FW: Notes & Action items: ccNSO GRC | 29 April 2019 | 12:00 UTC
Dear all, Please see below the notes and action items captured by the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) support staff from the call this morning. Please also see the slides provided by the GNSO DT support staff. The topic of the meeting was the coordination between the ccNSO GRC and the GNSO DT in the development of guidelines concerning consultation on the initiation of a Special IFR under section 18.12 of the ICANN Bylaws. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Date: Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:11 AM To: ccnso-grc <ccnso-grc@icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Subject: Notes & Action items: ccNSO GRC | 29 April 2019 | 12:00 UTC Hello all, Please find included below the notes and action items from today’s ccNSO GRC meeting, held on 29 April 2019 | 12:00 UTC ACTION ITEMS Action item #1: Staff to seek clarification from ICANN legal: a/ initiation special IFR and next steps b/ unclarity between the bylaw and/or the IANA naming function contract (Remedial Action Procedure and IANA Problem Resolution Process) Action item #2: Staff to suggest next steps from there ( design of process, identify decisions to be taken + need for criteria, and additional questions). NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call Introduction by Katrina Sataki, ccNSO chair. Thank you to ICANN staff colleagues Julie and Ariel, and GNSO-participants, including Heather - Chair GNSO task force 2. Special IANA Naming Functions Review (IFR) 1. Presentation by Julie Hedlund, supporting the GNSO (bylaws) drafting team. Additional guidance needed regarding some actions of the GNSO as a decisional participant. E.g. templates for voting, guidelines in conjunction with operating procedures. New GNSO drafting team was established in January 2019. The DT (10 members) is currently working on guidelines. Goal: for consideration by GNSO Council at ICANN59. DT recently started looking into 18.12 of the ICANN Bylaws (special IFRs): proposed process for revising procedures and outcomes and a consultation process developed with ccNSO on whether to initiate special IFRs. Where ccNSO and GNSO might need to coordinate: * Jointly determine the criteria for determining the trigger for an IFR. How formal should the coordination be? Who are the parties? * How to agree to jointly initiate an IFR * How to communicate the joint IFR 1. Introduction to GRC by Katrina Sataki Started a few years ago, volunteers from ccTLD community. Started by reviewing existing guidelines, and over time started developing new guidelines. Approval actions / rejection actions: a lot of work has been done already in that area by the ccNSO. GRC is happy to assist GNSO with the work related to Annex D. Advise: simulations are a helpful exercise. Calls every 2 weeks. List of guidelines is being shown. https://ccnso.icann.org/de/about/guidelines.htm Once GRC finalised a document, it is being sent out to ccNSO council for initial review, and then to the ccNSO membership for review and input. Comments go back to GRC, next step: approval by the ccNSO Council. Documents adopted by the ccNSO Council are published on ccNSO website. ccNSO members have 7 days to veto/ask for a vote. David McAuley: Annex D (rejection/approval actions) is indeed extraordinarily complex. 1. Presentation on special IFRs by Bart Boswinkel * Approval Action Guideline: also completed. Will be sent to council for adoption shortly. * The ccNSO does not have “operational procedures”. Section in Bylaws allow the ccNSO to develop its own rules and guidelines. * Triggering events. How initiated? * 1. Remedial Action Procedure CSC: clear process. Agreed procedure between CSC and PTI. Available on CSC website. The remedial action procedures can be found at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/csc-remedial-action-procedures-1... The CSC may defer an issue to ccNSO and GNSO Councils. Section V(f) - 3rd escalation to icann board. * 2. IANA problem resolution process as set forth in IANA naming function contract: Section 8.2. IANA naming function contract. Defined as remedial action process. Unclear which process they are referring to Section 8.1. Complaint resolution process. To do: contact icann org/Board/Legal to point out the unclarity between the bylaw and the iana naming function contract * Meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs What questions need to be addressed? Special IFR is a last resort. It does not come as a surprise: you see it coming. What type of consultation is it supposed to be? Who initiates the Special IFR? 18.12 of the bylaws. According to bylaws, everything, except the triggering events, is governed by the part of the bylaws that talks about regular IFRS. if the Board fails to resolve the issue we brought to their attention, should we ask the Board to initiate a special IFR, or come to an agreement between the 2 groups? Heather: disagrees with Katrina’s interpretation of 18.12.a.iii. Issue of timing. GNSO and ccNSO: the agreement as