work received externally especially to ensure that:

a) We do not compromise on quality in a rush to meet externally set deadlines and
b) Have deadlines be used as leverage in negotiations to push parties to compromise.

Item 4: Whois Studies

Chuck Gomes prefaced this item by stating that this was the first step in the process of deciding on which Whois studies to pursue in the 2011 fiscal year. No decisions on which studies to pursue will be made during this session.

Liz Gasster provided Council with a brief overview of the WHOIS study choices.

Chuck Gomes urged the stakeholder groups, constituencies and the Council liaison and observer to provide feedback from their groups at the next Council meeting on 15 July 2010.

Chuck Gomes and Liz Gasster are to draft a letter to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) requesting their input.

Steve Delbianco, a member of the Commercial and Business Users constituency speaking from the floor, urged the Council to do Study Number One first given the GAC's persistence and perception that ICANN has failed on accountability because the Board did not adequately address their concerns on WHOIS.

Item 5: GNSO Improvements

5.2.1 OSC Recommendations from the Communications & Coordination Work Team

Chuck Gomes, seconded by Olga Cavalli and amended by Alan Greenberg proposed the Council resolution pertaining to the Communications and Coordination Work Team CCT Final Consolidated Report

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 May 2010 meeting, accepted the deliverable of the Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) as its final set of recommendations;

WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum completed between 23 April 2010 and 16 May 2010 and a Staff Summary and Analysis has been prepared;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agreed to take action on the CCT's recommendations as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period;

NOW, BE IT THEREFORE:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the Final Consolidated Report of the CCT, replacing the second sentence section 5.8 with "The CCT recommends that Working Group charters be drafted with careful attention to the issues and/or questions that should be considered and the goals/objectives desired to be accomplished in addition to desired timeframes.", and directs Staff to begin work on implementation.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council accepts the CCT’s specific recommendation to convene a standing committee whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams;

The motion carried unanimously in both the Contracted Parties and the Non Contracted Parties House by voice vote.
Council accepted Bill Drake's email vote, who was not physically present at the time of the vote.

5.2.2 OSC Recommendations from the GNSO Council Operations Procedures Work Team (GCOT) and the Constituency and Stakeholder Group (CSG) Work Team (WTs)

Chuck Gomes, seconded Wolf-Ulrich Knoben proposed the following motion regarding to the GNSO Council Operations Procedures Work Team (GCOT) and the Constituency Stakeholder Group Work Team (CSG) Recommendations

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008;

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) and the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT), which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations;

WHEREAS, the GCOT has completed and submitted certain documents that it recommends be incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) as follows:

Section 2.1-Council Member Term Limits

Section 2.4-Board Seat Elections

Section 3.8-Absences and Vacancies

Chapter 4.0-Voting

Chapter 5.0-Statements and Disclosures of Interest

o Note that two sections, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3, are not approved pending further Staff action to be determined. These sections are footnoted in the document as “inactive” until subsequently approved by the OSC and Council.

WHEREAS, the CSG-WT has completed and submitted the following document that it recommends be approved for implementation within the GNSO:
• Recommended Common Operating Principles and Participation Guidelines for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies; and
Recommendations on a GNSO Database of Community Members

WHEREAS, the OSC has approved the above referenced GCOT amendments to the GOP and the CSG-WT recommendations and has forwarded these documents (via embedded links) to the GNSO Council on or before 15 June 2010;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts these deliverables submitted by the Work Teams and approved by the OSC and directs Staff to post these aforementioned documents for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on these documents, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period.

The motion carried unanimously in the Contracted parties House and carried in the Non Contracted Parties House by voice vote with two abstentions.

Kristina Rosette (IPC) abstained for the following reason:

Principally because there is a section of the document 4.5.2-b , which deals with obligational abstentions. When I think how it would apply to me in light of my professional, ethical obligations as an attorney, I think it's inextricably linked with the two sections that are not yet approved. So I don't believe it is appropriate for me to be voting on it.

David Taylor (IPC) abstained for the same reason.

Item 3: GNSO Affirmation of Commitments Drafting Team (AoC DT )Endorsement Process

Bill Drake gave a brief overview of the Endorsement Process.

