June 2012 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Policy calendar for 5-Mar-2012 BC member call
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 9, 2012

Sept. 9, 2012

Here is the latest BC policy calendar, for use during our 5-Mar-2012 BC member call. Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> 1. FY 13 budget framework (reply comments close 26-Mar) Chris Chaplow is managing BC comments. Filed initial comments here<http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2013/msg00003.html>. 2. Defensive Applications for new gTLDs (reply<http://forum.icann.org/lists/newgtlds-defensive-applications/> comments close 20-Mar) BC filed comments here<http://forum.icann.org/lists/newgtlds-defensive-applications/msg00022.html>. 3. Bylaw changes on GNSO policy development process ( reply comments close 23-Mar) 4. Draft roadmap to implement SAC 51 protocol for WHOIS (initial comments close 18-Mar) 5. IDN Variant Issues Project plan (initial comments close 18-Mar) 6. WHOIS Policy Review Team (AoC) Draft Report (comments close 18-Mar) Elisa Cooper is managing BC comments. 7. Initial Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs (initial comments close 23-Mar) 8. IRTP-B PDP on WHOIS status messages (initial comments close 25-Mar) 9. Interim report on ccTLD re-delegation requests (initial comments close 30-Mar) 10. Draft Advice on definitions & targets for Consumer Trust, Choice, and Competition in new gTLD program (initial comments close 3-Apr) (link to advice<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cctc-draft-advice-letter-22feb12-en.pdf> ) 11. Status report on protecting Red Cross & Olympics at top-level and 2nd-level (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-02mar12-en.htm>) (initial comment opens 2-Mar) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors GNSO Project Status available here<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf> Agenda for Council meeting in Costa Rica has not yet been published. (link<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-14mar12-en.htm>) John and Zahid can update us on possible motions, including something on UDRP providers. --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion and voting on policy matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Elisa Cooper, CSG Liaison, and Marilyn Cade (alternate) Messages for meeting with ICANN Board on 13-Mar --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) Affirmation review team for Whois (Susan Kawaguchi, Lynn Goodendorf, Bill Smith) Affirmation review team for SSR (Security, Stability, & Resilience) (Jeff Brueggeman) Remaining implementation work for gTLD expansion plan, incl BC requests for specific improvements (here<http://forum.icann.org/lists/newgtlds-defensive-applications/msg00022.html>)

2 7

Prague Meeting Report - call for members observations
by Benedetta Rossi July 5, 2012

July 5, 2012

Dear Members, For the Prague meeting we would like to draft a Meeting Report based on members' observations. It would be great if members could email me 2-3 paragraphs on the particular session they attended. This is a single effort to a meeting summary, and not intended as an official document. It is very much based on your personal observations. In particular: * WHOIS - Elisa Cooper * New CEO & Leadership - Marilyn Cade * New gTLDs - Steve DelBianco * Council activities - Zahid Jamil / John Berard * SSR - Jeff Brueggeman * IGF - Ayesha Hassan * Budget - Chris Chaplow * Strat Plan - Marilyn Cade / Chris Chaplow * Newcomers - Gabriela Szlak / Marie Pattullo * Angie / Jim / Bill / Phil / Mario / Bryce / Janet / John Myers - Do you have a particular session or topic you would like to pick? You can also, of course, contribute to any of the other topics! Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 1

BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague - New gTLD's
by Chris Chaplow June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague 28th June 2012. New gTLDs >>PHIL CORWIN: GOOD AFTERNOON, PHILIP CORWIN SPEAKING AGAIN AS COUNSEL OF THE INTERNET COMMERCE ASSOCIATION, I WANT TO ADDRESS UNIFORM RAPID SUSPENSION. IT'S ONE OF TWO REQUIRED NEW RITLE PROTECTION MECHANISMS. IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IT BE DONE RIGHT SO THAT WE GET MAXIMUM LEVELS OF REGISTRATION AT NEW TLDS SO THERE'S NOT A DELAY IN DELEGATION TO THE ROOT BECAUSE URS ISN'T READY TO GO WHEN APPLICANTS ARE READY TO BE DELEGATED. IT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A COLLABORATIVE MULTISTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS FOR URS OVER THE PAST MONTHS AS THERE HAS BEEN FOR TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE, WHICH AS A CONSEQUENCE IS MUCH FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD TOWARD BEING DONE. WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT URS CANNOT ACHIEVE THE DESIRED PRICE TARGET. WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED NO DATA OR ANALYSIS OF THAT DATA TO JUSTIFY THAT CONCLUSION. I FILED A DOCUMENT DISCLOSURE REQUEST 30 DAYS AGO, HAVE RECEIVED NOTHING YET. SO WE DO NEED THAT DATA ANALYSIS. WHAT WE DON'T NEED IS $175,000 BEING SPENT ON TWO UNDEFINED SUMMITS. WE NEED SOME STAFF SUPPORT FOR A IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS THAT'S OPEN IN MEMBERSHIP, TRANSPARENT IN OPERATION. WE HAD A MEETING ON THIS SUBJECT YESTERDAY. IT WAS APPARENT THAT PEOPLE WITH VERY DIFFERENT PER SPERFGETIVES ON THE ISSUE -- PERSPECTIVES ON THE ISSUE SHARE A COMMON DESIRE TO CREATE AND IMPLEMENT I URS THAT ACHIEVES THE GOALS OF RAPID SUSPENSION OFEN INCONTROVERTIBLY INFRINGING DOMAINS AT THE LOWEST FEASIBLE COST WHILE PRESERVING REGISTRANT RIGHTS. SUCH A GROUP WOULD BE BEST ABLE TO AVOID REOPENING DIVISIVE POLICY ISSUES IN THE EXTENT THAT ANYTHING HAS TO BE REOPENED IN POLICY, THAT CONSENSUS PROCESS WOULD GUARANTEE THAT THE GNSO WHICH SHOULD PLAY ANY ROLE IN REVIEWING ANY POLICY CHANGES IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS, IT WILL BE EASY FOR THE GNSO TO CONSIDER IT AND PROBABLY IMPLEMENT IT. TO SUM UP, LET'S GET STARTED WITH AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT URS IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS SO THAT WE CAN REPORT ON ITS PROGRESS IN TORONTO. THANK YOU. >>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU.

1 0

BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague - Globalization of ICANN
by Chris Chaplow June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague 28th June 2012. Globalization of ICANN >>STEVE CROCKER: WE'RE RUNNING CONSIDERABLY BEHIND TIME AND THERE'S JUST SIMPLY CHOICES TO BE MADE. WE CAN KEEP GOING WITH THIS. WE HAVE GLOBALIZATION OF ICANN AND NEW gTLDs AND SOME TOPICS THAT ARE LISTED UNDER ANY OTHER BUSINES." LET ME JUST DO A QUICK SHOW OF HANDS HERE. WHICH OF THESE WOULD YOU LIKE NOT TO TALK ABOUT. ALL IN FAVOR OF NOT TALKING ABOUT GLOBALIZATION OF ICANN, RAISE YOUR HAND. THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR OF NOT TALKING ABOUT NEW gTLDs, RAISE YOUR HAND. OHHHH. [ LAUGHTER ] >> THERE'S ONE BACK THERE. [ LAUGHTER ] >>STEVE CROCKER: I SEE. SO PEOPLE ARE ANXIOUS TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS. YOU GET -- YOU GET 20 SECONDS HERE. GO. SERIOUSLY. CRAM IT IN. 140 CHARACTERS. <edit> >>MARILYN CADE: MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE AND I AM GOING TO CHANGE WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY BECAUSE WE JUST SENT A MESSAGE TO THE WORLD THAT I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH. [ APPLAUSE ] I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT. HERE'S WHY I'M NOT COMFORTABLE. THIS ORGANIZATION, I HEARD A METAPHOR ON MONDAY ABOUT ICANN BEING AN OASIS. WE WANT MORE PEOPLE TO COME HERE. AND GLOBALIZATION IS SO ESSENTIAL WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT SO MUCH MORE ACTIVELY. SO I THINK ACTUALLY FOR THE FUTURE OF ICANN, I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU, GLOBALIZATION AS A TOPIC IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN NEW gTLDs. [ APPLAUSE ] >>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU. >>MARILYN CADE: SO I'M GOING TO MENTION A SPECIFIC SUGGESTION THAT B.C. MADE ABOUT AN OPPORTUNITY THAT ICANN COULD HAVE GRASPED TO SEND A WONDERFUL MESSAGE TO THE WORLD ABOUT THEIR COMMITMENT TO GLOBALIZATION. WE COULD HAVE PRIORITIZED IDNs. WE DIDN'T DO IT BUT WE COULD HAVE. THAT WOULD BE SUCH A GIFT TO US AND TO THE WORLD TO SAY WE ARE ACTING IN THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST. WE ARE IN FACT IN TROUBLE OUT THERE WITH PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTANDING US, NOT KNOWING US NOT CARING. LET'S DO SOMETHING ACTIVE AND PROACTIVE, AND WE STILL CAN. BUT LET'S ALSO STILL REALIZE THAT GLOBALIZATION IS OUR FIRST PRIORITY. >>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU. NEXT.

