January 2015 - council - lists.icann.org

Name collision letter - deadline for review Friday 16 January at 18.00 UTC
by Marika Konings Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

Dear All, As discussed during today’s meetings, please provide any further comments / edits by Friday 16 January at 18.00 UTC at the latest. Following that, Jonathan will finalise the letter and send it to Cyrus. Best regards, Marika From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin(a)ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>> Date: Monday 12 January 2015 17:57 To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: Updated proposed Agenda GNSO Council Teleconference 15 January 2015 at 18:00 UTC. Hi All Happy New Year In relation to the Item 6. Name Collision Update attached is a draft response to Cyrus Namazi for consideration. This letter has been drafted and approved by Tony Holmes, Susan Kawaguchi and myself as requested by Jonathan on our last call. Please feel free to provide feedback or comments on the list, or perhaps discuss on the call this week. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne|Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin(a)ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, 12 January 2015 2:10 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Updated proposed Agenda GNSO Council Teleconference 15 January 2015 at 18:00 UTC. Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference on 15 January 2015 at 18:00 UTC. The updates are mainly links that have been added, so please check, and an item under AOB 10.4 - Request for extension of time for Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf> approved and updated on 13 November 2014. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+15+January+2… http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-15jan15-en.htm 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 Time 18:00 UTC: http://tinyurl.com/lgn2ohv Coordinated Universal Time 18:00 UTC 10:00 Los Angeles; 13:00 Washington; 18:00 London; 19:00 Brussels; 02:00 Perth GNSO Council meeting audio cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. 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 11 December 2014 will be posted as approved on xxxxx 2015. 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) * Approve the GNSO Council Recommendations Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/council-board-irtp-d-05jan15-en.pdf> to the ICANN Board concerning IRTP Part D Note: The outcome<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16986.html> of the vote on the Council input to the public comment forum on theBoard Working Group Report on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom). Item 4: UPDATE – Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (20 mins) The CWG<https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg> has been chartered to develop a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and has been meeting for 2 hours every week since its creation with a goal of delivering a final proposal by the end of January 2015. The January 2015 target date is driven by the request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group<https://www.icann.org/stewardship/coordination-group> (ICG). A number of sub-groups were formed to progress work on the different elements of the ICG Request for Proposals and a face-to-face meeting was run in mid-November. A draft proposal was published for community comment on 1 December 2014 and the public comment period has since closed. An intensive work weekend is planned for the CWG on 10 & 11 January 2015, following which it is anticipated that a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition will be drafted and then distributed to the chartering organisations. Given the deadlines and associated intensity of the work of the CWG as well as the need for the GNSO as a chartering organisation to approve the proposal, it is timely for the Council to receive a full update and to discuss the work of the CWG. 4.1 – Update (Jonathan Robinson) 4.2 – Discussion 4.3 – Next steps Item 5: UPDATE - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (15 mins) The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN “convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role” with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management (see item 4 above). During discussions around the transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability given its historical contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN accountability mechanisms does not yet meet some stakeholder’s expectations. Considering that the NTIA has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent the transition to proceed. As a result, a DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO, GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. The DT delivered the proposed charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en…> for consideration to all the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees on 3 November 2014 and the charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en…> was adopted by the GNSO Council during its meeting on 13 November. Here the Council will receive an update<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16987.html> on status and activities of the CCWG to date. 5.1 Update (Thomas Rickert) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps Item 6: UPDATE – Prospective policy work on “name collision” (10 mins) On the 30 July 2014, the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board directed staff to "provide information to, and work with the GNSO to consider whether policy work on developing a long-term plan to manage gTLD name collision issues should be undertaken." ICANN Staff submitted this paper<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-gnso-policy-07oc…> to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2014 and it was presented to the Council during the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. Council members agreed in Los Angeles to discuss with their respective group what further action, if any, should be taken on this topic and report back accordingly during this meeting. Furthermore, a letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/namazi-to-robinson-30oct14-en.pdf> was received from Cyrus Namazi offering any additional information or assistance that ICANN Staff can provide to further assist the Council in its deliberations. The GNSO Council discussed the topic during previous meetings following which it was agreed to draft a response. Here the Council will receive and update and provide any additional input needed. 6.1 Status update (Donna Austin) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: DISCUSSION - Board resolution concerning future gTLD Application Rounds (10 mins) On 17 November 2014 the ICANN Board adopted a resolution<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-11-17-en#2.b> the planning for future gTLD application rounds. As part of its action, the Board acknowledged the effort and progress within the GNSO to identify areas where the GNSO believes that policy advice can be clarified or where it wishes to provide additional policy advice applicable to future application rounds. Furthermore, as requested in the GNSO Council’s June 2014 resolution, the Board provided input into the GNSO Council’s discussion to identify areas that the Board believes may be appropriate for discussion in an evaluation of the current gTLD application round and for possible adjustments for subsequent application procedures. A draft letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/robinson-to-crocker-12jan15-en.pdf> of response has been prepared, distributed to the Council and commented on. This is an opportunity for the GNSO Council to review the draft and ideally agree to send the letter as drafted or with any agreed modifications. 7.1 - Update 7.2 – Discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: UPDATE – GNSO / GAC Consultation Group and related work (15 mins) Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear about the work of the GNSO / GAC Consultation Group and from the GNSO Liaison to the GAC including any initial input and feedback derived following the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. In addition, there will be an opportunity to further discuss ideas put forward during the GNSO Council Development Session in relation to potential GNSO work in response to the GAC Communiqué from ICANN meetings. 8.1 – Update on GAC/GNSO Consultation Group (Mason Cole) 8.2 – Update on draft process for dealing with GAC Communique (Volker Greimann) 8.3 – Discussion Item 9: Update: Planning for ICANN meeting in Singapore – key direction & themes 9.1 Update – Volker Greimann 9.2 Discussion Item 10: Any Other Business (10 mins) 10.1 - Correspondence with NGPC on IGO & RCRC. Any update? 10.2 – Consideration of a CWG to deal with new gTLD auction proceeds 10.3 – Note that the Translation & Transliteration PDP WG Initial Report is out for public comment – Update Amr Elsadr 10.4 - Request for extension of time for Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms 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.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 18:00 Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+0DST 10:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 12:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 12:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 13:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 16:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-2+1DST 16:00 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 18:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 19:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+3+0DST 20:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 02:00 Melbourne, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+1DST 05:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2015, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/lgn2ohv Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Request for extension of time for Preliminary Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms
by Mary Wong Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

