The meeting started at 18:04 UTC.
List of attendees: NCA – Non Voting – Jennifer Wolfe
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: James Bladel, Volker Greimann, Yoav Keren
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jonathan Robinson, Bret Fausett, Ching Chiao – absent, proxy to Bret Fausett
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert – joined call late – proxy to Jen Wolfe in case of connectivity issues
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Tony Holmes - absent, proxy to Osvaldo Novoa, Osvaldo Novoa, Gabriella Szlak, John Berard, Brian Winterfeldt, Petter Rindforth
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Klaus Stoll, David Cake, Avri Doria, Magaly Pazello, Amr Elsadr - apologies proxy to Avri Doria, Maria Farrell – absent proxy to David Cake
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Daniel Reed – joined call late, proxy to John Berard in case of connectivity issues
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
Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy consultant
Lars Hoffmann – Policy Analyst
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Cory Schruth – Systems Engineer
Item 1: Administrative matters
1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
- Add to AOB Board compensation public comment.
- Move Items 4 & 5 down on list until Thomas Rickert has joined called.
1.4. The Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 8 May 2014, were posted as approved on 31 May 2014.
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List
Item 3: Consent agenda
There were no items on the consent agenda.
Item 4: MOTION – Initiation of a PDP on IGO and INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms
Jonathan Robinson seconded by Thomas Rickert proposed a motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IGO and INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms
In November 2013 the GNSO Council had requested an Issue Report on the topic of amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use these curative rights protection mechanisms;
The GNSO Council's request was the result of the GNSO Council's adoption in November 2013 of a consensus recommendation from the PDP Working Group on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs (IGO-INGO PDP WG);
ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on the Access by IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights Protections of the UDRP and URS in a public comment forum that opened on 10 March 2014, and closed on 6 May 2014;
ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments and updated the Issue Report accordingly;
The Final Issue Report on the Access by IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights Protections of the UDRP and URS was published on 26 May 2014 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-final-25may14-en.pdf);
The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to consideration of the issues discussed in the report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.
The GNSO Council hereby initiates a PDP to evaluate: (i) whether the UDRP and/or URS should be amended (to enable their access and use by IGOs and INGOs whose identifiers had been recommended for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG) and if so, in what way; or (ii) whether a separate narrowly-tailored procedure modeled on these curative rights protection measures to apply only to protected IGO and INGO identifiers should be developed.
The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible to fulfill the requirements of this PDP in an expedited manner.
The motion carried unanimously.
PDP Working Group on IGO and INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms to be convened as soon as possible following the adoption of the charter to fulfill the requirements of this PDP in an expedited manner.
Item 5: MOTION – Approval of a Charter for a PDP Working Group for the IGO & INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP
Avri Doria, with support from others within the Council, requested a deferral for the motion.
Council members are encouraged to share any further comments / questions in relation to the proposed charter with the mailing list ahead of the next GNSO Council meeting.
Item 6: MOTION – Close the work on WHOIS Studies and discuss any appropriate next steps
Volker Greimann, seconded by John Berard proposed a motion to close the Study Phase of GNSO Whois Policy Work
In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
In 2008, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided recommendations for Whois Studies (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), which were taken into account as the hypothesis for each study were developed.
Between 2009 and 2012 the GNSO Council had approved a number of studies on certain aspects of the Whois system, specifically, studies relating to Whois Misuse, Whois Privacy & Proxy Service Abuse and Whois Registrant Identification, a Whois Privacy & Proxy Relay & Reveal Feasibility Survey and a Whois Service Requirements Survey;
All the approved studies have now been completed and the results published (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/other/whois/studies);
The GNSO Council has reviewed the studies and their results (see summary document at http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/executive-summary-studies-05jun14-en.pdf);
The GNSO Council believes that the studies and their results may be helpful with respect to ongoing policy work within the GNSO and in the ICANN community concerning improvements to and replacement of the Whois protocol and system.
The GNSO Council thanks all the research teams that performed each of the approved studies, and hereby formally closes this study phase of the GNSO's Whois policy work.
The GNSO Council encourages current and future community groups engaged in Whois policy work to continue to consult and review the results of the approved Whois studies, and to recommend to the GNSO Council any future policy work which may need to be done by the GNSO as a result.
The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicates the completion of the Whois studies and their results to the GAC Chair.
The motion Carried.
All Councillors present on the call voted in favour of the motion by voice vote.
- Jonathan Robinson to communicate the outcome to the GAC Chair.
- Agenda item for the GAC GNSO meeting on Sunday 22 June 2014 in London.
Item 7: DISCUSSION – Internet Governance Issues
The existing CWG on internet governance has since commenced work on its own charter and indications are that such a charter will not include detailed work on the NTIA transition. In addition, indications are that the ccNSO may be interested in jointly initiating a new CWG on the NTIA transition together with the GNSO and that other AC/SO parts of ICANN will participate in such a CWG. Given the scope and impact of the IANA transition, it is likely that such a CWG will need to reach out beyond the ICANN community for participation and input.
Concern was expressed about the break-up into multiple tracks and the weak linkage between the accountability effort and the transition tracks and that it needs to be reinforced, particularly if it is believed that accountability is a prerequisite for a competent transition of IANA functions.