1 0

BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague Capacity of Volunteers and ICANN staff
by Chris Chaplow June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague 28th June 2012. Balancing the capacity of Volunteers and ICANN staff >>AYESHA HASSAN: THANK YOU. AYESHA HASSAN FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. THE STRENGTH AND CREDIBILITY OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES DEPEND ON REAL SUBSTANTIVE INPUT FROM A RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS' EXPERIENCE, EXPERTISE, AND VIEWS. THE RISK IS THAT WHEN HIGH DEMANDS ON THE COMMUNITY TO COMMENT AND CONTRIBUTE ARE TOO HIGH, IT ENDANGERERS THIS BROAD STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND OFTEN MEANS THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT RESOURCES OR FINANCIAL OR OTHER INTERESTS CANNOT OR JUST DO NOT CONTRIBUTE, WHICH NARROWS THE PARTICIPATION IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. I SEE THIS FIRSTHAND AT ICC AND THE WORK THAT WE TRY TO DO TO CONTRIBUTE AT ICANN AS WELL. AS WE WORK TO GET MORE INPUT INTO THE PROCESS, AND THE HIGH DEMAND UNDERMINES THE GOAL, I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR IF THE BOARD HAS SPECIFIC IDEAS FOR HOW TO ADDRESS THIS. I HEARD THOMAS ROESSLER's POINT THAT A CANDID PRIORITIES DISCUSSION COULD BE ONE WAY TO START ADDRESSING SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED UNDER THIS AGENDA ITEM. I'D JUST BE INTERESTED TO KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS IN A WAY THAT -- SPECIFICALLY TO ENSURE THAT THE DIVERSITY OF STAKEHOLDER INPUT IS PRESERVED IN THIS PROCESS. THANKS. >>STEVE DelBIANCO: THANK YOU. STEVE DelBIANCO WITH THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY. I SERVE THERE AS THE VICE CHAIR FOR POLICY COORDINATION. THAT'S THE TITLE WE DESIGNED FOR THAT ROLE. BUT IT'S NOT COORDINATION AS MUCH AS IT IS COERCION TO TRY TO GET VOLUNTEERS WITHIN THE BC WHO, LIKE YOU, HAVE DAY JOBS, FULL DAY JOBS. AND GETTING THEM TO TRY TO ALLOCATE ENOUGH TIME TO BE -- TO BE ATTENTIVE TO A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OR WORKING GROUPS. AND THE BC DOES A GREAT JOB PARTICIPATING IN A LOT OF PLACES, BUT THERE AREN'T ENOUGH OF US WITH ENOUGH TIME TO GO AROUND. SO WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE TITLE FROM "VICE CHAIR OF POLICY COORDINATION FOR VICE CHAIR OF POLICY CONSCRIPTION. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FORCE PEOPLE TO GET INVOLVED BUT I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF HOPE FOR THAT. BUT I HAVE THREE SUGGESTIONS. STEVE, YOU MENTIONED THE NOTION OF RIGHT-LIMITING AND YOU USED THE METAPHOR WITH RESPECT TO THE DELEGATION RATE. JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. THERE ARE 14 OPEN RIGHT NOW. IF -- LET'S PLEASE EXPLORE AN IDEA OF LIMITING THAT. PICK A NUMBER. PICK A NUMBER. 10? NO MORE THAN 10 CAN OCCUR AT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS. AND IF YOU HAVE 11, 12, 13, AND 14 READY TO GO THEY MIGHT HAVE WAIT UNTIL THE FIRST ONE PEELS OFF THE LIST. IT MIGHT BE A SIMPLE THING TO TRY. WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. >>BILL SMITH: BILL SMITH, PAYPAL. SO I WAS STRUCK BY TWO WORDS THAT I'VE HEARD HER, TRUST AND TRANSPARENCY. AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE BOTH OF THEM, OR AT LEAST ONE OF THEM, TRANSPARENCY. I HOPE WE CAN GET MORE TRUST. AND WE HAVE TO HAVE BOTH TRUST AND TRANSPARENCY, BOTH IN THE ORGANIZATION AND IN THE PROCESSES. THERE IS A FACT, I THINK, THAT WE ARE IGNORING, PERHAPS, IN THIS DISCUSSION. THIS IS A HIERARCHAL ORGANIZATION AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, WHEN WE TAKE DECISIONS AT HIGH LEVELS, THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, AS THE ORGANIZATION GROWS, COVERS MORE TERRITORY, ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REVIEW MORE AND MORE AND MORE. SO AS THE -- THE ORGANIZATION CONTINUES TO GROW, THAT'S JUST -- THAT PROBLEM IS JUST GOING TO GET WORSE. THERE HAVE BEEN SUGGESTIONS TO LIMIT PAGES, NUMBER OF REVIEWS, DOCUMENTS, ET CETERA. I'LL EXCLUDE MYSELF FROM THIS COMMENT. WE'RE ALL INTELLIGENT PEOPLE HERE AND WE WILL FIND WAYS AROUND ANYTHING -- ANY RATE-LIMITING THAT IS PUT IN PLACE. I'M SURE ALL OF YOU KNOW ABOUT SMALL FONTS. THAT'S A WAY TO JAM STUFF IN -- YOU KNOW, INTO PAGES. IT'S NOT GOING TO LIMIT THE STUFF THAT ANY OF US HAVE TO READ AND REVIEW. SO I SUGGEST WE NEED TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE -- AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH, AND THAT IS TO -- TO USE TRUST AND TRANSPARENCY TO OUR -- TO GREATER EFFECT. AND THAT IS TO ENTRUST PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THE ORGANIZATION, OR TO FLATTEN THE ORGANIZATION AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO MAKE REAL PROGRESS AND POTENTIALLY DECISIONS IN AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MANNER. OTHERWISE, WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE 700 OR A THOUSAND PAGES THAT HAVE TO BE REVIEWED AT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF OUR MEETINGS. AND WE'RE HEARING FROM PEOPLE RIGHT HERE THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK GOING FORWARD. WE MUST CHANGE. OKAY? SO LET'S -- LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT, AS OPPOSED TO, WELL, HOW DO WE MAINTAIN THE CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, MAKE IT SO ALL THE DECISIONS HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, AT RELATIVELY HIGH LEVELS. FIND A DIFFERENT WAY. WE REALLY NEED TO DO THAT.

