Minutes of the GNSO Meeting on 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC

Last Updated: 30 June 2015
Date: 
16 April 2015

Agenda and Documents

The Meeting started at 11:01 UTC

List of attendees: NCA – Non Voting – Carlos Raúl Gutierrez
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Volker Greimann - absent, apologies, proxy to James Bladel, James Bladel, 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):Phil Corwin, Susan Kawaguchi, Osvaldo Novoa – absent apologies, no proxy, Tony Holmes – left call early, Heather Forrest, Brian Winterfeldt
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Amr Elsadr - joined after roll call, Marilia Maciel, Edward Morris, Stephanie Perrin, Avri Doria, David Cake
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Daniel Reed – absent apologies proxy to David Cake

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:
Olivier Crépin-Leblond– ALAC Liaison
Patrick Myles - ccNSO Observer - absent, apologies
Mason Cole – GNSO liaison to the GAC

ICANN Staff
David Olive - VP Policy Development
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Mary Wong – Senior Policy Director
Julie Hedlund – Senior Policy Director
Steve Chan – Policy Director
Lars Hoffmann – Policy Analyst
Berry Cobb- Consultant
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Cory Schruth – Systems Engineer

MP3 Recording
Adobe Chat Transcript
Transcript

Item 1: Administrative matters

1.1 - Roll Call
1.2 - Statement of interest updates
Bret Fausett
1.3 - Review/amend agenda
Move Item 8 to after Item 4 on the agenda due to Mason Cole's time constraint
1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting of 11 February and 19 March 2015 will be posted as approved on xxxx 2015.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)

Jonathan Robinson emphasized the importance of being regularly informed about the IANA stewardship transition and the Accountability framework in order to be able to vote on the proposals when they will be presented to Council because the GNSO Council is one of the chartering organisations.

Item 3: Consent agenda

Avri Doria, seconded by Amr Elsadr, proposed a motion on the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) Review request concerning GNSO Council practices for proposing, seconding and amendment of motions

WHEREAS:

  1. The SCI submitted to the GNSO Council on 05 March 2015 a Review Request that noted the following issue:
    1. Although there is currently a rule regarding the deadline for timely submission of motions for voting by the GNSO Council (see Section 3.3 of the Operating Procedures), there is none regarding:
      1. whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and
      2. treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either "friendly" or "unfriendly".
    2. These have been supported by Council practice to date as opposed to operating procedural rules.

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council requests that the SCI codifies the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council (as described above).
  2. If the SCI believes that the current practices are inappropriate, the SCI should convey its reasons for such belief to the Council and develop new processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions.
  3. The GNSO Council suggests that in carrying out this task the SCI consult past GNSO Chairs and Councilors as well as commonly accepted guides and practices (such as Robert's Rules of Order) and other ICANN bodies (such as the Board and other SO/ACs).

Avri Doria, seconded by Amr Elsadr, proposed a motion on the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) Review request on clarifying the Operating Procedures regarding the waiver and resubmission of motions

WHEREAS:

  1. The SCI submitted to the GNSO Council on 05 March 2015 a Review Request that noted the following issue:
    1. The latest version of the Procedures incorporates approved new procedures recommended by the SCI relating to the Council's ability to:
      1. waive the general rule of a 10-day deadline for the submission of motions for voting (Section 3.3.2), and
      2. permit a motion that has been voted on but not adopted to be resubmitted for reconsideration (Section 4.3.3).
  2. The Council's original request that the SCI consider these two situations did not explicitly ask that the SCI consider also the possible interplay between them (e.g. if a resubmitted motion is sent to the Council after the 10-day deadline applicable to the next scheduled Council meeting).
  3. Although the SCI discussed this issue, it did not reach consensus on whether and how to address the potential problem.

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council requests the SCI to consider whether or not there is a need to include a further rule (possibly as an additional paragraph under the new Section 3.3.2) that specifically addresses the possible interplay between the new rules applicable to waiver of the 10-day motion deadline and resubmission of a motion.

Consent agenda approved.
All councilors present, including those holding proxies, voted in favor of the consent agenda item. (Osvaldo Novoa absent no proxy)

Item 4: MOTION – Proposed amendment to Charter of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group

Susan Kawaguchi, seconded by Brian Winterfeldt proposed an amendment to the charter for the IGO-INGO access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group.

