The meeting started at 11:00 UTC.
List of attendees: NCA – Non Voting – Jennifer Wolfe
Contracted Parties House
- Registrar Stakeholder Group: Mason Cole, Yoav Keren, Volker Greimann – absent proxy to Yoav Keren
- gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao
- Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert
Non-Contracted Parties House
- Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Zahid Jamil, John Berard, Osvaldo Novoa, (joined late after votes) Brian Winterfeldt, Petter Rindforth
- Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Maria Farrell, Joy Liddicoat, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Magaly Pazello, David Cake, Wendy Seltzer – proxy to Wolfgang Kleinwächter,
- Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Lanre Ajayi
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
- Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
- Han Chuan Lee– ccNSO Observer
- Margie Milam – Senior Policy Counselor
- Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director
- Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
- Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
- Barbara Roseman – Policy Director
- Berry Cobb – Policy consultant
- Brian Peck – Policy Director
- Carlos Reyes – Policy Analyst
- Lars Hoffmann – Policy Analyst
- Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
- Alexander Kulik - Systems Engineer
- David Olive - VP Policy Development - Apologies
Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)
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:
Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 16 May 2013 posted as approved on 30 May 2013
Item 2: Opening remarks from the Chair
Arising from the Action Items:
Council is requested to confirm the draft letter, that is on the Council mailing list, to Jean Francois Barill of the Expert Working Group on Directory Services.
IDN letter to be sent to the ICANN Board highlighting the importance of this topic and request regular staff updates.
The events have overtaken the need to send a letter but the action item will stay open noting that Council will retain a close watching brief on implementation issues relating to the progress of the IDN GTLD delegation
John Berard drew attention to the email he sent to the Council list http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14648.html and encouraged Councillors to read the attachment on the ccNSO's comments on Cross-Community Working Groups.
Jonathan encouraged councillors to engage themselves in preparing for the Durban meetings by discussing substantive items on the mailing list. Good progress has been made engaging the ICANN Board, Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and ccNSO Council to meet with the GNSO during the weekend working sessions. In addition he emphasized the substantive nature of the item on the agenda dealing with the rationale for the Reconsideration Request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group relating to the decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse.
Item 3: Consent agenda
There were no items on the consent agenda.
Item 4: MOTION – to Adopt Proposed Modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, seconded by Osvaldo Novoa proposed a motion to adopt a Proposed Modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions
The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating Procedures lacks clarity;
The GNSO Council proposes a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting;
The revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the clarification of the deadline for the submission of reports and motions, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 02 May 2013 ending on 23 May 2013 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-op-procedures-02may13-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws;
As a result of the public comment period, the GNSO Council determined that no further changes were necessary;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
The GNSO Council adopts the revised GNSO Operating Procedures including the clarification of the deadline for the submission of reports and / or motions (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/op-procedures-04jun13-en.pdf).
The GNSO Council instructs staff to update any other sections in the GNSO Operating Procedures that are related to the submission of reports and / or motions to ensure that these are consistent with the new provision that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting.
The motion carried by voice vote.
Wolfgang Kleinwächter with the proxy for Wendy Seltzer, as well as Osvaldo Novoa were absent at the time of the vote.
The GNSO Council instructs staff to update any other sections in the GNSO Operating Procedures that are related to the submission of reports and / or motions to ensure that these are consistent with the new provision that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council.
Item 5: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information
Ching Chiao, seconded by Zahid Jamil proposed a motion to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information
The translation and transliteration of contact information were two of several issues addressed by a cross-community working group – Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) – in its Final Report;
As a result, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information at its meeting on 17 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-4);
A Preliminary Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information was published on 08 January 2013 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/transliteration-contact-08jan13-en.htm);
A Final Issue Report translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13-en.pdf).
The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council should initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues discussed in this report;
As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final Issue Report also recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations;
ICANN's General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;
The GNSO initiates a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13-en.pdf) on the translation and transliteration of contact information;
A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.
The GNSO requests staff to commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations.
The motion carried by roll call vote.
- Form a drafting team to draft the charter for the working group
- Request to staff to commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations
Item 6: DISCUSSION – Reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
Jeff Neuman's address is fully quoted in the following link:
Jonathan Robinson summarized saying he understood that were essentially two proposed outputs which he encouraged councilors to provide comments on, support or question.
1) A communication with the ICANN Board regarding concerns with the rationalization
2) A communication with the ATRT 2 team on regarding concerns with the reconsideration process.
Highlights from the discussion:
All councillors did not have the same understanding of the issue being raised here and the discussion provided the opportunity for clarification regarding the emphasis of the point being made i.e. a proposal to modify or remove the rationale (for the decision by the Board Governance Committee) so that such rationale did not set a precedent which may adversely impact the future of the bottom-up process in the multi-stakeholder model.
