March 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry March 22, 2012

March 22, 2012

Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 The motions can be found on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+20… 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/Home> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Special+Council+Me…> Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 Tokyo; 27 March 2012 05:00 Wellington Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these recommendations. This motion was deferred from the San José Council meeting. Due to the severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+20… 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 2.2 Discussion 2.3 Vote Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 13:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 13:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 Hong Kong (HKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/hkt.html>) UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 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 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Special meeting, Monday 26, 15 UTC
by john＠crediblecontext.com March 22, 2012

March 22, 2012

6 7

Special meeting, Monday 26, 15 UTC
by Stéphane Van Gelder March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

Councillors, As agreed in Costa Rica, we are planning to hold a special meeting on Monday 26 March with just one item on the agenda, the IOC/RC recommendations. The meeting is currently planned at 15 UTC on Monday. We are scheduling an hour for the meeting, although it may not run that long. I want to give special thanks to our GNSO support staff, who traditionally take a very well-deserved week off after an ICANN meeting and are having to put in extra work to plan for this meeting this time. We have nearly finalized the agenda. It will be posted and sent to the list by email very soon. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

2 2

RE: [council] Special meeting, Monday 26, 15 UTC
by john＠crediblecontext.com March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

1 0

FW: Contractual Compliance's Report to the GNSO
by Marika Konings March 19, 2012

March 19, 2012

Dear All, Please find attached the report from ICANN's Compliance Department requested by the GNSO Council pursuant to Resolution 20111006-2 (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/>) regarding the recommendation by the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group concerning the Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting. With best regards, Marika

1 0

Call for volunteers for the Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings
by Glen de Saint Géry March 16, 2012

March 16, 2012

Dear All, http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar12-en.htm Please distribute to your members the call for volunteers for the Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings. In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working Group that will address the locking of a domain name subject to Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings. After investigating and considering specific issues (detailed below), the Working Group is expected to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. What This Group Will Do The PDP Working Group should, as a first step, request public input on this issue in order to have a clear understanding of the exact nature and scope of issues encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. Based on this information, and its own views, and any additional information gathering the Working Group deems necessary, the PDP Working Group is expected to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. As part of the WG deliberations, it is suggested that the WG considers, amongst other, the following: * 1. Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, which a complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a domain name on registrar lock, would be desirable. * 2. Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process that a registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP dispute would be desirable. * 3. Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized. * 4a. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined. * 4b. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified. * 5. Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding. For further details, see the WG Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/locking-domain-name-udrp-proceedings-charter-0…>. How This Group Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings WG will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Working Group is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf>. How to Join The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org> (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org>). This WG is already forming; please apply promptly. Background At its 15 December meeting, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112> on the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings. A discussion on the requirements of locking a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings was initially conducted as part of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Part B PDP. As a result of that process, it was noted that "that locking a domain name registration subject to a UDRP dispute should be a best practice" however, the WG "noted that any changes to making this a requirement should be considered in the context of any potential UDRP review." Subsequently, several community members called out this issue in their comments on the state of the UDRP Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf> published in October 2011, and as a result, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP on this specific issue only. A sample of the community comments is below: * "No requirement to lock names in period between filing complaint and commencement of proceedings." * "Need clarification of domain locking." * "Unclear what is meant by "Status Quo." * "No explanation of 'Legal Lock' mechanisms and when they go into effect or when they should be removed." Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

How to handle requests for motion deferrals
by Stéphane Van Gelder March 15, 2012

March 15, 2012

Wolf, I am writing to you as Chair of the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) to request that you direct the SCI to look at the issue of GNSO Council deferral requests for motions. As you know, we have at Council level a practice of allowing referral requests for a motion that is being considered for the first time. I would ask that the SCI examine how this practice could be formalized and inserted in our Rules and Procedures. Thanks, Stéphane

3 2

GNSO Council Costa Rica Chair's report
by Stéphane Van Gelder March 15, 2012

March 15, 2012

Please find my presentation for tomorrow. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

2 1

Fwd: DRAFT text for Board Comment
by Stéphane Van Gelder March 15, 2012

March 15, 2012

Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : <john(a)crediblecontext.com> > Objet : DRAFT text for Board Comment > Date : 15 mars 2012 13:30:11 UTC-06:00 > À : "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > > The GNSO Council was asked this week by the board to work with the Government Advisory Committee to provide policy advice in response to a December 13 letter from Intergovernmental Organizations legal counsel seeking provision for a targeted exclusion of third party registrations of the names and acronyms of IGOs both at the top and second level, at least during ICANN’s first application round of new gTLDs. > > The timing of the application process does not allow adequate time for the GNSO Council to address this matter. > > It is an issue, though, that needs to be addressed for future rounds, at both the first and second levels. But, as the legal counsel represent Intergovernmental Organizations, the focus first needs to rightly be on them working with the GAC to provide advice to the Board. The Board can, as is explicit in the organizational design of ICANN, then ask the GNSO Council to deal with the policy implications. > > In the near term, the Council will re-visit a motion on providing top tier considerations for the IOC and Red Cross to meet the deadline of the first round of the new gTLDs.

2 2

Communication of the output of CWGs / Future of CWGs
by Jonathan Robinson March 15, 2012

March 15, 2012

Hi Stéphane, Suggested covering letter for other SO / ACs on the work of the CWG DT. Jonathan Dear Colleagues, You may be aware that over the course of last year the GNSO Council formed and operated a drafting team to examine the issues associated with the formation and operation of Community / Cross-Community working groups. The output of the drafting team was encapsulated in a set of draft principles which were accepted by the Council through a motion passed at the 14 March 2012 meeting of the GNSO Council. The motion is linked to here: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+20 12> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+201 2 The draft principles are linked to here: <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf It is important to note here that work undertaken by the drafting team was undertaken specifically in order to develop a GNSO Council agreed perspective. The output shared here is not in any way intended to presume that this is a broader, community agreed position. Accordingly we are offering this work as input into the discussion which you may wish to initiate or further develop within your organisation or committee. Regards, Stéphane

2 1