Chuck Gomes proposed voting on the amendment as stated below:

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben proposed an amendment to a motion proposed by Bill Drake and seconded by Caroline Greer to approve the Affirmation of
Commitments (AOC) endorsement process. The amendment read as follows:

Whereas, in furtherance of ICANN’s responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitment (AOC), the GNSO formed a drafting team to develop a process to endorse volunteers to serve on each of the AOC review teams;

Whereas, the AOC Review Requirements Drafting team (AOC-RR Drafting Team) has proposed a process to facilitate such GNSO endorsements;

Whereas, the GNSO desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process for the AOC review team selections;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Endorsement Process described in the attached document
http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf;

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council should implement the Endorsement Process for the AOC review team selections, including the “WHOIS Policy” and the “Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS” Review Teams; and

RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is requested to post and distribute the Endorsement Process as widely as possible to all GNSO related groups in an effort to inform qualified applicants of the important work of the “WHOIS Policy” and “Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS” review teams.
Amended Draft Process:

DRAFT Process for GNSO Endorsement of Nominees to the
Affirmation of Commitments Review Teams

1. Persons from the community who seek the GNSO’s endorsement to serve on a given review team must:

• Apply directly to the email address and by the deadline indicated in ICANN’s publicly posted call for applications;

• Ensure that the application includes the information specified by both
a) the “How to Apply” section of the call for applications, and
b) the “Additional GNSO Requirements” (see below).

ICANN will forward the applications received to the GNSO Council as they come in and place them on a web site for inspection by the four GNSO stakeholder groups. As soon as possible and no later than 21days after the deadline for applications, the stakeholder groups will inform the Council of their endorsements, based on their own internal deliberative procedures.

2. Each stakeholder group may endorse one applicant to serve as a representative in a given review team. Please note:

• A stakeholder group may choose to endorse an applicant who is identified with and has been endorsed by another stakeholder group (in which case the GNSO could be endorsing fewer than four nominees);

• Alternatively, a stakeholder group may choose not to endorse any applicant from the available pool of candidates (which again could mean that the GNSO may be endorsing fewer than four nominees); and

• Each stakeholder group is encouraged to (a) identify in its internal deliberations and (b) notify Council of one or two additional candidates whom it could support, if available, in the event that the diversity procedure outlined in item 4 below is utilized. SG’s should only propose additional candidates that are of a different geographical location or gender than their primary candidate.

3. In making their selections, stakeholder groups should give due consideration to the following diversity objectives:

• Unless the applicant pool does not allow, no more than half of the GNSO’s nominees should come from the same geographical region; and

• Unless the applicant pool does not allow, the GNSO’s nominees should not all be of the same gender.

4. The Council will consider the resulting list of up to four nominees at its next teleconference.

(a) If the list meets the above-mentioned diversity objectives, the Council will consider the list of endorsements to be deemed final and forward it to ICANN.

(b) If, however, the list does not meet the above mentioned diversity objectives, the Council as a whole may choose to endorse up to two additional candidates, from among those identified by the stakeholder groups under item 2, who would help to give the list of GNSO nominees the desired balance.

(c) If consideration of these additional stakeholder group-identified candidates does not meet the diversity objectives, the Council may refer to the GNSO applicant pool to identify these additional candidates.

In either case (b) or (c), the Council would hold a vote during its teleconference, with sixty percent support of both houses represented in the Council being required for endorsement. If no candidate obtains that level of support, the list of endorsements obtained via the bottom-up process of stakeholder group nominations will be deemed final and forwarded to ICANN.

Additional GNSO Requirements:

A person seeking GNSO endorsement must include the following information in the application:

• The applicant’s full name, title, contact information and employer;

• The ICANN Geographic Region(s) in which the applicant is a citizen and a resident;

• Identification of the GSNO stakeholder group, if any, to which the applicant feels most closely affiliated;

• An attestation that the applicant is able and willing to commit an estimated average of about ten hours per week during the review period, in addition to participating in face to face review team meetings;

• Identification of any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest of the applicant in registries, registrars or other entities that are stakeholders or interested parties in ICANN or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement;

• Indication of whether the applicant would be representing any other party or person on the review team and, if so, identification of that party or person;

• A two to three paragraph statement about the applicant's knowledge of the GNSO community’s structures and operations and any participation therein;

• A one to two paragraph statement about the applicant's specialized technical or other expertise of direct relevance to the responsibilities of the review team in question.

