June 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council agenda 9 June 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry June 9, 2011

June 9, 2011

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting later on today, please find the latest updated agenda attached and in text below. The motions before Council may be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 9 June 2011. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+9+June+2011 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-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 Time 20:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:20:00 UTC - see below for local times (13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC, 21:00 London, 22:00 Brussels, Friday 10 June 05:00 Tokyo; 06:00 Melbourne 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 Updated statement of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: •19 May 2011 Council minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg11461.html> -- approved on 6 June 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-19may11-en.htm Item 2: Pending Projects – Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (10 minutes) Standard agenda item to update the Council on the GNSO's Pending Projects. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf Refer to Board resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 Rosemary Sinclair has volunteered to lead. 2.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair. 2. 2 Discussion 2. 3 Next steps? 2.4 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) * GNSO activities: 8 (9 – PPSC WG WT removed). * Other activities: 9 (10 – Work Prioritization removed). * Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (8 – Rec6 removed). * Outstanding recommendations: 1 (1). * Drafting Team on Cross-Community Working Groups (added). * Outreach Task Force (added). * Drafting Team to develop survey on Whois Service Requirements (added) Item 3: Whois Registrant Identification Study (15 minutes) In 2009, the Council asked for research on the possibility of carrying out a set of selected studies on Whois. One of the studies suggested by ICANN Staff is the"registrant identification"<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/tor-whois-registrant-identification-stud…> study. Refer to motion 1. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011. 3.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: GNSO improvements, Policy Development Process Work Team (15 minutes) The PDP-WT was tasked to improve the GNSO's process for policy development. The WT is now presenting its final report for Council consideration. Final Report of the Policy Development Process Work Team http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf Refer to motion 3. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 4.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) (20 minutes) Second "milestone motion" was sent to the Council by the JAS group on May 8. Refer to motion made following receipt of that report https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+May+2011 The motion was deferred at the request of the Registry Stakeholder Group at the May 19, 2011 GNSO Council meeting. Refer to motion 2. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 5.1 Reading of the motion (Rafik Dammak) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote Item 6: Community Working Groups (15 minutes) Refer to May 19 meeting action items: In response to the action item on Community Working Groups on the GNSO Council agenda http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm, a group of people volunteered to work on this topic. Jonathan Robinson agreed to take the lead in stimulating discussions in view of presenting a report from the drafting team at the Singapore meetings. 6.1 Update from Drafting Team (Jonathan Robinson). 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group (10 minutes) The WG published its final report for public comment in February 2011 and the public comment period closed on March 31. After having considered the comments received and modified its report accordingly, the WG is now presenting its final report for Council consideration Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part B Policy Development Process http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf A motion (4) has been presented, for discussion only at this stage https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 7.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next Steps Item 8: Singapore meeting preparation (10 minutes) This discussion item aims to help Mary Wong and Glen de St Gery finalise the GNSO's agenda for the Singapore meeting, and allow any Councillors to raise issues or ask questions on this proposed agenda <insert link to proposed agenda>. 8.1 Update from Glen de Saint Géry. 8.2 Discussion • suggested topics for GNSO meeting with the Board • Suggested topics for GNSO meeting with the ccNSO • Suggested topics for GNSO meeting with the GAC 8.3 Next steps Item 9. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 9.1 Key votes or discussion topics where briefing papers would be desired. 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: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. 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; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. 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 with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-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 & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 13:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 17:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 00:00 next day Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 06:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] GNSO Council agenda 9 June 2011 at 20:00 UTC
by Alan Greenberg June 9, 2011

