[Summary] GNSO Council meeting 20th December

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Farzaneh,



Le mar. 22 janv. 2019 à 14:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Rafik, thanking you is not the most sincere reaction, we should step up
> and help. Your hours of voluntary work for GNSO and NCSG is
> underappreciated and goes sometimes unnoticed by us which I apologize for.
> You take on many many tasks and I think it is time for others to step in
> and help.
>
>
thanks, it is my pleasure. I am using this to keep members informed about
the meeting (in addition to the recordings) and that complements our NCSG
Policy call.
your email made me happy as I am looking for questions and inquiries :)

> Now in response to your report:
>
>  I am truly disappointed in how GNSO Council is treating GAC requests
> nowadays. Curative Rights is only one example of this- the PDP on curative
> rights reached consensus, issued a consensus-based recommendation.
> Everything is procedurally done right.  By no means, the Council should be
> apologetic and delay the approval. This is endangering our governance
> mechanism. GAC members attend PDPs infuse their policy views, they then
> delay the approval of a policy that has reached consensus by PDP at the
> GNSO Council!! (correct me if I am wrong on that) and then they have the
> right to again advise the board on the course of action it should take.
>
> I think our council members should be wary of this trend. GNSO Council is
> there to make policy! Not to accommodate GAC requests.
>
> When over Red Cross issue we deferred the motion, we were cautioned and
> even criticized and told to respect the process and the
> consensus-based recommendations (which were awful and still awful). We
> actually did respect the process but had to make our point. We did not stop
> the PDP recommendation to finalize despite our every right to do so. Is
> anyone cautioning the GNSO Council for accommodating GAC requests?
>
> Where is GAC's respect for the process? Isn't GAC meddling with PDP
> recommendation approval at Council level disrespecting the process because
> it is not getting what it wants? How many times do we have to go back and
> tell a PDP, your years of negotiations in good faith was not good enough
> for GAC so here you go, do it again?
>

yes, we have  an issue here. With previous council leadership team, we
developed a set of 3 questions to  check if PDP considered GAC input, that
followed process etc. and all answers were yes (we had a council webinar on
IGO-INGO 9th October  recording
<https://participate.icann.org/p55e010miek/> and
slides
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/presentation-igo-ingo-crp-access-09oct18-en.pdf>
).
I understand that at least 2 groups expressed intention to vote against the
recommendations. I think for NCSG we should vote yes. The current plan is
to have the dialogue with GAC anyway in Kobe as that is part of previously
agreed process for GAC early engagement on PDP.  as I expressed that many
times previously we got to be cautious to not set any precedent here
otherwise it will come to haunt us in future PDPs. One thing to clarify
first is about the rules of engagement for that dialogue and avoid giving
the impression that we are going to negotiate the recommendations.


> @ Councilors: do you have guidelines in mind about replenishment of ICANN
> reserve funds?
>

the guidelines will be discussed within council and we got an action item
on that, in addition to understanding about ICANN’s fiduciary and legal
duties.
I am looking for input here.


>
> Regarding EPDP: I find the Board's letter and their request to know about
> our plan B if EPDP fails very distasteful. Especially when  EPDP team was
> doing its best despite ICANN (and Board) late to the game GDPR action. They
> know about the EPDP timeline, we are not behind our work. If they had
> concerns they should have raised them when presented with the timeline.
>


 we moved from there and the discussion in council was framed about
implementation gap in last week council meeting as the EPDP team is close
to deliver its final report.
indeed, the timing and the message from board was not really helpful.


> As to PDP 3.0 implementation, sorry if I missed a briefing, can one of the
> councilors tell us if there are important items we should pay attention to
> or how they have decided on the matter?  I hope 3.0 also has measures about
> not re-opening issues at the request of GAC. We can be efficient, come to
> consensus and compromise but if GAC can just re-open whatever it does not
> like, well ... then PDP version 5.000,000 would not help either.
>
>
>
the PDP 3.0 was a topic for the Council SPS last week and we had one day
dedicated to go through 3 recommendations concerning alternative models to
WG model, liaison and WG leadership (rec #2, rec #5 and rec #13). We
discussed as whole council and we had breakout sessions to start working on
implementation details. one thing agreed is to have a team/committee from
council to work on the implementations details with support from GNSO
policy staff. against my better judgement, I volunteered to lead it :). We
used some documents prepared by staff as one document listing all existing
structures that GNSO used for PDP and non-PDP groups as starter. There is
some agreement that we cannot have one-size-fits-all model and we can have
different ones depending on the work expected. The EPDP team itself
represents an experiment can can give us several lessons on what we should
or shouldn't do.

