[council] Action items GNSO Council meeting 17 December 2015

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below the action items from the last GNSO Council meeting. 
Apologies for the delay.

Best regards,

Marika

===================

GNSO Council Action Items from the Council teleconference of 17 December 2015
___________________________________________

Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION – Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) for New 
gTLDs Subsequent Procedures
In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects 
that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, 
including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO’s policy principles 
and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New 
Generic Top Level 
Domains<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>.
 Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables 
from the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion 
Group<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2015/non-pdp-new-gtld> 
(DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issue-31aug15-en.pdf>
 was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period 
closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the 
usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf>
 was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. Here the Council will 
review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope 
of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter.
ACTION ITEMS:

  *   Vote on Motion #1 (initiation of PDP) – PASSED
  *   Vote on Motion #2 (adoption of Charter) – DEFERRED
     *   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
This PDP had been 
requested<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7>
 by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder 
Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement 
(RAA). The 2013 RAA was 
approved<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm>
 by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy 
and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the 
negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In 
October 2013, the GNSO Council 
chartered<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> the 
Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop 
policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN’s implementation of the planned 
accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working 
Group published its Initial 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf> for 
public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council 
on 7 December 2015. Here the Council will review the Working Group’s Final 
Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in 
it.
ACTION ITEMS:

  *   Vote on Motion - DEFERRED

Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique
Following discussions at the Council level in late 2014 to develop a means for 
the GNSO to provide input to the ICANN Board regarding gTLD policy matters 
highlighted in a GAC Communique, a template framework to review each GAC 
Communique was created by a group of Council volunteers assisted by ICANN 
staff. The Council agreed that while it would review carefully each GAC 
Communique issued at an ICANN meeting, it would not always provide input to the 
Board unless it also agreed that such feedback was either necessary or 
desirable, on a case-by-case basis. The first GNSO Review of a GAC Communique 
was of the GAC’s Communique from ICANN53 in Buenos Aires. That Review document 
was sent<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-08jul15-en.pdf> 
to the ICANN Board in July 2015 and 
acknowledged<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-robinson-21oct15-en.pdf>
 by the Board in October. At its last meeting, the Council discussed an initial 
draft<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-10nov15-en.pdf> of 
a possible review document to be sent to the Board in response to the GAC’s 
Dublin 
Communique<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20Dublin%2054%20Communique.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445470409191&api=v2>.
 Here the Council will review an updated draft document and vote on whether to 
adopt it for forwarding to the ICANN Board.
ACTION ITEMS:

  *   Vote on Motion – PASSED (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 - COMPLETED)

Item 7: VOTE ON MOTION – Endorsement of GNSO Candidates for the Competition, 
Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review
Under ICANN’s Affirmation of Commitments 
(AoC)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en>
 with the United States government, ICANN is mandated to review the extent to 
which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust and 
Consumer Choice (CCT Review). The CCT Review Team is expected to 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. A Call for 
Volunteers<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en>
 to the CCT Review Team closed on 13 November 2015, and twenty-six (26) 
applicants indicated that they wished to be endorsed as representatives of the 
GNSO to the Review Team. ICANN staff has since followed up with all these 
applicants for further information to assist the Council in its decision on 
endorsements (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw). Here the Council will 
discuss and determine which of the applicants to endorse for the CCT Review 
Team.
ACTION ITEMS:

  *   Vote on Motion - PASSED; candidates named in the motion are endorsed by 
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) - COMPLETED; 
inform endorsed candidates as well as candidates that did not obtain 
endorsement -COMPLETED)
  *   Susan Kawaguchi to assist staff in drafting specific advice concerning 
GNSO role in New gTLD Program implementation and need to ensure representation 
of all relevant GNSO stakeholders - COMPLETED
  *   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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf>
 of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 
(CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>) of which the GNSO 
is a chartering organization.
In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability 
published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en>
 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<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en>
 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<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en>
 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<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en> 
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<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IANA+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions>)
 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.
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<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-en>
 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 [INSERT LINK] 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 (COMPLETED)