October 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed Agendas GNSO Working Sessions 13,14 Oct. & GNSO Council Public Meeting in Toronto 17 Oct. 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry 11 Oct '12

11 Oct '12

Dear All, Schedules and agendas can be found on the general Wiki pages: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN+Meetings+in+T… More specifically for the GNSO working sessions on Saturday 13 and Sunday 14 October 2012: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Sessio… https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Sessio… Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Toronto 17 October 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-17oct12-en.htm Reference to ICANN Schedule http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34347 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+17+October+2… https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for the latest updates on the GNSO Council workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meetin…>. As can be seen below, in addition to the Open Microphone at the end of the agenda, as possible throughout the meeting time will be allowed for audience participation. Please be aware that audience opportunities to comment will depend on available time. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-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 19:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/7m62mzy> http://tinyurl.com/9v4qpbr Coordinated Universal Time 19:00 UTC: 12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington DC; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris/Prague; 04:00 Tokyo; 08:00 Wellington next day) Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who cannot physically attend the meeting. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. 15:00- 16:00 GNSO Council Public Forum Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency Leaders (60 minutes) * Registries Stakeholder Group – David Maher * Registrars Stakeholder Group – Matt Serlin * Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) – Robin Gross * Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency – Alain Berranger. * Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) – Marilyn Cade * Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) –Steve Metalitz * Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) – Tony Holmes Break Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 13 September 2012 approved on 9 October 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 No consent agenda items. Item 3: Consumer Trust (10 minutes) The GNSO's Consumer Choice, Trust, and Competition WG has produced an advice letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-17aug12-en.pdf> for consideration by ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. The GNSO Council is now asked to consider approval of this letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-17aug12-en.pdf>. Refer to motion 1: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 3.1 Reading of the motion (John Berard). 3.2 Discussion & open microphone 3.3 Nest steps (Standard threshold: simple majority of each house). Item 4: RAP recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse (10 minutes) The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) recommended that an Issue Report evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for ICANN agreements. The Final Issue Report, which was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 September 2012, recommends the initiation of a PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registration-abuse/uofc-final-issue-report-…). The Council must now consider a motion to initiate a PDP. Refer to motion 2: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil). 4.2 Discussion & open microphone 4.3 Vote (PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house). Item 5: RAP recommendation on Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes) The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) recommended that the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes. Following further discussion on this issue, Mikey O'Connor submitted a thoughts paper to the GNSO Council which was presented to the Council at its September 13, 2012<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/rap/comments-rap-uniformity-of-reporting-30…> meeting http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/rap/comments-rap-uniformity-of-reporting-30…. A motion has now been submitted requesting an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports. This issue report should consider the issues highlighted in the RAPWG Final Report, the ICANN Compliance Department Report on this issue and the thought paper and is expected to recommend next steps. Refer to motion 3: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 5.1 Reading of the motion (John Berard) 5.2 Discussion & open microphone 5.3 Vote (Issue report threshold: 25% of each house, or majority of one house). Item 6: Protection of IOC/RC names at the second level (10 minutes) On September 13, 2012, the ICANN Board published an approved resolution (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12…) asking the GNSO conclude ongoing policy work on the issue of second-level protections for the IOC and RC names by January 31, 2013. This is an update item to allow the IOC/RC DT to brief the Council on its ongoing work and whether it expects to be able to meet the Board's deadline, so that should this not be the case, the GNSO Council can take any action it sees fit. 6.1 Update from DT Chair (Jeff Neuman) 6.2 Discussion & open microphone Item 7: Policy Development Process (PDP) on International Governmental Organizations (IGO) names (10 minutes) Pursuant to its 12 April 2012 motion, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of certain international organizations including, International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and Non- Governmental Organizations such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Final Issue Report, which was submitted to the GNSO Council on 1 October 2012, recommends the initiation of a PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o… ) The Council must now consider a motion to initiate a PDP. Refer to motion 4: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 7.1 Update from Staff (Brian Peck) 7.2 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 7.3 Discussion & open microphone 7.4 Vote (PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house). Item 8: Thick Whois PDP WG Charter (10 minutes) The Thick Whois DT has finalised a charter for the WG which will be formed as part of the PDP initiated on this issue by the GNSO Council. The Council must now approve the charter. Refer to motion 5: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 8.