WHEREAS:

  1. On 5 June 2014 the GNSO Council approved the initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) to explore whether amendments to existing curative rights mechanisms (such as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure) or the creation of a separate, narrowly tailored dispute resolution mechanism will be necessary to address the needs of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in protecting their names and acronyms at the second level in generic top-level domains (gTLD);
  2. On 25 June 2014 the GNSO Council chartered the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group to begin work on the PDP;
  3. The Charter for the Working Group contemplates that in relation to IGOs the Working Group is to use the IGO List provided to ICANN by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in March 2013, which is based on the eligibility criteria for an IGO to register a domain name in the .int gTLD, and which was the basis upon which the PDP Working Group on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs made their consensus recommendations in November 2013;
  4. After analyzing the historical documents, legal texts and research related to the issue of an IGO's standing to file a complaint under the UDRP and URS, the Working Group has reached a preliminary conclusion that a more appropriate basis for standing under any applicable curative rights dispute resolution process may be the legal protections for IGO names and acronyms that are conferred by Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property;
  5. This preliminary conclusion is supported by the May 2002 recommendation of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Standing Committee for Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications as well as the December 2011 open letter sent to ICANN by legal counsel of twenty-eight IGOs; and
  6. The Working Group has requested that the GNSO Council approve an amendment to the Working Group Charter that will include the flexibility to consider all appropriate eligibility options.

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council approves the request from the Working Group to amend its Charter, as follows:

Where, under "Mission and Scope", the current Charter reads:

"For purposes of this PDP, the scope of IGO and INGO identifiers is to be limited to those identifiers previously listed by the GNSO's PDP WG on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs as protected by their consensus recommendations (designated by that WG as Scope 1 and Scope 2 identifiers, and listed in Annex 2 of the Final Issue Report)."

It is hereby amended to read:

"For purposes of this PDP, the WG shall take into account any criteria for IGO or INGO protection that may be appropriate, including any that may have been developed previously, such as the list of IGO and INGO identifiers that was used by the GNSO's prior PDP WG on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs as the basis for their consensus recommendations and the GAC list of IGOs as provided to ICANN in March 2013."

Motion carried by voice vote.
All councilors present, including those holding proxies, voted in favor of the motion. (Osvaldo Novoa absent no proxy)

It is noted that the IGO-INGO access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group were all in favour of the motion being brought before Council.

Item 5: UPDATE – Progress of Work on GNSO Council Template for Feedback on GAC Communiques

(as requested, this item 8 was moved up on the agenda)

Carlos Raúl Gutierrez, David Cake and Volker Greimann have started populating the template using the Singapore GAC Communiqué as the basis for possible comment, and to identify potential topics subject to existing GNSO policy recommendations or for future policy work.

They have further suggested that in the fourth column of the template which states:

"If yes, please explain if it's subject to existing policy recommendations and limitation action or ongoing policy development work."
if it is ongoing PDP work, a recommendation should come from the specific working group chair. If there is existing policy, it is further suggested that Staff seeks the source of the recommendations so that these can be transmitted to the Board.

Highlights from the discussion.

There is real value in the work.

The Policy and Implementation Working Group briefly discussed the GNSO review of the GAC Communiqué template because, should the working group recommendations be adopted, some of the processes being recommended may be helpful in developing the template and going forward on how the GNSO could recommend the ICANN Board handling advice items coming from the GAC to them. In addition there are other processes being worked out by the group that are designed to address situations where other ACs or SOs or possibly the Board may want to refer issues, whether they are gTLD related or not, to the GNSO for guidance or input.

Suggestions for including in the template:

  • A mechanism for determining if the advice is under existing policy, whether or not, in the view of the Council, the advice is aligned with that existing policy or cuts across the existing policy and therefore requires some further action.
  • when asking the question "How is the issue being dealt with by the GNSO?" there should be specificity about who is the expected audience of the response.

The Council and groups that have specific interests, are encouraged review the items make suggestions to the Council as to whether the issues are covered by policy, rather than leaving this only to Staff determination.

The process is to communicate the findings to the ICANN Board with the GAC on copy.

