The meeting started at 13:00 UTC.
NCA – Non Voting – Jennifer Wolfe
Contracted Parties House
- Registrar Stakeholder Group: Mason Cole, Yoav Keren, Volker Greimann
- gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao – remote participation
- Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert – absent, proxy to Jennifer Wolfe
Non-Contracted Parties House
- Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Zahid Jamil, John Berard, Osvaldo Novoa, Brian Winterfeldt, Petter Rindforth
- Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Maria Farrell – absent, temporary alternate Nuno Garcia, Joy Liddicoat, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Magaly Pazello, David Cake, Wendy Seltzer – absent, temporary alternate Marie-Laure Lemineur
- Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Lanre Ajayi
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers:
- Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
- Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer
- 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
- Brian Peck – Policy Director
- Carlos Reyes – Policy Analyst
- Lars Hoffmann – Policy Analyst
- Glen de Saint Géry – GNSO Secretariat
Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency Leaders
Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC)
Elisa Cooper, Business Constituency (BC) chair, reported that the Business constituency discussed different topics including the motions before the Council, security and stability issues, submitting GAC advice for public comment, singular versus plural issues, geographical strings, outreach efforts and the Business Constituency charter
Registries Stakeholder Group(RySG)
Keith Drazek, Registrar Stakeholder Group chair, reported that the three registries CORE, Donuts, and International Domain Registry that signed contracts at the Durban meeting transitioned from the NTAG and became full members of the Registries Stakeholder Group. Among the topics discussed were the GAC advice, the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure ( PICDRP) and budget and planning for FY14. There was a joint discussion with the Registrars on the Trademark Clearinghouse with IBM and Deloitte, including the Registrar onboarding process.
Registrars Stakeholder Group (RrSG)
Michele Neylon, Registrar Stakeholder Group chair, reported that several new registrars from the region had joined the stakeholder group. The registrars received updates from the Compliance and Policy teams, the Expert Working Group, and the SSAC. The RAA negotiations are concluded, however in discussion with the Board and Staff it was noted that local law exemption needed to be addressed in a timely fashion. Concern was expressed with respect to outreach, globally and in multiple languages in order to help registrars, and the rest of the supply chain, come to grips with the new contract obligations.
Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers
Tony Holmes, Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency chair, echoed the BC's chair appreciation and usefulness of having time on Sunday afternoon for a Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) meeting and hoped that the arrangement could be maintained in the future. Discussions were had with experts on IDNs and IDN variants and the way in which these will impact Internet Service Providers. Global stakeholder engagement and ways to engage with the Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 were also discussed. It was suggested that the chairs' reports could be written and published on the website so as to allow for more substantial discussion during the Council meeting.
It was further suggested that thought should be given to making discussions with regard to the Council business more productive after the constituency day meetings and before the Council meeting and that perhaps the GNSO Wrap-Up meeting was the place to come up with new ideas to make this work.
Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC)
Kristina Rosette, the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) Chair, emphasized the usefulness of the Commercial Stakeholder Group meeting on Sunday. The IPC also held a teleconference with the members who could not physically attend the meeting, as well as the constituency day meeting to discuss a variety of topics, policy and implementation, Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 A(TRT2), budget concerns, membership issues on voting and participation in light of the large number of dot Brand applicants, outreach and engagement strategies, a productive question and answer session with the Expert Working Group (EWG), a review of the URS, discussions with Deloitte about the TMCH and an agreement to provide some input to ICANN on the sunrise dispute resolution procedure/policy. It was suggested that a joint group may be formed to consider this. There were also presentations on the URS and compliance. The Council motions were discussed as well as an extended discussion of the implications for the multi stakeholder model of some of the expected GAC advice. It was suggested that better scheduling (of the Council meeting) would increase attendance and that it should be taken up at the GNSO Wrap-Up meeting.
Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)
Marie-Laure Lemineur, Not-for-profit Operational Concerns (NPOC) chair, reported that it was the first meeting of the newly elected executive committee, the charter was reviewed, and discussions were had with the ATRT 2 team and the Expert Working Group.
Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)
Bill Drake, Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) reported that the NCUC conducted a successful workshop debate on closed generic gTLDs and drew attention to the three day African School for Internet Governance. The NCUC discussed African perspectives on Internet governance issues at their constituency day meeting as well as more efficient organizational changes, new website and an electronic infrastructure to deal with increased membership which is over 300 members from 75 countries with two thirds of the members being outside of North America. Bill added that the use of Sunday for the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group meeting was productive and useful.
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG)
David Cake stood-in for Robin Gross, the chair of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), who was unable to make it to the meeting. Among the issues that the NCSG is discussing is NPOC representation on the Nominating Committee, a reconsideration request on the trademark plus 50 issue and the reconsideration request itself which has raised a number of issues about how the reconsideration process works and how the rationale is arrived at, concern with ICANN's response to the Article 29 working party letter and the group is preparing a response. The NCSG Sunday afternoon meeting time was appreciated and productive.
15h45 – 18h00 (Local Time / Durban) Onwards
Item 1: Administrative matters
1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
Brian Winterfeldt noted an updated statement of interest
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 13 July 2013 approved on 10 July 2013.
Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair
Item 3: Consent agenda
Item 4: MOTION – On ICANN Bylaw recommendation
Jeff Neuman, who proposed the motion on ICANN Bylaw Recommendation withdrew the same motion and made the following statement:
"First, I would like to state that the motion on the table has achieved everything it was intended to achieve and I want to personally thank the Council, the Board and the Community for a productive fruitful session over the weekend.
