September 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Reminder: Revised draft agenda GNSO Council Meeting 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

Dear Councillors, Please find the revised proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday, 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC. The revisions include: · adding proposed time slots for each item · re-arranging the order of the items · addition of Item 7: DISCUSSION - Policy issues surrounding string confusion (15 mins) 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 15:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> http://tinyurl.com/mdmrnk9 Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 16:00 London; 17:00 Paris; 03:00 Wellington next day 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 (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 17 July 2013<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-17jul13-en.htm> posted as approved on 19 August 2013 Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 1 August 2013<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14942.html> to be approved on 6 September 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) 3.1 - Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings GNSO Council approval of Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board 3.2 - Policy & Implementation Working Group GNSO Council approval of co-chairs J.Scott Evans (BC) and Chuck Gomes (RySG) Item 4: DRAFT MOTION - To approve Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) (10 mins) This report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf> is published in response to a request by the GNSO Council for a report and analysis on a survey about possible technical requirements of a future WHOIS Service. The objective for the Working Group is to develop a set of proposed recommendations around the measurement of support of proposed technical requirements. After consideration of community input on a draft survey and the implementation of the Lime Survey software within the ICANN IT infrastructure, the survey was made available to the community in September 2012. ICANN staff compiled and consolidated the survey results and the WSWG completed the WSWG Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf> for delivery to the GNSO Council. Here the Council will review a draft motion in preparation for voting to approve the report it at the next meeting. 4.1 - Review the draft motion Motion to approve Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) Final Report and Recommendations: WHEREAS, 1. On 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools; 2. On 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements - Final Report; 3. In July 2011, volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf; 4. On 30 May 2012, the WSWG published a draft of the Whois Service Requirements Survey for public comment, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey…; 5. On 13 September 2012, the WSWG released the final Whois Service Requirements Survey to solicit input from community members on the possible technical requirements of a future Whois system, http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13sep12-en.htm; 6. On 13 September 2012, ICANN staff compiled and consolidated the survey results and the WSWG completed the WSWG Final Report, (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf) NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, 1. That the GNSO Council thanks the Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) and ICANN staff for their efforts in conducting the survey and compiling survey results of possible technical requirements of a future Whois system; 2. The GNSO Council further approves the recommendations, as defined in the Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf) to send the survey results to other applicable efforts regarding Whois and Domain Name Registration Data for their consideration. 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Next steps Item 5: INPUT & DISCUSSION - Prospective improvements to the Policy Development Process (15 mins) The Council is committed to ongoing 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. In this agenda item we will discuss a paper prepared by ICANN staff<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-22aug13-en.pdf> on potential improvements to the PDP process and consider the appropriate next steps. 5.1 - Input on GNSO PDP Improvements (Marika Konings) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Next steps Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - A PDP for relevant policies on issues not dealt with during the course of developing the 2013 RAA (10 mins) ICANN staff is working on a paper to summarise the outcomes of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) negotiations in order to set the scene for subsequent, relevant policy development work to be managed by the Council. This will be an ICANN Board initiated PDP. Here the Council will receive an update from staff and confirm the intended course of action. 6.1 Staff update (Margie Milam / Mary Wong) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: DISCUSSION - Policy issues surrounding string confusion (15 mins) Here the Council will discuss issues associated with the string confusion decisions that have been made recently e.g. relating to plural and singular versions of the same term and the contradictory decisions on identical strings. Noting that, in a recent interview with ICANN's Generic Domain Name Division President (Akram Attalah), he intimated that if there were conflicting decisions, it would be for the GNSO community to assist on this issue. Here the GNSO Council will receive an update on the issue, including reference to previous relevant GNSO advice and then discuss any potential future activity to be initiated by the Council. 7.1 Update & context (Jeff Neumann) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Metrics and Reporting Working Group (10 mins) Despite the unanimous support for this resolution, only six volunteers (3 GNSO, 3 ALAC) have signed up for this effort to date, which is not considered sufficiently representative to kick off the Drafting Team (DT). At the ICANN meeting in Durban, ICANN staff was tasked with looking into and proposing alternative ways forward. Apart from renewing the call for volunteers or delaying this effort, the GNSO Council could consider, as this is a non-PDP WG, to explore an alternative approach not necessarily requiring the formation of a DT or WG. Here the Council will review and discuss the alternatives and consider the next steps. 8.1 Staff update (Berry Cobb) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION - Role and scope of the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation (15 mins) Here the Council will review input received at the ICANN meeting in Durban as well as any subsequent information and confirm the intended course of action. 9.1 - Status update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: DISCUSSION - GAC Engagement / Working with the Board Global Relations Committee (BGRC) WG (10 mins) Here the Council will discuss activity to date and confirm the intended course of action going forward. 10.1 - Status update (Jonathan Robinson) 10.2 - Discussion 10.3 - Next steps Item 11: DISCUSSION - Forthcoming review of the GNSO (15 mins) 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 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 may have been impacted by the recently announced proposal to delay any Board initiated review activity. Here the Council will discuss and potentially confirm the intended course of action of initiating a non-PDP WG. 11.1 - Current status (Rob Hogarth) 11.2 - Discussion 11.3 - Next steps Item 12: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Planning for Buenos Aires (10 mins) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Buenos Aires will take planning. GNSO Council Vice Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben has again volunteered to lead this and will be working with the Council and staff on this effort. Here the Council has the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience. Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the approach to and substance of the Council's proposed meetings with other groups in such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. 12.1 - Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 12.2 - Discussion 12.3 - Next steps Item 13: Any Other Business (5 mins) 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 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 12:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 16:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 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 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+1DST 03:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of Oct 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com - http://tinyurl.com/mdmrnk9 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

Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC. 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 15:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> http://tinyurl.com/mdmrnk9 Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 16:00 London; 17:00 Paris; 03:00 Wellington next day 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 (10 mins) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (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 3.1 - Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings GNSO Council approval of Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board 3.2 - Policy & Implementation Working Group GNSO Council approval of co-chairs J.Scott Evans (BC) and Chuck Gomes (RySG). Item 4: DRAFT MOTION - To approve Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) final report and recommendations<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf> (10 mins) This report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf> is published in response to a request by the GNSO Council for a report and analysis on a survey about possible technical requirements of a future WHOIS Service. The objective for the Working Group is to develop a set of proposed recommendations around the measurement of support of proposed technical requirements. After consideration of community input on a draft survey and the implementation of the Lime Survey software within the ICANN IT infrastructure, the survey was made available to the community in September 2012. ICANN staff compiled and consolidated the survey results and the WSWG completed the WSWG Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf> for delivery to the GNSO Council. Here the Council will review a draft motion in preparation for voting to approve the report it at the next meeting. 4.1 - Review the draft motion Motion to approve Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) Final Report and Recommendations: WHEREAS, 1. on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools; 2. on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements - Final Report; 3. in July 2011, volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf; 4. on 30 May 2012, the WSWG published a draft of the Whois Service Requirements Survey for public comment, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey…; 5. on 13 September 2012, the WSWG released the final Whois Service Requirements Survey to solicit input from community members on the possible technical requirements of a future Whois system, http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13sep12-en.htm; 6. on 13 September 2012, ICANN staff compiled and consolidated the survey results and the WSWG completed the WSWG Final Report, (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf) NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, 1. that the GNSO Council thanks the Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) and ICANN staff for their efforts in conducting the survey and compiling survey results of possible technical requirements of a future Whois system; 2. the GNSO Council further approves the recommendations, as defined in the Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf) to send the survey results to other applicable efforts regarding Whois and Domain Name Registration Data for their consideration. 4.2 - Discussion Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - A PDP to develop relevant policies for issues not dealt with during the course of the development of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) ICANN staff has prepared a paper which summarises the outcomes of the 2013 RAA negotiations and so sets the scene for the subsequent, relevant policy development work to be managed by the Council. Here the Council will receive an update from staff and confirm the intended course of action. 5.1 Staff update (Margie Milam /Mary Wong) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Metrics and Reporting Working Group (WG) Despite the unanimous support for this resolution, only six volunteers (3 GNSO, 3 ALAC) have signed up for this effort to date, which is not considered sufficiently representative to kick off the Drafting Team (DT). At the ICANN meeting in Durban, ICANN staff was tasked with looking into and proposing alternative ways forward. Apart from renewing the call for volunteers or delaying this effort, the GNSO Council could consider, as this is a non-PDP WG, to explore an alternative approach not necessarily requiring the formation of a DT or WG. Here the Council will review and discuss the alternatives and consider the next steps. 6.1 Staff update (Berry Cobb) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: DISCUSSION - GAC Engagement / Working with the BGRC WG Here the Council will discuss activity to date and confirm the intended course of action going forward. 7.1 - Status update 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: INPUT & DISCUSSION - Prospective improvements to the Policy Development Process (PDP) The Council is committed to ongoing 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. In this agenda item we will discuss a paper prepared by ICANN staff on potential improvements to the PDP process and consider the appropriate next steps. 8.1 - Input on GNSO PDP Improvements (Marika Konings) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION - Role and scope of the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI) Here the Council will review input received at the ICANN meeting in Durban as well as any subsequent information and confirm the intended course of action. 9.1 - Status update 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: DISCUSSION - Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council 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 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 may have been impacted by the recently announced proposal to delay any board initiated review activity. Here the Council will discuss and potentially confirm the intended course of action of initiating a non-PDP WG. 10.1 - Current status 10.2 - Discussion 10.3 - Next steps Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Planning for Buenos Aeries Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Buenos Aires will take planning. GNSO Council Vice Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben has again volunteered to lead this and will be working with the Council and staff on this effort. Here the Council has the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience. Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the approach to and substance of the Council's proposed meetings with other groups in such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. 11.1 - Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 11.2 - Discussion 11.3 - Next steps Item 12: Any Other Business 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 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 12:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 16:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 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 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+1DST 03:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/mdmrnk9 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

