Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 13 November 2014
Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 13 November 2014
The Meeting started at 11:07 UTC:
List of attendees: NCA – Non Voting – Carlos Raúl Gutierrez
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: James Bladel, Volker Greimann, Yoav Keren
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jonathan Robinson, Donna Austin, Bret Fausett
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG); Gabriela Szlak, Susan Kawaguchi, Osvaldo Novoa, Tony Holmes, Brian Winterfeldt, Heather Forrest
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Amr Elsadr, Marilia Maciel, Edward Morris, Stephanie Perrin, David Cake, Avri Doria
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Daniel Reed
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:
Cheryl Langdon Or – ALAC Liaison
Patrick Myles - ccNSO Observer
Mason Cole – GNSO liaison to the GAC
David Olive - VP Policy Development
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Mary Wong – Senior Policy Director
Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy consultant
Lars Hoffmann – Policy Analyst
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Josh Baulch – Systems Engineer
Mathieu Weill –CEO of AFNIC
Item 1: Administrative matters
1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
The draft minutes of the GNSO Council Public meeting 15 October 2014, part 1 and part 2 are still under review.
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List
Comments arising from the Action Items:
Issues for the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI)
The interaction between the SCI and the GNSO review can be a topic for discussing at next Council meeting in December 2014.
Board Working Group on the Nominating Committee
John Berard volunteered to assist Tony Homes.
Tony Holmes reported that there was no update.
It was noted that the Council could approve any input (if any) at next Council meeting in December 2014.
Item 3: Consent agenda
No agenda item.
Item 4: MOTION - Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
Concern was expressed by some groups with regard to representation on the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. However this concern was not shared across the Council and it was pointed out that the charter permits each constituency to participate in every discussion and email list, even if the Commercial Stakeholder Group gets only one vote during consensus calls. It was emphasized that in the spirit of the charter the work must be driven by the quality of the accountability enhancements before taking into account the deadlines.
The representation issue could be addressed in a GNSO structural review.
Thomas Rickert, seconded by Avri Doria proposed the adoption of a charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
- The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management.
- During discussions around the transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability given its historical contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder statement, as the existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as for review and redress.
- The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN accountability mechanisms does not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent the transition to proceed.
- A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO, GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
- The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)
- The GNSO Council approves the Charter ( http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf) and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO co-chair to the CWG.
- Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
- Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable subject matter (see for example https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12 for areas identified for expertise);
- Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on an ongoing and long-term basis; and
- Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
- The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
The motion carried.
Results of the vote
- Thomas Rickert was nominated as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO co-chair to the CWG Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
- Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 20 November 2014 taking into account the charter requirement.
Item 5: MOTION – Changes to GNSO Operating Procedures & Working Group Guidelines to Address Issues relating to Waiver of Motion Deadlines, GNSO Council Voting Outside a Council Meeting & Working Group Consensus Levels
Avri Doria, seconded by Gabriela Szlak and as amended by Amr Elsadr, proposed changes to GNSO Operating Procedures & Working Group Guidelines to Address Issues relating to Waiver of Motion Deadlines, GNSO Council Voting Outside a Council Meeting & Working Group Consensus Levels
- The GNSO Council has determined that:
- the current GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain a specific provision on waiving the deadline to submit a motion for voting by the GNSO Council;
- the current GNSO Operating Procedures also do not contain a specific provision that permits the Council to vote outside a meeting; and
- the language relating to Consensus Levels in the current GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures, may require further clarification.
- The GNSO Council requested that the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) consider:
- whether there should be modifications to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to address the issues of waiving the deadline for submission of a motion and allowing the Council to vote outside a meeting; and
- whether the language relating to Consensus Levels in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines requires clarification.
- The SCI developed language to be inserted in Section 3.3 (Notice of Meetings) of the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for a waiver of the prescribed deadline for the submission of a new motion for voting by the GNSO Council in certain circumstances provided certain specified criteria are met. This recommendation will not affect the rules regarding the resubmission of a motion approved and added to section 4.3 of the GNSO Operating Procedures in March 2014.
