June 2014 - council - lists.icann.org

P.S. (Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council)
by Mary Wong June 5, 2014

June 5, 2014

I should perhaps also have mentioned that the proposed Curative Rights Protection PDP doesn’t assume the UDRP and/or URS **will** be amended. Rather, the WG (if formed) is first directed to determine whether there should be amendments; it is also specifically noted that an alternative may be to develop a separate, narrowly tailored dispute resolution procedure (modeled on the UDRP and URS) that would apply only to the protected IGOs and INGOs. The WG is also requested to do additional factual research and obtain relevant data at an early phase of its work. The recommendation in the Final Issue Report reads in part: "This Curative Rights Protection for IGOs and INGOs PDP Working Group (WG) is tasked to provide the GNSO Council with policy recommendations regarding whether to amend the UDRP and URS to allow access to and use of these mechanisms by IGOs and INGOs and, if so in what respects or whether a separate, narrowly-tailored dispute resolution procedure at the second level modeled on the UDRP and URS that takes into account the particular needs and specific circumstances of IGOs and INGOs should be developed. In commencing its deliberations, the WG should at an early stage gather data and research concerning the specific topics listed in Section X of the Final Issue Report as meriting such further documentation.” Again, I hope this helps! Cheers Mary -----Original Message----- From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 9:02 AM To: Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council >Hello Avri and everyone, > >Thomas has asked me to assist with your questions, with reference to the >specific questions you and the NCSG had in relation to the draft WG >Charter. Essentially, as the proposed PDP follows on and from the >consensus recommendation of the original IGO-INGO PDP WG, the scope of the >proposed IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be limited to >considering only those IGO and INGO identifiers that were specifically >noted for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG. For our current purposes, >therefore, this boils down largely to IGO acronyms and INGOs on the ECOSOC >Special Consultative List - these had been designated as ³Scope 2 >identifiers² by the PDP WG and recommended as such for bulk entry into the >TMCH and access to the TM Claims Service as second level protections. > >Note that the PDP WG expressly did NOT recommend Sunrise protection for >these Scope 2 identifiers - thus, TMCH entry and TM Claims would simply >work to notify a protected IGO/INGO if a third party has registered an >Exact Match of the IGO acronym or ECOSOC-listed INGO. This is basically >the difference between ³preventative² (i.e. blocking) protection and >³curative² protections. In the situation where a TM Claims notice has been >received by a protected IGO or INGO, it will therefore need to use >available curative protections if it can - e.g. UDRP, URS or traditional >litigation. This was where the PDP WG reached consensus that an Issue >Report on amending the UDRP/URS to enable access and use by IGOs and INGOs >should be requested. > >(Side note on preventative protection - at the second level the PDP WG >only recommended these for IGO Full Names (so-called Scope 1 identifiers) >via Spec 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and for INGOs on the ECOSOC >General Consultative List. These recommendations were adopted by the ICANN >Board on 30 April.) > >FYI we tightened the language in the Final Issue Report (versus the >Preliminary Issue Report) to make this point clearer. The draft WG Charter >was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and (with a few minor >changes) also included in the Final Issue Report - this has been a recent >practice adopted following the Council¹s work on PDP Improvements. For >your convenience I have extracted the latter version and attach it to this >email for your reference. > >I hope the above helps clarify the NCSG¹s questions. > >Thanks and cheers >Mary > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de> >Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM >To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> >Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council > >>Hi Avri, >>thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer >>Session and get back to you after that. >> >>Best, >>Thomas >> >> >>Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be >>>found >>> as an annex to the final issues report? >>> >>> Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the >>> charter yet. I don't recall it. >>> >>> As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the >>>scope >>> of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already >>> been granted. This concern translates into concern over the mandate in >>> the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the >>> IGO/INGO WG. A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of >>> identifiers that can be considered. Obviously it goes beyond those >>> already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand >>> the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time >>> bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report >>> trying to figure that out. For example I wasn't able to answer the >>> simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations? I am sure I >>> am missed it, but I missed it. >>> >>> So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the >>> scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it >>> to an NCSG open policy meeting. I thus also do not have a good view of >>> the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the >>> entire gambit. I need to understand the scope better and may not be >>> ready to vote at this point. >>> >>> I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening >>>the >>> UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and >>> civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do so. >>> This makes it critical to understand the full scope. >>> >>> Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing >>> it. Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would >>> appreciate some help in understanding the scope. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> avri >>> >>> On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote: >>>> All, >>>> Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later >>>> today. I herewith second the motions. >>>> >>>> As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very >>>> much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be >>>> relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and >>>> staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in >>>>the >>>> call. >>>> >>>> Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we >>>> unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very >>>> PDP should be conducted. >>>> >>>> Thanks and kind regards, >>>> Thomas >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson >>>><jrobinson(a)afilias.info >>>> <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council >>>>>meeting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas >>>>> Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for >>>>> the Issue Report. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to >>>>> propose the motions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jonathan >>>>> >>>>> <Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion >>>>>for >>>>> IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc> >>>> >> >