The amended motion did not carry. (simple majority of each House is needed for the amendment to carry)
Voting Details:
Contracted parties House:7 votes in favour
Non Contracted Parties house: 8 votes against
Debbie Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Rosemary Sinclair, Rafik Dammak, Mary Wong, William Drake, Olga Cavalli, Mike Rodenbaugh.

Non Contracted Parties house: 5 votes in favour
Kristina Rosette, Jaime Wagner, Zahid Jamil, David Taylor, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

Bill Drake seconded by Caroline Greer proposed a motion to approve an Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) endorsement process (Original motion carried over from 10 June 2010)

Whereas, in furtherance of ICANN¹s responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitment (AOC), the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to develop a process to endorse volunteers to serve on the each of the AOC review teams;

Whereas, the AOC Review Requirements Drafting team (AOC-RR Drafting Team) has proposed a process to facilitate such GNSO Council endorsements;

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process for all future AOC review team selections;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Endorsement Process described in the attached document http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-0 1jun10-en.pdf;

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council should implement the Endorsement Process for all future AOC review team selections, including the ³WHOIS Policy² and the ³Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS² Review Teams; and

RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is requested to post and distribute the Endorsement Process as widely as possible to all GNSO related groups in an effort to inform qualified applicants of the important work of the WHOIS Policy and Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS review teams.

Motion carried unanimously in the Contracted Parties House and with a majority of the Non Contracted Parties House in a roll call vote:
Voting details:
Non Contracted Parties House:
8 votes in favour
Wendy Seltzer, Rosemary Sinclair, Olga Cavalli, Bill Drake, Zahid Jamil, Mary Wong, Rafik Dammak, Debbie Hughes

5 Votes against:
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, David Taylor, Mike Rodenbaugh, Jaime Wagner, Kristina Rosette

Action Item:

Olof Nordling will communicate the timeframes to the Council.
Reminder: July 15, 2010 is the closing date for applications that the GNSO Sectretariat will transmit to the Council mailing list..

Item 6: Reports from Working Groups

The Council received reports from the following working groups:

  • Vertical Integration PDP Working Group

Kristina Rosette noted that under Paragraph 10(b) of Annex A to the bylaws, which deals with the GNSO policy development process, provision is made that when the Council considers a final report, it may solicit the opinions of outside advisors whose input can be considered in voting, and requested that the Council receive information from the appropriate staff person as to how this process would be implemented.

 

  • Registration Abuse Policies Working Group
  • Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B PDP WG
  • Post Expiration Domain Name Renewal (PEDNR) PDP WG

Item 7: Other Business

Item 7.1: Joint Community DNS-CERT working group

The Council agreed to establish a joint drafting team to develop a charter for a possible DNS-CERT community-wide working group.

Jaime Wagner volunteered for the drafting team in addition to the volunteers to date.

Item 7.2: Motion on enhancing the Transparency of GNSO Council Meetings

MOTION ON ENHANCING THE TRANSPARENCY OF GNSO COUNCIL MEETINGS

Bill Drake seconded by Olga Cavalli proposed a motion on enhancing the transparency of GNSO Council meetings.

WHEREAS the Affirmation of Commitments mandates that ICANN processes be made as transparent as possible;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council seeks to promote broad community awareness of and engagement in GNSO activities;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council is a management team whose elected members represent their respective Stakeholder Groups in a manner determined by those Stakeholder Groups;

WHEREAS this representation function would be enhanced if Stakeholder Group members were able to listen in real time to Council meetings; and

WHEREAS it would be impractical to open the GNSO Council meeting teleconference facility to Stakeholder Group members;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED that beginning in July 2010, all GNSO Council teleconference meetings will be audiocast (in addition to being recorded) so that members of the community can listen in real time.

Motion carried unanimously by voice vote in both Houses.

Item 8: Open Microphone

Refer to the transcript and recordings in English, Spanish and French for details.

Chuck Gomes adjourned the GNSO Open Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 CET; 10:30 UTC.

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 11:00 UTC.
See: Calendar