Proposed Agenda – Joint ccNSO-GNSO Council meeting – Monday 7 March 12.00 – 13.30 local time

1. Welcome & Introductions (incl. recent and upcoming leadership changes)

2. Update on ongoing joint ccNSO-GNSO CCWG efforts

a. CWG Principles

b. CWG to develop a framework for the use of Country and Territory names as TLDs

c. CWG on Internet Governance

3. Hot topics:

a. Decision-making CCWG-Accountability (process, when and direction of travel)

b. Exchange of views on implementation of ccNSO and GNSO related aspects of CWG-Stewardship Proposal (e.g. CSC appointments)

4. New Meeting Strategy - planning for meeting B: interaction GNSO-ccNSo Councils (if time permits)

Draft Agenda - GAC–GNSO Joint Meeting – Sunday 6 March 2016

Welcome (James & Thomas)
Status update from GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on Early Engagement of the GAC in Policy Development (Jonathan & Manal)

Review of and recommendations in relation to GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Review and possible updates to Quick Look Mechanism
Status of possible enhancements to other stages of GNSO PDP
Next steps / timeline for completion of CG activities

Status update on GNSO PDPs (Mason)

Curative Rights Protections for IGO/INGOs
Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to replace WHOIS
Next gTLD Subsequent Procedures
Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms

Status update on GAC Advice activities that may be of interest to the GNSO (GAC)

New gTLDs
Country and Territory Names

Diversity is considered to be a challenge in ICANN. How is your SO/AC doing with regard to enhancing diversity in all its dimensions? What can ICANN do to support that effort?
What is your feedback on the final report of the CCWG on Accountability?

Impairment of effective policy work in Meeting B due to board scheduling

The role of the GNSO vs the role of the board in a) determining policy b) monitoring

the implementation of policy

New CEO

Suggested by Phil Corwin: What are your plans to establish an enhanced culture of accountability within ICANN staff that includes a full understanding of the bottom-up consensus-driven policy development process and that will seek consultation with the community before significant decisions are announced?

Without reciting all the demonstrative examples, I have heard many within the ICANN community express concern regarding senior staff initiatives over the past few years that they have regarded as top down, as well as about the fact that so many new staff were hired within such a short period that they had insufficient familiarity with the unique history and design of ICANN. The question also would be useful insofar that the proposed accountability measures are all reactive, and that greater deference to community views and input prior to decision-making would reduce the need for their use.