December 2015 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed Council dates and rotation times 2016
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Dec '15

16 Dec '15

Dear Councillors, There have been 5 comments, all in favour of the two new proposed times, 21:00 UTC and 12:00 UTC, for rotating the Council calls and the alternate dates proposed in view of the holidays, Yom Kippur and Thanksgiving, as noted below: · 22 September (Thursday) (Yom Kippur) OR THURSDAY 29 September at 12:00 UTC · 24 November (Thursday) at 18:00 UTC (Thanksgiving) OR THURSDAY 1 December at 12:00 UTC Please review these proposed dates and times for Council meetings in 2016 and if there are no further comments, these dates will be posted as approved after the Council meeting on Thursday, 17 December 2015. 14 January AND/OR Thursday 21 January at 21:00/12:00 UTC (to allow flexibility to deal with the CCWG-Accountability Final Report. Closer to the date we will be in a position to determine whether two meetings are needed or whether one is sufficient) (Document deadline 4 and /or 11 January 2016) 18 February (Thursday) at 21:00 UTC (Document deadline 8 February 2016) 9 March (Wednesday) - ICANN Meeting - Public Council meeting Marrakech at 13:30 local time (Document deadline 28 February 2016) 14 April (Thursday) at 12:00 UTC (Document deadline 4 April 2016) 12 May (Thursday) at 21:00 UTC (Document deadline 2 May 2016) 27-30 June - ICANN Meeting - Public Council meeting Panama City at 13:00 (tbc) local time 21 July (Thursday) at 12:00 UTC (Document deadline 11 July 2016) August - no meetings 1 September (Thursday) at 21:00 UTC (Document deadline 22 August 2016) 29 September (Thursday) at 12:00 UTC Document deadline 19 September 2016 13 October (Thursday) at 21:00 UTC (Document deadline 3 October 2016) 2 November, ICANN Meeting - Public Council meeting Puerto Rico at 13:00 (tbc) local time (Document deadline 23 October 2016) 1 December (Thursday) at 12:00 UTC (Document deadline 21 November 2016) 15 December (Thursday) at 21:00 UTC (Document deadline 5 December 2016) Please let me know if you have any questions. 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<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

GNSO Council questions concerning security issues in Marrakech
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Dec '15

16 Dec '15

Dear Councillors, As a follow-up to the security briefing that Nick Tomasso and his team provided the Council with on 19 November and the questions the Council posed on the mailing list, please find the responses in italics below: * With the posting publicly of the location of where the security details will be at the venue, should we be concerned that others may gain access to this plan? (FYI the presentation has been removed from the website) No, it should not have been posted publicly and for that reason was removed from the website. * Can we get an update from the Moroccan authorities about security enhancements outside the venue, e.g. the airport? We have developed our security requirements for the Marrakech Meeting and will be working in concert with Moroccan authorities to implement them. This will include security arrangements away from the meeting venue. We will share general information on that plan once completed. · Donna Austin, RySG: Can we have the details about the firm Chris works for? Happy to have this in writing. Control Risks is an international firm with extensive expertise in managing security for large events. https://www.controlrisks.com/en/services/security-risk/travel-security Chris Clark's bio is attached. He is a contractor reporting to Nick and responsible for managing all aspects of our meetings security program. · As well as to the booking issues delegates were having at the Palmeraie Resort in Marrakech. The problem was due to a lack of communication between the sales and reservations departments on the terms and conditions of our contract. Reservation restrictions have now been removed. Delegate reservations can be modified or cancelled without incurring penalty fees. Guest room availability following the meeting, beginning on the Friday, March 11, is limited and those dates may appear as "sold out" online. Delegates wishing to extend their stays may contact Loubna El Mekkaoui for assistance. Please refer to the "ICANN Meeting" when inquiring. Loubna El Mekkaoui, Sales Manager, Palmeraie Resorts (address will be provided on request) Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen De : Glen de Saint Géry Envoyé : mercredi 25 novembre 2015 19:45 À : Nick Tomasso Cc : Glen de Saint Géry; Mary Wong; Marika Konings; Geoff Bickers; Chris.Clark(a)controlrisks.com<mailto:Chris.Clark@controlrisks.com>; David Olive Objet : GNSO Council questions concerning security issues in Marrakech Dear Nick, Thank you and your team very much for attending the Council call on Thursday 19 November 2015. The Councillors appreciated your update and asked whether you would please be so kind as to provide responses to these questions: * With the posting publicly of the location of where the security details will be at the venue, should we be concerned that others may gain access to this plan? (FYI the presentation has been removed from the website) * Can we have the details about the firm Chris works for sent to the Council? [NOTE: this has been done - any additional information/follow up?] * Can we get an update from the Moroccan authorities about security enhancements outside the venue, e.g. the airport? * Can ICANN staff provide updates about concerns that the rooms in Marrakech are: (1) non-refundable/changeable; (2) to be prepaid; and (3) not available on Thursday night? Apparently the hotel is also asking people to email a scanned copy of the front and back of their credit cards - all these are very discouraging and difficult for attendees, especially business travelers. [NOTE: much of this has been done - any additional information/follow up?] 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<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Re: [RRSG-Excom] FW: [council] RE: Taking the Council's Temperature on Procedures for Consideration of 3rd Accountability Proposal
by Volker Greimann 16 Dec '15