1 0

BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague - WHOIS
by Chris Chaplow June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague 28th June 2012. Whois review team final report >> ELISA COOPER: I'M WITH THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, AND THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY BROADLY SUPPORTED THE 16 RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE WHOIS POLICY REVIEW TEAM. WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT ENSURING THE ACCURACY AND RELY BUILT OF WHOIS IS OF UTMOST CONCERN AND IN PARTICULAR OF THE 16 RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE ARE SORT OF THREE AREAS WHICH WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT. ONE OF THOSE AREAS IS THAT WHOIS DOES BECOME A STRATEGIC PRIORITY FOR THE ORGANIZATION. THE SECOND IS THAT ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ASSURE THE ACCURACY OF WHOIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT. AND THE FINAL AREA WHICH WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IS THAT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS TO FIND FOR PROXY AND SERVICE PROVIDERS. WE ALSO FEEL STRONGLY THAT THE BOARD ENSURES THAT THERE ARE THE NECESSARY RESOURCES AND BUDGETS ALLOCATED TO MAKING SURE THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE IMPLEMENTED. THANK YOU. >>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>STEVE DelBIANCO: DELL STEVE DelBIANCO. CONSCIOUSNESS OF RISKS TO INDIVIDUALS AND THAT MOTIVATED THE CHAIRMAN TO CONTRAST THE TWO VIEWS AND WEIGH THEM. I WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS AS YOU CONSIDER WHAT TO DO WITH THE WHOIS RECOMMENDATIONS YOU DON'T HAVE TO JUST WEIGH VIEWS. YOU CAN ACTUALLY LOOK AT SOME FACTS BECAUSE GONZALES WITH SUPPORT OF THE BOARD HAS COMMISSIONED FOUR STUDIES SO THAT WE CAN DO FACT-BASED POLICYMAKING ON WHOIS. AND IN FACT, ONE OF TEZ STUDIES WHICH RESULTS SHOULD BE IN IN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS IS A STUDY OF WHETHER THERE ARE ABUSES TO INDIVIDUALS THAT ARISE AS A RESULT OF THEIR INFORMATION BEING AVAILABLE IN WHOIS. SO IT'S TO THE VERY QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT VIEWS. SOME OF IT NEEDS TO BE ABOUT FACTS. THERE ARE THREE OTHER STUDIES IN WHOIS THAT WILL COME IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS THAT ALSO SPEAK TO THE USE OF PRIVACY AND PROXY SERVICES BY INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS WHETHER THE PRIVACY, PROXY PROVIDERS ARE ADEQUATELY REVEALING. WE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS DESIGNING THE STUDIES. SO WEIGHTED THE VIEWS BUT GIVE A LOT MORE WEIGHT TO THE FACTS, PLEASE. >>STEVE CROCKER: I LIKE THAT IDEA. THERE WAS A COMMENT IN A REPORT, A U.S. GOVERNMENT REPORT SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT WHOIS DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE TO SPAM. IN SSAC WE TOOK THAT UP AND RAN A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT WITH FAIRLY DRAMATIC RESULTS PUBLISHED IN A SAC DOCUMENT ONLINE NOW. HAS BEEN AVAILABLE FOR SEVERAL YEARS. SO I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE AS WELL. THANK YOU. >>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE. I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY AND I'M CONTINUING A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE EARLIER FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY RELATED TO WHOIS. OUR PREVIOUS SPEAKER PROVIDED OUR VIEWS ON THE -- THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE WHOIS REVIEW TEAM. MY COMMENTS ARE PROVIDED TO EXPLAIN OUR VIEW ABOUT THE NATURE AND THE ROLE OF THE VIEW TEAMS. MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ARE NOT AWARE THAT THE REVIEW TEAMS ARE ESTABLISHED AS A RESULT OF THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS. BUT THERE ARE FOUR OF THEM AND THAT THEY DO COME WITH TIMELINES THAT ARE BUILT IN. THEY ARE NOT AWARE THAT THE COMMUNITY SELECTS REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE THEN APPOINTED AND THEN INDEPENDENT EXPERTS ARE APPOINTED THROUGH A PROCESS THAT INVOLVES THE CEO/PRESIDENT OF ICANN AND THE GAC CHAIR. SO THE STANDING OF THE REVIEW TEAMS IS SOMEWHAT UNIQUE. IT HAS ASSIGNED ICANN STAFF AND THE ABILITY TO USE OUTSIDE RESOURCES. IT ALSO ENGAGES IN EXTENSIVE CONSULTATION AS VARIOUS STAGES. IT'S OUR VIEW THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME FROM THE REVIEW TEAM PROCESS DO HAVE UNIQUE STATUS COMPARED TO OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS. WE EXPECT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME. IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WILL NOW BE A FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT DONE BY THE STAFF AND WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION. WILL THE FEASABILITY STUDY ASSUME THAT