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)