16 Dec '15

Similarly, the RrSG is currently on track to be able to provide comments in time for the council call on the 17th, and it does not currently appear like we will be seeking an extention. -- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

1 0

Correction: Updated draft GNSO Council Teleconference Agenda 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Dec '15

16 Dec '15

Dear Councillors, Apologies, the link has been added in Item 9 to the updated Discussion Paper<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-07dec15-en.pdf> - Thank you! Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference on 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC. the update consists of a change in sequence of the items: Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique (10 mins) Item 7: VOTE ON MOTION - Endorsement of GNSO Candidates for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (20 minutes) Thank you. Kind regards, Glen This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures,<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> approved and updated on 24 June 2015. 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. Coordinated Universal Time: 18:00 UTC (http://tinyurl.com/oobnrtf) 10:00 Los Angeles; 13:00 Washington; 18:00 London; 20:00 Istanbul; 05:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review/amend agenda. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings of 19 November have been posted as approved on 5 December 2015 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION - Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes) In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO's policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2015/non-pdp-new-gtld> (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issu…> was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue…> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (Donna Austin) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes) This PDP had been requested<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm> by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN's implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf> for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Here the Council will review the Working Group's Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (James Bladel) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House) Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique (10 mins) Following discussions at the Council level in late 2014 to develop a means for the GNSO to provide input to the ICANN Board regarding gTLD policy matters highlighted in a GAC Communique, a template framework to review each GAC Communique was created by a group of Council volunteers assisted by ICANN staff. The Council agreed that while it would review carefully each GAC Communique issued at an ICANN meeting, it would not always provide input to the Board unless it also agreed that such feedback was either necessary or desirable, on a case-by-case basis. The first GNSO Review of a GAC Communique was of the GAC's Communique from ICANN53 in Buenos Aires. That Review document was sent<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-08jul15-en.pdf> to the ICANN Board in July 2015 and acknowledged<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-robinson-21oct15-en.pdf> by the Board in October. At its last meeting, the Council discussed an initial draft<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-10nov15-en.pdf> of a possible review document to be sent to the Board in response to the GAC's Dublin Communique<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20Dublin%2054%20…>. Here the Council will review an updated draft document<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-19nov15-en.pdf> and vote on whether to adopt it for forwarding to the ICANN Board. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (Stephanie Perrin) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7: VOTE ON MOTION - Endorsement of GNSO Candidates for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (20 minutes) Under ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments (AoC)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…> with the United States government, ICANN is mandated to review the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT Review). The CCT Review Team is expected to also assess the effectiveness of the application and evaluation processes, as well as the safeguards put in place by ICANN to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion of new gTLDs. A Call for Volunteers<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en> to the CCT Review Team closed on 13 November 2015, and twenty-six (26) applicants indicated that they wished to be endorsed as representatives of the GNSO to the Review Team. ICANN staff has since followed up with all these applicants for further information to assist the Council in its decision on endorsements (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw). Here the Council will discuss and determine which of the applicants to endorse for the CCT Review Team. 7.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (James Bladel) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (25 minutes) In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en…> of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization. In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…> an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability has made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20…> for public comment on 30 November 2015. Following ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) - the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue - announced<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en> that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send the consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN…>) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. Public comments on these latest recommendations closes on 21 December 2015, with all the Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt them in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016. Here the Council will discuss its review and adoption of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, including the timeline and consideration of any input from its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. 8.1 - Update (Thomas Rickert) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION - New gTLD Auction Proceeds (10 minutes) On 8 September 2015 ICANN published for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-…> a Discussion Paper concerning possible next steps in the community process regarding proceeds obtained from ICANN-conducted auctions for contested strings in the New gTLD Program. The Discussion Paper summarized the community discussions that had occurred to date, including discussions started by the GNSO Council and conducted at ICANN52. An updated Discussion Paper<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-07dec15-en.pdf> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015, noting that there seems to be general community support for a Cross-Community Working Group to be formed on the topic and proposing that the next step be confirming the interest of each ICANN Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) in participating in this effort. Interested SO/ACs would then be requested to nominate up to 2 volunteers for the Drafting Team to be formed, to develop a charter for adoption by all the potential Chartering Organizations. 9.1 - Status update (Marika Konings) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: Any Other Business (10 Minutes) 10.1 - Confirming schedule of GNSO Council meetings for 2016 10.2 - Marrakech meeting planning (note: weekend session planning being led by Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr) _________________________________ 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 March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 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 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 15:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 16:00 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+3+0DST 20:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 02:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 02:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 05:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2015, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/j8rmlem 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<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Updated draft GNSO Council Teleconference Agenda 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 15 Dec '15

