The Meeting started at 18:03 UTC
List of attendees: NCA – Non Voting – Carlos Raúl Gutierrez
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Volker Greimann, James Bladel, Yoav Keren
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jonathan Robinson, Donna Austin, Bret Fausett – joined after roll call
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG):Phil Corwin, Susan Kawaguchi, Osvaldo Novoa, Tony Holmes, Heather Forrest, Brian Winterfeldt – absent apologies proxy to Heather Forrest
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Amr Elsadr, Marilia Maciel – absent apologies proxy to Amr Elsadr, Edward Morris – joined after roll call, Stephanie Perrin – joined after roll call, Avri Doria, David Cake
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Daniel Reed
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
Steve Chan – Policy Director
Lars Hoffmann – Policy Analyst
Berry Cobb- Consultant
Larisa Gurnick – Strategic Initiatives Director
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Cory Schruth – Systems Engineer
Guest:
Jennifer Wolfe- GNSO Review Working Party Chair
MP3 Recording
Adobe Chat Transcript
Transcript
Item 1: Administrative matters
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 of 11 February 2015 will be posted as approved on xxxx 2015.
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List
Action items arising from the Action List.
Buenos Aires Meeting planning
Commence planning for ICANN53 Buenos Aires meetings – Jonathan Robinson and David Cake working with GNSO Policy and Support staff.
GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué
- Carlos Raúl Gutierrez and David Cake volunteered to help Volker Greimann review and populate the template using the Singapore GAC Communiqué and identify potential topics subject to existing policy recommendations or future policy work.
- The proposed sign off date for this work is the next Council meeting on 16 April 2015.
- The output of the GNSO Review of the GAC communiqué is intended to be sent to the ICANN Board with the GAC on copy.
- Jonathan Robinson committed to reach out to the GAC chair and vice-chairs and inform them of the process and provide the opportunity for any feedback from the GAC.
Item 3: Consent agenda
Council confirmed the selection of the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Working Group for a facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN53 in Buenos Aires.
All councilors present, including those holding proxies, voted in favor of the consent agenda item.
Action item:
Convey the outcome to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Working Group
Item 4: MOTION – GAC/GNSO Consultation Group
Carlos Raúl Gutierrez, seconded by Phil Corwin with a friendly amendment by Jonathan Robinson (during the meeting) proposed a motion to implement the recommendations of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group in relation to Issue Scoping on a trial basis
In March 2014 the GNSO and GAC formed a joint consultation group (CG) to explore mechanisms to facilitate GAC early engagement in GNSO Policy Development Processes.
As per its charter, the CG's deliberations have focused on two tracks, namely 1) a mechanism for day-to-day ongoing cooperation and 2) a mechanism for GAC early engagement in the GNSO PDP
(see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsogcgogeeipdp/3.+Charter).As part of its deliberations on track 2), the CG put forward a set of preliminary recommendations concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP which were reviewed and discussed by the GAC and the GNSO during the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore
(see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-cg-issue-scoping-27jan15-en.pdf).The GAC noted in its Communiqué (ICANN52), that 'The GAC met the GNSO and agreed, on a trial basis and subject to ongoing adjustments as necessary, to a mechanism proposed by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group for early engagement at the issues scoping phase of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). This includes formation of a GAC Quick-Look Mechanism Committee. The arrangements will allow for an early indication in the PDP of whether the issue has a standing GAC advice and whether it has public policy implications, and hence is of interest to the GAC. It will also enable the GNSO to factor this in and the GAC to prepare input to be provided at the relevant stages of the PDP. This would not limit the GAC's existing ability to give advice to the ICANN Board'.
Based on these discussions and input received, the CG recommends that the GAC and GNSO Council implement these recommendations on a trial basis, in order to assess their effectiveness in facilitating GAC early engagement in the GNSO PDP.
In the meantime, the CG will continue its review and deliberations on the other phases of the GNSO PDP, which may result in further proposals of additional recommendations for consideration.
RESOLVED
The GNSO Council agrees to jointly implement with the GAC, the preliminary recommendations by the CG concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP as outlined here http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-cg-issue-scoping-27jan15-en.pdf on a trial basis for a minimum of 3 consecutive GNSO PDP's immediately following the adoption of the motion.
Following the end of this trial period, the CG is expected to report back to the GAC and GNSO Council on the effectiveness of these recommendations as a result of the experiences gained during the trial period. Furthermore, the CG is expected to make a recommendation as to whether or not the preliminary recommendations concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP should be permanently implemented, either in their current form, or with possible modifications based on the further work of the CG including experience gained during the trial.
All councilors present, including those holding proxies, voted by voice vote in favor of the motion.
The motion carried
Item 5: DISCUSSION – Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions
Jonathan Robinson, co-chair of the Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions provided Council with a brief update stating that in the draft proposal the group is working on there are key areas where substantive work required which is being undertaken by agile small teams called 'design teams'. The draft proposal is in a format that is readily comparable with submissions that have already been made to the coordinating group, the ICG, from the Protocols and Parameters groups. With respect to any new overarching structures that might be under consideration, the group is taking professional external legal advice. Initial input has been received which the group will review.