THE RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED OR WILL THE FEASIBILITY STUDY QUESTION WHETHER THEY SHOULD? AND WHEN THE RECOMMENDATIONS GO TO THE COUNCIL FROM THE BOARD, IF ANY DO, WILL THERE BE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE PDPS ARE ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION AND NOT ABOUT REASSESSING THE RECOMMENDATIONS? >>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO JUST TO TAKE PIECES OF THIS IN PARTICULAR ORDER, THE FEASIBILITY IS FEASIBILITY. THAT RECOMMENDATION PRO OR CON, IT'S DELIBERATELY FRAMED AS ASSUME THAT IT'S GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED OR IF YOU'RE ASKED TO IMPLEMENT IT AND TELL US WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE, CAN IT BE IMPLEMENTED, DO YOU KNOW HOW, WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU GOT THIS AS AN ORDER, SAY. I LISTENED VERY CLOSELY TO THEIR CHOICE OF WORDS, AND THE KEY WORD THAT I HEARD WAS THAT THESE REVIEWS HAVE UNIQUE STATUS. AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. BUT NOT TO GET INTO UNINTENTIONAL IRONY OR HUMOR, IT'S A QUESTION OF WHAT "UNIQUE" MEANS. UNIQUE DOES NOT NECESSARILY, TO MY VOCABULARY, MEAN THAT IT HAS AUTOMATIC OR -- THERE'S PROBABLY BETTER WORDS, THAT THAT BECOMES LAW JUST BECAUSE IT COMES OUT OF THE REVIEW TEAM. THAT WOULD BE A TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY THAT I THINK IT WAS -- IS REALLY OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND WHAT'S APPROPRIATE. SO THERE IS A NECESSARY STEP WITH A STRONG WEIGHT GIVEN TO THE UNIQUE ROLE OF THESE REVIEWS. AND A QUITE OBVIOUS REQUIREMENT THAT SHOULD WE CHOOSE NOT TO ACCEPT ONE OR MORE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR TO MODIFY THEM THEN THE BURDEN IS ON US TO EXPLAIN WHY AND TO MAKE THAT A COMPELLING ARGUMENT. AND I SAY ALL OF THAT WITHOUT HAVING A PRECONCEPTION IN MY MIND ABOUT ANY OF THESE BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO SIT DOWN AND READ IT. BUT FROM A PROCESS POINTED OF VIEW AND THESE ARE VIEWS FORMED NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WHOIS IN PARTICULAR, BUT WATCHING NOT ONLY THESE REVIEWS BUT EXPERT REPORTS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, THERE IS A NECESSARY COMPONENT OF HAVING SOME CHECK AND BALANCE AND SOME TENSIONS IN THIS PROCESS. SUBJECT PERHAPS TO A LONGER DISCUSSION, BUT I WANTED TO BE AS CLEAR AS I CAN ABOUT THIS. >>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. THEN I THINK IT'S -- IT'S MARILYN CADE AGAIN. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME TO REFLECT BACK TO YOU OUR UNDERSTANDING AS THE BC. THIS REVIEW TEAM SELECTED A DECISIONAL PROCESS TO WORK BY CONSENSUS. IT WOULD BE IN OUR VIEW BY DOING THAT THEY PERHAPS NEGOTIATED AWAY SOME RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH FULL AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE GAINED ON. THEY AGREED TO WORK BY CONSENSUS. AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE A SERIES OF REVIEW TEAMS AS WE ALL KNOW AND THEY'RE GOING TO OCCUR ON A REGULAR BASIS. IF THEY DO NOT HAVE -- IF WE DO NOT HAVE, AS A COMMUNITY, THE ASSURANCE THAT THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY WILL -- THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, I THINK WE ARE SOON GOING TO FIND IT VERY CHALLENGING TO FIND COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO ARE WILLING TO DEDICATE THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME TO WORK IN A PROCESS WHICH IS AN OVERLAY PROCESS ON THE REST OF THE WORK THAT WE DO. >>STEVE CROCKER: SO YOU MAKE A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT POINT. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS WORK BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND THAT IT -- AND THAT IT HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT, NOT ONLY OF IMPROVING OUR SYSTEMS BUT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED THAT THEIR WORK IS WORTHWHILE. AND I THINK WE'RE IN STRONG AGREEMENT ON THAT. EQUALLY -- AND TWO MORE POINTS THAT I THINK I WANT TO -- I WANT TO RAISE UP FROM WHAT YOU'VE SAID AND EMPHASIZE, THE -- THE WORK WITHIN THE REVIEW TEAMS TO CHOOSE WHAT THE BALANCE IS AND TO DO A LOT OF THAT NEGOTIATION GOES A VERY LONG WAY TOWARD MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION VERY LIKELY TO SUCCEED. AND SO THAT PROCESS IS A HEALTHY PROCESS. AND FROM WHERE I'M SITTING THE MORE OF THAT THAT'S DONE, THE BETTER IT IS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE AND THE EASIER IT IS TO ACCEPT THAT. THAT GOES ALL THE WAY UP TO BUT NOT OVER THE LINE OF THEREFORE IT MUST BE SO JUST BECAUSE THAT WELL INTENTIONED AND WELL ORGANIZED GROUP HAS DONE THAT. BUT IT INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD TREMENDOUSLY AND IS EXTREMELY WELCOMED AND PUTS US IN A COMFORTABLE POSITION TO BE ALIGNED.