15 Dec '15

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference on 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC. the update consists of a change in sequence of the items: Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique (10 mins) Item 7: VOTE ON MOTION - Endorsement of GNSO Candidates for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (20 minutes) Thank you. Kind regards, Glen This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures,<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> approved and updated on 24 June 2015. 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. Coordinated Universal Time: 18:00 UTC (http://tinyurl.com/oobnrtf) 10:00 Los Angeles; 13:00 Washington; 18:00 London; 20:00 Istanbul; 05:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review/amend agenda. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings of 19 November have been posted as approved on 5 December 2015 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION - Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes) In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO's policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2015/non-pdp-new-gtld> (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issu…> was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue…> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (Donna Austin) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes) This PDP had been requested<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm> by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN's implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf> for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Here the Council will review the Working Group's Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (James Bladel) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House) Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique (10 mins) Following discussions at the Council level in late 2014 to develop a means for the GNSO to provide input to the ICANN Board regarding gTLD policy matters highlighted in a GAC Communique, a template framework to review each GAC Communique was created by a group of Council volunteers assisted by ICANN staff. The Council agreed that while it would review carefully each GAC Communique issued at an ICANN meeting, it would not always provide input to the Board unless it also agreed that such feedback was either necessary or desirable, on a case-by-case basis. The first GNSO Review of a GAC Communique was of the GAC's Communique from ICANN53 in Buenos Aires. That Review document was sent<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-08jul15-en.pdf> to the ICANN Board in July 2015 and acknowledged<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-robinson-21oct15-en.pdf> by the Board in October. At its last meeting, the Council discussed an initial draft<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-10nov15-en.pdf> of a possible review document to be sent to the Board in response to the GAC's Dublin Communique<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20Dublin%2054%20…>. Here the Council will review an updated draft document<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-19nov15-en.pdf> and vote on whether to adopt it for forwarding to the ICANN Board. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (Stephanie Perrin) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7: VOTE ON MOTION - Endorsement of GNSO Candidates for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (20 minutes) Under ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments (AoC)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…> with the United States government, ICANN is mandated to review the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT Review). The CCT Review Team is expected to also assess the effectiveness of the application and evaluation processes, as well as the safeguards put in place by ICANN to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion of new gTLDs. A Call for Volunteers<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en> to the CCT Review Team closed on 13 November 2015, and twenty-six (26) applicants indicated that they wished to be endorsed as representatives of the GNSO to the Review Team. ICANN staff has since followed up with all these applicants for further information to assist the Council in its decision on endorsements (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw). Here the Council will discuss and determine which of the applicants to endorse for the CCT Review Team. 7.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (James Bladel) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (25 minutes) In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en…> of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization. In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…> an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability has made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20…> for public comment on 30 November 2015. Following ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) - the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue - announced<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en> that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send the consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN…>) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. Public comments on these latest recommendations closes on 21 December 2015, with all the Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt them in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016. Here the Council will discuss its review and adoption of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, including the timeline and consideration of any input from its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. 8.1 - Update (Thomas Rickert) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION - New gTLD Auction Proceeds (10 minutes) On 8 September 2015 ICANN published for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-…> a Discussion Paper concerning possible next steps in the community process regarding proceeds obtained from ICANN-conducted auctions for contested strings in the New gTLD Program. The Discussion Paper summarized the community discussions that had occurred to date, including discussions started by the GNSO Council and conducted at ICANN52. An updated [INSERT LINK] Discussion Paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015, noting that there seems to be general community support for a Cross-Community Working Group to be formed on the topic and proposing that the next step be confirming the interest of each ICANN Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) in participating in this effort. Interested SO/ACs would then be requested to nominate up to 2 volunteers for the Drafting Team to be formed, to develop a charter for adoption by all the potential Chartering Organizations. 9.1 - Status update (Marika Konings) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: Any Other Business (10 Minutes) 10.1 - Confirming schedule of GNSO Council meetings for 2016 10.2 - Marrakech meeting planning (note: weekend session planning being led by Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr) _________________________________ 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 March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 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 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 15:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 16:00 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+3+0DST 20:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 02:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 02:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 05:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2015, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/j8rmlem 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<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Blog post - Paving the way for a next-generation gTLD RDS
by Marika Konings 15 Dec '15

