September 2015 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] RE: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for comments
by Marika Konings Sept. 10, 2015

Sept. 10, 2015

Phil, thank you for your questions. As the main author of the paper, I am happy to respond. The idea for a discussion paper was raised during the SO/AC High Interest Topic Discussion as well as the workshop as a next step to allow for additional input from those that were not able to participate or provide input during the sessions in Buenos Aires. This proposed approach was also shared by Jonathan during his recent updates to the GNSO Council. A CCWG is typically open to anyone interested to participate – there is no requirement to be an ICANN regular or member of an SO/AC, although recent CCWGs have, in addition to participations, SO/AC appointed members which have a particular communication and co-ordination role with respect to their SO/AC. As you point out there may not be any meaningful distinction between the ICANN community and others, but the paper wanted to make clear that anyone should be encouraged to provide input and feedback. The issues in section 4 are intended to be a starting point for discussions and are largely based on issues raised during the BA sessions as well as my personal experiences with the development of charters for (C)WGs. It is the hope that these, in addition to other points that may be raised in response to the public comment forum, will help to inform the drafting team deliberations. With regards to the ‘other approach’ as you may recall, one of the questions that was asked during the High Interest Topic Discussion in Buenos Aires was whether those participating were supportive of a CCWG or whether alternative approaches should be considered. Those that participated seemed generally supportive of a CCWG to address this topic, but staff did not want to exclude the possibility that there could be new suggestions or ideas in response to the public comment forum from those that may not have been able to participate in the BA meeting that the community may want to consider. This is in no way intended to undermine the CCWG approach but merely to allow those that may not have been able to have their voice heard before to share ideas and suggestions that may warrant further consideration. I understand that the timing of the public comment forum is not ideal and consideration may need to be given to extending it beyond the Dublin meeting, but the hope was that the feedback provided would enable the community to review the feedback provided and embark on the next steps in this process during the ICANN meeting in Dublin. I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Thursday 10 September 2015 11:04 To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>, "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] RE: New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for comments Point of inquiry: Was publication of this notice triggered by Council support for a CCWG to determine criteria for utilization of new gTLD auction funds, or was it triggered independently? The referenced Discussion paper, in Section 3.1.4, seems to state that it was suggested at the SO/AC High Interest Topic Discussion and the Workshop held in BA and is not directly related to the CCWG process. The discussion paper, in its introduction, calls for participation “from both within and outside the ICANN community”. That seems at odds with a CCWG, which is of course made up of ICANN community members. It also seems to echo elements of the email that Steve Crocker sent when he first learned of potential support for a CCWG. I also remain unclear about whether there is any meaningful distinction between the ICANN community and other Internet-related interests or entities who do not participate in it -- given that ICANN participation is open to everyone without barriers as well as the very high physical and remote attendance at contemporary ICANN meetings. I am also curious regarding the origin of the Issues to be Considered and Addressed catalogued in section 4 of the paper. I don’t have any specific objection to any of them but wonder where they came from – and whether the list of potential issues shouldn’t properly come from those who engage in this comment process and a future CCWG. I further note this part of the Notice: Next Steps: This discussion paper is published for public comment in order to allow for additional input before this paper is submitted to the drafting team, which is expected to be tasked with developing a proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group for consideration, unless another approach is suggested as part of the public comment period and which is then deemed preferable. (emphasis added) It is not clear whether “another approach” refers to the Charter drafting team, or to the CCWG itself. If it is the latter (which seems more logical, as every CCWG needs a Charter drafted) then it would seem that there may be some intent to undermine a CCWG proceeding. In any event, I think this assertion needs clarification. Finally, I am curious about what prompted the publication of this notice at this time, as it sets a comment deadline of October 18 – which is the starting