2 1

BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague - WHOIS and dotCom renewal
by Chris Chaplow June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague 28th June 2012. Dot com renewal & Thick and Thin Whois >>STEVE DelBIANCO: STEVE DELBIANCO FOR THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY. THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY WAS DISAPPOINTED THAT THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PROCESS DIDN'T RESULT IN A THICK WHOIS. WE'RE ALSO A BIT DISAPPOINTED AT THE QUALITY OF THE RATIONALE AND EXPLANATION FOR NOT ADDRESSING THAT. AND I REALIZE THAT WE MIGHT STILL GET A GREATER RATIONALE LATER ON. NONETHELESS, THE BC IS COMMITTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS SUCH THAT THICK WHOIS BECOMES A CONSENSUS POLICY WITHIN THE PICKET FENCE. AND WE TAKE SOME SOLACE IN KNOWING THAT DOING IT THAT WAY, WHILE IT MAY TAKE A LITTLE LONGER, WILL HAVE A FAR BROADER REACH. BECAUSE ONCE WE GET IT IN AS A CONSENSUS POLICY, IT WILL APPLY NOT ONLY TO THE DOT COM BUT ALSO TO THE ONLY OTHER THIN REGISTRY DOT NET WHICH CAPTURES ANOTHER CHUNK OF USERS. SO IT WILL TAKE A LITTLE LONGER, PROBABLY ANOTHER YEAR. BUT I AM DETERMINED THAT WE COVER THICK WHOIS FOR EVERYONE AND IN THIS PROCESS SHOULD GET IT DONE SOONER. PHILIP CORWIN REPRESENTING DEVELOPERS AT BOTH THE TOP AND SECOND LEX. I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE BOARD FOR REJECTING THE SECTIONS OF SOME PARTIES WHO COMMENTED ON THE DOT COM RENEWAL THAT A MANDATE TO IMPLEMENT UNIFORM RAPID SUSPENSION AT SOME POINT IN THE CONTRACT TERM BE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT. SOME PARTIES SUGGESTED THAT WERE THE VERY SAME PARTIES THAT URGED REFERRAL OF UDRP REFORM SO THAT THE EXPERIENCE WITH URS COULD BE CONSIDERED AND THE QUESTION ADDRESSED OF WHETHER IT SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON INCUMBENT REGISTRIES AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE TURNING TO THE PRICING PROVISIONS I WOULD NOTE THAT ICA WAS BORN OUT OF THE DEBATE OVER THOSE PROVISIONS SIX YEARS AGO. THERE'S NO NEED TO REVISIT THAT DEBATE. BUT WE DO HOPE THE NEW gTLD PROCESS WILL INTERVIEWS VIGOROUS PRICE COMPETITION INTO THE gTLD MARKETPLACE, WHICH WILL BENEFIT ALL DOMAIN REGISTRANTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU.