Dear Councilors, Staff would like to request that the GNSO Council consider extending the timeline for the preparation and delivery of the Preliminary Issue Report that had been requested by the Council in December 2011, on the "current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the UDRP and the URS, to be ³delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first new gTLD² (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201112 for the relevant GNSO Council resolution). This request meant that the Preliminary Issue Report will be due in or around March 2015, given that the first new gTLD delegated under the New gTLD Program occurred in October 2013. Since the Council¹s passage of the above-mentioned resolution, which was prior to the delegation date of the first new gTLD, several developments have occurred that in the view of staff merits the Council¹s considering postponing the delivery date of the Preliminary Issue Report for another six (6) months, i.e.extending the deadline to October 2015. We now know, for example, that one year after the delegation of the first new gTLD, over 400 new gTLDs have been delegated and about 150 URS complaints filed, with 1 appeal so far. A draft Work Plan was also published in September 2014, detailing the scope and nature of the various assessments that are being and will be done prior to the launch of the next round, including those concerning RPMs (see http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/reviews-assessments-draft-work-p lan-22sep14-en.pdf for the full document). As outlined in the Work Plan, the proposed data gathering and analysis of the RPMs implemented for the New gTLD program will include the following (see page 13 of the Work Plan): * Compilation and analysis of statistics provided by third-party providers (for example, geographic distribution of Clearinghouse records, outcomes of URS proceedings); * Coordination among service providers and ICANN to identify the issues and questions most raised in customer service submissions; and * Soliciting feedback from users of the effectiveness of these processes to meet rights protection objectives Policy staff has been consulting and coordinating with our GDD colleagues on the timing of each of these assessments, since they are expressly intended to also identify potential issues for policy development work, including providing information for the Preliminary Issue Report noted above. We are informed that a draft paper on RPM implementation is expected to be published shortly for community discussion, including at the upcoming ICANN Public Meeting in Singapore. In addition, as also noted in the Work Plan, the GAC¹s May 2011 advice to the ICANN Board in respect of a review of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) is currently being scoped, and we are informed that the intention is to complete the review by mid-2015 (see https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may11 -en.pdf for the GAC¹s request). In light of the above-mentioned developments, and in view of the ongoing work of the community (including the GNSO community) on a number of policy issues as well as on the broader issues of the IANA stewardship transition and ICANN accountability, staff therefore believes that extending the timeline for the requested Preliminary Issue Report by six (6) months will allow that Report to take on board the results of the various assessment exercises as well as consider a further number of URS filings and results. The hope is that this will provide the GNSO Council and community with more concrete data and specific information that will assist in your consideration of next steps in relation to RPM review for both existing and new gTLDs. We will be happy to provide further information should you or your groups have any questions. The Council may also wish to discuss this on its next call, if desired. In any case, please let us know whether you have any concerns or objections to this request. Thanks and cheers and best wishes to you and yours for a very happy 2015! Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 1

RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines
by Jonathan Robinson Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

Many thanks Edmon, Any other takers? Jonathan From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@registry.asia] Sent: 06 January 2015 10:13 To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info; council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: 'Ching Chiao'; 'Ram Mohan' Subject: RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines Hi Jonathan, Thanks for forwarding this. The key response or thought I have on this is that the GNSO must be represented in the working committee that will be updating the IDN Guidelines. On this, I am more than happy to volunteer myself and participate in the work. In general, I think this will be a much needed update so should be welcomed. In fact, part of the outputs from the JIG have direct input and have suggested updates to the IDN Guidelines. At the same time, because it is a document directly related to gTLD policies (I am not sure if the p is small or capital at this point until new draft is being put forward), caution must be taken to consider contractual conditions. Edmon From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 5:33 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: edmon(a)registry.asia; Ching Chiao; Ram Mohan Subject: RE: IDN Implementation Guidelines Councillors, A reminder that this letter (re-attached) seeks initial input by 30 January 2014. Is anyone willing to pick this up and assist please? Thank-you. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 08 December 2014 10:10 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO (council(a)gnso.icann.org) Subject: FW: IDN Implementation Guidelines All, Please see attached and note that the request seeks some initial input by 30 January 2015. Thanks. Jonathan From: Akram Atallah [mailto:akram.atallah@icann.org] Sent: 04 December 2014 00:24 To: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mary Wong; Cyrus Namazi; Sarmad Hussain; bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au; Marika Konings Subject: IDN Implementation Guidelines Dear Jonathan, In the ICANN 50 meeting, the GNSO council and members met with the Board Variant Working Group (BV-WG) and suggested to update the IDN Implementation Guidelines, the last revision was in 2011. Based on follow up discussions, during the ICANN 51 meeting the BV-WG directed the staff to reach out to the GNSO and ccNSO to collect an initial list of issues which should be addressed if this update is undertaken. This request is outlined in the attached letter. Thank you for your support in this matter. -- Best, Akram

3 2

Draft GNSO weekend working session schedule - Singapore
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

Dear All, In preparation for the Council meeting very shortly, attached please find the draft GNSO weekend working session schedule and several other meetings during the week that have been confirmed. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#168]
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 14, 2015

Jan. 14, 2015

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: jeudi 15 janvier 2015 00:25 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#168] Name of Officer: * rafik dammak Officer Email Address: * rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, January 14, 2015 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: * David Cake won't be not able to attend to the GNSO council confcall since he will be travelling at that time. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Amr Elsadr will submit David'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, January 17, 2015 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