5 8

FW: Letter to Fadi on Accountability
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

All, You may recall the interchange (in our GNSO weekend session in Durban) which has led to this letter being written. Point 3 of Chuck's letter refers to a topic we will discuss tomorrow. Jonathan From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 03 September 2013 20:40 To: 'REGISTRIES STAKEHOLDER GROUP'; jrobinson(a)afilias.info Subject: Letter to Fadi on Accountability FYI. This past Friday I sent the attached letter regarding ICANN accountability to Fadi in response to a request he made of me in Durban. I also sent it to ATRT2 because it seemed to be closely tied to their work. Today I requested that the letter be posted on ICANN's correspondence page. Jonathan - Because the session in which Fadi & I had the exchange was a GNSO session, I will leave it up to you whether you want to forward it to the Council. Chuck "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."

2 1

ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 3, 2013

Sept. 3, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02sep13-en.htm ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee Announces Selections 2 September 2013 The 2013 ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) has completed its selections for nine leadership positions within ICANN, listed below for each ICANN body, in alphabetical order by family name: ICANN Board of Directors Cherine Chalaby<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#cherine-chalaby>, Africa Bruno Lanvin<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#bruno-lanvin>, Europe Erika Mann<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#erika-mann>, Europe ALAC Rafid Fatani<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#rafid-fatani>, Asia/Australia/Pacific Islands Beran Doneh Gillen<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#beran-doneh-gillen>, Africa Leon Sanchez<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#leon-sanchez>, Latin America/Caribbean Islands GNSO Council Daniel Reed<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#daniel-reed> (Non-Contracted Party House) Thomas Rickert<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#thomas-rickert> (Contracted Party House) ccNSO Council Celia Lerman<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#celia-lerman> - Latin America/Caribbean Islands Those selected will take up their positions after the end of ICANN's Annual General Meeting, which will take place during the ICANN Public meeting scheduled for November 17-21, 2013, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The NomCom is charged with recruiting and selecting a portion of ICANN's leadership. The NomCom is mandated to ensure that overall ICANN's leadership is diverse in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective. The basic criteria is that selectees are people of integrity, objectivity and sound judgment, can support decision-making within groups, can work effectively in English, have an understanding of ICANN's mission and operation, are committed to its success, experienced in world affairs, contribute to cultural, professional and geographic expertise, and can work long and hard as volunteers in the global public trust. Balancing Confidentiality with Transparency Discussing the 2013 Nominating Committee results, Yrjö Länsipuro, the Chair of the 2013 NomCom, shared the following: I am very happy to report that the 2013 NomCom reached a unanimous decision about the entire slate of selectees at our meeting in Durban, South Africa, immediately after the 47th ICANN meeting in that city. There were 110 candidates, a record number reached only once before (2003). This number reflects a growing interest for ICANN leadership positions, and also the strong outreach efforts by the 2013 NomCom. I want to thank all candidates and encourage those whom we could not select this time, to keep up their interest in ICANN. The 2013 NomCom was committed to striking a new balance between the imperative for confidentiality and protecting the privacy of the candidates, with the need to ensure that the NomCom processes are up to ICANN standards of openness and transparency. Accordingly, while maintaining strict confidentiality of candidate specific information, we held NomCom meetings in Beijing and Durban that were open to all community members, both in person and online. We also issued monthly progress report cards of our work to all constituencies and stakeholder groups represented on the committee. Last but not least, I want to thank all NomCom members, and ICANN staff supporting the NomCom, for their commitment to a year of very hard work and carrying it through with persistence, in a cooperative, constructive and collegial spirit. Regional Breakdown As noted above, the 2013 NomCom received 110 Statements of Interest from candidates all over the world (27 female and 83 male), during its open nomination period from 7 November 2012 to 15 May 2013. The regional breakdown of this year's candidates is: * 12 from Africa * 29 from Asia/Australia/Pacific * 33 from Europe * 18 from Latin America/Caribbean * 18 from North America For more information about the NomCom, please visit http://nomcom.icann.org/ 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/>

