June 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

TR: GNSO Councillor
by Glen de Saint Géry 13 Jun '13

13 Jun '13

De : Michele Neylon :: Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Envoyé : jeudi 13 juin 2013 11:57 À : Glen de Saint Géry; Volker Greimann Cc : Yoav Keren Objet : GNSO Councillor Glen Volker will not be able to attend the meeting so Yoav will serve as his proxy Name of Officer: * Michele Neylon Officer Email Address: * michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com> Date Prepared: * Thursday, June 13, 2013 GNSO Organization: * Registrar Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * GNSO Councillor Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Volker Greimann is unable to attend the 13 June 2013 GNSO Council Meeting and therefore Yoav Keren will serve as Volkers's proxy for this meeting. 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, June 14, 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: * Yoav Keren Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co<http://www.blacknight.com/> http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0

Revised Council agenda 13 June 2013 at 11:00UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry 12 Jun '13

12 Jun '13

Dear Councillors, Please find the revised agenda, the time for each item has been adjusted, for the GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 at 11:00UTC. Ahead of the call please review the Projects list that has been posted at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf Thank you. Kind regards, Glen This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 16 May 2013 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16may13-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 11:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC 04:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Paris; 23:00 Wellington Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audio cast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u 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: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 16 May 2013<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-16may13-en.htm> posted as approved on 30 May 2013 Item 2: Opening remarks from the Chair (10 minutes) Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics Include brief review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes) TBC. Item 4: MOTION - to Adopt Proposed Modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions (10 minutes) The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating Procedures lacks clarity. The GNSO Council proposes a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting. Link to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 4.2 Discussion of motion. 4.3 Vote (Threshold: Simple majority of Both 4 CPH, 7 NCPH). Item 5: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10 minutes) A Final Issue Report on the translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/library) Contrary to its initial recommendation, Staff now recommends that a PDP be initiated as it is expected that the work of this PDP will helpfully inform the deliberations of other efforts that are looking into gTLD registration data services such as the Expert Working Group (EWG) and the subsequent PDP. Also, as recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team, the Final Issue Report recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations; ICANN's General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. An overview of the Final Issue Report was provided in Beijing. Voting on this motion was deferred at the GNSO Council Meeting of 16 May 2013. The Council is now expected to consider whether or not to initiate a PDP. Motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013 5.1 Reading of the motion (Ching Chiao) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote (Threshold: 33% of Both 3 CPH, 5 NCPH; OR 66% of ONE 5 CPH, 9 NCPH) Item 6: DISCUSSION - Reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse (30 mins) On the 19th April 2013, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group submitted a Reconsideration Request to the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC). On the 16 May 2013, the BGC Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request was published. Concerns have been raised within the Council about: 1. The nature of the response to this particular request. Specifically in terms of the arguments presented within the response and the perceived or actual implications of these arguments on the workings of the multi-stakeholder model. 2. More generally about the effectiveness of the reconsideration process. The Council will consider the content of the recent Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request and the discussion will focus not on the outcome of the Reconsideration Request but rather on the arguments presented and any potential implications for the GNSO and the multi-stakeholder model. Item 7: DISCUSSION - Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council (10 mins) As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, both the GNSO Council and the GNSO will come up for ICANN Board initiated review. In order to be effectively prepared for these reviews, it was 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. Here the Council will confirm the intended course of action and provide input into a draft call for volunteers for a non-PDP WG. Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board (10 mins) During its meeting in Beijing, the ICANN Board requested that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/active-ux-21mar13-en.pdf>' (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm…) The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs examines potential challenges from a user experience perspective when variants of IDN TLDs are activated and offers recommendations to users to minimize risks and optimize the implementation. Ideally, input is requested on: a) Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not proceed until these recommendations are implemented), b) Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and c) c) Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work Furthermore, it was suggested that the GNSO Council should send a letter to the Board highlighting the importance of IDN related issues. A first draft of such letter was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list on 11/4 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14489.html) At the 16 may 2013 Council Meeting, the Council received a presentation on the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-variant-tlds-ux-16may1… 8.1 Discussion 8.2 Next steps - Any additional action to be taken? 8.3 Update on letter to the Board (Ching Chiao) Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Planning for Durban (10 minutes) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Durban will take planning. GNSO Council VC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is working with staff to lead this effort. The Council has had the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience, including most recently in Beijing. Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the topics and substance of the Council's proposed meetings with other groups in Durban such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. 9.1 - Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 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 March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00 UTC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 04:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 07:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 08:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 08:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST12:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1DST12:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST13:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+1DST13:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+1DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+1DST 14:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) For other times see: http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 at 11:00 UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry 12 Jun '13