June 9, 2011

I will be at the meeting, but will have to leave after about 1 hour. Alan At 01/06/2011 06:20 PM, Glen de Saint GÃ©ry wrote: > > >Dear Councillors, > > > >Please find the Agenda for the GNSO Council >meeting on Thursday, 9 June Â 2011 at 20:00 UTC. > > > ><http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-09jun11-en.htm>http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-09jun11-en.htmhttps://communi… > > > >The motions are posted on >page:<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 > >Please note that the latest updates are always found on the Wiki Agenda. >Please let me know if you have any questions. > >Thank you. >Kind regards, > >Glen > >Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 9 June 2011. > >This agenda was established according to the >GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. >http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-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 Time 20:00 UTC > >Coordinated Universal Time:20:00 UTC - see below for local times >(13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC, 21:00 London, 22:00 Brussels, > >Friday 20 May >05:00 Tokyo; 06:00 Melbourne > >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>http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u >Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > >1.1 Roll Call > >1.2 Updated statement of interest > >1.3 Review/amend agenda > >1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous >Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: ><http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg11461.html> >19 May 2011 Council minutes will be approveed on 6 June 2011. >Item 2: Pending Projects CCartagena Board >Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (10 minutes) > >Standard agenda item to update the Council on the GNSO's Pending Projects. > >Refer to Pending Projects list >http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf > >Refer to Board resolution: >http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 > >Rosemary Sinclair has volunteered to lead. >2.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair. > >2. 2 Discussion >2. 3 Next steps? >2.4 Changes to Pending Projects List since last >Council meeting (StÃ©phane Van Gelder) > * GNSO activities: 8 (9 PPSC WG WT removed). > * Other activities: 9 (10 Work Prioritization removed).< > * Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (8 Reec6 removed). > * Outstanding recommendations: 1 (1). >Item 3: Whois Registrant Identification Study (15 minutes) >In 2009, the Council asked for research on the >possibility of carrying out a set of selected studies on Whois. >One of the studies suggested by ICANN Staff is >the<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/tor-whois-registrant-identification-stud…> >"registrant identification" study. > >Refer to motion 1. >https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011. > >3.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson) > >3.2 Discussion > >3.3 Vote > >Item 4: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) (20 minutes) >Second "milestone motion" was sent to the >Council by the JAS group on May 8. Refer to >motion made following receipt of that report <insert link>. >The motion was deferred at the request of the >Registry StakeholderGroup at the May 19, 2011 GNSO Council meeting. > >Refer to motion 2. >https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 > >4.1 Reading of the motion (Rafik Dammak) > >4.2 Discussion > >4.3 Vote > >Item 5: Community Working Groups (15 minutes) > >Refer to May 19 meeting action items: >In response to the action item on Community >Working Groups on the GNSO Council agenda >http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm, >a group of people volunteered to work on this >topic. Jonathan Robinson agreed to take the lead >in stimulating discussions in view of presenting >a report from the drafting team at the Singapore meetings. > >5.1 Update from Drafting Team (Jonathan Robinson). > >5.2 Discussion > >5.3 Next steps > >Item 6: GNSO improvements, PPSC Policy >Development Process Work Team (15 minutes) >As part of the Policy Process Steering >Committee's work, the PDP-WT seeks to improve >the GNSO's process for policy development. >The WT is presenting its final report for Council consideration. >Final Report of the Policy Development Process Work Team >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf > >Refer to motion 3. >https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 > >6.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) > >6.2 Discussion > >6.3 Vote > >Item 7: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group (10 minutes) >The WG published its final report for public >comment in February 2011 and the public comment period closed on March 31. >After having considered the comments received >and modified its report accordingly, the WG is >now presenting its final report for Council consideration >Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer >Policy - Part B Policy Development Process >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf > >7.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings) > >7.2 Refer to motion 4. >https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 > >Reading of motion: Tim Ruiz > >7.2 Discussion > >7.3 Vote > >7.4 Next steps > >Item 8: Singapore meeting preparation (10 minutes) >This discussion item aims to help Mary Wong and >Glen de St Gery finalise the GNSO's agenda for >the Singapore meeting, and allow any Councillors >to raise issues or ask questions on this >proposed agenda <insert link to proposed agenda>. > >8.1 Update from Mary Wong. > >8.2 Discussion > > suggested topics ffor GNSO meeting with the Board > Suggested topics foor GNSO meeting with the ccNSO > Suggested topics forr GNSO meeting with the GAC > >8.3 Next steps > >Item 9. Any Other Business (5 minutes) > >9.1 Key votes or discussion topics where briefing papers would be desired. >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: >1. Create an Issues Report: requires an >affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; >2. Initiate a Policy Development Process >(âPDPâ) Within Scope (as described in Annex >A): requires an affirmative vote of more than >33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; >3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an >affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House >and a majority of the other House (âGNSO Supermajorityâ); >4. 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; >5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO >Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and >6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New >Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: >where an ICANN contract provision specifies that >âa two-thirds vote of the councilâ >demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the >GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to >be met or exceeded with respect to any >contracting party affected by such contract provision. >Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures >(<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf>GNSO >Operating Procedures 4.4) > >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 meetingâs >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 & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 13:00 >Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 15:00 >New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 >Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 >Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 17:00 >London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00 >Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 21:00 >Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 >Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 >Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 00:00 next day >Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day >Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day >Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day >Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 06:00 next day >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October >2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For other places see <http://www.timeanddate.com>http://www.timeanddate.com > >Glen de Saint GÃ©ry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org >

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#56]
by Glen de Saint Géry June 9, 2011

