GNSO Council Minutes 18 November 2010

Last Updated: 04 April 2012
Date: 
18 November 2010

Agenda and documents

The meeting started at 11:04 UTC.

List of attendees:

Andrei Kolesnikov NCA – Non Voting

Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Chuck Gomes, Caroline Greer, Edmon Chung
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Terry Davis - absent apologies

Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG):, Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, David Taylor, Zahid Jamil; Kristina Rosette & Mike Rodenbaugh - absent apologies - Zahid Jamil held Mike's proxy
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Rafik Dammak, William Drake, Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Rosemary Sinclair
Mary Wong left the call at 12:00 UTC - proxy given to Bill Drake
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer joined after the roll call

ICANN Staff
Kurt Pritz - SVP Stakeholder Relations
David Olive - Vice President, Policy Development
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director
Karla Valente - Director, Communications Product Services
Alexander Kulik - System Administrator

Ken Bour - Policy Consultant

For a recording of the meeting, please refer to:

Item 1: Administrative Items

1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest

Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, Councilors were polled regarding
disclosures of interest regarding the following meeting topics:

  • The main issues for this meeting are:
    • GNSO Project Decision Making
    • Status of Council Chair Nominations and NCA Assignments
    • Disclosure of Interest Procedures motion
    • Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
    • New gTLD Applicant Guidebook
    • RySG endorsements for AoC SSR RT replacement

1.2 Update any Statements of Interest
No updates

1.3 Review/amend the agenda

  • Tim Ruiz liaison to the IRTP B WG under Item 8 AOB
    The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies B Working Group (IRTP B WG) request an extension in time line to the San Fancisco meeting.
    No formal extension required

1.4.The GNSO Council 28 October 2010 meeting minutes were approved on 15 November 2010.

Item 2: Election of Council Chair & Vice Chairs

Chuck Gomes responded to a question about the second round of voting and referred to the procedures approved on 28 October explaining that a second round had to be done within 30 days of the first round and that it could be completed by the Cartagena meeting.
The following options are open to Council:

1) In the case of a tie there is a new nomination and voting period.
2) If 'None of the Above' wins the situation is similar to the above.
3) The candidate with the higher percentage of the vote goes into the second election and the ballot has the name of the leading candidate and 'None of the Above'.

Individual votes will not be revealed, but the percentage of votes attained in each House will be revealed.

Bill Drake mentioned that in the NCSG concerns were expressed about the old Council voting for the new Council. He further expressed a preference for the vice chair elections to be held in Cartagena, and drew attention to the need for a process for assigning the Nominating Committee Appointees.

Mary Wong noted for the record that in 2009 there was a motion that allowed the Council chair, Avri Doria, to continue temporarily as the chair until the actual Council meeting during the Annual General Meeting in Seoul where the new Council chair and vice chairs were elected and the new chair and vice chairs were announced during the Open Council Meeting in Seoul. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-24sep09.htm

Questions for the candidates:

Please give your views on the future of cross-constituency and cross-community working groups and what approach would you take?

Olga Cavalli
Any action towards cross-work and cross-community work and cross-constituency work is good. The Constituency/Stakeholder Group Operations work team has been working on an outreach document and any outreach actions are worthwhile, the GNSO needs to broaden its perspective and involve more people so that when it comes to prioritisation of work, there are more people available to do the work.

Stéphane van Gelder
There are two points in the question.

The first is communicating with other groups. I am in favour and this has been started quite efficiently this year. There are a couple of cross-community group examples that have provided interesting discussions and have opened the GNSO to other groups.

More work is needed on clearly defining charters and rules for cross-community groups to overlap and interact with the Policy Development Process that is the focus of the GNSO's work.

'We have to ensure the integrity of the Council and it's work and at the same time continue this trend of reaching out to other people and participating in cross-community groups.'

Responding to a question from Jaime Wagner, Stéphane clarified that he did not see cross community groups as a menace to the Council's work; it is a new experience and a set of processes should be developed taking into account that Council is tasked with managing the policy development process.