Sunday of the Dublin ICANN meeting – which means that the comments cannot possibly be evaluated in time to inform any discussion of this topic in Dublin. The disposition of $60-million+ is a very important topic and asking the community to submit well-considered input at a time when so many remain heavily engaged on stewardship and accountability seems questionable. Further, I was under the impression that there was a general policy against setting deadlines that coincided with ICANN public meetings. I would appreciate some response to this request for clarification on the points raised above. Thanks and best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey 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: Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:44 AM To: GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) Subject: [council] New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for comments New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-… Open Date:8 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC Close Date:18 Oct 2015 23:59 UTC Staff Report Due:1 Nov 2015 23:59 UTC Comments close in 38 Days Submit Comment to Forum<mailto:comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15@icann.org> Comments Forum<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15/> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15/ Brief Overview Purpose: This is a discussion paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-…> [PDF, 455 KB] on the proceeds from ICANN-conducted auctions for contested new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) strings. This paper calls for broad, open and inclusive public comment and encourages participation from all sectors, regions and levels (or no level) of engagement with the ICANN community. Current Status: This paper aims to capture the information and input on this topic to date as well as outlining potential questions and issues to be addressed in the subsequent phases of the process to determine next steps in relation to new gTLD Auction Proceeds. Next Steps: This discussion paper is published for public comment in order to allow for additional input before this paper is submitted to the drafting team, which is expected to be tasked with developing a proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group for consideration, unless another approach is suggested as part of the public comment period and which is then deemed preferable. Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose Since the launch of the new gTLD Program, numerous suggestions have been made, such as during the ICANN public forum sessions at ICANN meetings, on how new gTLD auction proceeds should be spent including; suggestions that the funds should be donated to charitable organizations, support for applicants in future rounds, programs to promote new gTLDs and consumer protection, the creation of an ICANN trust, to returning the money to the applicants from the current round. However, it was not until March 2015 that the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) started discussing a possible process for facilitating the conversation around new gTLD auction proceeds during ICANN52 such as a Cross-Community Working Group (CCSG). The discussion paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-…> [PDF, 455 KB] aims to capture the information and input on new gTLD Auction Proceeds to date as well as outlining potential questions and issues to be addressed in the subsequent phases of the process, such as outreach, participation and ensuring a focus on framework development, to determine next steps. Broad, open and inclusive public comment input is sought and participation from all sectors, regions and levels (or no level) of engagement with the ICANN community is encouraged. Section II: Background The new gTLD Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention. Most string contentions (approximately 90% of sets scheduled for auction) have been resolved through other means before reaching an auction conducted by ICANN's authorized auction service provider, Power Auctions LLC. It was recognized from the outset that significant funds could accrue as a result of several auctions. As such, these auction proceeds have been reserved and earmarked until the Board authorizes a plan for the appropriate use of the funds through dialogue with the community. Board, staff, and community are expected to be working together in designing and participating in the next steps addressing the use of new gTLD auction proceeds. 13 contention sets have been resolved via ICANN Auction since June 2014. The total net proceeds to date are $58.8 million USD. Details of the proceeds can be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds. Section III: Relevant Resources * New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-…> [PDF, 455 KB] * For more information about ICANN and its work, visit www.ICANN.org<https://www.icann.org/> * For more information about the new gTLD program associated with these proceeds, visit http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ Section IV: Additional Information Section V: Reports Staff Contact Marika Konings policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