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 8.2 Discussion & open microphone 8.3 Vote (PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house). 8.4 If motion carries, selection of Council Liaison to WG. Item 9: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (IRTP Part C) Working Group (WG) (10 minutes) IRTP is an ongoing 5-part PDP. Current work is on the 3rd part, part C. The WG is now presenting its Final Report for approval by the GNSO Council. Refer to motion 6: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 9.1 Reading of the motion (X Y) 9.2 Discussion & open microphone 9.3 Vote (Approval of consensus policy PDP threshold: Supermajority (2/3 of each house, or ¾ of one house and a majority of the other)). Item 10: Internationalized Registration Data WG (10 minutes) Having received the IRD WG's final report, the GNSO and SSAC have submitted it to the Board via a joint letter. There is now discussion of initiating an issue report as a follow-up to the IRD WG's final report. The Council must consider whether to request such an issue report. Refer to motion 7: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 10.1 Reading of the motion (X Y) 10.2 Discussion & open microphone 10.3 Vote (Issue report threshold: 25% of each house, or majority of one house). Item 11: 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. 11.1 Update from Staff (Barbara Roseman) 11.2 Discussion & open microphone 11.3 Next step Item 12: Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) (10 minutes) On September 18, 2012, Kurt Pritz wrote to the GNSO Council Chair to inform the Council of ongoing discussions on the implementation of the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system. It is being suggested that some of the implementation solutions may not match the work of the Special Trademark Issues (STI) group and that increased involvement by the GNSO may be helpful at this stage. This is a discussion item. 12.1 Update from Staff (Kurt Pritz) 12.2 Discussion & open microphone Item 13: Whois Review Team Final Report (10 minutes) The GNSO Council has put together a team to work on a response to a request from the Board to comment the WHOIS RT Final Report recommendations. However, this group was unable to agree on a response and it was suggested that the Council might instead respond with a list of individual constituency and SG opinions. At its September 13 meeting, the Council agreed to ask Staff to compile this list <link to Staff list>. The Council must now agree on next steps. 13.1 Update from the group (Brian Winterfeldt) 13.2 Discussion & open microphone 13.3 Next steps Item 14: Thanks to outgoing Councilors (5 minutes) Stéphane van Gelder, Mary Wong, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Carlos Aguirre Item 15. Any Other Business (5 minutes) BREAK 18:00 - 18:30 New Council convenes Item 1. Seating of the New Council 1.1 Roll call 1.2 Statements of interest Item 2 Vote for GNSO Council chair Two nominations were received for this position, Jonathan Robinson and Thomas Rickert. The GNSO Council held a question & answer session over the weekend with Dr.Robinson and Mr Rickert. Vote by secret Ballot. GNSO Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf 2.2 Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair and two Vice-Chairs as follows: a. The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of each house. b. Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of a house, but must be a member of the GNSO Council. Should a Chair be elected from outside of the houses that Chair will be a non-voting Chair. i. All ballots will include the “none of the above” option. In the event that a 60 percent vote of each house selects the “none of the above” option, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be scheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote. ii. In the case of a tie for the most votes between the two candidates, or between a candidate and “none of above,” a second election will be held no sooner than 30 days. The candidates shall remain the same for this second election. In the case this second election also results in a tie, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote. iii. The leading candidate will be defined as the one with the highest score. The score is calculated by adding together the voting percentages attained from each house. The highest percentage attainable in each house is 100. Thus, the maximum score a candidate can achieve is 200 as a result of attaining 100 percent of the votes from the contracted party house and 100 percent from the non-contracted party house (100 percent + 100 percent = score of 200). In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold, a second ballot will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.” iv. In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold and the candidates do not tie, a second runoff ballot will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.” v. If the single candidate does not reach the 60 percent of each house threshold in the runoff ballot, then each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful runoff ballot. c. Each house shall select a Council Vice-Chair from within its respective house. d. A Chair may not be a member of the same Stakeholder Group of either of the Vice-Chairs. e. The Chair and Vice-Chairs shall retain their votes (if any) in their respective houses (if any). f. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair’s term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held. g. The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following each election and runoff ballot, whether successful or unsuccessful. Appendix 1 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X>, Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA> 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.<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf> 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 19:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 12:00 Toronto, Canada (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 15:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRT) UTC-3+0DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 16:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+1DST 20:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 20:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 21:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 21:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 21:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 00:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 03:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 03:00 – next day Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 04:00 – next day Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+0DST 08:00 – next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/9v4qpbr Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Thoughts on Consumer Metrics for new gTLDs
by Neuman, Jeff 11 Oct '12

