January 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#75]
by Glen de Saint Géry 17 Jan '12

17 Jan '12

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mardi 17 janvier 2012 18:55 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#75] Name of Officer: * Robin Gross Officer Email Address: * robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, January 17, 2012 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Wolfgang Kleinwächter is unable to attend the 19 January 2012 GNSO Council Meeting and has provided his voting proxy to Wendy Seltzer. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * n/a 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, January 20, 2012 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: * Wendy Seltzer

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#74]
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Jan '12

16 Jan '12

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : lundi 16 janvier 2012 23:22 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#74] Name of Officer: * Robin Gross Officer Email Address: * robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> Date Prepared: * Monday, January 16, 2012 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Joy Liddicoat has given her voting proxy to William Drake as she will be unable to attend the GNSO Meeting on 19 January 2012. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * n/a 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, January 20, 2012 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: * William Drake

1 0

Updated draft agenda for GNSO Council Meeting – 19 January 2012 at 11:00UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Jan '12

16 Jan '12

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated draft agenda for GNSO Council Meeting – 19 January 2012 at 11:00UTC The updates relate to: Added Items: Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes) Item 8: Outreach Task Force Charter (20 minutes) Item 9: Whois Accessibility (20 minutes) Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting – 19 January 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19jan12-en.htm Wiki Agenda https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+19+January+2… GNSO Council motions https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+… 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 Time 11:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeti…> Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC 03:00 Los Angeles; 06:00 Washington DC; 11:00 London; 12:00 Paris; 20:00 Tokyo; 20 January 2012 00:00 Wellington 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: · 15 December GNSO Council minutes –approved on 3 January 2012. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-15dec11-en.htm . Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes) Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) • GNSO activities: 9 (9 - No change). • Other activities: 10 (10 – No Change) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 - no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2 - no change). Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes) Recent events like the recent National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) letter http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-03jan12-en.pdf show that Whois remains very much in the spotlight. It therefore appears useful for the Council to have an update from the Whois RT so that the Council has a clearer idea of what potential policy development it might be called to work on in the near future. The Chair of the Whois RT has kindly agreed to participate in this meeting and provide an update. Update from Whois RT Chair (Emily Taylor) Discussion Item 4: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 9 part 2 (10 minutes) As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to provide a proposal for replacing denial reason #7 by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-8-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-8-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf> [ http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf Council must now consider whether to approve it. Refer to motion : https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole). 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 8 (10 minutes) As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet the following recommendation "prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status". Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html Council must now consider whether to approve it. Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+… 5.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole). 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote Item 6: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes) On January 4, 2012, the CCWG Drafting Team sent the Council Chair its final recommendations with regard to the GNSO's approach on Community Working Groups. Refer to: Draft Principles for Cross‐Community Working Groups (CWGs) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf Council must now consider whether to approve these recommendations. Refer to motion http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html 6.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson). 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote Item 7: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 7 (10 minutes) A resolution was passed by the Council at its Dec 15, 2011 meeting to address recommendation 7 of the IRTP part B WG on the requirement to lock a domain subject to UDRP proceedings. Refer to Dec 15 resolution : http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112 The new GNSO PDP rules state that a group of volunteers should be convened to draft a WG charter, which should then be approved by the Council. This is an information item on the state of the DT. 7.1 Update by Staff (Marika Konings). 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps Item 8: Outreach Task Force Charter (20 minutes) As part of the GNSO improvements, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC)'s Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team worked on a set of recommendations on a global outreach program The Council has considered motions on this recently been no agreement has been found. As the original request came from the ICANN Board, the Council leadership feels an answer should be provided. That answer may be not to approve, to approve, or to determine that the Council as a body does not want to voice an opinion, although specific GNSO SGs and Cs are obviously still free to. The Council ledareship suggests that is that this topic be discussed at the GNSO week-end sessions in the forthcoming ICANN International Meeting in March 2012. To set the scene for these discussions, this agenda item is to provide some historical context into this topic. 8.1 Update and presentation from staff (Liz Gasster) 8.2 Discussion Item 9: Whois Accessibility (20 minutes) The GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 6 October to request the Whois Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as recommended by the RAP WG as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. The Whois Survey Drafting Team provided its response to the GNSO Council on 10 January (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12559.html) noting that 'the WSWG determined inclusion of the RAPWG’s recommendation aligned more with policy and thus the WSWG considered it to be out of scope'. In addition, the WSWG provided the GNSO Council in its response with additional information 'so that it may make a better informed decision about the access recommendation'. 9.1 Response of WGWS (Wendy Seltzer, Council Liaison to WSWG 9.2 Discussion 9.3 Next steps Item 10: 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: 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-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 October & March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+0DST 03:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 06:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 09:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 13:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing, China (CST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/cst.html> ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+1DST 00:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2012, 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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Motions for next week's meeting
by Mason Cole 16 Jan '12

