Brief summary of GNSO Council call of 30 November 2017

[Ayden Férdeline]

Hi all,

As you may know, I am one of the NCSG's representatives on the GNSO Council. Earlier this year, before I was seated on the Council, I said that I would do my best to communicate the Council's activities on this mailing list. In that spirit, I thought I might send through a brief summary of our GNSO Council call from last Thursday.

This meeting had a fairly uncontentious agenda. One of the agenda items was a response to the GAC communiqué, drafted by members of the GNSO Council, for submission to the ICANN Board. NCSG representatives were involved in the drafting of this language and we discussed its contents on our open Policy call on 27 November. However, seven minutes before the call began, members of the Commercial Stakeholders Group sent through a troubling amendment that they wanted made to this document.

In this amendment, they sought to add language that stated "the continued and lawful availability of WHOIS/RDS data for consumer protection, intellectual property rights protection and law enforcement activities is a vital public concern". As NCSG Councillors we united in expressing our opposition to this amendment, joining colleagues from the Contracted Parties House in rejecting it. I spoke on behalf of the NCSG in stating that this language was not something we could support without first taking it to you, our members, to review. I said, however, that my initial reaction was that it was inconsistent with our past positions, and that if anything was a matter of vital public concern, it would be in ensuring that ICANN complies with global best practices, and the law, in relation to privacy and data protection matters.

As NCSG Councillors we were also united in our vision for the Council's strategic planning session, which will be held in Los Angeles in January. We had a common view on who should be appointed as the GNSO's Representative to the Empowered Community Administration. And we were united in our views on the Rationale and Target Level for ICANN's Reserve Fund. However, as a Council, there is not a common view on this issue. We are split both at the Contracted/Non-Contracted level and at the Commercial/Non-Commercial level. As a compromise, the Council adopted new language in our response to this public comment opportunity that was very neutral. ("The Council wishes in particular to direct your attention to the detailed submissions made by various Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the GNSO. The reserve fund target level is of importance to all groups within the GNSO, and we believe that it is important that each has an opportunity to contribute its particular perspective.")

Our next meeting is on 21 December. The agenda is still being prepared, but is likely to include either a discussion or motion on the practicality and feasibility of the triggers identified in the revised WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law Procedure. If that sounds like déjà vu it is because this issue has been on the agenda for a few meetings now, re-surfacing month after month, and we in the NCSG submitted a comment on it too back in July.

I hope this update was helpful. For more on this 30 November meeting of the GNSO Council, please review the [call transcript](https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-30nov17-en.pdf). You are also welcome to write to me off-list.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline
NCSG Councillor to the GNSO Council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171208/38287577/attachment.htm>