September 2014 - council - lists.icann.org

MP3 recording GNSO Council 25 September 2014
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference held on Thursday, 25 September 2014 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20140925-en.mp3 as well as the Adobe chat transcript at : http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-25sep14-en.pdf all on page http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep Thank you. Happy listening and reading! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

9/25/14 ccNSO Council meeting recap
by john＠crediblecontext.com Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

All, The dominant issues for the ccNSO Council this morning were IANA transition, Internet governance and ICANN accountability. On the transition, ccNSO Chair Byron Holland reported on the letter he co-signed with GNSO Council chair Jonathan Robinson noting the "unrealistic" deadline set for the process. As you know, there has been much discussion regarding how out-of-synch is the expressed timetable for the transition in 2015 with the loud, messy and slow strength of the bottom-up, consensus-driven decision-making model of the multi-stakeholder community. On Internet governance, the ccNSO Council adopted the charter for the cross-community Working group on Internet Governance. And, on ICANN accountability, a statement was adopted that aligns with the broader community. I have cut-and-pasted the statement with my own highlights at the bottom of this email. Cheers, Berard ccNSO Council Submission Enhancement ICANN's Accountability Process 25 September 2014 The ccNSO Council welcomes ICANN's decision to conduct a public consultation on the proposed “Enhancing Accountability” process and appreciates the responses to various questions posed by the community. As we have previously stated, improved accountability is both a means and a prerequisite for ICANN to achieve its 2016-2020 strategic vision statement, to “enable ICANN to be trusted by all stakeholders.” It goes without saying that any process intended to enhance and reinforce trust must itself be trusted. Over time and through experience, ICANN stakeholders have come to trust the crosscommunity working group (CCWG) process. Having participated in and listened carefully to the exchange of views between ICANN staff and the SO/AC/SGs on this point over the past several weeks, the ccNSO Council is not persuaded that the “community working group” proposed by ICANN improves upon or offers any benefits or advantages over the trusted CCWG model. The main argument for creating the “community working group” appears to be ensuring the inclusion of persons in the process, who consider themselves either not affiliated with a Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee or a “newcomer”. Serious thought needs to be given to how to enable these persons to engage in the process as a whole effectively and in a way that does not undermine the existing engagement structure. Accordingly, we call on the staff and board to endorse the creation of a standard CCWG as the locus for bottomup, multistakeholder development of mechanism to enhance ICANN's accountability. As a standard CCWG, participating SO/AC/SGs should be charged with developing the group's charter, including the scope of its responsibility. Consistent with the NetMundial conclusions, the goal of the Enhancing Accountability process should be to ensure that a system of checks and balances is in place to ensure that ICANN operates in accordance with an agreed set of principles and that meaningful redress is available to those who are harmed by ICANN actions or inactions in contravention of those principles. The CCWG should have full authority to explore and recommend approaches to achieve that goal. The CCWG should have authority to determine the size and structure of the group, as well as its working methodology. Given the importance of the work to be undertaken and the need to work to deadline, the ccNSO believes that ICANN should provide support for an independent secretariat, including a non-voting CCWG chair. It is also the view of the Council that the CCWG should select the Chair, who should have demonstrated skills and experience in chairing. Ideally, the CCWG itself should be responsible for selecting, through an open nomination process, non-voting advisors with predefined expertise (“Accountability Advisors”). In the interests of time, however, we acknowledge the potential utility in kicking off the selection process before the CCWG is set up. ICANN could usefully identify a pool of experts, among which the CCWG could select its Advisors, as soon as the CCWG is set up. The ccNSO Council also believes that the paramount concern should be to look for independent experts with a proven track record in their area of expertise. In this context we urge ICANN to reconsider its proposal not to compensate the Accountability Advisors. Under the circumstances, the ccNSO agrees that smaller subgroups consisting of members identified by the SO/AC/SGs and the Accountability Advisors could be formed within the CCWG in order to organize and deliver research and expert advice needed by the CCWG, as well as interface more intensely with ICANN and its counsel on accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG, or liaise with the IANA Transition working group, etc. The ccNSO has previously stated that adequate accountability mechanisms relative to the IANA Stewardship Transition must be in place at the time of the IANA transition in one year from now. We have also recognized that the potential recommendations and mechanisms to enhance ICANN's accountability may be broader i.e. not limited to accountability mechanisms related to the IANA Stewardship Transition Process and it may take time to considerable time to implement all of these recommendations and mechanisms. Accordingly, we also recommend that the CCWG and any coordinating body should work closely with ICANN to identify those mechanisms that must be in place for a successful IANA Stewardship Transition and to prioritize the implementation of those mechanisms. In addition the CCWG and any coordinating body should also agree on a timeline for full implementation, which may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition. We understand that the ICANN Board must reach agreement on the process it will use to consider and act on recommendations developed through this process. The community has expressed a strong preference to have a clearly defined process, including dialogue and consultation with the community before any recommendation is rejected. The ccNSO Council believes that the presumption should be that community recommendations will be accepted absent a compelling reason for rejection. We urge the Board to develop and publish for public comment its proposed methodology for considering and acting on accountability-related recommendations in the very near term, in any case before the process has commenced fully. As a suggestion the Board may look at the processes and mechanisms used to consider and act upon policy recommendations developed through the policy development processes of the Supporting Organizations and defined through the ICANN Bylaws