2 1

New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper - call for comments
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 10, 2015

Sept. 10, 2015

New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-… Open Date:8 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC Close Date:18 Oct 2015 23:59 UTC Staff Report Due:1 Nov 2015 23:59 UTC Comments close in 38 Days Submit Comment to Forum<mailto:comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15@icann.org> Comments Forum<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15/> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-08sep15/ Brief Overview Purpose: This is a discussion paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-…> [PDF, 455 KB] on the proceeds from ICANN-conducted auctions for contested new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) strings. This paper calls for broad, open and inclusive public comment and encourages participation from all sectors, regions and levels (or no level) of engagement with the ICANN community. Current Status: This paper aims to capture the information and input on this topic to date as well as outlining potential questions and issues to be addressed in the subsequent phases of the process to determine next steps in relation to new gTLD Auction Proceeds. Next Steps: This discussion paper is published for public comment in order to allow for additional input before this paper is submitted to the drafting team, which is expected to be tasked with developing a proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group for consideration, unless another approach is suggested as part of the public comment period and which is then deemed preferable. Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose Since the launch of the new gTLD Program, numerous suggestions have been made, such as during the ICANN public forum sessions at ICANN meetings, on how new gTLD auction proceeds should be spent including; suggestions that the funds should be donated to charitable organizations, support for applicants in future rounds, programs to promote new gTLDs and consumer protection, the creation of an ICANN trust, to returning the money to the applicants from the current round. However, it was not until March 2015 that the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) started discussing a possible process for facilitating the conversation around new gTLD auction proceeds during ICANN52 such as a Cross-Community Working Group (CCSG). The discussion paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-…> [PDF, 455 KB] aims to capture the information and input on new gTLD Auction Proceeds to date as well as outlining potential questions and issues to be addressed in the subsequent phases of the process, such as outreach, participation and ensuring a focus on framework development, to determine next steps. Broad, open and inclusive public comment input is sought and participation from all sectors, regions and levels (or no level) of engagement with the ICANN community is encouraged. Section II: Background The new gTLD Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention. Most string contentions (approximately 90% of sets scheduled for auction) have been resolved through other means before reaching an auction conducted by ICANN's authorized auction service provider, Power Auctions LLC. It was recognized from the outset that significant funds could accrue as a result of several auctions. As such, these auction proceeds have been reserved and earmarked until the Board authorizes a plan for the appropriate use of the funds through dialogue with the community. Board, staff, and community are expected to be working together in designing and participating in the next steps addressing the use of new gTLD auction proceeds. 13 contention sets have been resolved via ICANN Auction since June 2014. The total net proceeds to date are $58.8 million USD. Details of the proceeds can be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds. Section III: Relevant Resources * New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-…> [PDF, 455 KB] * For more information about ICANN and its work, visit www.ICANN.org<https://www.icann.org/> * For more information about the new gTLD program associated with these proceeds, visit http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ Section IV: Additional Information Section V: Reports Staff Contact Marika Konings policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>

4 3

GNSO Council chair election: proposed procedure & timetable - 2015 Consent Agenda resolution
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 7, 2015

Sept. 7, 2015

Dear Councillors, The Council, on Thursday, 3 September 2015, approved the GNSO Chair election timetable and procedure that is published at http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/proposed-council-chair-03sep15-en.pdf<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJniX-2B-2BEUd2c9…> In summary, the timeline is as follows: * 25 September - deadline for nominations * 2 October - candidate statements * 17/18 October - Q & A with candidates * 21 October - GNSO Chair Election As a reminder, 'each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of a house, but must be a member of the GNSO Council'. For further information, please see section 2.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures v3. 24 June 2015 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf>) Proposed procedure in Dublin -October 2015 Each candidate will have the opportunity of meeting with Council Members during the GNSO working sessions in Dublin on the weekend of 17/18 October 2015 (remote participation possible). Election of the chair by voting of the Council will take place during the Council meeting in Dublin on Wednesday, 21 October 2015. In order for the vote to take place, the Council meeting will be split in two parts: · Standard, open and public Council meeting with the current Council. · Adjourn the meeting · Re-seat the Council with the new Councilors. · Re-start new meeting, with one specific agenda item: Election of the Chair Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

In regard to the discussion on Public Interest during the Council call
by Avri Doria Sept. 5, 2015

Sept. 5, 2015

Hi, In respect to the point made by Amr and Volker that Public Interest is hard because there are different viewpoints on it. I would like to point out that this is the case on many issues and that is pretty much the point behind multistakeholder processes - to figure out a consensus point, if any exists, on hard issues with multiple viewpoints. As for the current issue with generic strings, it is perhaps appropriate to take up the issue now to answer the issues so that the applications that are blocked can become unblocked. I do not believe we should leave the issue pending until the next PDP of possible subsequent rounds is completed. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