There is a face to face meeting adjacent to a face to face meeting of the Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability planned during the week 23 March in Istanbul with the objective of producing a proposal for comment shortly thereafter.
Councillors are encouraged to keep close track and provide input through representatives of their groups who participate directly.
Item 6: DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
Thomas Rickert, co-chair of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability provided the Council with a brief update. Apart from the full working group that meets regularly, there are a number of sub-groups also meeting regularly and working on specific tasks. The group has made a distinction between triggered and non-triggered accountability mechanisms. Non-triggered mechanisms occur regularly such as the Accountability and Transparency Review Team and could be included in the bylaws, while triggered mechanisms occur when certain incidents invoke the process.
The group has developed a template for accountability mechanisms to provide a standardized approach to collecting and collating the information from the different sub-groups, the stress tests and the legal advice. This will be discussed at the face to face meeting with the aim of developing a document for public comment in April 2015.
A scoping document sets out the questions where legal advice is needed, and this work is going on in parallel on the basis of existing legal tools that focus on accountability solutions. It is foreseen that there will be sufficient time and multiple stages for the community to review both the recommendations and the supporting legal advice.
Councillors are encouraged to inform themselves and their groups of the outcome of the face to face meetings.
Item 7: UPDATE – Progress of the PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections
Mary Wong, supported by Phil Corwin co-chair of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Working Group explained that the current Working Group has reached a stage where it believes that it may need to diverge from the limitations of the current charter and seek a modification to the charter to accommodate the request as set out in an explanatory email sent to the Council list on 16 March 2015.
Action item:
Propose a motion for the next Council meeting on 16 April 2015 seeking to modify the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Working Group's charter to accommodate the request as detailed in the explanatory email sent to the Council list on 16 March 2015.
Item 8: UPDATE – Progress of the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
Bret Fausett provided Council with a brief update and noted that two new co-chairs, Jeff Neuman and Liz Williams have joined the leadership. There are regular meetings every other week together with a weekly call of the co-chairs to coordinate and work in between the regular meetings.
In parallel the Chairs are preparing a draft charter for a future working group along with the report of the work that has been done. The goal is to finish the work by the Buenos Aires meeting and present the Council with a motion to create an Issue Report so as to commence a Policy Development Process.
Action item:
Bret Fausett committed to send to the Council mailing list the chart which lists the issues for future work so that the different groups can provide their input.
Staff to provide the necessary information, on the Council mailing list, as to how participants can join the New gTLD Discussion Group.
Item 9: UPDATE: GNSO Review
Jennifer Wolfe provided the Council with an update of the GNSO Review.
Highlights from the discussion:
The working party's role is to provide as much as possible information to Westlake, the independent examiner, and it is within their purview what to put into the report.
Currently, the report is 'work in progress' and is available on the Wiki
The new procedures for public comment is 40 days, which can be extended if necessary, but no longer includes a reply period.
Once the final report is issued it will be up to the SIC to determine what to do with the report and what direction to provide and for the community to decide how it wants to use that report.
Action item:
- Comments are still welcome and be sent directly to Jennifer Wolfe or through a constituency/stakeholder group representative on the GNSO Review Working Party.
- Update on the GNSO Review Progress be added to the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 21 May.
Item 10: DISCUSSION: Working Group Self-Assessment Survey
Mary Wong provided the Council with a brief update and reminded the Council that the purpose of the item on the agenda was for Council to reflect on next steps, not only with regard to the survey, but more broadly with regard to the self-assessment exercise.
The Working Group Guidelines include a recommendation that each completed Working Group take part in a self-assessment exercise by way of a survey. The GNSO's Standing Committee for Improvements (SCI) was closely involved in developing the survey. It is the expectation that this will become routine for all working groups
Some observations:
- There were 22 working group members and the response rate was slightly over 50%.
- The members who responded tended to be more experienced in GNSO working groups although there was one response from someone who identified themselves as a newcomer.
- Most responses rated the working group experience as positive.
- Their perceived effectiveness of the working group rated very highly, as did resources and personal engagement.
Options open to the Council:
- Wait for more groups to do the survey to provide a complete and robust set of responses as a base for the next steps.
- Forward the responses to Westlake Consultants
- Find out if there is a role for the SCI?
Action item:
Send the report to the GNSO Review Working Party for the attention of the Westlake Review team.
Item 11: DISCUSSION – Issues for Possible Referral to the SCI
Action item:
Defer this item to the next Council meeting on 16 April 2015 for Council to decide whether or not to refer these items to the SCI for further work.
Item 12: DISCUSSION – Remaining Items from the GNSO's Strategic Discussion Session in Singapore
Deferred in the interest of time
Item 13: Any Other Business
13.1 – CWG on Auction Proceeds
Responses received to a letter Jonathan Robinson sent to the Constituency/Stakeholder Group/Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees requesting input on a working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds
Action item:
Call for participants to form a Drafting Team to develop a charter for a working group to develop recommendations on new gTLD auction proceeds.
Jonathan Robinson, GNSO chair, adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 20:03 UTC.
The next GNSO Council meeting will take place on Thursday, 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr