Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting held on 7 November 2016

Last Updated: 12 December 2016
Date: 
7 November 2016

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 08:15 UTC
http://tinyurl.com/zbh2z3m
00:15 Los Angeles; 03:15 Washington; 08:15 London; 11:15 Istanbul; 13:45 Hyderabad; 19:15 Hobart

List of attendees:

NCA – Non Voting – Carlos Raúl Gutierrez
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: James Bladel, Volker Greimann – absent, Temporary Alternate Michele Neylon, Darcy Southwell
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group:
Donna Austin, Keith Drazek, Rubens Kühl
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA):
Hsu Phen Valerie Tan - remote participation
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG);
Philip Corwin, Susan Kawaguchi, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Tony Harris, Paul McGrady, Heather Forrest
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Amr Elsadr – absent, Temporary Alternate Matthew Shears, Stephanie Perrin, David Cake, Stefania Milan, Edward Morris, Marilia Maciel – absent, Temporary Alternate Sarah Clayton
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA):
Julf (Johan) Helsingius - remote participation
NCA – Non Voting
Carlos Raúl Gutierrez
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:
Olivier Crèpin LeBlond – ALAC Liaison
Patrick Myles - ccNSO Observer
Mason Cole – GNSO liaison to the GAC

https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cyy/gnso-council-public-meeting
Transcript

Item 1. Administrative Matters

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

Projects List [gnso.icann.org] and Action List[community.icann.org]

  • IGO, INGO PDP recommendations outstanding
  • Procedure to address WHOIS conflicts with national law - group to meet during Hyderabad meetings
  • Slate of liaisons to volunteer for implementation review teams- encourage new Councillors to take up roles.

Item 3. Consent Agenda

Two motions that had been on the regular agenda were moved to the Consent Agenda following Council discussion in Hyderabad. These are:

  • GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO Policy Development Processes
  • Appointment of GNSO Liaison to the GAC

Voting result:

  • Consent agenda passed unanimously (both motions would each have only needed a simple majority vote to pass) – Mr. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez appointed as new GAC liaison

Action items:

  • GNSO Council leadership to work with GAC leadership and GAC Secretariat on implementation and next steps
  • GNSO Council to review the role and make the appointment annually

Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of Consensus Recommendations from the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team

Heather Forrest noted the importance of the spirit in which the amendments were made since it indicates a tremendous amount of good will and willingness to work on a path forward towards achieving motion language that could be agreed upon by all.

Edward Morris a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) Councillor, requested deferral of the motion.

Voting result:

  • None (vote deferred to allow consideration of newly-amended motion, following withdrawal of initial amendment)

Action items:

  • Councilors to confer with Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies so that a vote on an acceptable approach can be taken at the 1 December 2016 Council meeting

Item 5. COUNCIL VOTE – Next Steps for the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance

Darcy Southwell, seconded by Paul McGrady and as amended, proposed a motion proposing conditional participation of the GNSO as a chartering organization for the cross-community working group to discuss Internet governance issues affecting ICANN.

WHEREAS:

  1. The GNSO Council adopted the charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues on 15 October 2014, and as such became a Chartering Organization.
  2. The Charter foresees that "At each ICANN Annual General Meeting, starting 2014, the Charter and deliverables of the WG shall be reviewed by the participating SO's and AC's to determine whether the WG should continue, or, close and be dissolved. Consistent with ICANN community practices, the WG will continue if at least two of the participating SO's or AC's extend the Charter of the WG and notify the other participating SO's and AC's accordingly one month after the annual review date".
  3. The CWG-IG provided its first written status update on 23 June 2016 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org]).
  4. The GNSO Council recently adopted the "Uniform Framework of Principles and Recommendations for Cross Community Working Groups" (CWG Framework) which details the lifecycle of a CCWG including initiation, formation, operation, decision-making, adoption of Final Report by Chartering Organizations and closure of CCWG, and post-closure of CCWG.
  5. The GNSO Council has observed that the CWG-IG does not follow this lifecycle, nor has it established or adopted an initial work plan and associated schedule as foreseen in its Charter.
  6. The GNSO Council recognizes the importance of a continued dialogue and discussion in relation to the topic of Internet Governance within an ICANN context.
  7. The GNSO Council has shared its concerns with the ccNSO Council and representatives of other SO/ACs on the subject of this CWG and its future.

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council will continue to participate as a Chartering Organization for the CWG-IG. However, this participation is conditioned upon a comprehensive review of the CWG-IG Charter by the CWG-IG, in accordance with the CWG Framework (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf)[gnso.icann.org]. In particular, the GNSO Council expects future work to be subject to a clear work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables.
  2. The GNSO Council expects that the CWG-IG will present by ICANN58 a report on its findings, which may include a revised charter or a recommendation to reconstitute the group under a new structure.
  3. Following the submission of the CWG-IG report, the GNSO Council will consider the recommendations and decide whether or not it will continue as a Chartering Organization.
  4. The GNSO Secretariat will communicate this decision to the CWG-IG Chairs as well as the other Chartering Organizations.

Voting results

  • Motion (as amended) passed unanimously.