June 9, 2011

From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: jeudi 9 juin 2011 11:01 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#56] Name of Officer: * Konstantinos Komaitis Officer Email Address: * k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk<mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk> Date Prepared: * Thursday, June 9, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Users Constituency Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * One of our councillors - Mary Wong - is not able to attend the meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * for all motions/actions that require voting Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, June 10, 2011 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Rafik Damak

1 0

GNSO Council agenda 9 June 2011 at 20:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry June 9, 2011

June 9, 2011

Dear Councillors, Please find the Agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 9 June 2011 at 20:00 UTC. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-09jun11-en.htm https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+9+June+2011 The motions are posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 Please note that the latest updates are always found on the Wiki Agenda. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 9 June 2011. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-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 Time 20:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:20:00 UTC - see below for local times (13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC, 21:00 London, 22:00 Brussels, Friday 20 May 05:00 Tokyo; 06:00 Melbourne 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 Updated statement of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 19 May 2011 Council minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg11461.html> – will be approved on 6 June 2011. Item 2: Pending Projects – Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (10 minutes) Standard agenda item to update the Council on the GNSO's Pending Projects. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf Refer to Board resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 Rosemary Sinclair has volunteered to lead. 2.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair. 2. 2 Discussion 2. 3 Next steps? 2.4 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) * GNSO activities: 8 (9 – PPSC WG WT removed). * Other activities: 9 (10 – Work Prioritization removed). * Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (8 – Rec6 removed). * Outstanding recommendations: 1 (1). Item 3: Whois Registrant Identification Study (15 minutes) In 2009, the Council asked for research on the possibility of carrying out a set of selected studies on Whois. One of the studies suggested by ICANN Staff is the "registrant identification"<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/tor-whois-registrant-identification-stud…> study. Refer to motion 1. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011. 3.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) (20 minutes) Second "milestone motion" was sent to the Council by the JAS group on May 8. Refer to motion made following receipt of that report <insert link>. The motion was deferred at the request of the Registry StakeholderGroup at the May 19, 2011 GNSO Council meeting. Refer to motion 2. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 4.1 Reading of the motion (Rafik Dammak) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Community Working Groups (15 minutes) Refer to May 19 meeting action items: In response to the action item on Community Working Groups on the GNSO Council agenda http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm, a group of people volunteered to work on this topic. Jonathan Robinson agreed to take the lead in stimulating discussions in view of presenting a report from the drafting team at the Singapore meetings. 5.1 Update from Drafting Team (Jonathan Robinson). 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps Item 6: GNSO improvements, PPSC Policy Development Process Work Team (15 minutes) As part of the Policy Process Steering Committee's work, the PDP-WT seeks to improve the GNSO's process for policy development. The WT is presenting its final report for Council consideration. Final Report of the Policy Development Process Work Team http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf Refer to motion 3. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 6.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote Item 7: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group (10 minutes) The WG published its final report for public comment in February 2011 and the public comment period closed on March 31. After having considered the comments received and modified its report accordingly, the WG is now presenting its final report for Council consideration Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part B Policy Development Process http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf 7.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings) 7.2 Refer to motion 4. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 Reading of motion: Tim Ruiz 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Vote 7.4 Next steps Item 8: Singapore meeting preparation (10 minutes) This discussion item aims to help Mary Wong and Glen de St Gery finalise the GNSO's agenda for the Singapore meeting, and allow any Councillors to raise issues or ask questions on this proposed agenda <insert link to proposed agenda>. 8.1 Update from Mary Wong. 8.2 Discussion • suggested topics for GNSO meeting with the Board • Suggested topics for GNSO meeting with the ccNSO • Suggested topics for GNSO meeting with the GAC 8.3 Next steps Item 9. Any Other Business (5 minutes) 9.1 Key votes or discussion topics where briefing papers would be desired. 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: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. 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; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. 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 with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-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 & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 13:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 17:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 00:00 next day Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 06:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 2

Singapore Dinners
by Adrian Kinderis June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

All, Since we are unlikely to get Board time again at this meeting would it not make sense to have the GNSO Social Dinner on the Saturday night? We could use the time to further any of the days discussions and also to run through the agenda for the next day. I think we could make good use of the time. Thoughts? Adrian Kinderis

3 3

RE: [council] Motion for IRTP-B Final Report and Recommendations
by Tim Ruiz June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