Draft GNSO Schedule for weekend working sessions in Singapore
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

Dear Councillors, Attached please find a draft of the GNSO weekend working sessions in Singapore for your review and comment in preparation for the Council meeting on Thursday 15 January 2015. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Updated proposed Agenda GNSO Council Teleconference 15 January 2015 at 18:00 UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference on 15 January 2015 at 18:00 UTC. The updates are mainly links that have been added, so please check, and an item under AOB 10.4 - Request for extension of time for Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf> approved and updated on 13 November 2014. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+15+January+2… http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-15jan15-en.htm 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 Time 18:00 UTC: http://tinyurl.com/lgn2ohv Coordinated Universal Time 18:00 UTC 10:00 Los Angeles; 13:00 Washington; 18:00 London; 19:00 Brussels; 02:00 Perth GNSO Council meeting audio cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. 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 11 December 2014 will be posted as approved on xxxxx 2015. 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) * Approve the GNSO Council Recommendations Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/council-board-irtp-d-05jan15-en.pdf> to the ICANN Board concerning IRTP Part D Note: The outcome<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16986.html> of the vote on the Council input to the public comment forum on the Board Working Group Report on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom). Item 4: UPDATE - Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (20 mins) The CWG<https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg> has been chartered to develop a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and has been meeting for 2 hours every week since its creation with a goal of delivering a final proposal by the end of January 2015. The January 2015 target date is driven by the request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group<https://www.icann.org/stewardship/coordination-group> (ICG). A number of sub-groups were formed to progress work on the different elements of the ICG Request for Proposals and a face-to-face meeting was run in mid-November. A draft proposal was published for community comment on 1 December 2014 and the public comment period has since closed. An intensive work weekend is planned for the CWG on 10 & 11 January 2015, following which it is anticipated that a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition will be drafted and then distributed to the chartering organisations. Given the deadlines and associated intensity of the work of the CWG as well as the need for the GNSO as a chartering organisation to approve the proposal, it is timely for the Council to receive a full update and to discuss the work of the CWG. 4.1 - Update (Jonathan Robinson) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Next steps Item 5: UPDATE - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (15 mins) The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management (see item 4 above). During discussions around the transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability given its historical contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN accountability mechanisms does not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent the transition to proceed. As a result, a DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO, GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. The DT delivered the proposed charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en…> for consideration to all the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees on 3 November 2014 and the charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en…> was adopted by the GNSO Council during its meeting on 13 November. Here the Council will receive an update<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16987.html> on status and activities of the CCWG to date. 5.1 Update (Thomas Rickert) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps Item 6: UPDATE - Prospective policy work on "name collision" (10 mins) On the 30 July 2014, the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board directed staff to "provide information to, and work with the GNSO to consider whether policy work on developing a long-term plan to manage gTLD name collision issues should be undertaken." ICANN Staff submitted this paper<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-gnso-policy-07oc…> to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2014 and it was presented to the Council during the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. Council members agreed in Los Angeles to discuss with their respective group what further action, if any, should be taken on this topic and report back accordingly during this meeting. Furthermore, a letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/namazi-to-robinson-30oct14-en.pdf> was received from Cyrus Namazi offering any additional information or assistance that ICANN Staff can provide to further assist the Council in its deliberations. The GNSO Council discussed the topic during previous meetings following which it was agreed to draft a response. Here the Council will receive and update and provide any additional input needed. 6.1 Status update (Donna Austin) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: DISCUSSION - Board resolution concerning future gTLD Application Rounds (10 mins) On 17 November 2014 the ICANN Board adopted a resolution<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-11-17-en#2.b> the planning for future gTLD application rounds. As part of its action, the Board acknowledged the effort and progress within the GNSO to identify areas where the GNSO believes that policy advice can be clarified or where it wishes to provide additional policy advice applicable to future application rounds. Furthermore, as requested in the GNSO Council's June 2014 resolution, the Board provided input into the GNSO Council's discussion to identify areas that the Board believes may be appropriate for discussion in an evaluation of the current gTLD application round and for possible adjustments for subsequent application procedures. A draft letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/robinson-to-crocker-12jan15-en.pdf> of response has been prepared, distributed to the Council and commented on. This is an opportunity for the GNSO Council to review the draft and ideally agree to send the letter as drafted or with any agreed modifications. 7.1 - Update 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: UPDATE - GNSO / GAC Consultation Group and related work (15 mins) Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear about the work of the GNSO / GAC Consultation Group and from the GNSO Liaison to the GAC including any initial input and feedback derived following the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. In addition, there will be an opportunity to further discuss ideas put forward during the GNSO Council Development Session in relation to potential GNSO work in response to the GAC Communiqué from ICANN meetings. 8.1 - Update on GAC/GNSO Consultation Group (Mason Cole) 8.2 - Update on draft process for dealing with GAC Communique (Volker Greimann) 8.3 - Discussion Item 9: Update: Planning for ICANN meeting in Singapore - key direction & themes 9.1 Update - Volker Greimann 9.2 Discussion Item 10: Any Other Business (10 mins) 10.1 - Correspondence with NGPC on IGO & RCRC. Any update? 10.2 - Consideration of a CWG to deal with new gTLD auction proceeds 10.3 - Note that the Translation & Transliteration PDP WG Initial Report is out for public comment - Update Amr Elsadr 10.4 - Request for extension of time for Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms 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.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 18:00 Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+0DST 10:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 12:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 12:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 13:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 16:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-2+1DST 16:00 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 18:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 19:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+3+0DST 20:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 02:00 Melbourne, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+1DST 05:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2015, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/lgn2ohv Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Draft response letter ICANN Board Resolution Concerning Planning for Future gTLD Application Rounds
by Marika Konings Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