the SPS report will include what was captured from the discussion on PDP
3.0 and actions items among other things. it will be hopefully ready soon
as there will be more details than I could capture . As indicated by
others, several councillors expressed concerns about situation in several
PDP WGs in term of timeliness, effectiveness, having disruptive behaviors
etc. That is quite sensitive for us and we don't know yet how it can end up
but we cannot ignore other comments. The question for us as NCSG is how to
deal with that and make concrete proposals to flesh out the implementations
specifics. We also need to make an assessment of existing model (already 10
years since the first GNSO review and restructuring that created it) and
proposed alternatives and say the cost-benefit from NCSG standpoint. Change
or keeping the statu quo will have impact on us. We will keep NCSG list
updated about the progress when the small team starts the work.

The board itself starting another process about ICANN governance in general
, as you may recall the questions asked in Barcelona meeting from the
board. There will be consultation in Kobe meeting and if I am not mistaking
a discussion paper. That should be under our radar and participate in the
planned session in Kobe (tentatively scheduled in Thursday)

with regard to GAC, I don't recall any recommendation related to that. I
think all recommendations matters as they are going to impact PDP and
council work and dynamics.


Best,

Rafik


> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:27 AM Olévié Kouami <olivierkouami at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thann you son much dear Rafik.
>> Jeep up thé great work !
>> Warm regards.
>> Olévié
>> Le 21 janv. 2019 04:10, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am sending here a summary of the previous GNSO council meeting held in
>> the 20th December. This summary is to highlight some topics discussed
>> during the call and actions taken by council. You can find here the
>> Agenda
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Agenda+20+December+2018>
>> , Documents
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Documents+20+December+2018>,
>> MP3 Recording <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20dec18-en.mp3>,
>> Transcript
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-20dec18-en.pdf>.
>>
>> As usual, there were the usual admin items and there were four items on
>> the Consent Agenda:
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    Motion <https://community.icann.org/x/OgD_BQ> to adopt the GNSO
>>    Council response to the GAC Communique.
>>    -
>>
>>    Motion <https://community.icann.org/x/OgD_BQ> to approve the
>>    nomination of Andrew Mack to serve as the ICANN Fellowship Program mentor,
>>    as he was selected by the Selection Standing Committee (SSC).
>>    -
>>
>>    Confirmation of Heather Forrest to serve as the GNSO Representative
>>    to the ICANN Fellowship Program Selection Committee for the remainder of
>>    the 2-year term.
>>    -
>>
>>    Confirmation of the leadership for the GNSO Standing Selection
>>    Committee (Chair: Susan Kawaguchi, Vice-Chairs: Poncelet Ileleji and Erica
>>    Varlese).
>>
>>
>> IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG
>>
>> The Council leadership and staff developed a summary document (Summary
>> Paper
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-28nov18-en.pdf>
>> and Slide Deck
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-procedural-options-council-29nov18-en.pdf>)
>> to discuss the possible options, procedures-wise, for council to consider
>> regarding the IGO-INGO working group recommendations. It was also an
>> opportunity to remind the council about background.
>>
>> The focus was regarding the 5 recommendations and in particular
>> recommendation #5. The suggestion was to approve the recommendations 1-4 ,
>> while accepting the recommendation 5 (not approving it yet) and referring
>> it to RPM WG. Council also discussed about communicating with GAC
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-ismail-14jan19-en.pdf>.
>> The discussion will continue in the next council meeting.
>>
>> Temporary Specification for Registration Data Expedited Policy
>> Development Process (EPDP)- Recurring Update
>>
>> The GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP gave the monthly update on EPDP
>> progress, taking opportunity  to remind that the Public Comment on the EPDP
>> Initial Report was closing on Friday 21st December.
>>
>> The EPDP team continued  its deliberations while waiting for the public
>> comment closing. The EPDP team also discussed about sending letter to the
>> European Data Protection Board (EDPB)  but that had been put on hold until
>> the Final Report is ready as was recommended before (an explanatory