1 0

Toronto meeting website is now open
by Chris Chaplow June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

BC Members, The Toronto meeting website is now open at http://toronto45.icann.org/ best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

1 0

RV: [ccnso-nctsg] Study Group Progress Report and meeting cancellation
by Chris Chaplow June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

BC members, I am one of the GNSO observers on the ‘ccNSO Study Group on Country and Territory names’ The Study Group is stocktaking current policy approaches, postulating the types and categories of strings that could be interpreted as country or territory representations and analyzing what happens when policies are applied to the identified strings. The Chair of the group has produced a short initial report and I attach it for the interest of BC members. Quick clarify points. The work is not intended to be used in the current gTLD round. The meeting scheduled for Thursday (today) has been cancelled. The meetings are marked a ‘closed’ on the meeting agenda, however observers are welcome. The groups wiki is at <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unctwg.htm> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unctwg.htm I would appreciate any thoughts from members. best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. De: ccnso-nctsg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ccnso-nctsg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Paul Szyndler Enviado el: miércoles, 27 de junio de 2012 12:01 Para: ccnso-nctsg(a)icann.org Asunto: [ccnso-nctsg] Study Group Progress Report and meeting cancellation Hello all, As discussed at our meeting on Monday, please find attached a brief progress report from this group. While we are all familiar with its content, I invite all of you (particularly those from outside the ccNSO) to circulate it to your stakeholders and communities. Even though it is brief, it accurately summarises our work to-date and the next steps we will take. It will also be published on the ccNSO site. I would also like to notify everyone that our meeting scheduled for Thursday has been cancelled. I am happy that we covered all of the major issues on Monday. Cancellation also helps alleviate a little bit of the scheduling pressure on Thursday. Please let me know if any of you disagree, particularly if you have any outstanding issues that you wanted to discuss tomorrow. Regards, Paul

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Updated Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Prague 27 June 2012 at 15:00 CEST (13:00 UTC)
by Benedetta Rossi June 27, 2012

