[council] GNSO Council Resolutions 21 April 2010

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

 Dear All,

Ahead of the official GNSO Council minutes, the following resolutions were 
passed at the GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday, 21 April 2010.


1.       Motion to Accept the GNSO Improvements OSC CCT Report and initiate 
comment period

Made by Chuck Gomes
Seconded by Olga Cavalli
Friendly amendment by Kristina Rosette

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO 
Council Improvements Implementation Plan;
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf)
for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the 
ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182
<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm> );

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 Communications and 
Coordination Work Team (CCT), which was chartered to focus on one of the five 
operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations;

WHEREAS, the CCT completed its deliberations and forwarded its Consolidated 
Final Recommendations to the OSC on 9 April 2010;

WHEREAS, the OSC approved the CCT's Consolidated Final Recommendations
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf

and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on or before 12 April 2010;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED that the GNSO Council accepts the deliverable of the CCT as its final 
set of recommendations and directs Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day 
public comment period on the CCT's report.

RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the CCT's 
recommendations as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.

Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

  2.  GNSO Work Prioritisation Process Resolution

Made by Olga Cavalli
Seconded by Jaime Wagner
WHEREAS, the ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO Council a 
2008-2009 Work Team Attendance Study which confirmed that volunteer
participation has been suffering and languishing.

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, considering the advice of Staff, organized a  
Drafting Team at the Seoul ICANN meeting for the purpose of developing a
GNSO Work Prioritization model and procedure;

 WHEREAS, the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) has completed  
its deliberations and developed a written procedure recommended for
inclusion in the GNSO Operating Procedures as Chapter 6 plus an accompanying  
ANNEX
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf

WHEREAS, the WPM-DT has developed a timeline of activities (see below) that it 
recommends be adopted in order that the first Work Prioritization effort can be 
completed by the ICANN Brussels meeting;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts the deliverable of the WPM-DT, thanks 
the team for its efforts, and approves the use of Chapter 6 and the ANNEX 
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf
for conducting its first Work Prioritization effort.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to commence a twenty-one 
(21) day public comment period on this amendment to the GNSO Operating 
Procedures and reserves the right to modify the procedures described in Chapter 
6 and the ANNEX
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf
after the conclusion of both the public comment period and the first Work 
Prioritization effort.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council supports the recommended timeline (see 
below) for conducting the first Work Prioritization effort and directs the GNSO 
Secretariat to make arrangements consistent with its dates and activities.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council take action on Chapter 6 and the ANNEX
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf
with regard to the GNSO Operating Procedures as soon as possible after 
completion and analysis of the first Work Prioritization effort and after a 
second public comment period.

TIMELINE FOR FIRST WORK PRIORITIZATION EFFORT
Dates

*Activities (per proposed ANNEX to Chapter 6
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf

26-30 April
ANNEX Step 1: Staff prepares its recommendations for Eligible and Non-Eligible 
Projects and their associated classifications

30 April

Staff distributes recommended Project Lists to GNSO Council and all relevant 
GNSO structures (e.g. Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, ALAC).

3-19 May

Chair asks for Council approval (via email list) to adopt or modify Staff's 
recommendations

20 May Council Meeting

Eligible Projects List approved by Council

21 May - 7 June

ANNEX Step 2: Individual Councilor ratings completed (extended to 17 calendar 
days) and delivered to Staff

8-15 June

ANNEX Step 2.3: Staff consolidates ratings and analyzes for commonality; 
prepares for Step 3.

19 June (or 20 June)

ANNEX Step 3: Group Session (2 hours) to determine Value ratings

23 June Council Meeting (Brussels)

EX Step 4: Approve final ratings/priorities and direct that results be 
published at gnso.icann.org.

The motion carries with a simple majority in each house as summarized below.

Contracted Parties House:
4 Votes in favour: Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Caroline Greer, Terry Davis
3 Votes against: Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder

Non Contracted Parties House:
10 votes in favour: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Kristina Rosette, David 
Taylor, Debbie Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Mary Wong, Olga 
Cavalli.

Absent at time of vote: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Rosemary Sinclair.

Stéphane van Gelder clarified that the addition of second comment period in the 
motion caused the Registrars Stakeholder Group (RrSG) to vote against the 
motion.   Had this amendment not been added, the RrSG would have voted in 
favour of the model proposed by the WG.



3.       Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11
Motion made by:  Chuck Gomes
Seconded by:  Adrian  Kinderis

Whereas:

In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and 
quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding
the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts
(http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/)

Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from 
the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ )

and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of 
WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf
 ).

On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further 
constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility
of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, 
if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility.

The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average 
priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine 
feasibility and obtain cost estimates.

On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on 
feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that 
assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted 
(http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903)

On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and 
feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the 
remaining areas

If funding becomes available, the Council will then decide which studies to 
fund, if any, provided that the Council's recommendation of this amount is not 
to be taken as an indication that the Council will recommend any or particular 
studies be performed provided that the total ICANN budget for FY11 is not 
increased as a result of funding WHOIS studies

Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least $ 400,000 be set aside 
in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011.

Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the 
ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee.

The motion passes unanimously by roll call vote

Contracted Parties House:
7 Votes in favour: Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Caroline Greer, Terry Davis, 
Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder.

Non Contracted Parties House:
9 votes in favour: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Kristina Rosette, David 
Taylor, Debbie Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Mary Wong, Olga 
Cavalli.

Absent at time of vote: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Rosemary Sinclair.  Olga 
Cavalli had to leave the call at the time of the vote.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org