1 0

Personal submission to Public Comment on Board member compensation
by Alan Greenberg June 5, 2014

June 5, 2014

Perhaps of interest to some, I recently submitted a statement to the Public Comment on Board Member Compensation. I believe that it is in line with many statements made related to the need to encourage volunteer efforts in the policy development process and more specifically to not limit acknowledging the hard work that many do solely by giving them a piece of paper in a blue folder when they leave. In essence, I am saying that it may be fine to increase the number of Board members receiving fees, and the size of that fee, but that we must ALSO look at innovative ways to thank and reward other dedicated volunteers who put in efforts commensurate with those on the Board. I believe that the ALAC will be submitting a statement supporting the positions that I have taken. The Public Comment can be found at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-compensation-2014-05-02-… and it closes next Thursday, June 12th. My comment is copied below. If anyone else feels so included, please make a comment of your own. Alan ======================= I am a member of the ALAC and the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, but I am making this comment purely in my own capacity. I believe that, subject to a number of related considerations, it is reasonable to compensate Board members, including Liaisons, and the level of compensation suggested is reasonable. I do note that in the name of simplification, the report suggests an increase for Board members who are not Board Committee Chairs by as much as 29%. However, the related considerations mentioned above, in my mind, cannot be ignored. - One of the reasons always sited for such compensation is that having no compensation limits the available candidates who will make themselves available for the ICANN Board. Given that there has never been an AC/SO seat vacant due to lack of candidates, there is often competition for such seats, and the Nominating Committee regularly says that it has had to make very difficult decisions in selecting Board members since there was a surplus of eminently qualified candidates, in the name of transparency and accountability, it would be good to see hard evidence of the rationale. - The introduction of Board compensation widened the gulf between Board members and other volunteers within ICANN. The proposed change widens that gulf further. There is no question that many Board members work very hard on behalf of ICANN, and that dedication eats into their other professional activities and personal life. However, the same can be said for many ICANN volunteers. There are many in the community who work equally hard and dedicate the same kind of hours as Board members. Indeed, it has been claimed that many in the community put in far more time and effort than some Board members. I believe that this claim is accurate. SO and AC Chairs have been identified as meeting the above levels of commitment, and indeed many or perhaps all do. However, there are others who do not receive the existing benefits given to Board members and AC/SO Chairs who also dedicate unending hours and effort to ICANN. Board and now Liaison compensation without any new consideration of the contributions of others denigrates the efforts of the rest of the ICANN volunteers. Such acknowledgment need not be financial compensation - there are a host of other benefits that Board members get that other volunteers (and Chairs) would really appreciate. Although I understand the difficulty of identifying those who put Herculean efforts into ICANN from those who are lower level contributors, we cannot continue to widen the gulf between the privileged few and the rest of volunteers and expect there not to be repercussions.

2 1

FW: GNSO call tomorrow
by Glen de Saint Géry June 5, 2014

June 5, 2014

FYI From: Reed, Daniel A Sent: jeudi 5 juin 2014 01:47 To: Glen de Saint Géry Cc: Marika Konings; Jonathan Robinson gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: RE: GNSO call tomorrow Glen: I may or may not be late, depending on how long the signing ceremony lasts. But, if I am late, then I pass my proxy to John Berard ,or to Maria Farrell if he is unavailable. My preference would be that votes be cast with the majority. Dan

1 0

Results of first ICANN run gTLD auction for .信息 - US$ 600,000
by Bruce Tonkin June 5, 2014

