November 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Buenos Aires, 20 November 2013 Part 1
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Dear Councillors, The Council agenda updates are: consent agenda item complete list of parting Councillors. Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Buenos Aires, 20 November 2013 Part 1 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-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 16:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/oby4lzl Coordinated Universal Time 16:00 UTC 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 13:00 Buenos Aires; 16:00 London; 17:00 Paris; 05:00 Wellington next day Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 mins) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 31 October 2013<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg15145.html> will be posted as approved on 21 November 2013 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins) Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics Include review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items>. Comments or questions arising. Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins) The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) to review the current consensus levels defined and described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, and specifically requests the SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend revised or additional language to apply to situations where working groups may reach sufficient consensus against a particular proposal such that the appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be described as No Consensus/Divergence. Item 4: MOTION - To approve a charter for the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group (10 mins) On 13 June 2013 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. Following a call for volunteers, a Drafting Team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council. The drafting team has submitted the charter, reviewed and revised it on the request of the Council and then re-submitted it and so the GNSO Council, having reviewed the charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/transliteration-contact-charter-06nov13-en.…>, will vote on whether to approve it as submitted by the Drafting Team. 4.1 - Review Motion 1<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+20+November…> 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Next steps Item 5: MOTION - To approve the Recommendations for IGO-INGO Protections (20 mins) On 10 November 2013 the WG published its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf> [PDF, 644 KB] which includes policy recommendations for the protection of IGO and INGO (including the RCRC and IOC) identifiers in all gTLDs. The recommendations are organized by organization type seeking protection and each one also contains the WG's Chair assessment of consensus. The GNSO Council will consider this Final Report and vote on whether to approve the recommendations contained therein. 5.1 - Chair Presentation to Community (Thomas Rickert) 5.2 - Review Motion 2<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+20+November…> 5.3 - Discussion 5.4 - Next steps Item 6: INPUT & DISCUSSION - Prospective improvements to the Policy Development Process (15 mins) The Council is committed to on-going enhancements to the methods of working of the Council and the work initiated and managed by the Council. The PDP process is a cornerstone of policy making within the GNSO and, as such, the work of the Council. The PDP outcomes and associated processes are the subject of focus and attention both within the GNSO and the broader ICANN Community. The Council has previously discussed a paper prepared by ICANN staff<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-22aug13-en.pdf> on potential improvements to the PDP process. The discussion is now encapsulated in a table form and now includes reference to the related recommendations of the ATRT2. Further work needs to be done on reviewing the table and agreeing concrete next steps. 6.1 - Review of table of prospective PDP Improvements<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-table-14nov13-en.pdf> (Marika Konings) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Next steps Item 7: DISCUSSION - Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council (15mins) As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, board initiated reviews of the GNSO and the GNSO Council as an integral part of the GNSO are expected. In order to be effectively prepared for these reviews, it was originally proposed in Beijing that a group be formed to understand the issues and begin to take appropriate next steps. One key suggestion from Beijing was that any group (such as the Council) being reviewed undertakes a form of self-review. The intended course of action was impacted by the board deliberations on whether or not to proceed with the review and, more recently, what format the review might follow. The Council will receive an update during its meeting with the board in Buenos Aires and this item provides an opportunity to discuss and agree the intended course of action. 7.1 - Current status 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8 - JIG Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs<http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-jig/presentation-jig-final-i…> (if time allows) The purpose of the Ad-hoc ccNSO/GNSO Joint IDN Working Group is to deal with issues related to the introduction of IDN ccTLDs under the IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation process and IDN gTLDs under the new gTLD implementation process which are of common interest to both the GNSO and ccNSO. The JIG has delivered its JIG Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs<http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-jig/presentation-jig-final-i…> on 17 November for GNSO Council consideration. The GNSO will now consider the Final Report. 1. Discussion 2. Next steps Item 9 - DNS Security and Stabilty and Analysis (DSSA) Working Group Final Report<http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-final-08nov13-en.pdf> (if time allows) The ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and NRO, acting as ASO in this particular case, all endorsed the charter of the joint DNS Security and Stability and Analysis working group (DSSA) according to each own rules and procedures, in December 2010 and as a result are the participating SO's and AC's in the DSSA. The DSSA delivered its Final Report<http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-final-08nov13-en.pdf> to the chartering organisations on 11 November 2013. The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Report. 1. Discussion 2. Next steps Item 10: Thanks to outgoing councillors (5 mins) * Lanre Ajayi (NCA) * Mason Cole (RrSG & Vice Chair) * Zahid Jamil (CSG / BC) * Wolfgang Kleinwächter (NCSG) * Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (CSG / ISPC & Vice Chair) * Joy Liddicoat (NCSG) * Jeff Neuman (RySG) * Wendy Seltzer (NCSG) Item 11: Any Other Business (5 mins) Item 12: Open microphone Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 11:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 14:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-2+1DST 14:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 13:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 16:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 00:00 (next day) Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 00:00 (next day) Wellington, New Zealand UTC+12+1DST 05:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2014, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/oby4lzl Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