Just a reminder that I did not make a motion. I submitted text of a draft motion to start discussion of the report. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Motion for IRTP-B Final Report and > Recommendations > From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> > Date: Wed, June 08, 2011 10:21 am > To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "'GNSO Council'" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > I understand that it may not be practical to vote on this tomorrow. > > However, it is sitting without a second and so I am happy to second it. > > Best wishes, > > Jonathan > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: 01 June 2011 22:13 > To: GNSO Council > Subject: [council] Motion for IRTP-B Final Report and Recommendations > > A proposed motion for the final report and recommendations of the IRTP-B WG is attached in both doc and txt formats. > > Thanks to Marika for putting this together. I made a few edits because my personal opinion is that recommendations 8 and 9 are not fully baked yet. While I have faith in Staff's ability to do what is asked of it in those two recommendations, I do not feel it is appropriate. There are policy aspects of those two recommendations that are yet unaddressed. > Using an implementation plan to flesh them out is not appropriate or fair to either the community or to Staff. > > As Liaison to this WG I should have caught that sooner, but I am not sure the WG would have gotten any further with them either way. As a result I have left them mentioned in Resolve(D) but have not yet had time to ocnsider how to frame them. > > In any event, the Council has not had opportunity to discuss the report so voting on this motion during the meeting on the 9th is not practical. > The moton is being presented here to get it on the agenda for discussion purposes only. I do believe we could be able to vote on it as early as Singapore. > > Thanks, > Tim > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6172 (20110601) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com

1 0

Re: [council] Motion for IRTP-B Final Report and Recommendations
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

Thanks Jonathan, If a motion is made before the time limit and properly seconded, we are obliged to consider it. However in this case, it is my understanding that the motion was simply put forward for discussion purposes, but has not been made yet. So a second is not needed at this time, although yours is duly noted for when we come to consider the motion (assuming it hasn't changed significantly by then, in which case I would ask you to reconfirm your second). Thanks, Stéphane Le 8 juin 2011 à 17:21, Jonathan Robinson a écrit : > > I understand that it may not be practical to vote on this tomorrow. > > However, it is sitting without a second and so I am happy to second it. > > Best wishes, > > Jonathan > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: 01 June 2011 22:13 > To: GNSO Council > Subject: [council] Motion for IRTP-B Final Report and Recommendations > > A proposed motion for the final report and recommendations of the IRTP-B WG is attached in both doc and txt formats. > > Thanks to Marika for putting this together. I made a few edits because my personal opinion is that recommendations 8 and 9 are not fully baked yet. While I have faith in Staff's ability to do what is asked of it in those two recommendations, I do not feel it is appropriate. There are policy aspects of those two recommendations that are yet unaddressed. > Using an implementation plan to flesh them out is not appropriate or fair to either the community or to Staff. > > As Liaison to this WG I should have caught that sooner, but I am not sure the WG would have gotten any further with them either way. As a result I have left them mentioned in Resolve(D) but have not yet had time to ocnsider how to frame them. > > In any event, the Council has not had opportunity to discuss the report so voting on this motion during the meeting on the 9th is not practical. > The moton is being presented here to get it on the agenda for discussion purposes only. I do believe we could be able to vote on it as early as Singapore. > > Thanks, > Tim > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6172 (20110601) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > >

1 0

Motion for IRTP-B Final Report and Recommendations
by Tim Ruiz June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

A proposed motion for the final report and recommendations of the IRTP-B WG is attached in both doc and txt formats. Thanks to Marika for putting this together. I made a few edits because my personal opinion is that recommendations 8 and 9 are not fully baked yet. While I have faith in Staff's ability to do what is asked of it in those two recommendations, I do not feel it is appropriate. There are policy aspects of those two recommendations that are yet unaddressed. Using an implementation plan to flesh them out is not appropriate or fair to either the community or to Staff. As Liaison to this WG I should have caught that sooner, but I am not sure the WG would have gotten any further with them either way. As a result I have left them mentioned in Resolve(D) but have not yet had time to ocnsider how to frame them. In any event, the Council has not had opportunity to discuss the report so voting on this motion during the meeting on the 9th is not practical. The moton is being presented here to get it on the agenda for discussion purposes only. I do believe we could be able to vote on it as early as Singapore. Thanks, Tim

3 2

Proposed GNSO Council schedule for Singapore
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