16 Jan '12

Happy New Year all -- I move for the following two items: Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions: a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm); b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar; c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases; d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied); e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011; WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above; WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #8, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation; WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm); WHEREAS no comments were received as part of the public comment forum and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #8. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #8 and the related ICANN Staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf and http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html). ============== Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2 WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions: a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report?(http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm); b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar; c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases; d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);?e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily?accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011; WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above; WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #9 part b, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for a new provision on locking / unlocking of a domain name, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation; WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm); WHEREAS no comments were received as part of the public comment forum and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council; WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2 and the related ICANN Staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf and http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html).

4 10

Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting – 19 January 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting – 19 January 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19jan12-en.htm Wiki Agenda https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+19+January+2… 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 Time 11:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeti…> Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC 03:00 Los Angeles; 06:00 Washington DC; 11:00 London; 12:00 Paris; 20:00 Tokyo; 20 January 2012 00:00 Wellington 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: · 15 December GNSO Council minutes –approved on 3 January 2012. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-15dec11-en.htm . Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes) Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) • GNSO activities: 9 (9 - No change). • Other activities: 10 (10 – No Change) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 - no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2 - no change). Item 3: IRTP B Rec 9 part 2 (15 minutes) As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to provide a proposal for replacing denial reason #7 by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-8-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-8-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf> [ http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf Council must now consider whether to approve it. Refer to motion : https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+… 3.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole). 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: IRTP B Rec 8 (15 minutes) As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet the following recommendation "prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status". Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html Council must now consider whether to approve it. Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole). 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (15 minutes) On January 4, 2012, the CCWG Drafting Team sent the Council Chair its final recommendations with regard to the GNSO's approach on Community Working Groups. Refer to: Draft Principles for Cross‐Community Working Groups (CWGs) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf Council must now consider whether to approve these recommendations. Refer to motion http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html 5.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson). 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote Item 6: IRTP B Rec 7 (15 minutes) A resolution was passed by the Council at its Dec 15, 2011 meeting to address recommendation 7 of the IRTP part B WG on the requirement to lock a domain subject to UDRP proceedings. Refer to Dec 15 resolution : http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112 The new GNSO PDP rules state that a group of volunteers should be convened to draft a WG charter, which should then be approved by the Council. This is an information item on the state of the DT. 6.1 Update by Staff (Marika Konings). 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developments following the Dakar discussions (10 minutes) Update by Margie Milam Item 8: 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: 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-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 October & March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+0DST 03:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 06:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 09:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 13:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing, China (CST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/cst.html> ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+1DST 00:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2012, 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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Letter from ICANN CEO to USA Federal Trade Commission
by Bruce Tonkin 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

From: http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/ Hello All, I have attached a letter from the ICANN CEO to the Federal Trade Commission about new gTLDs that may be of interest to the Council. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

REMINDER: Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments - comments close 13 December 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry 12 Jan '12