Action items:

Mason Cole to prepare an update for the GAC/GNSO Consultation Group on the process to set expectations for the GAC about the Council engagement on the Communiqués.

GNSO Council chair and vice chairs and Mason Cole to meet with the GAC Chair and Vice Chairs to inform them of the potential process being undertaken by the Council.

Add Stephanie Perrin to the group of volunteers, Carlos Raúl Gutierrez and David Cake in Volker Greimann's absence. Anyone who would like to join the group is welcome.

Check the latest version of the template

  • Improve the template - provide comments via the Council mailing list
  • Populate the template - provide comments via the Council mailing list

Although the timeline has been missed for the Singapore Communiqué, finish the current template and share it with the GAC and the ICANN Board as a test exercise.

Councillors are encouraged to participate via the Council mailing list.

At the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires in June 2015 Set definite timelines for delivering the work.

Item 6: DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

Thomas Rickert provided Council with a brief update noting that the accelerated speed with which the group was advancing toward the completion of its work result was in general usual for most projects. The use of the word 'work result' was pointed out so as to avoid the word 'consensus position' or 'final recommendation' because that stage has not yet been reached. The accountability architecture components, the community, the ICANN Board, the Bylaws and the Independent Review have been agreed upon. Currently the work is focusing on the community powers and what change would be brought about to the ICANN bylaws in order to produce a revised mission and core values that would enshrine the fundamental principles of ICANN's operations as well as providing the basis for an independent review panel to assess whether certain actions that ICANN, or more specifically the ICANN Board, has taken, are in possible violation of the bylaws.

Currently two models, of several that were proposed, to enhance accountability inside ICANN are being examined and independent legal advice has been sought for implementing the requirements that have been established for the accountability system.

There will be a document 'freeze' for three or four days which will be followed by two intense work days after which a report will be submitted for public comment. The emphasis is on general recommendations on the parts of the work which the cross community working group on the IANA stewardship transition depends on, leaving the details to be worked through at a later stage. Throughout the process there is ongoing co-ordination and collaboration among the chairs and co-chairs of both groups.

Action items:

Since the GNSO is a chartering organization, keep the different groups in the GNSO well informed of the work and progress of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

Item 7: DISCUSSION – Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions

Jonathan Robinson provided the following update to the Council on the work of the Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on the naming related functions.
It was noted that an intentional effort has been made not force either of the two operational communities to have to adjust to the Naming Community proposal.

Action items:

Since the GNSO is a chartering organization, keep the different groups in the GNSO well informed of the work and progress of the CWG to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on the naming related functions.

Item 8: DISCUSSION – Proposed ICANN FY16 Budget

Amr Elsadr who accepted to work with Volker Greimann, currently absent, on the implications of the budget for the GNSO, asked David Olive to provide an update on the Draft 16 Operating Plan and Budget currently open for comments.

David Olive drew Council's attention to page 8, Resource Utilization, in the Draft 16 Operating Plan and Budget and notes that Supporting Organisations/ Advisory Committees (SO/AC) Policy and Engagement had increased from $8 million in FY15 to over $11 million in FY16. Further he noted that the dedicated resources consist of the core policy development support Budget for personnel, travel, professional services and administration for the department as they support the Council and other community groups. It is one indicator of the support for the Policy Development and Advisory processes that are given to the community groups that fuel their work. There are separate indicators that reflect community support.

The Policy Team supports the three Supporting Organizations which develop policy at ICANN as well as the four Advisory Committees. At ICANN public meetings, the Policy team supports over GNSO related 150 sessions. Constituency travel is a component of the SO/AC Policy Engagement Budget that provides travel support to the Council, constituency and stakeholder group leaders/chosen representatives in the face-to-face policy and advisory work at ICANN public meetings.

In addition to the core dedicated functions, there are extensive shared support infrastructure capabilities in the budgets of other departments for the SO/AC support. These include IT, (teleconferences, AC Rooms, transcripts and meetings) Legal Office services, Compliance, GDD, Communications (videos, publications, translations, community online tools, SO/AC Web sites, tools being developed for working groups and constituencies) as well as the annual special SO/AC budget.