Both Olga and Stéphane offered to answer further questions at any time and on the Council mailing list.

2.2 NCA Assignments

Chuck Gomes reported that the Contracted Parties House would communicate their choice before the voting started.
The Non Contracted Parties House choice is Olga Cavalli

2.3 Status of OSC/GCOT review of the election process

Julie Hedlund reported that the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) is planning to discuss the election process during the Cartagena meeting.

Item 3: GNSO Project Prioritisation

Chuck Gomes encouraged Council members to submit ideas in writing to facilitate the discussion during the GNSO working session on Saturday morning at 9:00am in Cartagena.

The following points were highlighted during the discussion:

  • the prioritisation work should continue
  • suggestions were made to look at: a model-based system, a leadership-led decision making process, and perhaps a political model such as is used in Congress, that, at the end of each year the slate is wiped and started over the following year
  • focus on the new gTLD program
  • do not take on any new work until the new Council is seated
  • do not take on new work until the current workload is complete
  • the prioritisation exercise has increased the Council's awareness of the workload and provides a tool for prioritising

Item 4: Disclosure of Interest Procedures

Stéphane van Gelder, seconded by Adrian Kinderis, as amended by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben proposed a motion referring to the GNSO Council Operations Procedures Work Team (GCOT) Recommendations

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm ;

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team , which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf;

WHEREAS, the GCOT has completed and submitted a revision of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) that modifies Chapter 5.0 Statements and Disclosures of Interest
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-15oct10-en.pdf

WHEREAS, the revision of Chapter 5.0 includes a new section 5.2.3 Exemptions, modifications to sections 5.3.3 Contents, and removes section 5.4 Disclosure of Interest Procedures;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts these deliverables and directs Staff to post the aforementioned document for thirty (30) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on this document, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period

The motion failed by roll call vote.
Voting analysis:

Contracted Parties House
6 votes in favour: Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Caroline Greer, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis.
1 Absent: Terry Davis

Non Contracted Parties House
2 votes in favour: Jaime Wagner, David Taylor
9 votes against; Debra Hughes, Olga Cavalli, Mike Rodenbaugh (Zahid Jamil held his proxy) Zahid Jamil, Mary Wong, Rafik Dammak, Rosemary Sinclair, Wendy Seltzer, Bill Drake
1 Abstention: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
1 Absent: Kristina Rosette

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: reason for abstention " because as a member of the GCOT team, there had not been discussion on the issue."

Chuck Gomes pointed out that in the interest of time, the motion could be further discussed on the mailing list.

Item 5: Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement

Margie Milam provided an overview of the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

Council was reminded that there would be time for further discussion in Cartagena on Sunday from 16:00-17:00.

Item 6: Planning for Cartagena Meetings

6.1 Changes to schedule

Dinners: The Board/ GNSO Council dinner is confirmed for Saturday night due to an engagement the Board has on Sunday evening; the informal GNSO Council dinner is moved to Sunday night.

The AOC Review team: the slot on Sunday morning from 08:00-09:00 is removed from the agenda and Chuck Gomes will notify Brian Cute, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team chair.

New gTLDs: Council members are encouraged to send questions to the Council mailing list for Kurt Pritz before the new gTLD meeting on Sunday morning, but there is no official cut off time for receiving questions. Chuck Gomes suggested that the session focus on question and answer interaction, rather than presentations.

Joint GAC and ccNSO meetings: Chuck Gomes noted that the chairs of both the GAC and ccNSO had confirmed the proposed discussion of Cross-SO/AC policy development work based on the Cross SO/AC Policy Development paper. The 'working lunch time slots' on Saturday and Sunday could be used for Council discussions on the Cross Community Working Groups and preparation for the joint GAC and ccNSO meetings.

GNSO Public Council meeting: encourage council members to advertise the meeting.

GNSO Council Wrap-Up session: One hour slot, due to meetings up to 12:30 and the Public Forum starting at 13:30

6.2 Topic(s) for Joint meetings with the GAC & ccNSO

Liz Gasster provided an overview of the discussion Cross SO/AC Policy Development paper.