Dear All, As mentioned by Jonathan, please find attached for your consideration a possible Council response to the letter from Steve Crocker concerning the ICANN Board Resolution Concerning Planning for Future gTLD Application Rounds. Best regards, Marika

2 2

Updated Project list for your review
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the next Council meeting on 15 January 2015 at 18:00 UTC attached please find the updated project list both in clean and redline version for your review. Please let us know if you have any comments. 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

3 3

Announcement about High Level Statements on ICANN Website
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 10, 2015

Jan. 10, 2015

Dear all, The High Level Statements from the CCWG have been published in an announcement on the ICANN website: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-01-09-en Co-Chairs of CCWG-Accountability Publish High Level Statements On behalf of the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Accountability, the co-chairs Thomas Rickert (GNSO), León Sanchez Ambia (ALAC) and Mathieu Weill (ccNSO) are pleased to announce that the CCWG has prepared a set of high level statements<https://community.icann.org/x/3pAQAw> that might be valuable to all groups or individuals working on proposals as part of the NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition Process. The CCWG is aware and conscious of the interdependency and interlinkage of the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes, in particular with what has been called Work Stream 1 and appreciates the sense of urgency. Although the CCWG works as expeditiously as possible on the tasks it has been chartered with, it is not feasible to publish concrete results of the group in January. Nonetheless, the CCWG has chosen to publish the high level statements as a preliminary assessment of the situation and is cognizant that this preliminary assessment might be subject to change because of: · Changes to the proposals under discussion as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition Process, in particular the Interim Proposal<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-naming-transition-01dec14-e…> published by the CWG-Stewardship on 1 December 2014; and · Changes due to other external and internal factors, such as evolving deliberations of the CWG itself. Background CCWG The CCWG began its work late November 2014 with regular weekly virtual meetings and will have its first (intersessional) face-to face meeting on 19 and 20 January 2015 in Frankfurt, Germany. The CCWG was chartered by ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO and NRO acting as ASO and includes over 150 participants and members<https://community.icann.org/x/IIMHAw> appointed by the chartering organizations, Advisors<https://community.icann.org/x/54cQAw> appointed by the Public Experts Group (PEG), and 3 liaisons. Additional information, including transcripts and recordings of the discussions are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg

1 0