June 5, 2014

From: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-3-04jun14… Results of the First New gTLD Auction On 4 June 2014 ICANN through its authorized auction services provider, Power Auctions LLC, completed the first auction to resolve a contention set for a new generic Top-level Domain (gTLD) string. Contention sets are groups of applications for identical or confusingly similar strings. Two applicants, Afilias Limited and Beijing Tele-info Network Technology Co., LTD. applied for the gTLD 信息, (xn--vuq861b), which is a Chinese Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) for "information" or "info." These two applicants were unable to resolve the contention set between themselves, and thus proceeded to an auction, which is the method of last resort to resolve string contentions as prescribed in Module 4 of the Applicant Guidebook. Beijing Tele-info Network Technology Co., LTD. prevailed in the auction for the winning price of $600,000. Additional bidding information is available in the auction report [PDF, 225 KB]. Subject to payment of the Winning Price and meeting all other criteria for eligibility, the winner will begin the contracting process to sign a Registry Agreement to operate the 信息, (xn--vuq861b) gTLD. This was the first auction for the New gTLD program. Subsequent auctions are scheduled [http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/schedule-29may14-en.pdf ] to occur on a monthly basis throughout 2014 and into early 2015. The auction events are designed to accommodate resolving multiple contention sets simultaneously. For more information on Auctions visit http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions . To view the current contention set status visit: https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/stringcon…

1 0

Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference, tomorrow Thursday, 5 June 2014
by Glen de Saint Géry June 4, 2014

June 4, 2014

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference, tomorrow Thursday, 5 June 2014. The updates are not substantial and one item has been added to Item 12: Any Other Business, namely: * A GNSO Council Liaison for the Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team? 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 18:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/nfhb2q4 Coordinated Universal Time 18:00 UTC 11:00 Los Angeles; 14:00 Washington; 19:00 London; 20:00 Brussels; 02:00 Perth Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (5 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 8 May 2014, were posted as approved on 31 May 2014. Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 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 (0 mins) Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a PDP on IGO and INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (15 mins) In November 2013, the GNSO Council adopted<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201311> a consensus recommendation for an Issue Report from the Policy Development Process Working Group on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs (IGO-INGO PDP WG). The Issue Report on the topic of amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use these curative rights protection mechanisms was published in preliminary form<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-2014-03-10-en> and offered for public comment<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-04jun12-en.htm>. The Final Issue Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-final-25may14-en.pdf> was updated following staff review of public comments, delivered to the Council on 25 May 2014 and published on 26 May 2014. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process (PDP), limited to consideration of the issues discussed in the report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process (PDP), limited to consideration of the issues discussed in the report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Here the Council will vote on whether or not to initiate a PDP as recommended in the Final Issue Report. 4.1 - Presentation of the Final Issue Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-final-25may14-en.pdf> (Mary Wong) 4.2 - Present the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+5+June+2014> (Thomas Rickert) 4.3 - Discussion 4.4 - Vote (Threshold; one third of each house or two thirds of one house) Item 5: MOTION - Approval of a Charter for a PDP Working Group for the IGO & INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP (10 mins) The Final Issue Report on the topic of amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use these curative rights protection mechanisms (UDRP & URS) contains a draft charter for the proposed PDP WG. The draft Working Group Charter is appended as Annex 3 to the Final Issue Report and was delivered to the GNSO Council on 25 May 2014. Here the Council will vote on whether or not to approve the Charter. 5.1 - Present the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+5+June+2014> (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Vote (Threshold; One third of each house or two thirds of one house) Item 6: MOTION - Close the work on WHOIS Studies and discuss any appropriate next steps (10 mins) The last of a series of studies on WHOIS, commissioned by the GNSO, were recently completed and published. The results of these studies may be useful to the ongoing work on WHOIS, both in the GNSO and elsewhere in the ICANN community (e.g. the Expert Working Group on gTD Registration Data Directory Services). Here the GNSO Council will consider formally closing the work on WHOIS studies and deliberate any next steps. 6.1 - Staff Update (Mary Wong) 6.2 - Present the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+5+June+2014> (Volker Greimann) 6.3 - Discussion 6.4 - Vote (Threshold; Simple majority) Item 7: DISCUSSION - Internet Governance Issues (15 mins) The transition of the IANA function from the US government oversight is now firmly on the GNSO's agenda and the Council must determine its role and function with respect to this. A proposal was made in Singapore for the formation of a Cross-Community Working Group (CWG) to work on transition from NTIA and a very early stage initial draft of a potential charter for such a CWG was circulated. This has been modified a little since and is available here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-transfer-process-charter-15apr14-en.pdf>. The existing CWG on internet governance has since commenced work on its own charter and indications are that such a charter will not include detailed work on the NTIA transition. In addition, indications are that the ccNSO may be interested in jointly initiating a new CWG on the NTIA transition together with the GNSO and that other AC/SO parts of ICANN will participate in such a CWG. Given the scope and impact of the IANA transition, it is likely that such a CWG will need to reach out beyond the ICANN community for participation and input. In this item, the Council will take the opportunity to provide direction on the formation and development of a CWG on the NTIA transition. 7.1 - Discussion 7.2 - Next steps Item 8: Update - Update on the work of the GNSO Review Working Party (10 mins) As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, work on the ICANN board initiated reviews of the GNSO (and the GNSO Council and related functions) has commenced. The objective of the Review is to examine the organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review is to be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to an independent examiner. A webinar<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-23apr14-en.htm> to discuss this has recently taken place. The GNSO Review Working Party has been assembled to: 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, 3. Coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. The SIC envisages that once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party will also coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. 8.1 - Update (Jennifer Wolfe) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: Update - Update on the work of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group (10 mins) Here the Council will receive an update, including plans for the Group's work before and during ICANN 50 in London and discuss any actions being planned. 9.1 - Update (Jonathan Robinson) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: Update - Issues for the SCI (10 mins) A couple of issues have arisen recently which may be relevant for consideration by the SCI. The issues to be discussed are the role and function of a seconder to a motion and the mechanisms for dealing with amendments to motions. Here the Council will discuss the issues and specifically whether or not it is appropriate to review them to the SCI at this time. 10.1 - Discussion 10.2 - Next steps Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Planning for London (10 mins) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in London will take planning. GNSO Council Vice Chair, Volker Greimann will 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 (Volker Greimann & Jonathan Robinson) 11.2 - Discussion 11.3 - Next steps Item 12: Any Other Business (5 mins) * Public comment on the Strategic Plan<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/stratplan-draft-09apr14-en.htm>? * Whois Requirements and National Law Conflicts Procedure Review * A GNSO Council Liaison for the Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team? 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 18:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 11:00 Iowa City, USA (CST<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+1DST 13:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 14:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 15:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-2+1DST 15:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 15:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 19:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 21:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 21:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 21:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2014, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/nfhb2q4 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#150]
by Glen de Saint Géry June 4, 2014

