- Council Activities
- Group Activities
- Quick Info
Date:25 September 2014
The Meeting started at 18:03 UTC:
List of attendees: NCA – Non Voting – Jennifer Wolfe
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: James Bladel, Volker Greimann, Yoav Keren- absent apologies proxy to James Bladel
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao, Bret Fausett – absent, apologies proxy to Ching Chiao
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Tony Holmes, Osvaldo Novoa, Gabriella Szlak absent, apologies proxy to John Berard, John Berard, Brian Winterfeldt, Petter Rindforth
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Klaus Stoll, David Cake, Avri Doria, Amr Elsadr, Maria Farrell, Magaly Pazello –absent, apologies proxy to Amr Elsadr
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Daniel Reed
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Patrick Myles – ccNSO Observer – absent apologies
David Olive – VP Policy Development
Marika Konings – Senior Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth – Senior Policy Director
Mary Wong – Senior Policy Director
Steve Chan – Senior Policy Manager
Lars Hoffmann – Policy Analyst
Glen de Saint Géry – GNSO Secretariat
Josh Baulch – Manager, Meetings Technical Services
Julie Hedlund – Director SSAC Support/Policy Director absent apologies
Mason Cole – GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Karen Lentz – Director, Operations & Policy Research
Item 1: Administrative matters
1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. The Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 4 September 2014 will soon be posted.
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List
Review of Action List.
Expert Working Group (EWG)
Jonathan Robinson, noted that Steve Crocker, Chairman of the ICANN Board, in a letter to Jonathan, requested that a small GNSO group, comprising four or five volunteers, work together with a Board group to further this work.
Highlights from the discussion.
Staff clarified that, simultaneously with the launch of the Expert Working Group (EWG), the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report with a focus on gTLD Registration Data Services. The idea being that the EWG recommendations would feed into the Final Issue Report and not that the EWG report would be the Final Issue Report. A Policy Development Process has indeed been started and being a Board-requested Issue Report, there is no intermediate vote of the GNSO Council on initiation. It would appear therefore, that both the Board and the GNSO need to be comfortable with the scope of the charter and the next steps, especially since this is the first time that the Council is dealing with a Board initiated Policy Development Process.
Among the questions that arise are how to integrate or join the EWG work with the GNSO's Policy Development Process.
If a small group is formed what would be the expected output what would the receiving body or organization will do with that outcome.
Two incoming Councillors are (former) members of the EWG and it was suggested that they could usefully be part of a group that might form to work with the Board.
It was also suggested that a comment period is necessary on the draft Issue Report, and that the subsequent content of a PDP would not be limited to EWG proposals but could include suggestions form the public comment period.
Caution was expressed in dealing with the EWG report and not simply rubber stamping it when preparing the Final Issue Report and chartering the PDP going forward.
It was considered that the Board is in fact providing an opportunity to discuss and consult with the GNSO before moving forward, and the opportunity should be welcomed and used to the full.
It was suggested that a broader group, rather than a small restricted group be chosen to work with the ICANN Board on the issue.
Recirculate Steve Crocker's letter to the Council mailing list
Add the proposed solution (see below) provided at the Council meeting:
Respond to the request from Steve Crocker
Call for four volunteers (one per SG) and one staff member who is well versed in the Policy Development Process, to join a team to work with the Board on moving the issue forward.
CWG on Internet Governance Charter
It is necessary to move this forward and / or bring the item to a close from a GNSO Council perspective. It was proposed that a Councillor brings this to the next council meeting in the form of a motion.
Avri Doria and James Bladel volunteered to help write up a motion.
Item 3: Consent agenda
There were no items on the Consent agenda.
Item 4: DISCUSSION – A letter to the ICANN NGPC regarding the proposed modification of GNSO consensus recommendations relating to IGO acronyms and Red Cross identifiers
Jonathan Robinson noted that Chris Disspain, a member of the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) had provided Council with an oral briefing at the last Council meeting on 4 September 2014 to provide greater clarity on the GAC's advice and expectations with respect to protections of IGO-INGO Identifiers. As a result of the briefing it was agreed to send a follow-up letter to the NGPC and the Council is asked to review the letter before sending it to the NGPC.
Alan Greenberg noted that the request to the new gTLD Program Committee as to what they would like Council to approve with respect to the Red Cross is missing from the letter and should be added. So far all the only information the Council has on that issue is what the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) has requested.
Send a variation of the proposed letter, (taking account of any input that Alan Greenberg will provide on how to deal with Red Cross names), to the mailing list and after review on the list send the revised letter to new gTLD Policy Committee (NGPC) as soon as possible.
Item 5: UPDATE – A GNSO liaison to the GAC
Mason Cole provided Council with a brief introduction of how he viewed the liaison role, the proposed objectives and the plan of action.
Mason Cole mentioned that he has access rights, with no posting rights to the GAC mailing lists but can request that information be sent to the broader GAC on behalf of the GNSO. In addition he has the privilege of requesting the floor in a GAC meeting if the opportunity presents itself, to make sure that the Council's views are represented in front of the GAC. It was suggested that Mason provide the GAC with a high level overview of all the aspects of the commercial industry and technical considerations of what is and what is not possible for a domain name.
Mason Cole has liaised with the Council chair, Policy staff and some GAC members.
Item 6: UPDATE – PDP WG on IRTP Part D – Final Recommendations
James Bladel provided Council with a thorough overview of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D Final Report.
The Council thanked and praised James for his excellent chairmanship and for bringing the Policy Development Process to a final report.
Item 7: UPDATE – Subsequent rounds of new gTLDs – status report
A question was asked as to how the separate reviews; the GAC mandated independent review February 2015, the standing Issues Report on Right Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) scheduled for April 2015, and then 9.3 AOC review stretching into 2016, will ultimately relate to each other and whether there will be sufficient time to do the policy development work after the results of the reviews that are being conducted by those various groups have been seen.
Karen noted that the point was well taken and efforts would be made to better scope out those interdependencies.
There will be a session on subsequent rounds of new gTLDs on Monday at the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles.
Jonathan Robinson thanked Karen Lentz for her update and for being available to address the Council.
Item 8: UPDATE – A cross community working group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions
Jonathan Robinson reminded the Council that the GNSO has the opportunity to put forward up to five participants and an unlimited number of observers.
Councillors are reminded to fill the positions with volunteers who are knowledgeable, committed and have the time to dedicate.
The Registry and Non Commercial Stakeholder Groups need to provide volunteers to the Cross Community working group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions
Item 9: DISCUSSION – The report of the ICANN Board Working Group on the Nominating Committee
James Bladel volunteered to provide lead input but only during the 'reply period' (i.e. once GNSO Groups / Constituencies have individually had the opportunity to provide input) of the public comments on the report of the ICANN Board Group on the Nominating Committee
Item 10: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Planning for LA
Jonathan Robinson will provide information on the mailing list concerning key items proposed for the agenda.
Item 11: Any Other Business
11.1 – Input from Jennifer Wolfe on the GNSO Review including Survey participation.
Jennifer Wolfe noted that the GNSO Review and the survey would be promoted at the ICANN conference in Los Angeles and that the survey had been extended to 17 October 2014.
Councillors, and members of their specific groups are strongly encouraged to complete the survey.
Jonathan Robinson adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 20:01 UTC.
The next GNSO Public Council meeting will take place in Los Angeles on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 13:00 PDT. (20:00 UTC.)