11 Oct '12

All, A number of us have recently been discussing the motion up for a vote next week in Toronto to adopt the Working Group's draft advice letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice and Competition. First, I want to commend the working group on the job that they have done and the meticulous detail incorporated in the letter. I believe that they group did as good of a job as anyone could do to come up with metrics based on their best predictions as to what the future gTLD landscape would look like. At the time that the recommendations were created, and the draft advice letter went out for comment, no one knew the number of applications, types of applications, etc. Now, after the reveal, we have more information about the landscape and believe that the original criteria included in the final advice letter may not be well suited for a large number of gTLD applications (which later will be TLDs). While much of the criteria is extremely relevant towards the open gTLDs, they do not necessarily map well to a large number of the other closed, brand, single-registrant or even geographic based TLDs. Over 1/3 of the applications are for brand TLDs, with many of them being single-registrant TLDs. Some of the criteria included in the measure of consumer choice section of the Final Advice Letter, for example, are not applicable to the brand TLDs and may, in fact, give misleading results when looking at the issue of consumer choice. By way of example, the criteria for consumer choice looks at whether the website clearly discloses the benefits and restrictions of the name space (Section 2.1). This makes sense for open registries, but for a closed TLD (like .neustar), it does not. As a fairly large $2.5 billion public company, if Neustar converted its homepage to http://www.neustar, we would not put anywhere on our home page the benefits/restrictions of .neustar. As a closed TLD, there would be no other registrants other than Neustar itself and using up valuable space on our homepage to even mention why were are using .neustar just would not make sense. In addition, Section 2.3 (gTLD registry benefits and restrictions should be understandable to registrants and users) and 2.12 (geographic diversity of registrants) would also not be applicable to the closed-TLDs or regional TLDs. There are other examples. Therefore, our recommendation is that the Council consider sending back the letter to the Working Group to revise their advice based on the current gTLD application landscape before passing such advice on to the board. If this means bifurcating the advice based on the type of TLD, that may make some sense as well. We do not want the group to be disheartened, because they did an excellent job with the information that was available at the time. We now know more and believe that although the letter presents an excellent starting point, it needs some additional work. We look forward to discussing this further in Toronto. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, 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/>

1 0

IRTP Part C PDP Final Report
by Marika Konings 11 Oct '12

11 Oct '12

Dear All, On behalf of the IRTP Part C PDP Working Group, please find attached the WG's Final Report for your review and consideration. Also attached for your consideration is a draft motion to approve the Final Report and its recommendations, as well as requesting an Issue Report on the next IRTP PDP. With best regards, Marika