12 Jun '13

Dear All, Please find the updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 at 11:00 UTC. The wording of the motion in Item 4 has been adjusted. In Item 5, the second paragraph now reads: Contrary to its initial recommendation, Staff now recommends that a PDP be initiated as it is expected that the work of this PDP will helpfully inform the deliberations of other efforts that are looking into gTLD registration data services such as the Expert Working Group (EWG) and the subsequent PDP. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+June+2013 http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-13jun13-en.htm the motions are published on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 16 May 2013 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16may13-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 11:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC 04:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Paris; 23:00 Wellington Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 16 May 2013<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-16may13-en.htm> posted as approved on 30 May 2013 Item 2: Opening remarks from the Chair (10 minutes) Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics Include brief review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes) TBC. Item 4: MOTION - to Adopt Proposed Modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions (10 minutes) The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating Procedures lacks clarity. The GNSO Council proposes a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting. Link to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 4.2 Discussion of motion. 4.3 Vote (Threshold: Simple majority of Both 4 CPH, 7 NCPH). Item 5: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10 minutes) A Final Issue Report on the translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/library) Contrary to its initial recommendation, Staff now recommends that a PDP be initiated as it is expected that the work of this PDP will helpfully inform the deliberations of other efforts that are looking into gTLD registration data services such as the Expert Working Group (EWG) and the subsequent PDP. Also, as recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team, the Final Issue Report recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations; ICANN's General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. An overview of the Final Issue Report was provided in Beijing. Voting on this motion was deferred at the GNSO Council Meeting of 16 May 2013. The Council is now expected to consider whether or not to initiate a PDP. Motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013 5.1 Reading of the motion (Ching Chiao) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote (Threshold: 33% of Both 3 CPH, 5 NCPH; OR 66% of ONE 5 CPH, 9 NCPH) Item 6: DISCUSSION - Reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse (15 mins) On the 19th April 2013, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group submitted a Reconsideration Request to the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC). On the 16 May 2013, the BGC Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request was published. Concerns have been raised within the Council about: 1. The nature of the response to this particular request. Specifically in terms of the arguments presented within the response and the perceived or actual implications of these arguments on the workings of the multi-stakeholder model. 2. More generally about the effectiveness of the reconsideration process. The Council will consider the content of the recent Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request and the discussion will focus not on the outcome of the Reconsideration Request but rather on the arguments presented and any potential implications for the GNSO and the multi-stakeholder model. Item 7: DISCUSSION - Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council (15 mins) As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, both the GNSO Council and the GNSO will come up for ICANN Board initiated review. In order to be effectively prepared for these reviews, it was 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. Here the Council will confirm the intended course of action and provide input into a draft call for volunteers for a non-PDP WG. Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board (10 mins) During its meeting in Beijing, the ICANN Board requested that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/active-ux-21mar13-en.pdf>' (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm…) The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs examines potential challenges from a user experience perspective when variants of IDN TLDs are activated and offers recommendations to users to minimize risks and optimize the implementation. Ideally, input is requested on: a) Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not proceed until these recommendations are implemented), b) Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and c) c) Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work Furthermore, it was suggested that the GNSO Council should send a letter to the Board highlighting the importance of IDN related issues. A first draft of such letter was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list on 11/4 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14489.html) At the 16 may 2013 Council Meeting, the Council received a presentation on the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-variant-tlds-ux-16may1… 8.1 Discussion 8.2 Next steps - Any additional action to be taken? 8.3 Update on letter to the Board (Ching Chiao) Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Planning for Durban (20 minutes) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Durban will take planning. GNSO Council VC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is working with staff to lead this effort. The Council has had the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience, including most recently in Beijing. Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the topics and substance of the Council's proposed meetings with other groups in Durban such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. 9.1 - Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 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 March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00 UTC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 04:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 07:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 08:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 08:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST12:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1DST12:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST13:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+1DST13:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+1DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+1DST 14:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) For other times see: http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