12 Jan '12

Please note that the public comment period ends tomorrow, Friday, 13 January 2012. Please take the time to submit comments. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/raa-amendments-prelim-issue-report-1… Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments Comment Period Important Information Links Open Date: 12 December 2011 Close Date: 13 January 2012 Time (UTC): 23:59 Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-12dec11-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:raa-amendments-prelim-issue-report@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-amendments-prelim-issue-report/> Report of Public Comments Originating Organization: Policy, ICANN Purpose: ICANN requests community input on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments. Current Status: This Preliminary Issue Report has been drafted to summarize and categorize recommendations to amend the RAA, in order to facilitate the commencement of the Board requested PDP. Next Steps: Staff will update this Report to reflect community feedback in the Final Issue Report to be presented to the GNSO Council after the closing of this public comment forum. Staff Contact: Margie Milam, Senior Policy Counselor Email: Margie.milam(a)icann.org<mailto:Margie.milam@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20GNSO%20Issue%20Report%20on%20the%20Registrar%20Accreditation%20Agreement%20Amendments%20public%20comment%20period> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Letter from ICANN CEO to NTIA
by Bruce Tonkin 11 Jan '12

11 Jan '12

From: http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/ Hello All, I have attached a letter from the ICANN CEO to NTIA about new gTLDs that may be of interest to the Council. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [council] [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles For GNSO Council
by Stéphane Van Gelder 11 Jan '12

11 Jan '12

Thanks Jonathan. I have put this on the agenda for our next meeting, so the Council can discuss it then if it so wishes. Stéphane Le 10 janv. 2012 à 20:52, Jonathan Robinson a écrit : > Hi Stéphane, > > Many thanks for taking the time to respond and provide the questions below. > > I’d very much welcome some Council discussion on the points you have raised. > Hopefully we can consider at least the first two when we next meet. > > On your question re bii, I’ll review and come back to you shortly. > > Best wishes, > > > > Jonathan > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: 05 January 2012 14:58 > To: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Council > Subject: [council] Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles For GNSO Council > > Thanks Jonathan. Please convey my thanks to the group for the energy and time it has devoted to this work. > > I would like to ask how the group envisions the Council using its output? You write that it is the group's expectations that this output will now be considered prior to the GNSO participating in any further CWGs. Do you think these should be added to the GNSO's R&Ps, or should they just be used as a standalone reference document whenever the question of participation in a CWG arises? > > In the document itself: > > On 2aii, we've seen several cases recently where the sponsoring bodies (be they SOs or ACs) don't exactly see eye to eye on the charter. This says that there should be consensus. What if there isn't? Is the idea to say that in such cases, the GNSO would not participate until such a time as there is? > > On bii, when should SOs and ACs do this? I don't understand what is being said here? Do you expect SOs and ACs to solicit the advice of other bodies during the execution of the CWG's work? If so, I find this strange as it seems to go against the accepted norm nowadays which is to let the group assigned to do the work do that work until it has finished, and then the chartering organizations look at it. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane Van Gelder > Directeur Général / General manager > INDOM Group NBT France > ---------------- > Head of Domain Operations > Group NBT > > Le 4 janv. 2012 à 14:24, Jonathan Robinson a écrit : > > > Dear Stéphane, > > I have pleasure in attaching the work of the GNSO CCWG DT for consideration and discussion by the council at its next meeting. > > We concluded our work at the end of last year as planned. We made good progress after Dakar and were spurred on by a few new additions to the group and excellent support from ICANN staff. > > It is our understanding that the council will now consider this output prior to participating in any further ICANN community initiatives on the same topic. > > Happy new year and I look forward to discussing this with you and fellow councillors in the near future. > > Best wishes, > > > Jonathan Robinson > (in my capacity as chair of the GNSO CCWG Drafting Team) > > > <Draft Principles for CWGs for GNSO Council Review 23 Dec 2011.pdf> > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6769 (20120105) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com

1 0

FW: Possible CCWG Motion
by Jonathan Robinson 11 Jan '12

11 Jan '12

Dear Colleagues, Please attached, a motion intended to move forward the work of the GNSO Drafting Team on Cross-Community Working Groups. Best wishes, Jonathan

1 0