4 5

Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Toronto 17 October 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Toronto 17 October 2012 Reference to ICANN Schedule http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34347 Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for the latest updates on the GNSO Council workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meetin…>. As can be seen below, in addition to the Open Microphone at the end of the agenda, as possible throughout the meeting time will be allowed for audience participation. Please be aware that audience opportunities to comment will depend on available time. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-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 19:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/7m62mzy> http://tinyurl.com/9v4qpbr Coordinated Universal Time 19:00 UTC: 12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington DC; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris/Prague; 04:00 Tokyo; 08:00 Wellington next day) Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who cannot physically attend the meeting. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. 15:00- 16:00 GNSO Council Public Forum Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency Leaders (60 minutes) * Registries Stakeholder Group – David Maher * Registrars Stakeholder Group – Matt Serlin * Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) – Robin Gross * Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency – Alain Berranger. * Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) – Marilyn Cade * Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) –Steve Metalitz * Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) – Tony Holmes Break Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 13 September 2012 approved on 9 October 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 No consent agenda items. Item 3: Consumer Trust (10 minutes) The GNSO's Consumer Choice, Trust, and Competition WG has produced an advice letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-17aug12-en.pdf> for consideration by ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. The GNSO Council is now asked to consider approval of this letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-17aug12-en.pdf>. Refer to motion 1: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 3.1 Reading of the motion (John Berard). 3.2 Discussion & open microphone 3.3 Nest steps (Standard threshold: simple majority of each house). Item 4: RAP recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse (10 minutes) The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) recommended that an Issue Report evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for ICANN agreements. The Final Issue Report, which was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 September 2012, recommends the initiation of a PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registration-abuse/uofc-final-issue-report-…). The Council must now consider a motion to initiate a PDP. Refer to motion 2: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil). 4.2 Discussion & open microphone 4.3 Vote (PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house). Item 5: RAP recommendation on Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes) The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) recommended that the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes. Following further discussion on this issue, Mikey O'Connor submitted a thoughts paper to the GNSO Council which was presented to the Council at its September 13, 2012<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/rap/comments-rap-uniformity-of-reporting-30…> meeting http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/rap/comments-rap-uniformity-of-reporting-30…. A motion has now been submitted requesting an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports. This issue report should consider the issues highlighted in the RAPWG Final Report, the ICANN Compliance Department Report on this issue and the thought paper and is expected to recommend next steps. Refer to motion 3: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 5.1 Reading of the motion (John Berard) 5.2 Discussion & open microphone 5.3 Vote (Issue report threshold: 25% of each house, or majority of one house). Item 6: Protection of IOC/RC names at the second level (10 minutes) On September 13, 2012, the ICANN Board published an approved resolution (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12…) asking the GNSO conclude ongoing policy work on the issue of second-level protections for the IOC and RC names by January 31, 2013. This is an update item to allow the IOC/RC DT to brief the Council on its ongoing work and whether it expects to be able to meet the Board's deadline, so that should this not be the case, the GNSO Council can take any action it sees fit. 6.1 Update from DT Chair (Jeff Neuman) 6.2 Discussion & open microphone Item 7: Policy Development Process (PDP) on International Governmental Organizations (IGO) names (10 minutes) Pursuant to its 12 April 2012 motion, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of certain international organizations including, International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and Non- Governmental Organizations such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Final Issue Report, which was submitted to the GNSO Council on 1 October 2012, recommends the initiation of a PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o… ) The Council must now consider a motion to initiate a PDP. Refer to motion 4: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 7.1 Update from Staff (Brian Peck) 7.2 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 7.3 Discussion & open microphone 7.4 Vote (PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house). Item 8: Thick Whois PDP WG Charter (10 minutes) The Thick Whois DT has finalised a charter for the WG which will be formed as part of the PDP initiated on this issue by the GNSO Council. The Council must now approve the charter. Refer to motion 5: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 8.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 8.2 Discussion & open microphone 8.3 Vote (PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house). 