4 6

11 June 13 ccNSO Council meeting notes
by john＠crediblecontext.com 12 Jun '13

12 Jun '13

Good day, all. >From a procedural perspective, the ccNSO Council meeting was revelatory with regard to a vote it is taking on a PDP. The voting by email has been open for some time now and still, on the call today, there was a plea for members to weigh in. I thought it was in marked contrast to the way we often climb over broken glass to cast votes. It made me think of the age old question of nature vs. nurture. As for the meeting, it was clear that the ccNSO Council is fixed on better understanding the reputational research conducted for ICANN by Echo. In fact, the Council has invited Echo to make a presentation in Durban and even though the consultant has committed to remote participation, they will continued to be petitioned to be on-site. If this is the case, perhaps we might want more than just your single liaison to take in the presentation. There was silent assent to sending to the GNSO Council a response to Jonathan's question about cross-community working groups. I have attached a copy of the draft (typos and all) so that you can get an early sense of the issues in the way of agreement. Most, I think, can be solved by a firm commitment to a single charter that respects all groups' rules and clarity on when CWGs are to be empaneled. As you know Petter and I have been asked to help design the agenda for the joint ccNSO Council/GNSO Council meeting in Durban. Right now the likely items are to be picked from among these: + A discussion of the new draft of the ICANN budget + A discussion of the ATRT + A look at the implications of the reputational studies + Identifying technical "best practices" (e.g., dispute resolution, domain name locking and transfer and WhoIs management) Finally, the Durban meeting is the last for Lesley Cowley as chair of the ccNSO Council. She will remain a member, but her work load has caused her to give up the leadership post. Should be mark her service in some manner at the lunch meeting? Cheers, Berard

2 1

GNSO Projects List
by Glen de Saint Géry 12 Jun '13

12 Jun '13

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the Council meeting tomorrow, please find attached the red line and the clean version of the Projects List for your review. 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

Fwd: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#122]
by Glen de Saint Géry 12 Jun '13

12 Jun '13

Envoyé de mon iPhone Début du message transféré : Expéditeur: ICANN <no-reply(a)wufoo.com<mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com>> Date: 12 juin 2013 02:13:12 UTC+02:00 Destinataire: "gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org>" <gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org>>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Objet: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#122] Répondre à: "no-reply(a)wufoo.com<mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com>" <no-reply(a)wufoo.com<mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com>> Name of Officer: * Robin Gross Officer Email Address: * robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, June 11, 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: * Wendy Seltzer is unable to attend the 13 June 2013 GNSO Council Meeting and therefore Wolfgang Kleinwachter will serve as Wendy's proxy for this meeting. 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, June 14, 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: * Wolfgang Kleinwachter

1 0

Discussion Item: Changes to ICANN Bylaws
by Neuman, Jeff 10 Jun '13

10 Jun '13

All, In the rationale used in the BGC's recommendation against the NCSG's Reconsideration Request, the BGC argues that: "There is no defined policy process within ICANN that requires Board or staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the Policy Development Process. Therefore, even if staff's action here was in direct contravention to the GNSO Council statement in a letter, the Bylaws requirement for consultation does not apply..." Technically and legally, the BGC is correct. As much as this goes against the very nature of the multi-stakeholder model (and frankly the message ICANN delivers to the world), the ICANN Board/staff is free to ignore the GNSO Council (and thus has no accountability for these actions). This is true despite the fact that the Bylaws also state: "There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains." Therefore, what the BGC is telling us is that despite the fact that the Bylaws charges the GNSO with developing and recommending substantive policies, it can ignore the GNSO community at any time if the issue did not go through a formal PDP. I personally believe that is broken. Therefore, I would like for the Council to consider recommending to the ICANN Board a change to the Bylaws for an additional measure of accountability that at a minimum would require some form of consultation if the GNSO Council (on behalf of the GNSO Community) issues a recommendation or develops policy outside of a formal PDP. As the former chair of the PDP Working Group that helped revise the PDP process, I can tell you that we were encouraged by the community to allow other mechanisms for developing policy outside of formal PDPs. We spent countless hours on this very topic. Yes, if it does not go through a formal PDP, it may not trigger a 2/3 Board vote to overturn the recommendation, but it was never our intention that after going through that process, the Board to IGNORE the GNSO Community. At a time when the community is trying to find ways to develop policies outside of the stringent PDP, this is NOT an incentive for doing that. Therefore, I would like to see the following changes made to the Bylaws (no pride in authorship here...so feel free to suggest other words). This is language that is VERY similar to the language the GAC has in the Bylaws: The substantive policies and recommendations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization relating to generic top-level domains shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies, whether or not the policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the GNSO policies or recommendations, it shall so inform the GNSO and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The GNSO and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the GNSO recommendations or policies were not followed. If the multi-stakeholder model truly has any meaning, I view these changes as non-controversial and essential to preserve what so many have so long been advocating. Thanks. 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/>

2 1

new gTLD evaluation panels
by Bruce Tonkin 07 Jun '13

07 Jun '13

Hello All, A new webpage has been set up that sets out the processes used by the various evaluation panels in the new gTLD program: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/evaluation-panels Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Adopted Resolutions from 4 June 2013 - Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee
by Bruce Tonkin 07 Jun '13