- In addition, the SCI developed procedures to be added as a new Section 4.10 (Voting outside a Meeting) to the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for the GNSO Council to be able to vote outside a meeting in certain circumstances provided certain specified criteria are met.
- The SCI also developed clarifying language in the form of a footnote to be added to the Consensus Levels definitions in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, pending a fuller review of all the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which the SCI also recommends.
- The revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the proposed additions to the Working Group Guidelines, were put out for public comment for a period of a minimum of 21 days beginning on 17 September 2014 and ending on 08 October 2014 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-op-procedures-2014-09-17-en), as required by the ICANN Bylaws.
- As there were no comments received in the public forum the SCI deemed that no further changes were necessary nor was a public comment reply period needed.
- The GNSO Council adopts the revised Operating Procedures including the new provisions concerning the waiver of deadline for motions submitted for voting by the Council and the ability of the Council to vote outside a meeting - see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/motion-waiver-proposal-16sep14-en.pdf and https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/outside-voting-proposal-16sep14-en.pdf respectively;
- The GNSO Council adopts the additional footnote language clarifying the Consensus Levels in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines – see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/consensus-levels-proposal-16sep14-en.pdf
- The GNSO Council thanks the SCI for its work on these matters and agrees to consider the SCI's request that the current language concerning Consensus Levels in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines be more fully reviewed and revised as part of a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures, including the Working Group Guidelines; and
- The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures and GNSO Working Group Guidelines, effective immediately upon adoption.
The motion carried.
The GNSO Operating Procedure foresees absentee voting (per Section 4.4.1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures) for the resolution.
Edward Morris was absent from the meeting and submitted an absentee ballot.
The Voting results are:
Contracted Party House: 7 votes in favour (100%)
Non-Contracted Party House: 11 votes in favour and 2 votes against (84.6%)
The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO
Operating Procedures and GNSO Working Group Guidelines, effective immediately upon adoption.
Item 6: – UPDATE - Name Collision
It was noted that the Council was not yet prepared to make any substantial discussion of this topic.
All constituencies/stakeholder groups should discuss the topic within their respective groups to ascertain what, if any policy development is deemed necessary and be prepared for a discussion at the next Council meeting in December 2014.
Item 7: UPDATE – GNSO / GAC Consultation Group and related work
- Mason Cole provided the Council with the following update on the GNSO Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Consultation Group.
- The objective is to reduce conflict between GNSO and GAC advice and inconsistency in timing
- Help avoid delay in policymaking and delay in board decisions on GNSO policy recommendations
- The desired outcome is more efficient PDPs, easier decisions at Board level, and implementing ATRT decisions that call for greater community collaboration.
Two work tracks
- Policy Development Process (PDP) work track: which is intended to find ways to engage the GAC during the PDP rather than after the PDP recommendations are finalized
- Day-to-day work track: which is intended to explore ways for the Council and the GAC to collaborate more often and facilitate conversations outside the formal PDP.
PDP Work Track
- Not much progress made, but there is a link to the day-to-day track.
- Some work has been done on early engagement in the PDP but further discussions needed.
- Need commitment from both sides to make it work.
- Suggested that the GAC members consider the proposal for 'quick look' mechanism to determine whether to be involved in PDP – the idea is to provide an indication during the Issue Report phase as to whether or not there are public policy implications. This need not necessarily be substantive input.
- Timing is critical due to the GAC meeting schedules and the need to seek departmental input; this hinders full GAC input separate from physical meetings
- If more time is needed, the GAC could be informed immediately following request for the Issue Report instead of when it is posted for comment.
- 'Quick look' could be developed inter-sessionally but without being binding, only as a means of guidance
- If the 'quick look' mechanism results in GAC interest / public policy determination, then the possible formation of a GAC committee to develop input could be envisaged.
Day-to-day work track
- Established and filled the liaison role
- It would be helpful to have day-to-day contact inside the GAC as peer-to-peer relationship. This could be brought about with possible help from soon-to-hire GAC secretariat or via one of the vice chairs and this could be suggested to Thomas Schneider.