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#159]
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

fyi From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: jeudi 25 septembre 2014 02:34 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#159] Name of Officer: * Michele Neylon Officer Email Address: * michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, September 24, 2014 GNSO Organization: * Registrars Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Yoav Keren not available to attend 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] * Tuesday, September 30, 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: * James Bladel

1 0

Project list for your review
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the clean and red lined version of the Project list for your review in preparation for the Council call. Please review and let us know if you would like any changes made. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

A CWG to develop an IANA stewardship transition proposal
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

All, Please see attached regarding the CWG to develop an IANA stewardship transition proposal The GNSO has the option to appoint 2-5 members and unrestricted observers. I suggest we appoint one per SG and anyone else with a strong interest participates. Thank-you. Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r

1 0

FW: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

All, Please see below for an update on the CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the relationship with the work of the ICG. Thanks. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01 To: 'alissa(a)cooperw.in'; 'mbashir(a)mbash.net'; 'Patrik Falstrom -' Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland(a)cira.ca) 'wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de'; 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -'; 'mnuduma(a)yahoo.com'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle(a)nominet.org.uk) 'Xiaodong Lee:'; 'keith(a)internetnz.net.nz' Subject: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG Importance: High Dear Alissa, Patrik, Mohamed, We are taking this opportunity to write you, given our previous roles as co-chairs of the of the drafting team that prepared the charter for the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions. We want to update you on the progress we have made and make one important comment on the timelines set out in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals (RFP) published on September 8 2014. We in the naming community have followed the historic IANA transition process very closely. Mindful of the challenging timelines inherent in the process, we have moved very quickly to come together as a naming community. At ICANN 50 in London in June 2014, the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and the SSAC came together to establish a drafting team to prepare a charter for what will become the CWG. Through frequent meetings, we were pleased to be able to finalise a charter for the CWG by mid-August 2014. The charter has been approved by the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and SSAC, each in accordance with its own rules and procedures, and we are now calling for volunteers as members and observers, again according to each SO and AC's rules and procedures. In addition, the GAC has been invited to participate in the CWG and is actively considering the invitation. With the establishment of the CWG, we expect to be able to provide a proposal from the naming community. While we believe that we have made a good start, ensuring the engagement of such a broad community in such an important and overarching exercise is necessarily time consuming. Even though many of the chartering SO/AC's have yet to complete their procedures for selecting working group members, we have nevertheless decided to move forward and schedule our first CWG meeting right before (as well as a second meeting during) ICANN 51 in Los Angeles. After this initial F2F meeting, we may not have another opportunity to meet face to face until ICANN 52 in February. We would not anticipate that the CWG itself could approve a transition proposal without at least one such face to face meeting and potentially a public consultation of the community. Please also be aware that before a proposal could be formally transmitted to the ICG, it will also be necessary for the chartering SO/AC's to approve it through their respective processes. Therefore, while we intend to urge that the CWG devote considerable time and energy to developing a proposal, it will be quite challenging, some would say impossible, to meet the January 15, 2015 target deadline for formal proposals set out in the ICG's RFP. We do hope that shortly upon formation of the CWG we will be able to come back to you with a proposed timetable. It follows that the CWG will not be in a position to review the RFP or request any clarifications by the deadline of 24 September, but hopefully you are willing to accommodate any questions that the CWG may have following its formation. The CWG's charter provides for a very open process, including no limitations on observers (regardless of affiliation) at any of our meetings. We have no doubt that the naming community members on the ICG will actively monitor the work of our CWG and provide the ICG with regular updates on our progress. Should you have any questions or require further clarification, we would be pleased hear from you and to respond accordingly. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson & Byron Holland Co-Chairs Drafting Team of the Charter for a CWG to develop an IANA stewardship transition proposal

1 0

Webinar on Trademark clearinghouse - hosted by IBM
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

From: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars The Trademark Database Explained – hosted by IBM This webinar is intended to help Registrars learn about selected aspects of the Trademark Database, as well as the Certification and Certification Exemption processes. • Date/Time: ◦ Session 1: 01 Oct 2014, 15:00 UTC – 16:00 UTC ◦ Session 2: 02 Oct 2014, 08:00 UTC – 09:00 UTC • BM Smart Cloud Meeting: ◦ Join the webinar: https://webdialogs.com ◦ In the Join a Meeting form, enter Conference ID 7357706 •Teleconference Information: ◦ Dial-In Numbers https://www.teleconference.att.com/servlet/glbAccess?process=1&accessCode=1… ◦ Participant Code: 80028917#

1 0

FW: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

All, Please see below from Steve Crocker. Given the proposal suggested below and the suggestion that we aim to keep it to a manageable size, this feels to me like we may want to participate with around 4 or 5 people (a "handful"). That could work with 1 per SG and possibly one other (one of the Council leadership group - Chair & VCs?) to make up the five. I look forward to comment and feedback from councillors so that I can revert to Steve and we can get together in LA. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@shinkuro.com] Sent: 21 September 2014 03:10 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Denise Michel; Icann-board ICANN Subject: Formation of a GNSO-Board Working Group re the EWG Final Report Jonathan, I'm a bit late getting this out to you, for which I apologize. During the Board's retreat last week in Istanbul, we had a session devoted to next steps related to the Expert Working Group. We've reached that exquisite moment in this process where we have the EWG's report in hand but we're not yet ready to formally ask the GNSO to initiate a policy development process. Instead, this is the time for us all to put our heads together to identify the issues that have to be sorted out before we take that step. We suggest we form a joint GNSO-Board working group with a handful of members from both groups to identify the main issues - technical, organizational, etc., etc. - that have to be addressed before attempting to initiate another policy development process. I don't have any preconception as to how many people or how you might choose them. I'll leave that entirely up to your judgment. Fewer is always better in terms of logistics, but we all know full well there will be many who will want to participate. I hope you and your folks were able to participate in the webinars this past week. If not, it might be worthwhile listening to them. The Expert Working Report is a solid piece of work, and it was intended to provide a much stronger basis for moving forward with a PDP than we've ever had before. That said, I think it would be wise for all of us to understand what failed in earlier PDPs and thus to make sure that we really do have a stronger chance this time. My mantra for this effort is that we're going to take the time to get this right. The problem has been lingering for a very long time. We have given this matter high priority and will continue to do so, so it has the resources and the urgency that comes with high priority issues, but we do not have a specific deadline or timetable. Perhaps that's something that can come from the working group. Please let me know your thinking and we'll move forward. With the LA meeting coming up, if we're organized by then, perhaps we can schedule time for the working group to meet. Thanks! Steve

