Hi Devan

Thanks for circulating the draft Minutes.  I had a few suggested amendments for consideration:

 

Title: this should be 20 July, not June please

 

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Accuracy

Para 4: I think in Kurt’s first intervention, he suggested that the first task of the small team should be to consider whether to issue such a response or not, having consulted some of those with expertise.  Perhaps we could amend to something along the following lines:

Kurt Pritz, RySG, asked to pause and consider unintended consequences of such a communication before proceeding to drafting.  Suggested that the first task for the small team should be to consider this, and to consult some of those who have experience working in the arena.

 

Para 8: Jeffrey Neuman, GNSO Liaison to the GAC, shared that the European Commission is a member of the GAC, and if Council goes around the GAC it may imply that GNSO Council is going outside of the system around the GAC, and could be perceived (unintentionally) as the GNSO criticising the EC GAC Rep. He suggested communicating with the governments via GAC and potentially the Board.

 

Item 8: IDNs

 

I think that the minutes need some expansion, particularly reflecting the fuller response from Donna to my question, since this gives a significantly different impression of what the chair of this WG said.

Para 2: Susan Payne, IPC, thanked the IDNs EPDP group for their work and appreciates the timeline will be shorter than originally anticipated. She asked why Phase 2 items are dependencies for the next round as most of them appear to apply to both future Top-Level Domains (TLDs) and existing TLDs. As such, isn’t this just like any other policy change that applies to all TLDs, where some existing TLDs will have to change what they do to comply with the new policy?

Para 3: Donna Austin, IDNs EPDP Chair, thanked Susan Payne, IPC, for her question and explained that initially, the IDNs EPDP charter was split into two phases because the team considered Phase 1 to be the priority work regarding SubPro. Regarding Phase 2, this is a trickier question.  The second level issues are consensus policy and going to impact everyone, not just new applicants, but what is trying to be addressed is to have it would be ideal if any new requirements can be captured within the application itself or made a requirement for a new registry operator. It probably makes sense that the applicant guidebook is as complete as it can be so that those second-level issues are captured as well. But I take your point that the phase two stuff is going to impact every registry operator that is operating an IDN. I don't have an argument one way or the other.

 

 

Item 9: AOB

I think it would be helpful to number the item from Anne Aikman-Scalese “9.3 – Other” since it is a different topic, not Closed Generics.

Regarding the text: Anne Aikman-Scalese, NCA, shared that herself and Susan Payne, IPC, in their capacities as SubPro IRT Liaisons, anticipate bringing a discussion to the next Council meeting regarding their roles in the SubPro IRT with respect to forming a small team in relation to the Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT) charter to the next Council meeting.

 

Thanks

 

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Com Laude
T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
Ext 255



We are pleased to launch our new YouTube channel

 

Dear Councilors,

 

Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting held on 20 July 2023.

 

If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure  section  3.5  "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 06 August 2023

 

Thank you.

Kind Regards,

 

Devan