There was support for providing public comment to the reply period of Enhancing ICANN Accountability which ends on 27 June 2014.
A proposal was made to gather themes or reinforce the comments that pertain to views that everyone in the GNSO and the GNSO Council is able to represent and for Jonathan Robinson to continue working with the leadership of the ccNSO on such themes.
It was further suggested that "if" the community is dissatisfied with the staff approach or strategy then a cross community working group could be formed, or the previous one could be 'reformed' to start work on supplanting the current staff proposal in the interest of time.
Jonathan Robinson to develop first draft of possible Council input during the reply period on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (deadline for comments is 27 June 2014)
Jonathan Robinson to continue to work with other ICANN community leaders with respect to a prospective CWG on the NTIA transition.
Item 8: Update – Update on the work of the GNSO Review Working Party
Jennifer Wolfe provided Council with an update on the work on the upcoming review of the GNSO, in particular on the 360° assessment. . To date the group has finalized the process of providing feedback on the scope of questions to be included in the 360° assessment. It is expected that the survey will be ready for sharing with the broader community when the group meets the next time during the ICANN meetings in London.
The survey will utilize an internet-based software solution. Survey-participants will be able to select from two versions, either the longer version which allows for the survey to be completed in several sittings, or the shorter version. GNSO Councillors are encouraged to review and comment on the scope and language of the questions. Every attempt has been made to make it as simple as possible.
The next step will entail outreach and communication to ensure as much participation as possible. The final step will be looking at how the data is analyzed and how the self-review of the data gathered will be conducted.
Highlights from the discussion:
NPOC expressed concern about the review and urged that the questionnaire be attractive, for not only 'insiders in the GNSO' but for the broader community.
Outreach efforts should be undertaken in consultation with the stakeholders.
- Encourage the Council to review the questions of the 360 assessment and provide feedback (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48337497/360%20Introduction.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1400714058000&api=v2).
- Jonathan Robinson proposed that an update on the work of the GNSO Review Working Party be a standing agenda item.
Item 9: Update – Update on the work of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group
Jonathan Robinson, co-chair with Manal Ismail from the GAC, provided an update on the GAC-GNSO consultation group commenting that a briefing note is to be published shortly covering the two different work streams:
A map for the day to day working between the Council and the GAC;
The GAC's involvement in specific areas of the Policy Development Process (PDP)
A key development is that as a result of a submission to the budgeting process, travel support funding has been granted for a liaison from the GNSO to the GAC. Work is in progress on fully defining the role and formal support will be sought for this liaison role from both the GAC and the GNSO during the meeting in London.
Item 10: Update – Issues for the SCI
Three issues have been identified which need scoping out prior to referring them to the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI)
- the role and function of a seconder to a motion
- mechanisms for dealing with amendments to motions
- voting thresholds
Not all councilors were of the view that amendments to motions need to be referred to the SCI and expressed the view that there are sufficient rules and protocols in place to address the issue and furthermore there is sufficient flexibility so as to rely on the discretion of the Chair in those cases that might be ambiguous.
The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) needs to be used judiciously.
The voting threshold issue arose specifically with respect to a case of changing a Consensus Policy with potentially only a 50% plus 1 vote and does not include opening up the entire range of voting thresholds.
In any case, a clear understanding and documentation of 'common practice' is needed at the least. Further discussion of these these items will take place on the Council mailing list.
Alan Greenberg and Avri Doria volunteered to scope out the issue of voting thresholds in relation to implementation changes to adopted PDP recommendations for Council review.
Jonathan Robinson volunteered to lead the discussion on the common understanding of amendments to motions on the Council list as well as the role of the maker & seconder of motions.
The Council will consider at a future meeting whether or not to refer these items to the SCI for further review.
Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Planning for London
Volker Greimann reported that the schedule was progressing, it is full, but the input from past experience has been taken into account. Councillors are invited to provide input to the Council's proposed meetings with Fadi Chehadé and other groups in such as the ccNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board.
Jonathan Robinson, in coordination with a Volker Greimann, committed to reach out to Fadi Chehadé, Steve Crocker, the GDD and Theresa Swinehart, to open a dialogue of what could and should be covered in the meetings with them as well as work with the ccNSO Chair and the key staff support.
Councillors are encouraged to provide input to the Council list on topics for discussion in meetings with the Board, Fadi Chehadé, the ccNSO and the GAC in preparation for these meetings.
Item 12: Any Other Business
Public comment on the Strategic Plan?
Council members to consider whether in the future there would be an interest / need to provide input from a Council perspective similar to what the ccNSO Council does.
Whois Requirements and National Law Conflicts Procedure Review
Council members are encouraged to review the staff paper on this topic (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-conflicts-procedure-2014-05-22-en) which will be further discussed in London.
A GNSO Council Liaison for the Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT)?
Jonathan Robinson to confirm with Amr Elsadr, who is already a member of the IRT, whether he would be willing to serve as the Council liaison to that effort.
Board Member Compensation
Alan Greenberg urged Councillors to provide comments to the public comment forum on Board Member compensation especially with reference to the possible recognition of and sensitivity to volunteer efforts. Noting that there are other ways of showing substantive appreciation for volunteer work than remuneration.
Jonathan Robinson adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 20:02 UTC.
The next GNSO Public Council meeting will take place in London on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 at 12:00 UTC. 13:00 BST.