2 1

Updated GNSO Council Agenda 25 September 2014 at 18:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated GNSO Council Agenda for the meeting on 25 September 2014 at 18:00 UTC. The updates are as follows: Item 7: UPDATE �C Subsequent rounds of new gTLDs �C status report (15 mins) A link to the detailed report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-new-gtld-subsequent-22…> received from Karen Lentz And an additional item under: Item 11: Any Other Business (5 mins) 11.1 �C Input from Jennifer Wolfe on the GNSO Review including Survey participation. 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/qek29ro 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 4 September 2014 will be posted as approved on xxxxxxx 2014 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) Item 4: DISCUSSION �C A letter to the ICANN NGPC regarding the proposed modification of GNSO consensus recommendations relating to IGO acronyms and Red Cross identifiers (10 mins) On 10 November 2013 the PDP Working Group (IGO-INGO PDP WG) delivered its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council that included twenty-five consensus recommendations. On 20 November 2013 the GNSO Council unanimously adopted<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> all twenty-five consensus recommendations of the IGO-INGO PDP WG and forwarded them to the ICANN Board in January 2014 with a recommendation for their adoption. On 30 April 2014 the Board resolved<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-04-30-en> to adopt those of the GNSO's recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice, and to facilitate dialogue between the affected parties in order to reconcile the remaining differences, as further detailed in Annex A<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-a-30apr14…> and Annex B<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-b-30apr14…> of the Board's resolution. The GNSO's recommendations and GAC advice are largely consistent except in relation to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and the full names and acronyms of 189 Red Cross national societies and the international Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, for which the GNSO had recommended<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> a 90-day period of protection by way of a claim notification service utilising the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). On 16 June 2014 the NGPC sent<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/chalaby-to-robinson-16jun14-en.pdf> a letter to the GNSO Council requesting that the GNSO consider modifying its recommendations relating to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and national society names of the Red Cross. This modification to be in accordance with and as envisaged by Section 16 of the GNSO's PDP Manual<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-13jun13-en.pdf>. On 24 July 2014, the Chair of the NGPC followed up with a note to the Chair of the GNSO Council and offered to provide a written or oral briefing to provide greater clarity on the GAC��s advice and expectations with respect to protections of IGO-INGO Identifiers. As a result of the briefing it was agreed to send a follow-up letter to the NGPC. Here the Council will review the letter with the objective of providing sufficient input and/or support such that the letter can now be sent. 4.1 �C Review the letter<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16658.html> (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) 4.2 �C Discussion Item 5: UPDATE �C A GNSO liaison to the GAC (10 mins) The council voted to appoint Mason Cole as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC with immediate effect such that he can be well informed and up to speed in order to participate effectively as soon as possible and, in particular, at ICANN 51. Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear from Mason Cole ahead of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in order to be clear on the proposed objectives and plan of action. 5.1 �C Introduction (Mason Cole) 5.2 �C Discussion Item 6: UPDATE - PDP WG on IRTP Part D - Final Recommendations (10 mins) The WG anticipates that it will be in a position to submit its Final Report in advance of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. As such, James Bladel, the Chair of the WG, has proposed that he presents the Final Report and recommendations to the Council now so that there is ample time for review and discussion prior to and during the LA meeting which with the objective being that the Council is in a well-informed position to vote on the report during the meeting in LA. Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear from James Bladel ahead of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. 6.1 �C Presentation (James Bladel) 6.2 �C Discussion Item 7: UPDATE �C Subsequent rounds of new gTLDs �C status report (15 mins) A status report from ICANN staff following on from the GNSO Council��s motion<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406> on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds was requested during the ICANN 50 meeting in London. This status update is expected to include status reporting on: (a) the new gTLD program in general; (b) ICANN's anticipated timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments; (c) ICANN's work to date on any evaluation of the first round; (d) the work to date on the post-launch independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse; (e) ICANN's current projection for a timetable for subsequent rounds. An interim update has previously been provided<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16606.html> by Karen Lentz but a more detailed report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-new-gtld-subsequent-22…> is anticipated in advance of this council meeting. Here the Council will have an initial discussion during in order to be best prepared for and potentially provide more detailed topics for review / discussion during the LA meeting. 7.1 �C Update<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-new-gtld-subsequent-22…> (Karen Lentz) 7.2 �C Discussion Item 8: UPDATE �C A cross community working group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (10 mins) A drafting team (DT) was formed with participants from the ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. Following adoption of the charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-stewardship-naming-function-charter-14…> at the previous meeting, this is an opportunity for the Council to receive a brief update on the next steps. 8.1 �C Update (Jonathan Robinson) 8.2 - Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION �C The report of the ICANN Board Working Group on the Nominating Committee (10 mins) The Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG�\NomCom) is charged with performing the review called for in Recommendation 10 of the Nominating Committee Review Finalization Working Group, addressing issues of the size and composition of the Nominating Committee, as well as the related issues of NomCom��s recruitment and selection functions. The Board Working Group on Nominating Committee has recently published its report<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en>. Here the Council will take the opportunity to consider what if any action that should be taken on the part of the Council. 9.1 �C Introduction 9.2 �C Discussion 9.3 �C Next steps Item 10: UPDATE & DISCUSSION �C Planning for LA (10 mins) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in LA will take planning and preparation work. The Council has output from the survey<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QMQJY7Z> of the ICANN 50 meeting in London. 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 such as the ccNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. Please Note: The LA Meeting is an ICANN annual meeting and so will include the GNSO Council development session on the second Friday i.e. Friday 17 October 2014. This is a day and evening session focused on the successful and productive functioning of the Council for the period Annual Meeting 2014 to Annual Meeting 2015. 10.1 �C Update (David Cake & Jonathan Robinson) 10.2 �C Discussion 10.3 �C Next steps Item 11: Any Other Business (5 mins) 11.1 �C Input from Jennifer Wolfe on the GNSO Review including Survey participation. 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 (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-5+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(IDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+3+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/qek29ro Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G��ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

4 4

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#158]
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 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 23 septembre 2014 11:38 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#158] Name of Officer: * rafik dammak Officer Email Address: * rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, September 23, 2014 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Magaly Pazello won't be able to attend to the GNSO council call since she cannot be available at the time of the council call due to urgent commitments. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Amr elsadr will submit Magaly'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] * Friday, September 26, 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: * amr elsadr

1 0