June 27, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find below the updated proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Prague today. The main updates are the room & time changes: it is now scheduled from 3 p.m. Prague time to 6:30 p.m. Prague time in Congress II. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org **__ http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar#jun http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-27jun12-en.htm https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+27+June+2012 Reference to ICANN Schedule http://prague44.icann.org/node/31781 *Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Prague 27 June 2012* Date: 27 June 2012 Reference to ICANN Schedule http://prague44.icann.org/node/31781 Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for the latest updates on the GNSO Council workspace. <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meetin…> As can be seen below, in addition to the Open Microphone at the end of the agenda, as possible throughout the meeting time will be allowed for audience participation. Please be aware that audience opportunities to comment will depend on available time. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. _Meeting Times 12:00 UTC <http://tinyurl.com/7m62mzy>__ _*http://tinyurl.com/7m62mzy* Coordinated Universal Time 13:00 UTC: 06:00 Los Angeles; 09:00 Washington DC; 14:00 London; 15:00 Paris/Prague; 22:00 Tokyo; 01:00 Wellington next day) Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who cannot physically attend the meeting. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. 15:00- 15:45 GNSO Council Public Forum *_Presentations by Stakeholder and Constituency Group Leaders (45 minutes)_* * Registries Stakeholder Group – David Maher * Registrars Stakeholder Group – Matt Serlin * Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) – Robin Gross * Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency – Alain Berranger. * Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) – Marilyn Cade * Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) –Steve Metalitz * Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) – Tony Holmes *Break 15:45 – 16:00* *_16:00 – 16:10 Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)_* 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 7 June 2012 approved on 28 June 2012. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13224.html 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf * Review main changes. * Comments and/or questions. *_Item 2: Consent agenda _* A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. No Consent agenda items *_Item 3: WHOIS Access recommendation (15 minutes) _* The WHOIS access recommendation was considered as part of the consent agenda at the Council's 16 February 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the ISP constituency requested that the proposal to end this work be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part of the GNSO's main agenda. A further suggestion was suggested that constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica meetings. A motion has been made to consider next steps. Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+27+June+2012 This motion was deferred from the June 7, 2012 GNSO Council meeting. 3.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 3.2 Discussion and open microphone. 3.3 Vote *_Item 4: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data Working Group (IRD WG) (10 minutes)_* The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March 3, 2012 for review and approval. This report was requested by the Board in June 2009. The first three recommendations are as follows: 1. ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with the community, a data model for domain registration data. 2. The GNSO council and the SSAC should request a common Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information. 3. ICANN staff should work with the community to identify a Registration Data Access Protocol that meets the needs of internationalization. Since then, the SSAC has recommended some substantial changes, including adding a fourth recommendation suggesting that ICANN should take appropriate steps to require gTLD registries and registrars and to persuade ccTLD Registries and registrars to support various standards described in the report. The Council now needs to decide whether to accept the report and forward it to the Board along with the SSAC or whether more work may now be needed by the IRD to address any GNSO questions or concerns before the final report can be approved by the GNSO Council. The GNSO Council will now consider a motion to approve the IRD WG Final Report. Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+27+June+2012 4.1 Reading of the motion (Stéphane van Gelder) 4.2 Discussion and open microphone 4.3 Vote *_Item 5: Update on the GNSO-Requested WHOIS Studies and the draft WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey being developed by the WHOIS Survey Working Group (20 minutes) _* The Whois Studies Working Group (WSWG) has a draft survey out for public comment at the moment and a draft report from Interisle on the feasibility of conducting a full study on Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal cases has also been posted for public comment. This agenda item is to update the Council on these initiatives. Interisle Consulting Group draft Report – Public comment announcement -- http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-survey-04jun12-en.htm Whois Studies Working Group (WSWG) Public comment announcement -- http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey… General updated information on WHOIS Studies: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/studies 5.1 Update from Staff (Liz Gasster) 5.2 Discussion and open microphone *_Item 6: Update on the RAA negotiations (10 minutes) _* ICANN staff has posted the status report on the RAA negotiations Staff is currently pursuing with the Registrar Stakeholder Group. This agenda item is to inform the Council on the status of these negotiations. 6.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam) 6.2 Discussion and open microphone. *_Item 7: GNSO Council leadership elections (15 minutes) _* Between this Open Council meeting and the next, in Toronto, the GNSO Council will have started another election cycle. The election is for the new Council Chair, the current Chair being term limited and unable to stand again. Each house will also nominate its Vice Chair. This agenda item aims to provide a short overview of the process and proposed timing. 7.1 Update from Chair (Stéphane Van Gelder) 7.2 Discussion and open microphone. *_Item 8: Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) on Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes) _* At its meeting on 6 October, the GNSO Council requested the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: indentify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. The ICANN Compliance Team submitted its report on 18 March and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April. Refer to the report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-un… The Council must now decide what next steps to take, if any. 8.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings) 8.2 Discussion and open microphone 8.3 Next steps *_Item 9: Impact of new gTLD program on existing GNSO structure (10 minutes) _* The new gTLD program may impact the GNSO's Contracted Parties. This item aims to initiate a discussion of potential issues to look at as the new gTLD comes online and the Registry and Registrar stakeholder groups are affected by this. 9.1 Discussion and open microphone. *_Item 10: Management of work (10 minutes) _* Recent discussions on the Council list have raised concerns about the volume of documents published prior to an ICANN meeting and how these can best be managed by the volunteer community that makes up the GNSO Council as it struggles to read a substantial amount of reports and other documents in order to better inform its own decision making processes with regards to policy. 10.1 Discussion and open microphone. *_Item 11: Fake Renewal Notices (10 minutes)_* The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the RrSG to help inform its deliberations on the RAP WG Recommendation on Fake Renewal Notices (#2). The drafting team submitted its report <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-report-06mar12-en.pdf>to the GNSO Council on 6 March. Following a presentation of the report to the GNSO Council at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica, the GNSO Council decided to put the report out for public comment. A public comment forum was opened (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21m…) and has now closed. At its last meeting, the GNSO Council requested the DT to review the comments received, update the report if deemed appropriate and report back accordingly. The DT has reviewed the comments received and submitted its updated report to the GNSO Council on 21 June (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13234.html) 1. Presentation of updated Fake Renewal Notices Report (Mikey O'Connor) 2. Discussion and open microphone 3. Next steps *_Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes) _* 12.1 New GNSO Website <http://gnso.icann.org/en/>Reactions, comments and any suggestions for improvements/changes *_Item 13: Open Microphone_* *Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)* 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." *Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (**GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4 <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>**) * 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 13:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 09:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 10:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 11:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 14:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 14:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 14:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Prague, Czech Repub.(CEST) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 16:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>) UTC+5+0DST 18:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China _(HKT_ ) UTC+8+0DST 21:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 22:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>) UTC+12+0DST 01:00 – next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com

1 0