8.4 If motion carries, selection of Council Liaison to WG. Item 9: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (IRTP Part C) Working Group (WG) (10 minutes) IRTP is an ongoing 5-part PDP. Current work is on the 3rd part, part C. The WG is now presenting its Final Report for approval by the GNSO Council. Refer to motion 6: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 9.1 Reading of the motion (X Y) 9.2 Discussion & open microphone 9.3 Vote (Approval of consensus policy PDP threshold: Supermajority (2/3 of each house, or ¾ of one house and a majority of the other)). Item 10: Internationalized Registration Data WG (10 minutes) Having received the IRD WG's final report, the GNSO and SSAC have submitted it to the Board via a joint letter. There is now discussion of initiating an issue report as a follow-up to the IRD WG's final report. The Council must consider whether to request such an issue report. Refer to motion 7: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+… 10.1 Reading of the motion (X Y) 10.2 Discussion & open microphone 10.3 Vote (Issue report threshold: 25% of each house, or majority of one house). Item 11: 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. 11.1 Update from Staff (Barbara Roseman) 11.2 Discussion & open microphone 11.3 Next step Item 12: Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) (10 minutes) On September 18, 2012, Kurt Pritz wrote to the GNSO Council Chair to inform the Council of ongoing discussions on the implementation of the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system. It is being suggested that some of the implementation solutions may not match the work of the Special Trademark Issues (STI) group and that increased involvement by the GNSO may be helpful at this stage. This is a discussion item. 12.1 Update from Staff (Kurt Pritz) 12.2 Discussion & open microphone Item 13: Whois Review Team Final Report (10 minutes) The GNSO Council has put together a team to work on a response to a request from the Board to comment the WHOIS RT Final Report recommendations. However, this group was unable to agree on a response and it was suggested that the Council might instead respond with a list of individual constituency and SG opinions. At its September 13 meeting, the Council agreed to ask Staff to compile this list <link to Staff list>. The Council must now agree on next steps. 13.1 Update from the group (Brian Winterfeldt) 13.2 Discussion & open microphone 13.3 Next steps Item 14: Thanks to outgoing Councilors (5 minutes) Stéphane van Gelder, Mary Wong, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Carlos Aguirre Item 15. Any Other Business (5 minutes) BREAK 18:00 - 18:30 New Council convenes Item 1. Seating of the New Council 1.1 Roll call 1.2 Statements of interest Item 2 Vote for GNSO Council chair Two nominations were received for this position, Jonathan Robinson and Thomas Rickert. The GNSO Council held a question & answer session over the weekend with Dr.Robinson and Mr Rickert. Vote by secret Ballot. GNSO Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf 2.2 Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair and two Vice-Chairs as follows: a. The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of each house. b. Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of a house, but must be a member of the GNSO Council. Should a Chair be elected from outside of the houses that Chair will be a non-voting Chair. i. All ballots will include the “none of the above” option. In the event that a 60 percent vote of each house selects the “none of the above” option, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be scheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote. ii. In the case of a tie for the most votes between the two candidates, or between a candidate and “none of above,” a second election will be held no sooner than 30 days. The candidates shall remain the same for this second election. In the case this second election also results in a tie, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote. iii. The leading candidate will be defined as the one with the highest score. The score is calculated by adding together the voting percentages attained from each house. The highest percentage attainable in each house is 100. Thus, the maximum score a candidate can achieve is 200 as a result of attaining 100 percent of the votes from the contracted party house and 100 percent from the non-contracted party house (100 percent + 100 percent = score of 200). In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold, a second ballot will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.” iv. In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold and the candidates do not tie, a second runoff ballot will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.” v. If the single candidate does not reach the 60 percent of each house threshold in the runoff ballot, then each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful runoff ballot. c. Each house shall select a Council Vice-Chair from within its respective house. d. A Chair may not be a member of the same Stakeholder Group of either of the Vice-Chairs. e. The Chair and Vice-Chairs shall retain their votes (if any) in their respective houses (if any). f. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair’s term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held. g. The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following each election and runoff ballot, whether successful or unsuccessful. Appendix 1 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X>, Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA> 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.<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf> 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 19:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 12:00 Toronto, Canada (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 15:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRT) UTC-3+0DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 16:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+1DST 20:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 20:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 21:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 21:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 21:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 00:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 03:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 03:00 – next day Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 04:00 – next day Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+0DST 08:00 – next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/9v4qpbr Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Agendas for ICANN Board meetings in Toronto
by Bruce Tonkin 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