"The reason I initially brought the motion in the first place was to encourage dialogue amongst the community, the ICANN Board and the GNSO Council – and that is precisely what happened. And during that discussion, Fadi confirmed his view that it was perfectly reasonable to ask that the ICANN Board explain the rationale for its decisions to the GNSO community if the ICANN staff or Board's proposed actions are inconsistent with the GNSO community's advice. He also confirmed that it was reasonable for the ICANN Board to engage with the GNSO community to work in good faith to resolve any differences. Finally, it was recognized by the Board that whether something is considered policy or implementation, it should involve a multi-stakeholder process.
"I am satisfied with the responses from the ICANN staff and Board over this past week and view that a change to the Bylaws at this time as unnecessary. If, in the future, we feel like this verbal commitment to the GNSO is not being adhered to, we can raise this issue again."
During the discussion views were expressed that there should be ongoing discussion with the Board on these issues.
Item 5: MOTION – To adopt the charter for the Policy & Implementation Working Group
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben seconded by Zahid Jamil proposed a motion to adopt the Charter for the Policy & Implementation Working Group.
- The GNSO Council decided at its wrap-up session at the ICANN meeting in Beijing to form a drafting team to develop a charter for a Working Group to address the issues that have been raised in the context of the recent discussions on policy & implementation that affect the GNSO.
- The drafting team was formed and has now submitted a proposed charter for the Policy & Implementation Working Group to the GNSO Council.
The GNSO Council has reviewed the proposed charter.
- The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints Jeff Neuman as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Policy & Implementation Working Group.
- The GNSO Council further directs that the call for volunteers to form the Policy & Implementation Working Group be initiated no later than 7 days after the approval of this motion.
Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
The motion carried unanimously by a show of hands.
Call for volunteers to form the Policy and Implementation Working Group.
Item 6: MOTION – Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings
The motion made by Jeff Neuman and seconded by both Yoav Keren and Zahid Jamil on the Adoption of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process Final Report and Recommendations was deferred by request of the Intellectual Property Constituency to a Council meeting that can be convened in the shortest timeframe.
Brian Winterfeldt made the following statement:
"The IPC is actually in support of the motion and very much wants the work to move forward. However, we are concerned about the process point, which is that the motion was not given timely. We feel that there's been a lot of emphasis on process at the council level and a lot of concerns that have been raised and we've spent a lot of time talking about that during the last several meetings. Our concern is to set a precedent in this case to put the process to the side when people have been very focused on maintaining process and making sure we follow our own rules very carefully. So for that reason, the IPC feels that this motion should not be put forward today, since it did not meet the appropriate timeline. However, again, we do very much support the motion. We do want to see the work to move forward, and we would suggest that a special meeting be held, we think it could be probably fairly brief in August, so that we could vote on this and that motion could be timely at that time."
- Defer motion and reconsider at earliest possible opportunity.
- Doodle poll to determine a suitable date for a Council meeting to convene to vote on the motion.
Item 7: UPDATE AND DISCUSSION – Proposed GNSO Council Letter on IDN Variants
On 30 June 2013, a letter was sent to the ICANN Board confirming that this work was being undertaken within the JIG (Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Group) and that a response for consideration by the GNSO Council as well as the ccNSO Council would be tabled at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
Awaiting ccNSO consideration of the letter at its August meeting, following which (if approved) the letter would be sent as a joint ccNSO – GNSO Council letter to the Board. The Board was alerted to the fact that additional time was needed to formulate a position.
Council unanimously supported sending the letter.
The Chair will make non material edits and expedite letter following ccNSO consideration of the letter in August.
Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – GNSO Review
Rob Hoggarth provided an update of the GNSO Review and noted that there was currently a public comment process open the potential postponement of the GNSO Review
- Council to consider the change to the proposed timing of the Review process
- Council to consider providing input to the request for public comments on the potential postponement of the GNSO Review
- Council to consider a line of action in the interim such as a self-review.
Item 9: DISCUSSION – Cross Community Working
Council agreed to refer the paper adopted at the ccNSO Council meeting on 11 June 2013 back to the original Cross Community Working Group drafting team for them to consider a proposed response and include input from the ALAC.
Alan Greenberg in his capacity as ALAC liaison, to the Council is to gather appropriate and timely ALAC feedback on the topic.
- Reinstate the Cross Community Working Group drafting team to consider the ccNSO paper.
- Incorporate ALAC feedback as provided by Alan Greenberg
Item 10: DISCUSSION – Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services
Councillors were encouraged to stimulate their stakeholder groups/constituencies to provide input to the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services on its initial report by 12 August 2013.
Item 11: Any Other Business
Han Chuan Lee noted that he would be stepping down as the ccNSO liaison and thanked the Council for a productive four years spent on the Council as liaison.
Volker Greimann suggested renaming the Open Microphone to the GNSO public forum and have a separate item on the agenda to generate greater interest in the work of the GNSO.
Item 12: Open Microphone
Greg Shatan from the IPC commented on why he felt the motion on the ICANN Bylaw recommendation looked like a land grab, stating that the result of putting the bylaws in that way would have been like GAC advice and that there is a different relationship between the GAC and GNSO in giving advice.
Jonathan Robinson adjourned the GNSO Council Public meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 17:50 Local time (15:50 UTC)
The next GNSO Council meeting TBD