Hello everyone Attached is the proposed GNSO Council schedule for Singapore, which Glen and I think is more or less final (barring some last minute overall schedule changes that we can't control). We think that the best way to read it is to have at hand the overall meeting schedule, which is at http://singapore41.icann.org/full-schedule. Please note the following: - We have not yet moved the GNSO Council dinner from Sunday night to Saturday evening, as we have sent a final enquiry to Diane Schroeder, who handles the Board's schedule, and plan to give her the next 24 hours to confirm one way or the other. It is likely that - in line with Adrian and others' preferences - we will have our Council dinner on Saturday instead of Sunday, but I wanted to let you know that we haven't yet made the change on the attached spreadsheet. - The Saturday GNSO session will start at 10 a.m. instead of our original plan of 12 noon. The reason for this is that we think most Councilors will want to attend the Board/GAC open meeting on Sunday afternoon; as such, we need to move the GNSO weekend start time up on Saturday in order to deal with all the GNSO-related matters that are on our plate. (NOTE: the 9 a.m. slot shown on the schedule right now is for the face-to-face meeting of the Standing Committee on Implementation (SCI), to which, of course, all Councilors are welcome and for which I've promised the SCI members a Singaporean breakfast :) - We have tried to minimize conflicts as far as possible, but - as evidenced by the various emails you will have seen on the Council list - it is becoming near-impossible to have slots that do not conflict with one thing or another. I should say that in this effort Glen has been invaluable in her efforts to coordinate with all the other committees, groups and staff! - For Monday, the joint GNSO/ccNSO meeting will be the customary lunch, as it will be Leslie Cowley's first as ccNSO chair. Although the ICANN meeting schedule currently shows it as concurrent with the Forum on DNS Abuse, I understand that there is a possibility that the Forum may be switched with the IDN Variant session. - For Wednesday, while the overall ICANN meeting schedule still shows a GAC-GNSO Council meeting (which we had originally moved to Wednesday instead of the customary weekend session due to the Board-GAC meetings), our understanding is that the GAC has requested that we postpone our meeting with them till the next ICANN meeting. Given that the GAC's attention has largely been on the new gTLD program and that Heather assures us the GAC remains committed to working with the GNSO on those issues we had discussed and identified previously, which are all ongoing discussions, it does not seem necessary to insist on a meeting with the GAC in Singapore, particularly if this can occur only after an expected announcement on the new gTLD program. - For Thursday, we will have our usual GNSO Wrap Up Meeting over lunch. Please note that, although the overall ICANN meeting schedule shows otherwise, our understanding is that Getting Ready: Understanding the Applicant Guidebook session is likely to be moved up to the morning, thereby eliminating a conflict with our Wrap Up Meetiing. Thanks, and please let me and Glen know if you have questions about the schedule. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

2 1

Proposed Amendments to JAS motion
by Neuman, Jeff June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

All, I have given this motion a good deal of thought and am still waiting feedback from my stakeholder group. Given the attention that the JAS working group has gotten from the GAC and Board and the desire of all of us to ensure that all economies have access to the new round of gTLDs, a number of people and groups have been afraid politically to state anything that could in any way be perceived by anyone as being negative towards the work that is underway. Although the work has been tremendous to date especially given the tight timing, and the cause is certainly a worthy one, I do believe that we cannot compromise our processes and set bad precedent simply because we afraid of how we may be perceived politically by those that are not following everything going on at the GNSO. Therefore, I wanted to draft an e-mail explaining the issues I have personally with the motion and suggest some amendments that may alleviate some of the issues for me. The motion, as it currently stands now, is based on a milestone report and therefore is not by definition final. The report contains some good principles and ideas that need to be flushed out more (as the report admits). The motion asks the GNSO to do a few things: 1. Putting the report out for public comment 2. Forwarding the report to the Board for review and approval 3. Having ICANN staff begin implementation 4. Having the JAS WG deal with issues that arise in community review 5. Having the JAS Group publish the final report after the review process Numbers 1, 4 and 5 certainly make a lot of sense to me and are in line with what normally happens with policy groups. However, I have issues with 2 and 3. I do not understand the notion of forwarding a non-final report to the board for approval. Nor do I understand the notion of having staff begin implementation of a non-final report prior to GNSO approval of the final recommendations much less Board approval of the final recommendations. Therefore, I would propose that the following amendments be made to the resolved clauses so it now reads: Resolved: The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing the work on such a tight schedule, and The GNSO Council request that the report be put out for community review as soon as possible, and The JAS Working Group continues working to deal with any issues that may arise in the upcoming review by the community, and That the JAS Working group publish their final report after this review process. Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair. I know I run the risk of being criticized on the Council list and the JAS WG list as being obstructionist or not caring about the needs of the developing communities. I have also seen on the JAS WG list that incumbents are trying to keep out competition or that we are trying to delay the process. All I can say is that this could not be further from the truth. I want the new gTLD process to happen immediately and also want the needs of developing economies to be taken care of. I just cannot allow us to set bad precedent for future policy groups. I hope you all take these comments as they are intended to be - constructive with a desire to move forward. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> Please note new address: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166 ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

3 4