to whether to initiate a special IFR, is how the initiation of the special IFR happens. “The ccNSO and GNSO shall have considered the outcomes of the processes set forth in the preceding clauses (i) and (ii) and shall have conducted meaningful consultation with the other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees with respect to the PTI Performance Issue and whether or not to initiate a Special IFR” Bart: “(b) Each Special IFR shall be conducted by an IFRT and shall follow the same procedures and requirements applicable to Periodic IFRs as set forth in this Section 18, except that:” What constitutes meaningful consultation? If we can agree to launch it, we can kick the process off. Is that how it was meant? Heather: confirmation needed from legal. To do: Initiation of special IFRs to be clarified by ICANN Org David McAuley: GNSO supermajority = GNSO Council supermajority? To be clarified by GNSO DT. * Public comment period by ccNSO and GNSO. both need to request this. 2 councils need to agree. Action item #1: Staff to seek clarification from ICANN legal: a/ initiation special IFR and next steps b/ unclarity between the bylaw and/or the IANA naming function contract (Remedial Action Procedure and IANA Problem Resolution Process) Action item #2: Staff to suggest next steps from there ( design of process, identify decisions to be taken + need for criteria, and additional questions). Heather: what are the actual mechanics? The GNSO council chair would potentially initiate communications, in writing. We need a formal process. We need to give the community the reassurance that we address this properly. We need a process that is easy to follow. We should not make it overly complicated. Katrina: we will see it coming. We can start out consultations earlier in the process. Once we step into that territory, we need to closely work together with the CSC, and we see how things evolve. From a ccNSO point of view, it is fair that the 2 chairs will discuss matters jointly. We probably need a joint statement from both councils, which also points out the next steps. What exactly we need to tell the other SO/ACs, when it comes to meaningful consultation? 3. AOB At least one follow-up call needed. 4. Closure Thank you all. Bye. Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org
Including the attached slides. Best, Julie From: Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:40 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] FW: Notes & Action items: ccNSO GRC | 29 April 2019 | 12:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the notes and action items captured by the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) support staff from the call this morning. Please also see the slides provided by the GNSO DT support staff. The topic of the meeting was the coordination between the ccNSO GRC and the GNSO DT in the development of guidelines concerning consultation on the initiation of a Special IFR under section 18.12 of the ICANN Bylaws. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Date: Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:11 AM To: ccnso-grc <ccnso-grc@icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Subject: Notes & Action items: ccNSO GRC | 29 April 2019 | 12:00 UTC Hello all, Please find included below the notes and action items from today’s ccNSO GRC meeting, held on 29 April 2019 | 12:00 UTC ACTION ITEMS Action item #1: Staff to seek clarification from ICANN legal: a/ initiation special IFR and next steps b/ unclarity between the bylaw and/or the IANA naming function contract (Remedial Action Procedure and IANA Problem Resolution Process) Action item #2: Staff to suggest next steps from there ( design of process, identify decisions to be taken + need for criteria, and additional questions). NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call Introduction by Katrina Sataki, ccNSO chair. Thank you to ICANN staff colleagues Julie and Ariel, and GNSO-participants, including Heather - Chair GNSO task force 2. Special IANA Naming Functions Review (IFR) 1. Presentation by Julie Hedlund, supporting the GNSO (bylaws) drafting team. Additional guidance needed regarding some actions of the GNSO as a decisional participant. E.g. templates for voting, guidelines in conjunction with operating procedures. New GNSO drafting team was established in January 2019. The DT (10 members) is currently working on guidelines. Goal: for consideration by GNSO Council at ICANN59. DT recently started looking into 18.12 of the ICANN Bylaws (special IFRs): proposed process for revising procedures and outcomes and a consultation process developed with ccNSO on whether to initiate special IFRs. Where ccNSO and GNSO might need to coordinate: * Jointly determine the criteria for determining the trigger for an IFR. How formal should the coordination be? Who are the parties? * How to agree to jointly initiate an IFR * How to communicate the joint IFR 1. Introduction to GRC by Katrina Sataki Started a few years ago, volunteers from ccTLD community. Started by reviewing existing guidelines, and over time started developing new guidelines. Approval actions / rejection actions: a lot of work has been done already in that area by the ccNSO. GRC is happy to assist GNSO with the work related to Annex D. Advise: simulations are a helpful exercise. Calls every 2 weeks. List of guidelines is being shown. https://ccnso.icann.org/de/about/guidelines.htm [ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_de_abou...