Action items:

  • None for Council at the moment; Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) to work on proposal for revised Charter before ICANN58, including possible alternatives to a CCWG
  • GNSO Secretariat to communicate the decision to the CWG-IG Chairs as well as the other Chartering Organizations

Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Chartering of a New Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds

James Bladel seconded by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben proposed to Adopt the Charter for a Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds

WHEREAS:

  1. Following a number of sessions on the topic of new gTLD Auction proceeds during the ICANN53 in Buenos Aires (see https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-soac-high-interest [buenosaires53.icann.org] and https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-new-gtld-auction [buenosaires53.icann.org]), a discussion paper was published in September 2015 to solicit further community input on this topic as well as the proposal to proceed with a CCWG on this topic.
  2. As the feedback received on the discussion paper confirmed the support for moving forward with a CCWG, James Bladel, GNSO Chair, reached out to all the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to ask for volunteers to participate in a drafting team to develop a charter for a CCWG on this topic. All ICANN SO/ACs, apart from the ccNSO, responded to this request and put forward volunteers to participate in the drafting team.
  3. The GNSO Council appointed Jonathan Robinson to chair the Drafting Team ('DT'), which commenced its deliberations on Tuesday 23 February 2016.
  4. The DT published a draft charter for community discussion in advance of ICANN 56 which was discussed during the cross-community session held at ICANN56. Following ICANN56, the DT reviewed all the input received and updated the proposed charter accordingly. On 13 September, this proposed charter was shared with all ICANN SO/ACs with the request to review it and identify any pertinent issues that would prevent adoption of the charter, if any.
  5. Subsequently, a webinar was held on 13 October to allow for some additional time and information to undertake this review (see https://community.icann.org/x/gh_4Aw [community.icann.org]).
  6. As no pertinent issues were raised, the DT submitted the proposed CCWG charter (see https://community.icann.org/x/mRuOAw [community.icann.org]) for consideration to all ICANN SO/ACs on 17 October 2016.

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter.
  2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CCWG by 5 December 2016 taking into account the charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
    1. Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
    2. Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
    3. Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
    4. Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
    5. Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
    6. Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
  3. The GNSO Council expects to select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016.
  4. Furthermore, in addition to a Statement of Interest, all members and participants will be required to provide a declaration on intention to apply for (or in any way support the application for) new gTLD Auction Proceeds, either as an individual or through the entity you are representing or employed by or are otherwise funded by or affiliated with or support/endorse. It will be mandatory to report any changes in relation to these intentions throughout the CCWG life-cycle.
  5. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for participants and observers to join the CCWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
  6. The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Auction Proceeds Drafting Team for their contributions developing this Draft Charter.

Voting results

  • Motion passed unanimously

Note:
Heather Forrest who held a proxy vote for Paul McGrady for this motion voted in favour.

Olivier Crepin-LeBlond on behalf of At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) noted that the ALAC had resolved to proceed forward with the charter but with the intent of also naming a co-chair for the cross-community working group

Action items:

  • None for Council; staff to send out call for volunteers

Item 7. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Board Letter regarding policy implications of the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Expert Working Group

The Council was made aware of a paper produced by James Galvin, a member of the Translation and Transliteration policy development Process (PDP) Working Group and a representatives of the Registry Stakeholder Group who developed the other set of recommendations. In conclusion he noted "Finally, with respect to what steps the GNSO Council should consider, I would suggest that the problem to be solved is to have a clear and unambiguous statement of whether or not there is any conflict between these two sets of recommendations.

It is my personal opinion there is no conflict, based on my recollections of my engagement with the two working groups that created the sets of recommendations, respectively. I recognize that since one set of recommendations is the result of a consensus policy, there may be a requirement for some additional review and a consensus statement to confirm this."

Action items:

  • Council to draft response to Board letter taking James Galvin's paper into account and noting that the recommendations are complementary rather than in conflict
  • Thank James Galvin for his paper

Item 8. Discussion - Results of GNSO Newcomer

David Tait explained that at the meeting on 30 June 2016 Council instructed ICANN staff to undertake a survey to assess the community's familiarity with different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness. On that basis staff deployed a survey and to look at some of the tools the GNSO uses. The results of the 29 responses were received, summarized and shared with the Council.
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/newcomer-tools-survey-04oct16-en.pdf

 

Staff would like Council's permission to implement two of the proposed recommendations:

  • to improve the GNSO Wiki
  • restructure the introductory course in two separate modules

These changes would not affect the GNSO Operating Procedures.

Action items:

  • Staff to implement recommendations as reported

Item 9. Open Microphone

Thomas Rickert proposed, and offered his assistance, that the GNSO Council suggests to the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), the ICANN Board and the Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to form a small team to establish the status quo of the discussions around the IGO, INGO topic, not to come up with any recommendations but rather clarifications and return the topic to a consultation process with the community or the original Policy Development Process (PDP) group.

It was noted that this topic was scheduled for the second part of the GNSO Council Public meeting.

Avri Doria commented about the GNSO having closed meetings noting that historically, it was one of the things the GNSO could be proudest about that everything was done openly and transparently without any closed meetings. She cautioned against closed meetings, suggesting that if it was decided to have closed sessions, that a vote be taken to determine who favors open meetings and who favors closed meetings.

Item 10: Any Other Business

James Bladel thanked the outgoing councillors and liaisons for their stellar service to the Council and small gifts were handed to the outgoing Councillors who were present at the meeting:

Jennifer Gore – Registrar Stakeholder Group
Volker Greimann - Registrar Stakeholder Group (remote participation)
David Cake - Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
Carlos Raúl Gutierrez – Nominating Committee Appointee
Olivier Crèpin LeBlond – ALAC Liaison
Mason Cole – GNSO liaison to the GAC

James Bladel adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation in the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 15:15 IST (09:45 UTC)

The next GNSO Council Meeting will take place on Thursday, 1 December 2016 at 21:00 UTC.
http://tinyurl.com/zqkas4h