Dear All,
Ahead of the official GNSO Council minutes, the following
resolutions were passed at the GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday, 21 April
2010.
1.
Motion to Accept the
GNSO Improvements OSC CCT Report and initiate comment period
Made by Chuck Gomes
Seconded by Olga Cavalli
Friendly amendment by Kristina Rosette
WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a
framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan;
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf)
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#_Toc76113182
<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
Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT), which was chartered to focus
on one of the five operational areas addressed in the BGC Report
recommendations;
WHEREAS, the CCT completed its deliberations and forwarded
its Consolidated Final Recommendations to the OSC on 9 April 2010;
WHEREAS, the OSC approved the CCT's Consolidated Final
Recommendations
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf
and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on or before 12
April 2010;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council accepts the deliverable of
the CCT as its final set of recommendations and directs Staff to commence a
twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the CCT's report.
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on
the CCT's recommendations as soon as possible after the end of the public
comment period.
Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
2. GNSO Work Prioritisation Process
Resolution
Made by Olga Cavalli
Seconded by Jaime Wagner
WHEREAS, the ICANN Policy Staff prepared
and delivered to the GNSO Council a 2008-2009 Work Team Attendance Study which
confirmed that
volunteer
participation has been suffering and
languishing.
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, considering the advice of Staff,
organized a Drafting Team at the Seoul ICANN meeting for the purpose of
developing
a
GNSO Work Prioritization model and procedure;
WHEREAS, the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team
(WPM-DT) has completed its deliberations and developed a written
procedure recommended
for
inclusion in the GNSO Operating Procedures as Chapter 6 plus
an accompanying ANNEX
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf
WHEREAS, the WPM-DT has developed a
timeline of activities (see below) that it recommends be adopted in order that
the first Work Prioritization effort can be completed by the ICANN Brussels
meeting;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts the
deliverable of the WPM-DT, thanks the team for its efforts, and approves the
use of Chapter 6 and the ANNEX
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf
for conducting its first Work
Prioritization effort.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council
directs Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on this
amendment to the GNSO Operating Procedures and reserves the right to modify the
procedures described in Chapter 6 and the ANNEX
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf
after the conclusion of both the public
comment period and the first Work Prioritization effort.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council supports the
recommended timeline (see below) for conducting the first Work Prioritization
effort and directs the GNSO Secretariat to make arrangements consistent with
its dates and activities.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council
take action on Chapter 6 and the ANNEX
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf
with regard to the GNSO Operating
Procedures as soon as possible after completion and analysis of the first Work
Prioritization effort and after a second public comment period.
TIMELINE FOR FIRST WORK PRIORITIZATION EFFORT
Dates
*Activities (per proposed ANNEX to Chapter
6
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf
26-30 April
ANNEX Step 1: Staff prepares its recommendations for
Eligible and Non-Eligible Projects and their associated classifications
30 April
Staff distributes recommended Project Lists to GNSO Council and
all relevant GNSO structures (e.g. Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, ALAC).
3-19 May
Chair asks for Council approval (via email list) to adopt or
modify Staff’s recommendations
20 May Council Meeting
Eligible Projects List approved by Council
21 May - 7 June
ANNEX Step 2: Individual Councilor ratings completed
(extended to 17 calendar days) and delivered to Staff
8-15 June
ANNEX Step 2.3: Staff consolidates ratings and analyzes for
commonality; prepares for Step 3.
19 June (or 20 June)
ANNEX Step 3: Group Session (2 hours) to determine Value
ratings
23 June Council Meeting (Brussels)
EX Step 4: Approve final ratings/priorities
and direct that results be published at gnso.icann.org.
The motion carries with a simple majority in
each house as summarized below.
Contracted Parties House:
4 Votes in favour: Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Caroline Greer, Terry Davis
3 Votes against: Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder
Non Contracted Parties House:
10 votes in favour: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben,
Kristina Rosette, David Taylor, Debbie Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Rafik Dammak,
Bill Drake, Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli.
Absent at time of vote: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Rosemary Sinclair.
Stéphane van Gelder clarified that the
addition of second comment period in the motion caused the Registrars
Stakeholder Group (RrSG) to vote against the
motion. Had this
amendment not been added, the RrSG would have voted in favour of the model
proposed by the WG.
3.
Motion for WHOIS Studies
Funding for FY11
Motion made by: Chuck Gomes
Seconded by: Adrian Kinderis
Whereas:
In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded
that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual
issues regarding
the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy
development efforts
(http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/)
Before defining the details of studies, the
Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study
on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ )
and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on
Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf
).
On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed
a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the
priority level and the feasibility
of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with
the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and
feasibility.
The Drafting Team determined that the six
studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of
further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates.
On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested
that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six
WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which
studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903)
On 23 March 2010, staff provided its
analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas,
and will continue to work on the remaining areas
If funding becomes available, the Council
will then decide which studies to fund, if any, provided that the
Council’s recommendation of this amount is not to be taken as an
indication that the Council will recommend any or particular studies be
performed provided that the total ICANN budget for FY11 is not increased as a
result of funding WHOIS studies
Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least $
400,000 be set aside in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011.
Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this
resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance
Committee.
The motion passes unanimously by roll call vote
Contracted Parties House:
7 Votes in favour: Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Caroline Greer, Terry
Davis, Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder.
Non Contracted Parties House:
9 votes in favour: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben,
Kristina Rosette, David Taylor, Debbie Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Rafik Dammak,
Bill Drake, Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli.
Absent at time of vote: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil,
Rosemary Sinclair. Olga Cavalli had to leave the call at the time of the
vote.
Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org