Dear BC Members,
Please find below the GNSO Council Agenda for the upcoming GNSO Council
call on the 13th of September, for use during today's BC Member's call.
Kind Regards,
Benedetta Rossi
BC Secretariat
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Homewww.bizconst.org
bc-secretariat(a)icann.org
Dear All,
The Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 13 September 2012 at 15:00
UTC**is posted on page
http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar#sephttp://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-13sep12-en.htm**
and on the Wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+September…
Reminder: Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no
later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.WEDNESDAY, 5 September 2012) of
the GNSO Council meeting on 13 September 2012 at 15:00 UTC.
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 15:00 UTC <http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx>
_*http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx*
Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC
08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 16:00 London; 17:00 Paris; 00:00
Tokyo.
Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors
should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
*GNSO Council meeting audiocast *
*http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u*
*_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:
Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 20 July 2012
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-20jul12-en.htm>
approved on 22 August 2012.
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 (5 minutes)_*
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.
2.1 Approve proposed IRD-WG letter from GNSO Council to ICANN Board
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/van-gelder-faltstrom-to-icann-board…>.
2.2 Approve consent agenda
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/consent-agenda-09jul12-en.pdf> in the
GNSO operating procedures
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-09jul12-…>.
*_Item 3: _**_RAP recommendation 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.
3.1 Update
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/rap/comments-rap-uniformity-of-reporting-30…>
from Mikey O'Connor.
3.2 Discussion.
3.3 Nest steps.
*_Item 4: Whois Review Team Final Report (10 minutes)_*
At its July 20, 2012 meeting, the Council created a small group to draft
a letter in response to ICANN Board resolved #2012.06.23.26 (see Board
resolution
(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#5)
The August 31, 2012 deadline set by the Board for receiving input proved
too short for the Council, and on August 30, 2012 GNSO Chair Stéphane
Van Gelder sent Chairman of the ICANN Board Steve Crocker and Interim
ICANN CEO Akram Attalah a letter <http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/33821>
informing them that the Council would hopefully be providing further
input very soon.
A draft has been proposed by the group. The Council must now decide
whether to send this draft as-is or not.
4.1 Update from group (Brian Winterfeldt)
4. 2 Discussion
4. 3 Next steps.
*__*
*_Item 5: _**_WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey
Report _**_(10 minutes)_*
This survey evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future in-depth
study into communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for
gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and Privacy services. The
Interisle Consulting Group has completed this survey and initial results
have been reported, and explored in a community webinar held on 13
August. This item is an overview of the final report to be published in
mid-September, and an examination of possible next steps for the GNSO
Council to consider.
5.1 Update from Staff (Barbara Roseman)
5.2 Discussion
5.3 Next steps
*_Item 6: _**_Fake Renewal Notices_**_(10 minutes)_*
The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for
information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the Registrar
Stakeholder Group to help inform its deliberations on the Registration
Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) Recommendation on Fake Renewal
Notices (#2).
Once the drafting team submitted its report to the GNSO Council and the
comment period was completed, the GNSO Council requested the Drafting
Team 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 2012 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-updated-report-20jun1…)
and the DT Chair presented this report to the Council at the July 20
meeting.
At that meeting, the Council opted to have further consultations with
the**Registrar Stakeholder Group to find out what solutions the
Registrars can offer to deal with bad actors and return to the Council
with proposals for options, or solutions, or next steps on this issue.
This agenda item is an update on those consultations.
6.1 Update from RrSG (Mason Cole)
6.2 Discussion
6.3 Next steps
*_Item 7: _**_Final Issue Report on Protection of International
Organizations_**_(15 minutes)_*
The Preliminary Issue Report on the protection of international
organization names requested by the GNSO Council on 12 April was
published and a public comment forum was opened on 4 June.
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/intl-org-names-prelim-issue-report-04jun12-en.…
The GNSO Drafting Team is evaluating possible recommendations to protect
the Red Cross and IOC names at the second level and staff has now
published the Final Issue Report, since the Public Comment forum has closed.
This item is an overview of that report and an examination of possible
next steps.
7.1 Update from Staff (Brian Peck)
7.2 Discussion
7.3 Next steps
*_Item 8: _**_Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure_**_(10 minutes)_*
The new gTLD program will have a significant impact on the functioning
of ICANN and its structure. The Board has called for an in-depth
community discussion to identify early the corresponding challenges and
possible evolutions.
A call has been put out for the community to share a one-pager on this
topic to gather preliminary views and help prepare a dedicated session
in Toronto. The GNSO Council has expressed a desire to respond to this
call and a small group has been created to draft a response.
Although the Board has called for a response by September 10, this is
not a hard deadline so the Council will now consider whether to approve
the proposed response.
8.1 Update on draft response (Thomas Rickert)
8.2 Discussion
8.3 Call to approve sending response to the Board
*_Item 9: Overview of schedule for Toronto (10 minutes)_*
As usual, work is ongoing on preparing the GNSO's work schedule for the
upcoming ICANN international meeting. This includes the GNSO's weekend
working sessions and Wednesday's Open Council Meeting.