07 Jun '13

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-04jun13… Approved Resolution | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee 4 June 2013 1. Main Agenda: a. Consideration of Non-Safeguard Advice in the GAC's Beijing Communiqué Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, on 18 April 2013, ICANN posted the Beijing Communiqué and officially notified applicants of the advice, http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-18apr13-en triggering the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1; Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 May 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the GAC's advice on the New gTLD Program, transmitted to the Board through its Beijing Communiqué; Whereas, the NGPC met on 18 May 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué on the New gTLD Program; Whereas, the NGPC has considered the applicant responses submitted during the 21- day applicant response period, and the NGPC has identified nine (9) items of advice in the attached scorecard where its position is consistent with the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué. Whereas, the NGPC developed a scorecard to respond to the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué similar to the one used during the GAC and Board meetings in Brussels on 28 February and 1 March 2011, and has identified where the NGPC's position is consistent with GAC advice, noting those as "1A" items. Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.06.04.NG01), the NGPC adopts the "NGPC Scorecard of 1As Regarding Non-Safeguard Advice in the GAC Beijing Communiqué" (4 June 2013), attached as Annex 1 [ http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/new-gtld-resolution-annex-1-… ] to this Resolution, in response to the items of GAC advice in the Beijing Communiqué as presented in the scorecard. Rationale for Resolution 2013.06.04.NG01 Why the NGPC is addressing the issue? Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN Bylaws http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#XI permit the GAC to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." The GAC issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD Program through its Beijing Communiqué dated 11 April 2013. The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the policies. If the Board decides to take an action that is not consistent with the GAC advice, it must inform the GAC and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. The Board and the GAC will then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no solution can be found, the Board will state in its final decision why the GAC advice was not followed. What is the proposal being considered? The NGPC is being asked to consider accepting a discrete grouping of the GAC advice as described in the attached NGPC Scorecard of 1As Regarding Non-Safeguard Advice in the GAC Beijing Communiqué (4 June 2013), which includes nine (9) items of non- safeguard advice from the Beijing Communiqué as listed in the GAC Register of Advice. These items are those for which the NGPC has a position that is consistent with the GAC's advice. Which stakeholders or others were consulted? On 18 April 2013, ICANN posted the GAC advice and officially notified applicants of the advice, http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-18apr13-en triggering the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1 http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice-responses. The NGPC has considered the applicant responses in formulating its response to the GAC advice as applicable. To note, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of new gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…. The public comment forum on how the NGPC should address GAC advice regarding safeguards is open through 4 June 2013. These comments will serve as important inputs to the NGPC's future consideration of the other elements of GAC advice not being considered at this time in the attached scorecard. What concerns or issues were raised by the community? As part of the 21-day applicant response period, ICANN received 383 applicant response documents representing 745 unique applications. Twenty-three responses were withdrawn and eleven were submitted after the deadline. Applicants appear to generally support the spirit of the GAC advice. The responses expressed concerns that the advice was too broad in its reach and did not take into account individual applications. Some applicant responses expressed concern that some elements of the advice seem to circumvent the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model, while others proposed that the NGPC reject specific elements of the advice. A review of the comments has been provided to the NGPC under separate cover. The complete set of applicant responses can be reviewed at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice-responses . What significant materials did the Board review? As part of its deliberations, the NGPC reviewed the following materials and documents: ■GAC Beijing Communiqué: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf [PDF, 156 KB] ■Applicant responses to GAC advice: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice-responses ■Applicant Guidebook, Module 3: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/objection-procedures-04jun12-en… [PDF, 261 KB] What factors did the Board find to be significant? The Beijing Communiqué generated significant interest from applicants and resulted in many comments. The NGPC considered the applicant comments, the GAC's advice transmitted in the Beijing Communiqué, and the procedures established in the AGB. Are there positive or negative community impacts? The adoption of the GAC advice as provided in the attached scorecard will assist with resolving the GAC advice in manner that permits the greatest number of new gTLD applications to continue to move forward as soon as possible. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? Approval of the proposed resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS. Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment? ICANN posted the GAC advice and officially notified applicants of the advice on 18 April 2013 http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-18apr13-en. This triggered the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1.

2 2

Webinar: TMCH & IDNs Wednesday, 19 June 2013 at 14:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 07 Jun '13

07 Jun '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06jun13-en.htm Webinar: TMCH & IDNs 6 June 2013 Webinar Details Date: Wednesday, 19 June 2013 Time: 14:00-15:30 UTC Adobe Connect: TBD You are invited to a webinar intended to address questions and provide a background around Internationalized Domain Names and the Trademark Clearinghouse processes, including the comments in Beijing about implementation of variant rules. As we have prioritized the applications so that the first new gTLDs will be IDNs, this is an opportunity to learn more about the TMCH and IDNs and provide more background to those interested on how things are working. Please join this webinar on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 at 14:00 UTC (duration 90 minutes). The meeting will be run in an Adobe Connect room with a slide presentation. Participants will have the opportunity to offer comments and ask questions during the Q&A section. During the course of the webinar, these may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you cannot join the live session, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0