MP3 recording & Adobe chat transcript GNSO Council teleconference Thursday, 3 September 2015
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 3, 2015

Sept. 3, 2015

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 3 September 2015 on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-03sep15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> and the Adobe chat transcript can be viewed here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-03sep15-en.pdf<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnjfgjJp6GMAHPLM…> Happy listening and reading! 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 Recommendations Report to the Board for the Adoption of the Translation and Transliteration PDP recommendations
by Lars Hoffmann Sept. 3, 2015

Sept. 3, 2015

Dear Councillors, Please find attached the GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the Board for the Adoption of the Translation and Transliteration PDP recommendations. The Report will form part of the consent agenda for the next Council meeting on 24 September 2015. Please note that the Report is prepared by staff, summarises the PDP works, details the recommendations, contains links to the various public comment fora, and generally brings together different aspects of the work that have gone into the PDP, as prescribed by the PDP Manual. The Recommendations Report is part of the documents that the Board requires before considering the recommendations. Because of the timeline, staff will submit the Report to the Board in the next days, with the explicit caveat that the Report still awaits GNSO Council approval. This will mean that if there are no (or only minor) changes, the Board will be able to consider the recommendations at its meeting on 28 September. If major changes are required following the next GNSO Council meeting, the Board will consider the issue in Dublin. If you have any questions regarding the procedure or the Report itself, please feel free to get in touch at any time. Very best wishes, Lars

1 0

Updated proposed GNSO Council teleconference agenda 3 September 2015 at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 3, 2015