9.1 Update on Toronto agenda (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
9.2 Discussion and review of any amendments to agenda
*_Item 10: Toronto GAC High Level Meeting (15 minutes)_*
The GAC is organizing a High Level Meeting on October 15 in Toronto. The
agenda for this meeting includes an exchange with SO/AC leadership.
Following a clarification request by the GNSO leadership, the GAC
leadership has given the following explanation on its expectations for
the meeting: "I would recommend preparation of Qs and lining up speakers
in advance. I trust that the GNSO leadership will work with the GAC, as
well as my Canadian colleagues, to find a balance between the differing
cultures of the GNSO, and senior officials and politicians unfamiliar
with the ICANN environment, to have a positive and productive exchange
to reinforce and improve the multi-stakeholder model."
The Council should therefore plan for this meeting and discuss possible
questions it may want to raise.
10.1 Introduction and overview of meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder)
10.2 Discussion
*_Item 11: 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.
11.1 Discussion
*_Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes) _*
*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 15:00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
California, USA (PDT
<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST
08:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00
Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART
<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST
12:00
Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT
<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>)
UTC-3+0DST 12:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00
Abuja,Nigeria (WAT
<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>)
UTC+1+0DST 16:00
Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00
Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 17:00
Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 17:00
Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST
<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>)
UTC+2+0DST 18:00
Karachi, Pakistan (PKT
<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>)
UTC+5+0DST 20:00
Beijing/Hong Kong, China _(HKT_ ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00
Tokyo, Japan (JST
<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>)
UTC+9+0DST 00:00
Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT
<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>)
UTC+12+0DST 03:00 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.comand
*http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx*
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.org
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>)
The Secretariat of the BC is off today, so I am forwarding relevant ICANN postings.
this is an important one. I would ask that our BC members with particular interest and expertise in this topic to advise Steve DelBianco, our V.Chair of Policy Coordination. We will discuss this on our next BC call.
Best regards,
Marilyn Cade, BC Chair
++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear SO/AC Chairs,Recognizing the broad interest in the ICANN community on the RAA negotiations, we wanted to provide you with a brief update on the work conducted since the Prague Meeting for you to share with your members.Since Prague, the negotiation teams have reviewed the input received from the Community in order to identify possible path forwards on the complex issues that have been put on the table in these negotiations. Several meetings have taken place and are scheduled prior to Toronto, including plans to invite the GAC to provide input from data protection experts on several specific issues. There is also an agreement among the negotiation teams to begin analysis of a potential framework for a privacy/proxy accreditation program to be explored with the broader ICANN community.For more information on these important negotiations, please visit the ICANN wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regi… Pritz (ICANN) and Matt Serlin (MarkMonitor)
*Dear BC Members,
As part of the UDRP-locking WG that was recently formed last March, we
would like to give you an update on the work of the WG so far.
Some background on this WG:*
*
- The group was chartered as a PDP WG on March 5, 2012 to develop an
Initial Report and a Final Report addressing the issue of locking of a
domain name subject to UDRP proceedings to be delivered to the GNSO Council.
- The membership list can be found here:
https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/4.+Members
- And the attendance here:
https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/Locking+of+a+Domain+Nam…
The first comment period for this group is closing today. There are only 4
comments to date, but in July the WG did a survey worth reviewing. A
summary of the survey can be found here:
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31174551/Survey+Findings+-…
We believe that this matter is relevant to the BC. The group is at a very
early stage and is seeking for feedback from experts for these basic
questions:
· 1. Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, which a
complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a domain name on
registrar lock, would be desirable. [Note from the WG: only the UDRP
Provider can notify a Registrar that a complaint has been officially filed
and in the vast majority of cases, Registrars will only implement a lock
based on the request by the UDRP Provider]
· 2. Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process that
a registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP dispute would
be desirable.
· 3. Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain
after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized.
· 4. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined.
· 5. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP
proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed
or modified.
· 6. Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection
of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP
proceeding.
Further to question 5, we believe that one of the most interesting
discussions to date for the work of the BC are those related to the
question of Whois privacy/proxy services. Can the registrar “unmask” when
locking?
The WG survey referenced above showed, among others, a difference in the
way that registrars deal with locking and unlocking and in the way they
deal with privacy and proxy services when locking domains subject to UDRP
proceedings. In these sense, it was argued that unmasking might involve
risks of misuse of UDRP procedures. We know several members of the BC are
experts in whois and other related matters and we encourage those members
to give us their feedback regarding these issues.
As noted before, the comments are closing today. We will submit comments
from our organization, eInstituto. We apologize as we haven't been able to
focus on the need for BC comments, mainly because this is our first working
group experience and we are still new to the procedure. Other
constituencies, such as the IPC had individual members post comments, and
we have sent comments ourselves.
We look forward to having a discussion with the BC on our next call about
the importance of advancing a wider BC position for future interactions,
and for the benefit of WG further activity.
*
*Celia Lerman & Gabriela Szlak
www.einstituto.org*