Currently the Finance Team does not produce the costs in relation to department functions. This degree of detail may be added in the future.

As the ICANN budget has grown over the last several years, there has been an increase in the number and amount of support capabilities and community engagement services delivered to the GNSO and to SOs and ACs. To mention some, the annual GNSO Strategic sessions at the end of the ICANN General Meeting, targeted groups for face-to-face meetings during the ICANN Public Meeting, increased travel support for both contracted and non-contracted leaders.

With regard to engagement and outreach, several pilot programs have been launched such as the CROPP Program and the secretariat support for the Non-Contracted Party Community. Looking ahead, programs are being envisaged to address the policy development workloads with documents and document drafting, prioritization, information management and easy to access information.

Noticeable improvements are the one-page quick reference on the GNSO website. The Council, as managers of the Policy Development work for the Generic Naming space, has an interest in submitting comments during the public comment period which closes on 1 May 2015.
Suggested areas of comment:

  • is the level of policy and other Staff support adequate or not for the policy development process
  • are additional resources needed for substantial new or additional policy work that is foreseen in FY16 over and above the expected workload
  • comments regarding the overall direction of the budget focused on the policy work

The Chief Financial Officer, Xavier Calvez, and his team have been conducting seminars and webinars to brief the community and smaller group of budget interested people work with him to provide details on many aspects of the budget.

Action items:

Form a drafting team to address this concern and provide a comment to the public comment forum before the closing date, 1 May 2015
Purpose:

  • draft an online document,
  • build consensus on the mailing list because there is no Council meeting before the close of public comments on 1 May 2015

Focus on:

  • the role of the Council as policy manager and without displacing the role or positions of the various SG/Cs
  • resources to support the policy management function

Timeline:

  • complete work 28 April 2015
  • review and submit to public comment forum 1 May 2015

Volunteers: Amr Elsadr, Susan Kawaguchi, Stephanie Perrin, Carlos Raúl Gutierrez,

Item 9: DISCUSSION – Remaining Items from the GNSO's Strategic Discussion Session in Singapore

Action items:

Recirculate the Update that Marika Konings provided and comment on the Council mailing list.

Item 10: Any Other Business

10.1 – CWG on Auction Proceeds (update: Jonathan Robinson)
Jonathan Robinson reminded Council that a call for expression of interests was launched for a proposed cross-community working group on auction proceeds and there was support, following which there was a call for volunteers to join a drafting team. Councillors are encouraged to comment on the letter Steve Crocker sent to Jonathan Robinson shortly before the Council meeting.

Highlights from the discussion

The letter caused surprise amongst some councilors.
It was understood from the letter that the cross-community working group would be one input into the process, while it was it the understanding that the process was within the Council and not at the Board level.

Some were of the view that perhaps it may be worthwhile to go with the process rather than creating the cross-community working group.
Others viewed a Board decision without any consultation with the community about whether the outreach should be broader, disturbing and that it was not a good idea to abandon the idea of the cross-community working group.

A cross community working group is an open group to anyone within and from whatever outside the ICANN community might be.

Action items:

Further discussion on the Council mailing list to determine the response to Steve Crocker's letter

10.2 – Buenos Aires meeting planning (update: David Cake / Jonathan Robinson)

Action items:

Please provide input to David Cake, Jonathan Robinson and ICANN staff

10.3 – Appoint a Council Liaison to the CWG on Country and Territory Names

Action items:

Update from and appointment of a Council Liaison to the CWG on Country and Territory Names at the next Council meeting 21 May 2015.

10.4 - Update on the Proposed Framework for a PDP WG on Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) noting the documents sent to Council.

Susan Kawaguchi reported that the EPWG has completed the work on the framework document. All the comments we received at the Singapore meeting have been incorporated and the document has been submitted to GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. Staff is working on the preliminary report. Councillors are encouraged to read the framework and the Report which will constitute part of the Preliminary Report which will be submitted for comment probably in June 2015.

Action items:

Councillors are encouraged to read the documents that constitute the framework and the Report.

Jonathan Robinson, GNSO chair, adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 13:00 UTC.

The next GNSO Council meeting will take place on Thursday, 21 May 2015 at 15:00 UTC
For other places see:
http://tinyurl.com/mb4zhy5