Sept. 3, 2015

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference on 3 September 2015 at 15:00 UTC. The updates relate to: Item 1: Donna Austin's updated Statement of Interest The addition of Item 10.2 Brief update on the implementation of the new ICANN Meeting format particularly with regard to Meeting B. 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: 15:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/ppl8p8h 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 16:00 London; 18:00 Istanbul; 23:00 Perth 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 a dial out call is needed. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest Donna Austin<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Donna+Austin+SOI> 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 meetings of 24 June and 23 July 2015 will be posted as approved on xxxxxx 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> 2.2 - Comments or questions arising Item 3: Consent agenda (10 minutes) 3.1 - Adoption of timeline<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-council-chair-election-24jul15-en.pdf> for election of the next GNSO Chair 3.2 - Approval of transmission of Recommendations Report to ICANN Board following public comments<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendatio…> on the Council's recommendation that the Board adopt the Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/translation-transliteration-contact-f…> from the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Data Working Group Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION & DECISION - Public Comment Period for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report (15 minutes) At its July 2015 meeting, the GNSO Council approved the staff request<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17350.html> for an extension of the deadline for publication of the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures. The extension was viewed as necessary given the number of potential topics that had been identified by the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group and the need to develop a proposed framework for handling those topics in a possible PDP. The Council had also discussed briefly the possible benefits of having an extended public comment period in view of the community interest in this matter. Here the Council will discuss the ramifications of extending the public comment period and decide whether or not to recommend moving forward with the idea. 4.1 - Update and presentation of possible timelines (Steve Chan) 4.2 - Council discussion 4.3 - Council decision and next steps Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Letter from ICANN Board Chair on Exclusive Registry Access for gTLD Terms representing Generic Strings (10 minutes) On 27 July 2015 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-robinson-27…> to the GNSO Chair requesting that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program. The GNSO was also asked to inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to progress on the issue. Here the Council will discuss the letter and decide on its response. 5.1 - Council discussion 5.2 - Next steps Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Protection for IGO Acronyms at the Second Level in All gTLDs (15 minutes) At the July 2015 Council meeting, PDP Working Group co-chair Philip Corwin outlined for the Council certain concerns that the WG co-chairs shared regarding the timing and mechanisms for interactions between the WG and the IGO "small group" (comprising IGO and GAC representatives) that had been formed to formulate a substantive proposal for discussion with the GNSO. The final proposal is expected to be based on the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) initial March 2014 proposal<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/chalaby-to-robinson-20mar14-en.pdf> to the GAC, and as such is expected to address both so-called "preventative" (i.e. pre-registration) as well as "curative" (i.e. post-registration) protections for IGO acronyms. In respect of preventative protections, the NGPC had previously requested<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/chalaby-to-robinson-16jun14-en.pdf> that the GNSO Council consider amending those of its adopted policy recommendations that are inconsistent with GAC advice. Following discussions with the NGPC, the Council had put the matter on hold<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-chalaby-disspain-07oct1…> pending further details regarding possible amendments from the NGPC. Here the Council will receive an update on the status of the WG, GAC and IGO interactions on the topic if IGO protections, and discuss what, if anything, it might wish to do at this stage to facilitate progress in resolving any issues arising therefrom. 6.1 - Update (Philip Corwin / Mason Cole / Mary Wong) 6.2 - Council discussion 6.3 - Next steps Item 7: UPDATE ON EXPECTED COUNCIL ACTION - Final Report from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (5 minutes) The Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group was chartered to explore opportunities to review standard methodologies of reporting and metrics that can better inform fact-based policy development and decision-making, including how the community can collaborate with Contracted Parties and other service providers in the sharing of metrics and data. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment on 29 July 2015, and the public comment period will close on 7 September 2015. Here the Council will receive an update on the expected timeline for delivery of the WG's Final Report and note potential issues for Council consideration in the Final Report. 7.1 - Update (Jonathan Zuck) 7.2 - Council discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability - CCWG Accountability (15 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. Considering that the US Government (through the 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. On 3 August, 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 round of public consultation concerns significant changes made by the CCWG to its first proposal. The changes focus on outstanding issues, add details to the Work Stream 1 proposal(s), and include revisions to the original proposal(s) arising from the feedback received in the first public comment consultation period. Public comments may be sent in through 12 September. Here the Council will review the CCWG's status and progress, and discuss any specific issues that need to be addressed in view of the timeline of the CCWG and the connection between its work and the IANA stewardship transition. 8.1 - Summary and status update (Thomas Rickert) 8.2 - Council discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION - Preparation for ICANN54 (15 minutes) During the regular GNSO weekend working sessions at each ICANN Public Meeting, the GNSO Council and community meet with the ICANN Board, the GAC, staff from ICANN's Global Domains Division, and senior ICANN management. Here the Council will discuss suggested topics for those meetings at ICANN54, as well as receive an update on scheduling and planning for the meeting generally. 9.1 - Update (Volker Greimann / Marika Konings / Glen de St. Gery) 9.2 - Council discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: Any Other Business (15 minutes) 10.1 - Post-ICANN53 progress on Cross Community Working Group on Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs 10.2 - Brief update on the implementation of the new ICANN Meeting format particularly with regard to Meeting B. ___________________________________________ 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 11:00 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 08:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+1DST 10:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-5+1DST 10:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 11:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 16:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 17:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 18:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+3+0DST 18:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 23:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+1DST 01:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ppl8p8h 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 1

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#182]
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 3, 2015

Sept. 3, 2015

De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mercredi 2 septembre 2015 02:07 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#182] Name of Officer: * Rafik Dammak Officer Email Address: * rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, September 2, 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: * Ed Morris won't be able to attend to the GNSO council meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Marilia Maciel will submit Ed'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, September 5, 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: * Marilia Maciel

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#183]
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 3, 2015

Sept. 3, 2015

De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mercredi 2 septembre 2015 02:11 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#183] Name of Officer: * Rafik Dammak Officer Email Address: * rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, September 2, 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: * Avri Doria may be not able to attend to the GNSO council meeting due to other commitments. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Stephanie Perrin will submit Avri'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, September 5, 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: * Stephanie Perrin

1 0

Updated Project List
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 3, 2015

Sept. 3, 2015

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the updated GNSO Project list. Thank you. 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