>> letter <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-December/022157.html>
>> was sent to GNSO council). There was also an update regarding seeking legal
>> counsel support and following CCWG example with a small legal team setup in
>> order to draft questions for the legal counsel. The planned F2F meeting in
>> Toronto was mentioned and the EPDP team met last week there to continue the
>> work on reviewing the public comments.
>>
>> There was also mention of the ICANN Board letter
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/chalaby-to-drazek-14nov18-en.pdf>
>> to council regarding a plan B or backup in case the EPDP team didn’t meet
>> the deadline. The council leadership drafted a response
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-icann-board-10jan19-en.pdf>
>> that was accepted by council without objection in10th January.
>>
>> ICANN Reserve Fund
>>
>> It was reminded to councilors that during ICANN63, the Board passed a
>> resolution to replenish the ICANN Reserve Fund from the auction proceeds
>> amongst others and it was suggested the topic to be for discussion by GNSO
>> council. Erika Mann as the co-chair of the CCWG Auction Proceeds gave an
>> update to the GNSO Council on the matter:
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    ICANN Board is the guardian of fiduciary duties of the organization,
>>    and will not make any decision which would lead to a negative impact on
>>    that role.
>>    -
>>
>>    It would be helpful for the GNSO to send guidance or principles to
>>    the Board which reflect upon the GNSO opinion concerning the replenishing
>>    of the Reserve Fund, stating the non conflictual points: any kind of
>>    replenishment outside of the Operational Budget, should not be used for
>>    operational purposes. This would tighten control on the operational budget.
>>
>> Some councillors shared their concerns from their groups standpoint that
>> there was no prior consultation on the matter (including with CCWG on
>> Auctions proceeds) and that is contradictory to previous insurances from
>> the board. It was suggested that GNSO Council can put forward some
>> guidelines or principles regarding how reserve funds should be replenished,
>> and communicate its concerns to the ICANN board.
>>
>> GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 Implementation Plan
>>
>> The GNSO PDP3.0 Implementation Plan
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-implementation-plan-10dec18-en.pdf>
>> was and councilors  asked to review the document and provide feedback
>> before the GNSO Strategic Planning Session in January 2019, as it will be
>> discussed during that meeting this week.
>>
>> COUNCIL DISCUSSION - 2019 Strategic Planning Session
>>
>> Several information regarding the coming SPS meeting was shared with
>> councillors, including the presence of James Bladel as past GNSO Council
>> Chair and also board members attending the session
>>
>> The meeting agenda
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-council-strategic-planning-session-2019-07dec18-en.pdf>
>> was shared and councillors were informed that reading materials would be
>> sent and should be read prior to the meeting.
>>
>> ANY OTHER BUSINESS
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    Existing ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy
>>    Law Implementation Advisory Group - Next steps for Call for Volunteers
>>
>> This will be triggered when the EPDP team delivers its Final Report. The
>> GNSO Council will evaluate the impact of consensus policy recommendations
>> and made decision if a drafting team formation is deemed necessary.
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    Draft ICANN Operating Plan and Budget - Next steps for the Standing
>>    Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations.
>>
>> The Standing Committee on Budget Operations (SCBO) will work on draft
>> comment on the FY20 Draft ICANN Operating Plan and Budget
>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy20-budget-2018-12-17-en> for
>> GNSO council consideration.
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    ICANN64 Planning: quick update from staff regarding the GNSO schedule
>>    for ICANN64 in Kobe.
>>
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    Staff added as additional AOB the Updated Operating Standards for
>>    Specific Reviews Public Comment
>>    <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2018-12-17-en>.
>>    There is small team of volunteers from council to work on draft comment to
>>    be presented later.
>>
>> This is a short summary of the meeting. I will be glad to answer your
>> questions or if you want more details about a specific topic.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik Dammak
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190127/0aea3cb0/attachment.htm>