Hello All, There will effectively be three separate Board meetings in Toronto. The first is for routine administrative actions. The second contains topics of interest to the community, and the third deals with the formalities of the AGM. See below for agendas. Regards, Bruce Tonkin (1) Saturday - 13 October 2012 From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-13oct12-en.htm Consent Agenda: * Approval of Minutes of 3 October 2012 Special Board Meeting * Approval of Proposed .Name Renewal Registry Agreement Main Agenda: *Any Other Business (2) Thursday 18 October 2012 Agenda for Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors - Toronto http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-18oct12-en.htm Main Agenda: * Approval of Revised Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions on Operators of Existing gTLDs * Approval of Language Services Policy & Procedures * WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report * Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team Final Report * Any Other Business (3) Thursday 18 October 2012 Agenda for Organizational Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors - Toronto From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-2-18oct12-en.htm Main Agenda: * Election of Board Chair * Election of Board Vice-Chair * Appointment of Membership of Board Committees * Confirmation of Officers of ICANN * Any Other Business

1 0

'thick' Whois PDP WG Charter
by Marika Konings 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Dear All, On behalf of the 'thick' Whois Drafting Team, please find attached the proposed charter for the 'thick' Whois PDP Working Group. Attached you will also find for your consideration a draft motion to approve the charter. With best regards, Marika Marika Konings Sr. Policy Director ICANN

4 3

Final Summary Chart of WHOIS RT Final Report Recommendations
by Margie Milam 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Dear All, Please find attached for your review and consideration the Final WHOIS Review Team Final Report summary chart (clean and redlined) that reflects the clarifications received from the ISPs and the RySG. I note that the Business Constituency has not submitted any comments. This document is on the agenda for Saturday's GNSO Council working meetings at the WHOIS session from 15:30-16:30. All the best, Margie __________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN __________

1 0

Fwd: GNSO Contracted Parties House - Vice Chair
by Stéphane Van Gelder 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Councillors, Please see below the notification Glen and I have received from the CPH. Congratulations to Mason, and my thanks to him for his willingness to serve. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM NetNames France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director NetNames T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51 F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61 Début du message réexpédié : > De : "David W. Maher" <dmaher(a)pir.org> > Objet : GNSO Contracted Parties House - Vice Chair > Date : 9 octobre 2012 16:02:44 UTC+02:00 > À : GLEN de Saint Gery <Glen(a)icann.org>, GNSO SECRETARIAT <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: MATT SERLIN <matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, CHERIE STUBBS <cherstubbs(a)aol.com>, KEITH DRAZEK <kdrazek(a)Verisign.com> > > Dear Glen: > This is the notice of the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO that the House has selected Mason Cole as the Vice Chair of the GNSO Council, succeeding Jeff Neuman at the expiration of his term as Vice Chair. > Warmest regards, > David > David W. Maher > Chair, Registries Stakeholder Group > Senior Vice President – Law & Policy > Public Interest Registry > 312 375 4849

