Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://icann-community.icannatlassian.orgnet/wiki/x/IZfDAwlpieBg
This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.2, updated on 01 September 2016.
For convenience:
...
http://tinyurl.com/jmry4q4
04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 23:00 Hobart
GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast
To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call.
___________________________________
...
2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action Item List
Item 3. Consent Agenda (10 mins)
...
The 2012 New gTLD Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention. Although most string contention sets have been resolved through other means prior to reaching the stage of an auction conducted by ICANN's authorized auction service provider, it was recognized from the outset that significant funds could accrue as a result of several auctions. As such, any and all auction proceeds have been reserved and earmarked until the Board authorizes a plan for the appropriate use of the funds. The Board, staff, and community are expected to work together in designing the appropriate processes for addressing the use of the new gTLD auction proceeds. To this end, a cross-community Drafting Team (DT) was formed, and the DT subsequently submitted a proposed Charter – a document that was the result of extensive community input to the DT - for a new cross-community working group (CCWG) to all SO/ACs for consideration.
...
On 11 May 2016, ICANN Board Chair Dr. Steve Crocker sent a letter to the GNSO Council following up on the Board’s 10 March 2016 Resolution (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-11may16-en.pdf). The Board’s request was for the GNSO Council to “review the broader policy implications of the IRD Final Report as they relate to other GNSO policy development work on WHOIS issues, and, at a minimum, forward the IRD Final Report as an input to the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS that is currently underway.”
The GNSO Council sought input from the co-chairs and members of the recently completed GNSO Policy Development Process on the Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data (T&T PDP), requesting feedback on several specific points, viz.: (1) how certain recommendations in the IRD Final Report were considered, if at all, in the Final Report of the T&T PDP Working Group; (2) how those recommendations could potentially conflict with the T&T PDP Working Group’s recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board; and (3) what steps are recommended to the GNSO Council in considering the policy implications of the IRD Final Report. Following input received, the GNSO Council Chairs circulated a draft response to the Council on 5 December (see https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19547.html) for approval to send on to the Board.
...
A placeholder motion was proposed for the 1 December Council meeting, and deferred pending the completion of a draft response being prepared by a small group of Council volunteers. The draft response (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-08dec16-en.pdf) to the GAC’s Communique from ICANN57 in Hyderabad was circulated to the GNSO Council on 8 December. Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve the response to the Board.
4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Paul McGrady)
4.2 – Council discussion
...
Along with the ICANN Board’s adoption in June 2016 of certain recommendations from the 2014 GNSO Review, the GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper outlining the possible options for implementation, taking into account past implementation of previous GNSO Reviews as well as existing mechanisms. At ICANN56 in Helsinki in June 2016, the GNSO Council discussed the options outlined in the staff discussion paper (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discussion-paper-20jun16-en.pdf). On 21 July 2016 the GNSO Council chartered the GNSO Review Working Group and directed it to submit a proposed implementation plan to the Council for approval by the ICANN57 meeting.
...
5.1 – Presentation of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
5.2 – Council discussion
...
On 4 November 2016 ICANN staff circulated a document to all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) leaders that described a proposed limited scope for the forthcoming RDS (formerly Whois) Review https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19381.html). This topic was also discussed as part of a High Interest Topics Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, and certain concerns with the proposal were noted by the GNSO Council during its Wrap Up Session. At its meeting on 1 December, the Council discussed the likely nature of the feedback it may provide to ICANN staff, and Susan Kawaguchi and Keith Drazek volunteered to draft a proposed response. The draft response was circulated to the Council on [INSERT DATE HERE] Here the Council will discuss the draft response, and decide what to include in the final document to be sent.
...
At ICANN57 in Hyderabad, SO/AC leaders (including the chairs of several GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies) met with ICANN staff to discuss the selection process for appointments to the forthcoming Security, Stability & Resiliency (SSR) Review Team (SSR-RT-2). It was agreed that selection of the final slate of Review Team members should be a collective effort by all SO/AC leaders, and that each SO/AC would develop its own internal guidelines for selecting its representatives for consideration (up to a maximum of 3 per SO/AC). The group also discussed how independent experts should be appointed to the Review Team. The current slate of applicants can be viewed at https://icann-community.icannatlassian.orgnet/wiki/x/xRqsAwgojJBQ. At the Council’s 1 December meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Ed Morris confirmed that they were working on a proposed set of criteria and a uniform process for selection of GNSO representatives to all future Review Teams. The draft document (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf) was circulated to the Council on 13 December 2016. Here the Council will discuss the proposal, and confirm its deadline for selecting the GNSO’s representatives on the SSR-RT-2 using the new, agreed criteria and process.
...
At its Wrap Up Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the Council discussed the need to start planning early for ICANN58. It also agreed that confirming certain sessions (including joint meetings with other SO/ACs and the ICANN Board) as fixed in the overall meeting schedule would be helpful for scheduling purposes, as would facilitating better coordination between and with individual Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and ensuring that sufficient time is given over to policy development work. To assist in the Council’s deliberations, staff compiled all GNSO Council input received on the ICANN58 Council Planning Survey: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/icann58-council-planning-survey-30nov16-en.pdf. At the Council’s 1 December meeting, the Council Chairs provided an update on the latest SO/AC leadership call where planning for ICANN58 was discussed. The Council agreed that it would be helpful to create a draft GNSO Block Schedule, to be shared with the other SO/AC leaders ahead of the next SO/AC leadership call. The Council also noted that, with several important Policy Development Processes (PDPs) ongoing, it will be important to ensure that ICANN58 scheduling take into account those PDP Working Groups that will need face-to-face meeting time.
Here the Council will continue its discussion of scheduling priorities for the GNSO as well as next steps.
...