It was cautioned that the Cross Working Groups are not dealing with consensus policy or a new way of dealing with consensus policy.
It was suggested that the Council developed positions before discussing the topic with the other Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees.

During the joint GAC/GNSO session feedback could be sought on the substantive issues regarding the Joint Applicant Support and the Recommendation 6 working groups.

Item 7: New gTLD Applicant Guidebook

7.1 Joint Applicant Support Working Group

Rafik Dammak provided a brief overview of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations

Rafik Dammak, seconded by Bill Drake as amended by Debra Hughes, Stéphane van Gelder and Chuck Gomes proposed a motion to extend the JAS WG charter in response to the ICANN Board resolution about supporting applicants and for completing a list of further work items.

(Motion as finally amended with Chuck Gomes and Stéphane van Gelder's amendment in italics:)

Whereas:
The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and

The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and

In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:

the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support.

Resolved:

1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following objectives:

a) Establish the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.

b) Definition of mechanisms, e.g., a review committee that would need to be established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help should be offered;

c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance;

d) Establish methods for coordinating the assistance, and discussions on the extent of such coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers; e.g. brokering the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship.

e) Discuss and establish methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational quality of the relationship.

f) Establish methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and assistance volunteered by third parties.

g) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts establish policies and practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with funding

h) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be accommodated.

i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.

2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group's work.

Council voted on the amendment proposed by Debra Hughes seconded by Zahid Jamil

i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.

The amendment carried in both the Contracted Parties House and the Non Contracted Parties House.

Analysis of the vote:

Contracted Parties House
4 votes in favour: Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Caroline Greer, Adrian Kinderis.
1 vote against: Tim Ruiz
1 abstention: Stéphane van Gelder
reason for abstention:
"Can I abstain until I know whether my proposed amendment would be accepted or not?
1 Absent: Terry Davis

Non Contracted Parties House
12 votes in favour; Debra Hughes, Olga Cavalli, Mike Rodenbaugh (Zahid Jamil held his proxy) Zahid Jamil, Mary Wong, Rafik Dammak, Rosemary Sinclair, Wendy Seltzer, Bill Drake, Jaime Wagner, David Taylor, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

1 Absent: Kristina Rosette

Amendment proposed by Stéphane van Gelder and accepted by Rafik Dammak and Bill Drake as a friendly amendment
"in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group's work."

The Motion was deferred on request of the Registrar Stakeholder Group

7.2 Vertical Integration Policy Development Process Working Group (VI PDP WG) Interim Report

Margie Milam provided a brief overview of the Interim Report

The Motion was deferred on request of the NCSG.

7.3 Kurt Pritz provided the Council with highlights from the Applicant Guidebook.

The challenge with publishing the 'final' version is that there will be continual changes to the Applicant Guidebook and though this is the proposed final version of the guidebook, final work is still underway to find areas of accommodation with the recommendation 6 working group input.
With regard to the registry code of conduct, there are data protection issues that the Board is going to consider as final. Any 'final' version will have to be with the understanding that the guidebook will always be changing but the changes do not materially affect the applicant's positions or the decisions to apply for new gTLDs.
A 'final' version requires public comment, thus there is parallel to the Budget process where a final version is published and the ICANN Board receives comments up to the meeting when the vote is taken.

Chuck Gomes encouraged Council members to submit questions on the Council mailing list and at the same tiime to the public comment forum for Kurt Pritz's responses in Cartagena.

Item 8: Other Business

8.1 AoC SSR RT Resignation by Ken Silva
The RySG endorsed two candidates to replace Ken Silva:

NCSG members expressed concern that there are no stable procedures in place for instances where a review team member resigns, or the composition of the review team changes.

There were no objections to endorsing the two candidates.

Action Items:

  • Chuck Gomes will inform the selectors of the Council's decision.
  • Council should revisit the selection procedures.

There was no further business.

Chuck Gomes adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 13:27 UTC.

Next GNSO Public Council will be on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 at 14:00 local time 19:00UTC.
See: Calendar