> Once GRC finalised a document, it is being sent out to ccNSO council for initial review, and then to the ccNSO membership for review and input. Comments go back to GRC, next step: approval by the ccNSO Council. Documents adopted by the ccNSO Council are published on ccNSO website. ccNSO members have 7 days to veto/ask for a vote. David McAuley: Annex D (rejection/approval actions) is indeed extraordinarily complex. 1. Presentation on special IFRs by Bart Boswinkel * Approval Action Guideline: also completed. Will be sent to council for adoption shortly. * The ccNSO does not have “operational procedures”. Section in Bylaws allow the ccNSO to develop its own rules and guidelines. * Triggering events. How initiated? * 1. Remedial Action Procedure CSC: clear process. Agreed procedure between CSC and PTI. Available on CSC website. The remedial action procedures can be found at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/csc-remedial-action-procedures-1... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> The CSC may defer an issue to ccNSO and GNSO Councils. Section V(f) - 3rd escalation to icann board. * 2. IANA problem resolution process as set forth in IANA naming function contract: Section 8.2. IANA naming function contract. Defined as remedial action process. Unclear which process they are referring to Section 8.1. Complaint resolution process. To do: contact icann org/Board/Legal to point out the unclarity between the bylaw and the iana naming function contract * Meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs What questions need to be addressed? Special IFR is a last resort. It does not come as a surprise: you see it coming. What type of consultation is it supposed to be? Who initiates the Special IFR? 18.12 of the bylaws. According to bylaws, everything, except the triggering events, is governed by the part of the bylaws that talks about regular IFRS. if the Board fails to resolve the issue we brought to their attention, should we ask the Board to initiate a special IFR, or come to an agreement between the 2 groups? Heather: disagrees with Katrina’s interpretation of 18.12.a.iii. Issue of timing. GNSO and ccNSO: the agreement as to whether to initiate a special IFR, is how the initiation of the special IFR happens. “The ccNSO and GNSO shall have considered the outcomes of the processes set forth in the preceding clauses (i) and (ii) and shall have conducted meaningful consultation with the other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees with respect to the PTI Performance Issue and whether or not to initiate a Special IFR” Bart: “(b) Each Special IFR shall be conducted by an IFRT and shall follow the same procedures and requirements applicable to Periodic IFRs as set forth in this Section 18, except that:” What constitutes meaningful consultation? If we can agree to launch it, we can kick the process off. Is that how it was meant? Heather: confirmation needed from legal. To do: Initiation of special IFRs to be clarified by ICANN Org David McAuley: GNSO supermajority = GNSO Council supermajority? To be clarified by GNSO DT. * Public comment period by ccNSO and GNSO. both need to request this. 2 councils need to agree. Action item #1: Staff to seek clarification from ICANN legal: a/ initiation special IFR and next steps b/ unclarity between the bylaw and/or the IANA naming function contract (Remedial Action Procedure and IANA Problem Resolution Process) Action item #2: Staff to suggest next steps from there ( design of process, identify decisions to be taken + need for criteria, and additional questions). Heather: what are the actual mechanics? The GNSO council chair would potentially initiate communications, in writing. We need a formal process. We need to give the community the reassurance that we address this properly. We need a process that is easy to follow. We should not make it overly complicated. Katrina: we will see it coming. We can start out consultations earlier in the process. Once we step into that territory, we need to closely work together with the CSC, and we see how things evolve. From a ccNSO point of view, it is fair that the 2 chairs will discuss matters jointly. We probably need a joint statement from both councils, which also points out the next steps. What exactly we need to tell the other SO/ACs, when it comes to meaningful consultation? 3. AOB At least one follow-up call needed. 4. Closure Thank you all. Bye. Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwM...> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_...> http://ccnso.icann.org [ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ...>
participants (1)
-
Julie Hedlund