Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 17 December 2015

Last Updated:

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 18:00 UTC
11:00 Los Angeles; 13:00 Washington; 19:00 Bonn; 20:00 Istanbul, 05:00 Hobart
The Meeting started at 18:04 UTC.

List of attendees:
NCA – Non Voting – Carlos Raúl Gutierrez – absent, apologies
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: James Bladel, Volker Greimann, Jennifer Standiford - absent, apologies, proxy Volker Greimann
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Donna Austin, Keith Drazek, Rubens Kühl
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Hsu Phen Valerie Tan - absent, apologies, proxy Rubens Kühl
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG);Philip Corwin, Susan Kawaguchi, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Tony Harris, Paul McGrady, Heather Forrest - absent, apologies, proxy Paul McGrady
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Amr Elsadr, Stephanie Perrin, David Cake, Stefania Milan, Edward Morris, Marilia Maciel - absent, apologies proxy Edward Morris
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Julf (Johan) Helsingius

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:
Olivier Crèpin LeBlond– ALAC Liaison
Patrick Myles - ccNSO Observer –absent - apologies
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
Steve Chan - Sr. Policy Manager
Berry Cobb – Policy consultant
Lars Hoffmann – Policy Analyst
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Nathalie Peregrine - Specialist, SO/AC Support (GNSO)
Josh Baulch - Manager, Meetings Technical Services
Mike Brennan - Meetings Technical Services Specialist

Thomas Rickert - Co-chair -CCWG Accountability

MP3 Recording
Adobe Chat Transcript

Item 1: Administrative matters

1.1 – Roll call
1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest
There were no updates to Statements of Interest
1.3 – Review/amend agenda.
1.4 – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings of 19 November 2015 have been posted as approved on 5 December 2015

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List

2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action List

  • Noteworthy, the clarity the colour coding gives to the Action List.
  • Move Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS (Next-Gen RDS) PDP WG to green status.
  • Phil Corwin, co-Chair of the Working Group on Curative Rights Protections for IGOs, reported that ICANN has allocated funds to retain a legal expert from George Washington University to answer the working group's questions. A final report could be expected before the end of January 2016, which will allow the Working Group to move forward and complete our work.

Item 3: Consent agenda

There were no items on the Consent agenda.

Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION – Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures

Donna Austin, seconded by Valerie Tan, with a friendly amendment made by Donna Austin, (in bold) proposed a motion to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures


  1. In June 2015 the GNSO Council had requested an Issue Report on the topic of analysing a set of subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD Procedures;
  2. The GNSO Council's request for an Issue Report followed the work completed by the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which was requested by the GNSO Council in June 2014;
  3. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures in a public comment forum that opened on 31 August 2015, and closed on 30 October 2015;
  4. The amended closing date for the public comment forum was the result of a GNSO Council request in September 2015;
  5. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments and updated the Issue Report accordingly;
  6. The Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures was published on 4 December 2015 at; and,
  7. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process (PDP) in order to consider 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.


  1. The GNSO Council hereby initiates a PDP to consider and analyse issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance; and,
  2. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP-WG Charter to fulfil the requirements of this PDP.

The motion passed unanimously.
See voting results

In the motion to approve a charter for the PDP working group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which Susan Kawaguchi requested to be deferred to January 2016, Paul McGrady volunteered as the GNSO Council liaison to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group (WG).

Action Item

Susan Kawaguchi, Philip Corwin and ICANN staff to work on appropriate language to clarify scope of Charter vis-à-vis rights protection mechanisms (which is the subject of a separate Issue Report on which the Council is expected to consider in January 2016) and circulate to Council list prior to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting

Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group

Susan Kawaguchi, supported by Stephanie Perrin asked for a deferral of the motion.

Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique

Stephanie Perrin, seconded by Volker Greimann proposed a motion to adopt the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board.


  1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
  2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
  3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
  4. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Dublin GAC Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review
  5. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.


  1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
  2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.