5 4

FW: SCI Charter Revisions
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 2, 2013

Sept. 2, 2013

All, Please see below for input to our meeting on Thursday. Thank-you. Jonathan From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: 02 September 2013 08:44 To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: SCI Charter Revisions Importance: High Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013. At its meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the GNSO Sessions in Durban on this matter and decided that it would be helpful to more formally seek guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. One aspect, in particular, based on the discussion in Durban, seems clear, i.e. that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee'. We would like the Charter to reflect that, should that indeed be the case. (I refer you to the email on this topic that I sent you on 08 July 2013, just prior to Durban.) At the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council also discussed the SCI process for decision-making ('full consensus' versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. We now understand that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At the SCI's August 6th meeting and since then on our mailing list, members expressed an interest in helping guide the discussion for the Council as to why SCI members feel there should or should not be full consensus. The impetus behind the recommendation to reconsider using "full or unanimous consensus" or "rough or near consensus" came from my request, as in-coming SCI Chair, to review and update the SCI Charter, as well as the SCI Wiki since the Committee now had over two years of experience behind it and the language in both the document and on the Wiki was outdated. I also noted at the time, and do so here again for Council's edification, the SCI Charter is further governed by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. The response within the SCI came in two forms: Those that feel that being forced to come to unanimous consensus "improves our product" because it ensures that the Committee dedicates the time to explore all points of view and works to find stronger outcomes; the arguments against full consensus included concerns about potentially using the SCI in a way that would drive substantive outcomes in the GNSO, whether intentionally or not, by pushing through decisions on procedure/process to meet an immediate need, or that any member choosing to remain steadfast in opposition could capture the SCI process. All SCI members however respect that balanced discussions result in consensus - in some form - leading to better appreciation of each member's contributions, more confidence in the Committee itself and in the process. The SCI has the luxury of not having to work under any time constraints on procedural and process issues (rather than substantive issues). Within the Standard Methodology for Making Decisions and the five forms of consent defined in the Guidelines, 'rough or near consent' (defined as "a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree") immediately follows 'full or unanimous consent'. We are all aware of the ramifications of full consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN's inception. 'Near consensus', provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their respective stakeholder group's position, while it also provides for written rationale entered into the public record for any and all dissenting opinion(s), thus providing more context to the GNSO Council to assist it in coming to its own determinations. Notably, the SCI does not make any determinations other than to propose recommendations to the GNSO Council, which it, in turn, discusses, accepts, modifies or rejects, as Council deems appropriate. On behalf of the SCI, we hope that this background information will inform your discussions, however the SCI would be happy to further brief the Council on the Charter and consensus issues, if so requested. We would also be grateful to know as soon as possible if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the SCI Charter or pass that responsibility to the SCI once it has made its determination on the consensus issue. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whichever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Andruff SCI Chair Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com

1 0

New gTLD Dotless Domain Names Prohibited
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 1, 2013

Sept. 1, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30aug13-en.htm New gTLD Dotless Domain Names Prohibited 30 August 2013 At its meeting on 13 August 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) adopted a resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13aug13…> affirming that "dotless domain names" are prohibited. Dotless domain names are those that consist of a single label (e.g., http://example, or mail@example). Dotless names would require the inclusion of, for example, an A, AAAA, or MX, record in the apex of a TLD zone in the DNS (i.e., the record relates to the TLD-string itself). In addition to public comments on dotless domain names, the NGPC considered the security and stability risks associated with dotless domain names highlighted in the following papers: * On 23 February 2012, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC 053: SSAC Report on Dotless Domains<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-053-en.pdf> [PDF, 183 KB]. In this report, the SSAC stated that dotless domains would not be universally reachable and recommended strongly against their use. As a result, the SSAC recommended that the use of DNS resource records such as A, AAAA, and MX in the apex of a Top-Level Domain (TLD) should be contractually prohibited where appropriate, and strongly discouraged in all cases. * On 10 July 2013 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) released a statement on dotless domain names<http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/iab-st…>, recommending against the use of dotless domain names for TLDs. * On 29 July 2013 Carve Systems delivered a report on dotless domain names, which was commissioned by ICANN. Consistent with the SSAC report, Carve's report on dotless domain names<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/dotless-domain-study-29jul13-…> [PDF, 1.02 MB] identifies security and stability issues. When adopting its resolution, the NGPC considered the security and stability risks identified in these papers, as well as the impracticality of mitigating these risks. Based on the NGPC resolution, ICANN does not plan to pursue any additional studies on the subject. 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