4-20-2010 NCSG Meeting Minutes (DRAFT)

April NCSG Policy Discussion

Participants in Discussion:

Robin Gross, Avri Doria, William Drake, Wendy Seltzer, Alex Gakuru, Ron Wickersham, Desiree Miloshevic, Joly McFie, Tara Taubman, Mary Wong

Discussion Agenda & Minutes

I. Review GNSO agenda items

Item 2: GNSO Improvements

2.1 OSC Communication & Coordination (CCT) WT Recommendations

http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions

NCSG objects to mandating “civility” in ICANN discussions, but OCS decided to include it in recommendation as we were alone in this objection. But much of recommendations in WT report is useful, if obvious. GNSO Counselors on call inclined to vote in favor of motion accepting report.

2.2 OCS GNSO Council Operations WT Recommendations

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions

No decisions to be taken?

Item 3. whois

Do we vote for Budget on Whois studies?

Only worse choices will be made on whois at this point (given law enforcement push for more personal data), so delay on changes on whois is the best realistic option. Delay on whois reform (going forward with studies) keeps the GAC come back from making even worse choices. Some studies might reveal useful information. GNSO Counselors on call inclined to vote for studies motion.

Item 4: Prioritization of GNSO work

http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions4.4.2

Seems to be overly complex and over-analyzing every issue and not really necessary. Some feel it is an unnecessary beaurocratization of volunteer counsel. GNSO Counselors may want to coordinate their votes for motion accepting work group report on prioritization effort. May need to ask some questions about recommendations and understanding them before voting.

6.3 Mike Rodenbaugh motion regarding the VeriSign .net Registry Services proposal for a Domain Name Exchange service

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions6.3.2

Motion has not been seconded by anyone in GNSO Counsel.

Actually not GNSO business, but registry service request project and issue doesn’t have to come to GNSO at all. Staff is doing implementation and not making policy here.

We may want to be concerned about what VeriSign is doing.

Not much support on GNSO Counsel for Mike’s motion so it probably goes no where in GNSO.

II. ICM - Does the NCSg want to take a position

Some think we should recommend ICANN endorse the decision of independent review panel for accountability purposes. Not necessarily legally binding decision, but ICANN should follow its own proceedings. Public needs to understand how decision was made by ICANN and why. NCSG will write a quick paragraph or two statement on the issue.

GNSO Counsel is likely to look into the issue and may also take a position on an issue.

III. Issues from Working Groups and Working Teams

1. IDNG and meaning of “confusing similarity” for rejecting new domain names

Disagreement within GNSO on meaning of “confusingly similarity” for refusing new top-level domain names. Does it include visual, meaning, sound, etc. similarity. VeriSign want confusingly similar objections for themselves and want all meanings of confusingly similar. Very expansive definition. Also no way to appeal the initial evaluation on string confusion similarity under current DAG procedures.

Consumer expertise and trademark expertise would be useful for NCSG to develop a position on this issue. Avri is in group and needs specialists to help and work with her. Volunteers?

2. VI status

Milton and Avri participate in group for NCSG. Five proposals have been drafted and an analysis framework for evaluating them. Pressure from the board for GNSO to make decisions may move things forward. Avri will write a short statement for NCSG position on VI (what fundamental public interest issue

3. Council Operations

No decisions to be made?

4. Civil Society Statement regarding transparency and access to secret staff memos

Shortly after Nairobi, NCSG has agreed to text of statement asking for access to secret staff memos that involve public policy and Supporting Organization issues. Still waiting for confirmation from ALAC that it agrees to text of statement (there seemed to be some indication of agreement in Nairobi from ALAC). We will ask again and if we still get no response, NCSG will send statement as an NCSG statement on transparency.

IV Status of NCSG Charter process and review of charter

https://st.icann.org/ncsg-ec/index.cgi?ncsg_proposed_charter

Original draft open for comment and editing now.

“Interest Groups” as approved by NCSG Executive Committee are the sub-groups within NCSG (as opposed to constituencies).

Members are strongly encouraged to read and consider the draft NCSG charter, which was posted several weeks ago. Schedule for editing, and accepting charter to meet Brussels deadline has been proposed and posted to list. A new draft of charter will be prepared in the next few days. Need for community review to be concluded before Brussels to meet deadline.

V. Meeting time sanity check

NCSG will keep existing meeting schedule between now and Brussels (June) since many already have it in their calendars. But probably need to re-think the existing time for the meetings after Brussels to move meeting times around so equally inconvenient for all time-zones.

VI. Other issues:

1. Which “chat” client to use for NCSG meetings

Adobe works better for some members. The NCSG website chat works better for other members. Need to pull together a group of people to put NCSG on firm technical footing.

2. Reminder. These NCSG calls are recorded and transcribed and then posted to NCSG website available to members only.