ATRT2 summary
by Maria Farrell 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Dear fellow councilors, With apologies for the time it's taken me to send this last part, here is a summary of the ATRT2 report on the GNSO PDP. (I'm afraid I ran out of time to summarise the rest of the report.) I hope this is useful. Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13… And the GNSO PDP part starts on page 59 of the report. All the best, Maria *ATRT2 Report – section on GNSO PDP* *The problem:* GNSO PDP is weak when it comes to resolving strong views and financial interests. *Background research* Staff paper on improving the PDP is in the works *Community input* Chairs and WG veterans stress need for F2F meetings, professional facilitators, Board involvement and for people were both for and against the Board issuing threats and deadlines. *Interconnect Report Findings* PDPs mostly done by North Americans and Europeans Most active participants are paid to be there Many participants dissatisfied with process, time it takes and feel it’s not worth while – one time only WG participation is typical Culturally, PDP and WG process very Western culturally and English language based *ATRT2 Findings* Growing sense that professional facilitators are needed to help resolve difficult issues, although it may not suffice Current model is based on email and conference calls, but F2F is more effective Board deadlines sometimes used to overcome intractable differences, but it’s not clear how to ensure people negotiate within PDP in good faith. Board is part of the problem: Board deadlined PDPs don’t always create good policy. Or Board says it wants a policy and decides its own response in the meantime, or Board nullifies outcomes of a PDP. This creates distrust that some in the PDP are not committed to it and will undermine outcome by lobbying Board or GAC. *ATRT2 Draft New Recommendations* ICANN should: Fund facilitators and draft guidelines for when they can be used Provide funding for more F2F meetings Work with community to make PDP faster, to attract more people The GAC should: With the GNSO, find ways to input to WGs and to GNSO Council on draft PDP reports The Board and GNSO should: Start an initiative to increase participation from outside NA/Europe, non-English speaking, other cultures, people not funded by industry. Players Also: The Board should set procedures for what to do when the GNSO cannot come to a decision within the time, and state “under what conditions the Board believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance”. A step should be added to the PDP process where those unhappy with staff comment summary can respond.

2 1

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#135]
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mercredi 20 novembre 2013 12:35 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#135] Name of Officer: * Keith Drazek Officer Email Address: * kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, November 20, 2013 GNSO Organization: * Registries Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair, Registries Stakeholder Group Voting Remedy: * Temporary Alternate Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Jeff Neuman is resigning his position as GNSO Councillor, effective 11/21/2013 at the end of the current GNSO Council term.. The RySG has initiated election proceedings, but we will not complete the process in time to seat Jeff's replacement. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * The RySG has appointed Chuck Gomes as temporary alternate until such time that the RySG completes the ongoing election process and identifies Jeff's replacement. 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] * Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate. [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. * Chuck Gomes Temporary Alternate Email Address: * cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>