  • James Bladel to ensure that actions outlined in the motion are followed through i.e. communicate to Board followed by communication to GAC Chair and GAC-GNSO Consultation Group.

Item 7: VOTE ON MOTION – Endorsement of GNSO Candidates for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review

James Bladel, seconded by Volker Greimann proposed a motion to endorse the GNSO Applicants for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT)


  1. Under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC)<>, ICANN launched a process to review the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT Review). This AoC mandated review will also assess the effectiveness of the application and evaluation processes, as well as the safeguards put in place by ICANN to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion of new gTLDs.
  2. To conduct this review, a Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team will be formed in late 2015. Once formed, the Review Team will independently plan its work and schedule.
  3. A call for volunteers was launched on 1 October 2015 (see Those applying to serve as a volunteer member, where asked to identify the name of the Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee they wish to represent. 26 applicants identified the GNSO as the Supporting Organization they wished to represent (see
  4. Following its meeting on 19 November 2015, the GNSO Council agreed to follow up with all 26 applicants to request additional information required to reach its decision on endorsement (see
  5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the information received from the applicants requesting GNSO endorsement (see


  1. The GNSO Council endorses the following applicants: Calvin Brown, Gregory DiBiase, Ben Anderson, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Nacho Amadoz, Carlos Gutierrez, Jonathan Zuck, Waudo Siganga, Michael Graham, Greg Shatan, David Taylor, Stacie Walsh, Viktor Szabados, Cecilia Lee Smith, YJ Park, Jeremy Malcolm, Kinfe Michael Yilma Desta, and expects the selectors for this Review Team to weigh this endorsement as an important factor in their selection process.
  2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat, on behalf of the GNSO Council and Chair, to inform the CCT selectors in writing of the outcome of this process. The selectors should also be advised to consider the specific consideration to the role of the GNSO regarding the New gTLD implementation and ensure that all relevant GNSO stakeholders shall be represented on the CCT RT.
  3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the applicants that have received endorsement that the GNSO Council expects that, if selected for the CCT, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the CCT, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the CCT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team Members.
  4. The GNSO Council instructs the Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement (if any), thanking them for their interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the CCT RT work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions.

Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Action items:

Candidates named in the motion are endorsed by the GNSO Council (Calvin Browne, Gregory DiBiase, Ben Anderson, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Nacho Amadoz, Carlos Gutierrez, Jonathan Zuck, Waudo Siganga, Michael Graham, Greg Shatan, David Taylor, Stacie Walsh, Viktor Szabados, Cecilia Lee Smith, YJ Park, Jeremy Malcolm, Kinfe Michael Yilma Desta)

  • Actions outlined in motion to be carried out by GNSO Secretariat (i.e. inform Review Team selectors including specific advice (see below); inform endorsed candidates as well as candidates that did not obtain endorsement)
  • Susan Kawaguchi volunteered to assist staff in drafting specific advice concerning the GNSO's role in the New gTLD Program implementation and the need to ensure representation of all relevant GNSO stakeholders
  • NPOC & NCUC to send specific candidate lists (if wished) directly to selectors, but to note that these are not candidates endorsed by the GNSO Council.

Item 8: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.

In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability has made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published for public comment on 30 November 2015.

Following ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) – the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue – announced that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send the consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. Public comments on these latest recommendations closes on 21 December 2015, with all the Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt them in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016.

Here the Council will discuss its review and adoption of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, including the timeline and consideration of any input from its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.

Text composed with the Best Online HTML Editor. Please subscribe for a HTML G membership to remove this message.