June 4, 2014

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mercredi 4 juin 2014 13:50 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#150] Name of Officer: * Tony Holmes Officer Email Address: * tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> Date Prepared: * Sunday, April 6, 2014 GNSO Organization: * Internet Services Provider Constituency Officer Position or Title: * GNSO Councillor Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Due to the potential overrun of the ITU SG2 meeting on Thursday 5th June I have been required to change my travel arrangements and will now be on a flight from Geneva to the UK when the Council meeting occurs. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Osvaldo Novoa will have full proxy rights and will cast any votes on behalf of Tony Holmes 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 6, 2014 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: * Osvaldo Novoa

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#149]
by Glen de Saint Géry June 3, 2014

June 3, 2014

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mardi 3 juin 2014 07:07 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#149] Name of Officer: * rafik dammak Officer Email Address: * rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Monday, June 2, 2014 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Amr Elsadr won't be able to attend to the GNSO council call since he cannot be available at the time of the confcall. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Avri Doria will submit Amr's vote by proxy for the motions to be approved, and any other matters needing a vote. 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] * Saturday, June 7, 2014 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: * Avri Doria

1 0

ICANN 50 London Schedule Posted
by Bruce Tonkin June 3, 2014

June 3, 2014

http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule-full#23jun14

1 0

New Version GNSO Project List - for review
by Glen de Saint Géry June 2, 2014

June 2, 2014

Dear All, Please find attached the updated project list both in redline and clean version for your review before the Council meeting on 8 June 2014. Please note that this is a new version that takes advantage of our new logo as well as organising the projects in a way that is more consistent with the process flow, however the content should match that of the previous version. We would welcome any comments / suggestions for additional improvements. Thank you very much. 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

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#148]
by Glen de Saint Géry June 2, 2014

June 2, 2014

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: lundi 2 juin 2014 03:30 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#148] Name of Officer: * rafik dammak Officer Email Address: * rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Monday, June 2, 2014 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Maria Farell won't be able to attend to the GNSO council call since she will be traveling Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * David cake will submit Maria's vote by proxy for the motions to be approved, and any other matters needing a vote. 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] * Saturday, June 7, 2014 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * david cake

1 0