1 0

FW: [REGYCON] CALL FOR NOMINATIONS - RySG REPRESENTATIVE, GNSO COUNCIL
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Dear Councillors, Please see the note from Keith Drazek re the replacement for Jeff Neuman on the Council. Welcome Chuck! Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com] Sent: mercredi 20 novembre 2013 00:20 To: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Fwd: [REGYCON] CALL FOR NOMINATIONS - RySG REPRESENTATIVE, GNSO COUNCIL Hi Glen, FYI, the RySG is appointing Chuck Gomes as interim council rep while we conduct a nomination and election cycle to replace Jeff. He's baaaaaaaack! Best, Keith Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Cherie Stubbs <cherstubbs(a)aol.com<mailto:cherstubbs@aol.com>> Date: November 19, 2013, 7:19:00 PM GMT-03:00 To: <regycon(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:regycon@googlegroups.com>> Subject: [REGYCON] CALL FOR NOMINATIONS - RySG REPRESENTATIVE, GNSO COUNCIL As announced by email earlier today, Jeff Neuman submitted his notice of resignation from the GNSO Council, effective with the end of the GNSO Council meetings being held in Buenos Aires. During the RySG meeting today, a call for an interim GNSO Council representative was made, and Chuck Gomes volunteered to step forward in this role until the official election process to replace Jeff is completed. To this end, this shall serve as a formal call for nominations for the the Registries Stakeholder Group GNSO Council Representative seat being vacated by Jeff Neuman. The term of this seat will end at the close of the last ICANN meeting in 2014, but this individual will be eligible to serve additional terms. Some specifics to consider for nominations follow: * Nominations may be from any geographic region except Europe and the AAPAC; * The term will start immediately after the close of the voting period; * All nominations must be seconded. The nominating period will remain open until 23:59 UTC on Wednesday, 27 November 2013. The voting period will open on Thursday, 28 November, and remain open until 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 3 December 2013. If necessary, the votes will be ratified no later than the close of the next scheduled bi-weekly teleconference call scheduled for Wednesday, 4 December 2013. Please refer to the RySG Charter (http://gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/RySG.Charter.Appro…), Sections VIII Elections, B. RySG Representatives to the GNSO Council, and IX, RySG GNSO Council Representative Responsibilities, for clarification. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Best regards, Cherie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ICANN Registry Constituency" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to regycon+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:regycon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. "This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately."

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#134]
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mercredi 20 novembre 2013 09:11 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#134] Name of Officer: * Robin Gross Officer Email Address: * robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, November 20, 2013 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * In the event that Joy Liddicoat looses connectivity during the GNSO Council Vote, her proxy has been assigned to David Cake. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any and All 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, November 22, 2013 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: * David Cake

1 0

FW: Vice chair
by Glen de Saint Géry 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

FYI -----Original Message----- Thank you, Glen. Yes, David Cake will be the candidate for Vice Chair. Thanks, Robin

1 0

Invitation to GNSO Council Meeting - Wednesday 13h00
by Jonathan Robinson 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

Dear Bruce / Dear Bill, A personal invitation from myself on behalf of the GNSO Council to you and any other ICANN board colleagues to attend our GNSO Council Public meeting tomorrow. Hope your busy schedules may be accommodative of this invitation. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r

2 1

update on IGO-INGO motion
by Thomas Rickert 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

Dear Councilors, In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies. Voting Thresholds The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in the ICANN Bylaws herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X. As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum: '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'. It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA. Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the implementation process to determine what would be the most effective / efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the recommendations. Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a majority of one House. Structure of the motion After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could delete the first alternative from the draft motion. One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan – this item is for your attention and action; will you grant the request? Attached to this email are the following: (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion: Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus recommendations. All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with three blue ###s. The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection). The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG Guidelines) has been removed – to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda if approved. No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made to the motion – this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10 November and discussed over the weekend. (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than the RCRC/IOC). Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday. Thanks, Thomas

4 13

New session to discuss Internet Governance roadmap ...
by Jonathan Robinson 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

. added to ICANN48 agenda for Wed 07h00-08h30.

1 0

RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion - MEETING TODAY
by Jonathan Robinson 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

All, Please be aware and / or reminded that we have a session today for councillors / group & constituency leadership to come together to discuss this and any other issues ahead of tomorrow’s council meeting. Glen will shortly confirm / re-confirm to the list when & where the meeting will be held. Jonathan From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: 19 November 2013 12:16 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Thomas Rickert'; GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion It would be helpful for the constituencies’ discussion to have a redline version of the motion available. Could staff please provide it? Thanks Wolf-Ulrich From: Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert' <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council List <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Thomas, Thanks for this. Just for clarification, are you asking this to be considered by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment? Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM To: GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson Subject: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Dear Councilors, In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies. Voting Thresholds The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in the ICANN Bylaws here <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X> http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X. As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum: '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'. It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) - <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA> http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA. Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the implementation process to determine what would be the most effective / efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the recommendations. Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a majority of one House. Structure of the motion After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could delete the first alternative from the draft motion. One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan – this item is for your attention and action; will you grant the request? Attached to this email are the following: (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion: * Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus recommendations. * All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with three blue ###s. * The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection). * The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG Guidelines) has been removed – to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda if approved. * No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made to the motion – this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10 November and discussed over the weekend. (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than the RCRC/IOC). Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday. Thanks, Thomas

1 0