It was also highlighted that, whilst implementation may not be subject to GNSO purview under the bylaws, implementation cannot be understood to be solely a matter for ICANN Staff without reference to the broader community, especially where such implementation is contrary to GNSO advice. This not only an issue of implementation versus policy but relevant more broadly to the multi-stakeholder model and how ICANN works.
Additional discussion focused on the fact that the requirement for the Board to revert to the GNSO (when it proposes to act in a way which is not consistent with GNSO advice) does not exist in the same way that it does with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) i.e. 'where the board makes a decision or will make a decision that is not consistent with GAC advice.'
The NCSG indicated that they supported the proposed outcomes, and noted that they are planning to write to the ICANN Board to request a meeting to further discuss the issues highlighted and the implications for the multi-stakeholder model. The letter will be available to other members of the community and those who wish to take part in the discussion are welcome.
Clarification was sought on the number of Reconsideration requests that have not been granted and a proposal was made that comments be posted to the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) and taken up at the Durban Council meeting.
It was highlighted that the ATRT 2 work can only be fully effective if people make presentations and highlight the issues to the review team.
Thomas Rickert noted for the record that Council needs to ensure that the community is not bypassed whenever convenient. 'It cannot be emphasized enough that if we allow the GNSO consultation to be eroded that ultimately erodes the multi-stakeholder model putting ICANN at stake.'
Clarification was sought on how the multi-stakeholder model was in jeopardy.
If the reconsideration is being challenged would Council be trying to review the decision that the ICANN Board has made and if so whether it was an appropriate forum to do that, and whether it had the mandate to do that?
There was strong support for comments to the ATRT 2 team on the reconsideration process and the Chair's proposed ways of moving forward.
- The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the Board Governance Committee (copying the New gTLD Programme Committee) regarding the rationale for the reconsideration request.
- The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ATRT2 regarding the effectiveness of the reconsideration process as an accountability and transparency mechanism.
- Further consideration be given to a proposal regarding a potential change to the ICANN bylaws to deal with the issue of requiring further reference to the GNSO in the event that a decision is proposed or planned (by the board or staff) which is not consistent with the advice of the GNSO
Item 7: DISCUSSION – Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council
Council was informed that the Board Structural Improvements Committee is considering postponing the GNSO review (potentially for a year) while it evaluates options for streamlining the organizational review process and considers relevant discussions involving development of a new ICANN strategic plan. The Structural Improvements Committee expects to make a recommendation to the ICANN Board in Durban and Staff will keep the Council apprised of these developments.
A proposal was made for the Council to move forward in assessing what ought to be derived from a review, by making an attempt to scope out the issues to be addressed. Councillors are encouraged to discuss these aspects on the Council mailing list and to add this as an item to the Council agenda for the Durban meeting.
- Jonathan Robinson will share previous GNSO Review information from Bruce Tonkin with the Council via the mailing list.
- Further discussion on the Council mail server list.
- GNSO Review discussion proposed as an agenda item for the Council in Durban
Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board
Ching Chiao encouraged Councillors to make their groups aware of the analysis prepared by staff and ensure that comments on the topics below are provided by each group rather than the Council as a whole taking any action.
- Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not proceed until these recommendations are implemented),
- Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and
- Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work
Councillors to encourage their respective groups to provide comments on the analysis prepared by staff.
Jonathan Robinson committed to writing a letter to the ICANN Board informing them that the comments are better handled by each of the Constituency/Stakeholder Groups.
Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Planning for Durban
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben explained that the GNSO working sessions over the weekend focused on internal topics such as working groups and drafting teams on the Saturday, whilst on Sunday there would be interaction with Executive Staff, the CEO, the ICANN Board and the Government Advisory Committee (GAC).
Jonathan Robinson requested that councilors provide guidance with regard to the interactions with Executive Staff, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) the ICANN Board and the Government Advisory Committee (GAC).
Proposals were made to continue the discussion held in Beijing about finding a way to improve the collaboration with the GAC. Different ideas were raised such as having a liaison or a small committee of people from the GNSO and from the GAC. This should be further explored. A schedule of where the GAC can interact with the Policy Development Process has been circulated to the GAC, which could pave the way for productive discussion.
The internationalization strategy which is an initiative of Fadi Chehadé may be appropriate to discuss with the Board and during the session with Fadi Chehadé.
Council expressed support for a meeting with the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2).
Council is requested to provide timely feedback to Wolf-Ulrich Knoben on discussion topics with the ICANN Board, GAC and CEO Fadi Chehadé.
Council requested to provide timely feedback to Jon Berard and Petter Rindforth on topics for discussion with the ccNSO.
Jonathan Robinson will provide summary of the current discussions so far with the GAC.
Since there was no other business Jonathan Robinson adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 13:00 UTC.