2 1

Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the IRD-WG Final Report
by Ching Chiao [Registry.Asia] 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Dear Stéphane, Councilors, I'd like to propose the following motion on initiating Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of IRD-WG Final Report. Please find the text below as well as the attached file. As mentioned previously, this Issues Report will be proceeded with focus on Recommendation 2. On other 3 technical related recommendations, Staff suggested that it is unlikely to commit a specific time-line for the technical development. On the other hand, the IDN gTLD applicant could be put in operational jeopardy if the community can't come up with a solution timely. Anyway, more generic wording is used in this resolution here for the purpose of informing the community that the GNSO will be ready to address the policy changes created by new technical standards / requirements. I'd also like to thank the Staff, especially Steve Sheng, for their input and collaboration. Best regards, Ching ====== GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report October XX 2012 WHEREAS, on 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC037 "Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (SAC037)<http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac037.pdf> . WHEREAS, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#6> requesting that the GNSO and SSAC, in consultation with Staff, convene an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) comprised of individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data. WHEREAS, on 03 October 2011 the IRD-WG published a draft Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ird/ird-draft-final-report-03oct11-en.pdf>in the public forum for comment. WHEREAS, on 06 March 2012 the IRD-WG sent a Final Report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/11141574/Final+Internation…>that addressed issues raised in the forum to the GNSO Council and the SSAC for consideration. WHEREAS, on 10 May 2012 the IRD-WG sent a revised Final Report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/11141574/May+7+Internation…>that addressed changes requested by the SSAC to the GNSO Council for consideration. WHEREAS, on 27 June 2012 the GNSO Council approved a motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+27+June+2012>to deliver the Final Report to the ICANN Board. WHEREAS, on 13 September 2012 the GNSO Council approved a joint letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/van-gelder-faltstrom-to-icann-board…>from the GNSO Council and the SSAC to the ICANN Board to deliver the Final Report. WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and considers that while expecting the ICANN Board to respond to the SSAC-GNSO joint letter, the Recommendation 2, translation and transliteration of contact information of IRD, of the Final Report requires timely action at the policy level which involves collaboration among domain name registrant, registrar, and registry. , RESOLVED, the GNSO approves the Final Report and requests the ICANN Staff to prepare the IRD Issues Report on translation and transliteration of contact information (IRDIR-Rec2). The Issue Report should consider 1) whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script; 2) who should bear the burden and who is in the best position to address these issues; and 3) whether to start a policy development process (PDP) to address those questions. RESOLVED FURTHER, the ICANN Staff shall provide regular updates to the GNSO Council on relevant technical development of the IRD, including the estimated time-line or roadmap of such technical development so that the GNSO Council and the rest of the ICANN community, particularly the IDN gTLD applicant, can fully prepare for implementing the IRD features in its operation. Should there be any policy implication arising from such updates, the GNSO Council shall, in consultation with SSAC and technical communities, initiate separate PDP processes based on all available technical recommendations or standards.

1 0

RE: [council] Council elections-- Response from the General Counsel's Office
by Margie Milam 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Dear All, Please find below the response from the General Counsel's Office pertaining to the questions related to the Council's elections that were posted to the Council email list earlier today. All the Best, Margie _________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _________ Hi Margie - Based on Article X, Section 3.8 of the Bylaws, The NCA appointed to CPH appears to be considered a member of the CPH. ("a. the Contracted Parties House includes the Registries Stakeholder Group (three members), the Registrars Stakeholder Group (three members), and one voting member appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee for a total of seven voting members"). As I read the ops procedures for the GNSO, the Chair will only be non-voting if the Chair is selected from outside of the houses. Essentially, the only person who could be on the GNSO Council and outside of the houses is the non-voting NCA. Because the NCA to the CPH is a member of a house, that means that if he is elected as Chair, he will not have to give up any voting rights, and no further analysis is needed on whether it is then proper to invoke any of the vacancy provisions within the ops procedures. On the issue of whether the NCA to the CPH may vote in the election for which he is being considered as Chair, I don't see anything in the Bylaws or the ops procedure that preclude any of the candidates from voting for themselves. Each individual candidate may wish to consider if any abstention provision would be applicable to that vote, but there does not appear to be a blanket rule. In the event that the NCA to the CPH wishes to abstain from the Chair election in which he is a candidate, there does not appear to be an allowance for the NCA to select a proxy in that limited situation. Candidates who are not NCAs probably have the proxy process available to them if they wish to abstain from a vote in which they are a candidate. This last paragraph should not be read to consider that it is required for candidates to abstain in this situation - this is likely a personal decision, or the Council may have broader views on this topic. Best, Sam

2 1