- The biggest challenge. Heard complaint from GAC in Los Angeles about being overworked and wanting to pause community work to let the GAC catch up. This would not be a good outcome.
- The solution is to find a way to break work down in digestible bits so the GAC can tackle through current or non-disruptive structures.
- Seeking to speak with GAC leadership on this issue.
First opportunity for engagement
- IGO/INGO Curative Rights WG, which is currently seeking specific GAC clarification of the rationale behind advice regarding not amending UDRP, and clarification of understanding regarding Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, which is something familiar to some on the Council who have participated in IGO PDP work.
Next meeting: The GAC GNSO Consultation Group will meet again for a regular meeting on Tuesday November 18, 2014.
A view was expressed that it was the GAC which should define and determine whether an issue was public policy, rather than the GNSO.
- Membership of the GAC GNSO Consultation Group
Volker Greimann stated that he was unable to participate in the regular meetings and Carlos Raúl Gutierrez volunteered to replace Volker
Avri Doria mentioned that her seat on the GAC GNSO Consultation Group will become vacant.
Inform the GAC officially that Volker Greimann is no longer a member and is replaced by Carlos Raúl Gutierrez
Bruce Tonkin, at the Council Development session in Los Angeles, suggested that the Council examine ways in which the GAC communiqués can be channeled through the ICANN Board to the GNSO Council where they can be analyzed for possible policy implications arising from the recommendations, and where the GNSO Council can report back to the ICANN Board with a proposed method of responding to the communiqué and initiating policy work if there be a need.
A lightweight and informal process was proposed where a call for topics would be put out to the various GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups and these would be sent in the form a letter by the Council, within 30 to 60 days upon receipt of a GAC communiqué, to the Board responding to that communiqué.
Councilors are encouraged to discuss this idea with their stakeholder groups and circulate on the Council mailing list draft proposals or ideas prior to the next Council meeting.
Item 8: UPDATE – Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions
Donna Austin reported that the full Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions is meeting regularly and has divided into subgroups to look at different aspects of the ICG's RFP that actually impact the Naming community. There is a second working group that has started to look at three straw man transition proposals. There will be a face-to-face meeting of the membership in Frankfurt on 19 and 20 November 2014. The intention is to have an initial proposal published for public comment by 1 December 2014 which will essentially be a response to the ICG's RFP from the Naming community. Due to time constraints and pressures of delivering a final report by the end of January 2015, it is likely that the public comment forum will only stay open for a relatively short time of 21 days.
Possible Council input should thus be provided by the next Council meeting on 11 December 2014.
Item 9: Any Other Business
9.1 Confirmation of Council Liaisons to the different GNSO projects:
Council confirmed the Council Liaisons to the different GNSO projects.
Inform the different groups that the Council confirmed the Council Liaisons for the following groups:
Curative Rights Protections for IGO/INGOs PDP
Data & Metrics for Policy Making
Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP
Translation & Transliteration PDP
Geographic Regions WG
CWG on a Framework for CWG Principles
Avri Doria (co-chair John Berard)
CWG to develop a framework for the use of country and territory names as TLDs
co-chair position – Carlos Raúl Gutierrez
GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO
9.2 Correspondence with New gTLD Program Committee NGPC on IGO & RCRC.
Staff to pursue the issue internally with the appropriate staff when a response can be expected.
9.3 Skill sets for Nominating Committee.
Finalise the skill set for the Nominating Committee on the Council mailing list.
9.4 IGO/INGO Curative Rights Protection WG letter requesting Mason Cole to engage with the GAC on certain questions regarding the GAC Los Angeles Communique.
Council is encouraged to take a decision as soon as possible because of the urgency from the perspective of the working group.
Mason Cole is ready to step forward but needs the go-ahead from the Council.
Confirm on mailing list.
9.5 Council in attendance to review informal notes of the Council Development Session held on Friday, 17 October 2014.
Staff to circulate notes to the Council mailing list and start discussion on the mailing list.
Volker Greimann, GNSO vice chair, adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 13:14 UTC.
The next GNSO Council meeting will take place on Thursday, 11 December 2014 at 15:00 UTC.