15 Dec '15

Dear All, For your information, the following blog post which was developed in consultation with the GNSO Leadership Team and Susan Kawaguchi, the GNSO Council liaison to this PDP, has just been posted on the ICANN web-site: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/paving-the-way-for-a-next-generation-gtld-r…. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Re: [council] For your review - Updated new gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper
by James M. Bladel 14 Dec '15

14 Dec '15

Thanks, Tony. Noted. Also: prior to stepping down from the Council, Jonathan Robinson had indicated a willingness/interest to participate in this Drafting Team. If there are no objections, I think we would be fortunate to have him contribute to this effort along with Tony. And please keep in mind Markia's note below: the intention is to keep the Drafting Team small, with just 2 participants from each SO/AC. I expect that the actually CCWG that follows will be a larger group and comprised of participants from across the GNSO, and the broader ICANN community. Thanks- J. From: Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris(a)gmail.com<mailto:anthonyrharris@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday 10 December 2015 10:49 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] For your review - Updated new gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper Marika, I volunteer for the drafting team. Tony Harris On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please find attached for your review and consideration the updated new gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper which has been updated to reflect the contributions received in response to the public comment forum. As outlined in the document, as there was general support for proceeding with a CCWG, the proposed next step is to go back to each of the ICANN SO/ACs to confirm their interest to participate in this effort and request up to 2 volunteers for the drafting team to develop a charter which is to be submitted for review and adoption to all the potential chartering organizations. You can find the public comment review tool which outlines the input received and how it has or is expected to be addressed in Annex B of the report. For those interested, I can also provide a redline version, but as some sections moved around it may appear as more changes were made than in reality happened. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Re: [council] TR: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
by Marika Konings 14 Dec '15

14 Dec '15

Dear All, As noted in the action item list coming out of the previous meeting, please review the message from the CWG-Stewardship below and indicate if you have any concerns or objections to the proposed CWG-Stewardship role in implementation by 4 December at the latest. Thanks, Marika From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Date: Monday 16 November 2015 10:09 To: "GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] TR: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff. Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship, Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) confirmed designation of the operational communities to be responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals. The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of ICANN54 and discussed this role and we continued this discussion in a subsequent meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An oversight role is not specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the CWG-Stewardship's view that our role in implementation is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and furthermore, to provide input on the implementation work when required by staff working on the implementation or, if and when necessary, to bring the implementation work back in line with the intent of the Final Proposal. In our view, the most logical option is to have the CWG-Stewardship working group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to monitor the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course, this responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed without this specific remit. We note here for your information, that while the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained active and therefore available when needed. This has included being available to answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to coordinate with the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights. As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically address implementation, we would like to ensure that the CWG-Stewardship's proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the implementation work as described above unless there are objections from one or more Chartering Organizations. We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does not intend to change its working methods in light of this ongoing role. The group will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing support of our work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015. Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs

4 4

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#190]
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Dec '15

14 Dec '15

De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : lundi 14 décembre 2015 15:02 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#190] Name of Officer: * Michele Neylon Officer Email Address: * michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com> Date Prepared: * Monday, December 14, 2015 GNSO Organization: * Registrars Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Jennifer Gore Standiford will not be able to attend the GNSO council meeting on December 17th Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any and all Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, December 18, 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: * Volker Greimann

1 0

TR: Proxy for GNSO Council Meeting on 17 Dec, 18:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Dec '15

14 Dec '15

FYI De : Valerie Tan Objet : Proxy for GNSO Council Meeting on 17 Dec, 18:00 UTC Dear GNSO Secretariat, I regret that I will not be able to attend the GNSO Council meeting this Thur 17 Dec at 18:00hrs as I will be traveling. Rubens Kuhl has kindly agreed to be appointed as my proxy for this meeting and will vote on my behalf. Thanks & Best Regards, Valerie

1 0