Highlights from the update provided by Thomas Rickert:

  • To date the Third Draft Proposal that was published for public comment on 30 November 2015 has received a formal response from the ALAC, and the ICANN Board. The other chartering organizations have not yet offered formal feedback.
  • The Board's comments will be analyzed along with all the other comments when the Public Comment Period closes on the 21st of December.
  • It would be desirable to receive formal feedback from the chartering organizations in the first days of January 2016.
  • The CCWG charter, states that it is in the discretion of the CCWG to issue a supplementary draft if one or more chartering organizations have expressed concerns or rejected one or multiple recommendations.
  • There are different scenarios possible among which the chartering organizations will support the recommendations and depending on the level of support, the CCWG will be able to deliver the Final Report through the Board.
  • The ICANN Board has two roles :
    1. as an active contributor to the CCWG process.
    2. to examine the community consensus and establish whether there are global public interest considerations that prevent the Board from passing on the recommendations to NTIA.It is foreseeable that certain areas of concern do not have to delay the process, but could be fixed during the implementation phase.
  • The IPC's primary concerns, though not an exhaustive list, were noted:
    IPC striving to respond under what they believe to be an unrealistic comment deadline and which they would like to see extended to be at least 45 days, preferably 60.
    The IPC expressed concern about Recommendation 11 related to the two-thirds GAC vote which threshold is considered too high, and the language could be construed as a mandatory obligation for the Board to vote on GAC advice, or it is automatically affected.
    Recommendation five, does not clearly state that ICANN is fully responsible to enforce its contracts and it would preferable to have an explicit recognition from ICANN to enforce its contracts. It seems Recommendation nine omits the provision that requires ICANN to remain a United States Not for Profit organization and it is believed that this should be a fundamental bylaw.

The BC expressed concern about how the ICANN Board's comments would be handled.

Thomas Rickert remained confident that these could be handled during the implementation phase.

  • The ISPCP reported that they would have comments in by the deadline and also expressed concerns relating to Recommendation 11.
  • The NCSG stated that they would be submitting comments to the public comment forum and emphasized that any backtracking on human rights in the mission statement, would not have the support of the Non-Commercial community on the final product.
  • The ALAC members and the different region At-Large organization are having difficulty adhering to the timeline.

Thomas Rickert encouraged Councillors and their groups to continue working according to plan and focusing on offering a rationale for their views where necessary. Ultimately the Board will need to decide whether it shares the communities' views or not.

James Bladel in summary stated that all the groups and individuals in the GNSO are diligently concentrating and working on the CCWG work on Accountability and responding to the Third Draft Proposal that was published for public comment on 30 November 2015. However, given the compressed timeframe, it is not realistic to expect formal feedback from the GNSO as a chartering organization by December 21, 2015.

There will be feedback from individual stakeholder groups and individual constituencies as part of the public comment period.

The GNSO Council will submit a formal consideration of the CCWG in a consolidated document as soon as possible.

Action items:

  • Council to develop process to document support for CCWG-Accountability from GNSO SG/Cs and synthesize into a consolidated, GNSO position
  • Council to work on appropriate resolution for adoption

Item 9: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION – New gTLD Auction Proceeds

On 8 September 2015 ICANN published for public comment a Discussion Paper concerning possible next steps in the community process regarding proceeds obtained from ICANN-conducted auctions for contested strings in the New gTLD Program. The Discussion Paper summarized the community discussions that had occurred to date, including discussions started by the GNSO Council and conducted at ICANN52. An updated Discussion Paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015, noting that there seems to be general community support for a Cross-Community Working Group to be formed on the topic and proposing that the next step be confirming the interest of each ICANN Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) in participating in this effort. Interested SO/ACs would then be requested to nominate up to 2 volunteers for the Drafting Team to be formed, to develop a charter for adoption by all the potential Chartering Organizations.

Action items:

  • Council to discuss on mailing list

Item 10: Any Other Business

10.1 – Confirming schedule of GNSO Council meetings for 2016

  • Council to discuss on mailing list

10.2 – Marrakech meeting planning (note: weekend session planning being led by Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr)

  • Council to discuss on mailing list

James Bladel adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.

The meeting was adjourned at 20:23 UTC.

The next GNSO Council Teleconference will take place on Thursday, 14 January 2016 at 12:00 UTC.
For other places see: