January 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC
by Marika Konings Jan. 19, 2016

Jan. 19, 2016

Dear Phil, In relation to the first item, please note that the agenda was drafted prior to the last meeting and does not reflect yet the deferral of the consideration of the draft letter. The GNSO Leadership Team is meeting later today so I expect you can anticipate an updated agenda following that call. 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: Tuesday 19 January 2016 at 07:50 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: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Fellow Councilors: I have some concerns regarding this most recent proposed agenda for our Council call which takes place in 55 hours. The primary concern is that it allocates only ten minutes to “UPDATE & Discussion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability”, and places it as one of the last items on the agenda. To my mind the finalization of our letter to the CCWG-ACCT is our top priority at this moment, and we have yet to see a draft letter reflecting our discussion of 1/14. I would suggest that review, modification, and adoption of that draft letter (assuming it will be circulated before Thursday’s call, which is imperative) be placed first on the agenda and that more than ten minutes be allocated to it. My other concern relates to “Vote on motion: Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (20 minutes)”. We are scheduled on Thursday, after disposing of our CCWG-ACCT responsibilities, to “VOTE ON MOTION – Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes)” – which I think we can do, although it may take more than 15 minutes – as well as to “VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (20 minutes)”. So those are two weighty items that require discussion and vote, after we wrap up on the CCWG Accountability proposal. I am in general agreement with the staff suggestions on how to handle the RPM review, but am concerned that cramming our entire discussion and subsequent vote on it into a Council meeting that is already quite full of important and complex matters risks missing some important points that we might want to include within a Charter for this PDP. I welcome Council members’ feedback in regard to Thursday’s agenda. Best to all, 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: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:46 PM To: GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Dear Councillors, Please find the Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Also posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+January+2… and on the website: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-21jan16-en.htm Motions posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+… 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: 21:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/zjkmew8 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 23:00 Istanbul; 08:00 Hobart Friday 22 January 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 meeting of 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on xxxxx 2016 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 – Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on 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. During its meeting on 17 December, the Council initiated the PDP but deferred consideration of the Charter for the PDP Working Group to this meeting. Here the Council will review the revised charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-charter-12ja…> for adoption. 4.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+…> (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 (20 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. Consideration of this item was deferred from the 17 December meeting. 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+21+January+…> (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:Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (20 minutes) In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS. The Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures was published on 11 January 2015 at http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/rpm. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) in order to the review Rights Protection Mechanisms in the new gTLDs and, in a subsequent, second phase, review the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the review topics are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. 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. 6.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+…> (Amr Elsadr) 6.2 – Discussion 6.3 – 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 7: UPDATE & Discussion – GNSO Review (15 minutes) As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee appointed Westlake Governance as the independent examiner to conduct the current review of the performance and operations of the GNSO. A GNSO Working Party, chaired by former Councillor Jennifer Wolfe and comprising representatives of all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, was formed to consult with Westlake over the design and conduct of the review. Westlake's Draft Report was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en> for public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including from the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf> on 15 September. The Working Party has been reviewing the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board’s consideration in relation to the implementability and priority of these recommendations. Here the Council will receive an update from the Review Working Party and discuss next steps. 7.1 – Update (Jen Wolfe) 7.2 – Discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (10 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. The CCWG-Accountability’s Third Draft Proposal was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20…> for public comment on 30 November 2015. The GNSO Council discussed input to this proposal during its meeting on 14 January 2016. Here the Council will receive an update on the progress of the CCWG -Accountability, specifically the timeline and consideration of input provided by the GNSO Council and its SG/Cs. 8.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert) 8.2 – Discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: UPDATE & Discussion – Marrakesh Meeting Planning (10 minutes) During the Dublin meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr volunteered to work with the GNSO Council Leadership on the development of the proposed agenda for the GNSO Weekend Session in Marrakech. Here the Council will receive a status update on the planning for Marrakesh and any action that may be required from the GNSO Council. 9.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr) 9.2 – Discussion 9.3 – Next steps Item 10:Any Other Business (10 Minutes) _________________________________ 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 21:00 Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 13:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 15:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 19:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 23:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 05:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 05:00 next day Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 08:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt 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/> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

4 3

Revised Attendance and mp3 recording CCWG Subteam 11 January 2016
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 18, 2016

Jan. 18, 2016

Dear all, Please note the revised attendance with Jennifer Standiford and Volker Greimann who were also present Please find the attendance, mp3 recording and AC room chat below with transcription attached of the CCWG Subteam call held on the 11th January 2016 at 1900 UTC. mp3 recording: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/feowuhsup4q57d7cfdgd0wh7x1e62pkc.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=zZ8xDDIU4PY795Cika7Nmy-2FNugFnAwo9a…> Attendance: James Bladel, Keith Drazek, Phil Corwin, Edward Morris, Jennifer Standiford and Volker Greimann. Apologies: Paul McGrady and Marika Konings Staff: Julie Hedlund, Mary Wong, Glen de St Gery, Lars Hoffmann, Terri Agnew Thank you. Kind regards, Terri AC Chat: Terri Agnew: (1/11/2016 09:40) Dear all, welcome to the CCWG - SubTeam call on Monday 11th January 2016 at 1900 UTC James Bladel: (13:02) Apologies for the formality. :) Mary Wong: (13:10) In transmitting the result of the vote on the motion to the CCWG and others, whether or not it was a unanimous, supermajority, majority or other vote can be noted. Keith Drazek: (13:10) Agree with James. If anyone really wants formality, we should go that route. Lars Hoffmann: (13:12) got it Mary Wong: (13:16) We can tag these columns as "GNSO Council comments" rather than just "Comments" and add a note (either running across each page or as a footnote) on referring to the full SG/C submissions for details. Mary Wong: (13:25) It may also be helpful here to make clear if "qualifications" mean "conditions" for support (contrast, e.g., Rec 3 and Rec 4). Edward Morris: (13:32) Disconnected. Calling back in. James Bladel: (13:32) ok, no worries. Edward Morris: (13:33) back Mary Wong: (13:36) It also reads as though the full GNSO believes these two Stress Tests are misleading (unless that in fact is the case?) Terri Agnew: (13:36) @Phil, you cut out for a moment but you are back Mary Wong: (13:37) If indeed that is the case, maybe it should just be a statement - what Phil is now suggesting. James Bladel: (13:37) Ok. Let's flag #3 for potential removal. Keith Drazek: (13:41) Two groups disagreeing does not mean the GNSO won't reach consensus on a Recommendation. We just need a simple majority of all. Keith Drazek: (13:42) I think the key question for this process and our output to the CCWG is to identify any Recommendations that won't currently receive a simple majority of support from the GNSO as a whole. Mary Wong: (13:53) @Phil, if the GNSO Council in fact is requesting that the CCWG prepare a Supplemental Proposal based on these comments, then it probably should be a Resolved clause. Philip Corwin: (13:54) Thanks Mary. Agree Mary Wong: (13:54) Something like "The GNSO Council requests that the CCWG consider the Council's feedback as regards Rec X, Y, Z etc, and prepare a Supplemental Proposal that addresses these suggested conditions and modifications." James Bladel: (13:55) Mary - that works, but can we include any Recommendat htat has "limited" or "condidttional" support as those Recs? Mary Wong: (13:55) If that's what the Council is requesting, then, sure! Philip Corwin: (14:02) +1 to Keith's point Mary Wong: (14:02) @James, I'm dropping to check that the next call is/isn't in a different AC room. James Bladel: (14:02) ok. thanks.

1 0

Draft Minutes Special Meeting of the GNSO Council 14 January 2016 to review
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 17, 2016

Jan. 17, 2016

Dear Councillors, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the Special Meeting of the GNSO Council on 14 January 2016 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 27 January 2016. 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

Attendance and mp3 recording CCWG Subteam 11 January 2016
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 16, 2016

Jan. 16, 2016

Dear all, Please find the attendance, mp3 recording and AC room chat below with transcription attached of the CCWG Subteam call held on the 11th January 2016 at 1900 UTC. mp3 recording: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/feowuhsup4q57d7cfdgd0wh7x1e62pkc.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=zZ8xDDIU4PY795Cika7Nmy-2FNugFnAwo9a…> Attendance: James Bladel, Keith Drazek, Phil Corwin and Edward Morris Apologies: Paul McGrady and Marika Konings Staff: Julie Hedlund, Mary Wong, Glen de St Gery, Lars Hoffmann, Terri Agnew Thank you. Kind regards, Terri AC Chat: Terri Agnew: (1/11/2016 09:40) Dear all, welcome to the CCWG - SubTeam call on Monday 11th January 2016 at 1900 UTC James Bladel: (13:02) Apologies for the formality. :) Mary Wong: (13:10) In transmitting the result of the vote on the motion to the CCWG and others, whether or not it was a unanimous, supermajority, majority or other vote can be noted. Keith Drazek: (13:10) Agree with James. If anyone really wants formality, we should go that route. Lars Hoffmann: (13:12) got it Mary Wong: (13:16) We can tag these columns as "GNSO Council comments" rather than just "Comments" and add a note (either running across each page or as a footnote) on referring to the full SG/C submissions for details. Mary Wong: (13:25) It may also be helpful here to make clear if "qualifications" mean "conditions" for support (contrast, e.g., Rec 3 and Rec 4). Edward Morris: (13:32) Disconnected. Calling back in. James Bladel: (13:32) ok, no worries. Edward Morris: (13:33) back Mary Wong: (13:36) It also reads as though the full GNSO believes these two Stress Tests are misleading (unless that in fact is the case?) Terri Agnew: (13:36) @Phil, you cut out for a moment but you are back Mary Wong: (13:37) If indeed that is the case, maybe it should just be a statement - what Phil is now suggesting. James Bladel: (13:37) Ok. Let's flag #3 for potential removal. Keith Drazek: (13:41) Two groups disagreeing does not mean the GNSO won't reach consensus on a Recommendation. We just need a simple majority of all. Keith Drazek: (13:42) I think the key question for this process and our output to the CCWG is to identify any Recommendations that won't currently receive a simple majority of support from the GNSO as a whole. Mary Wong: (13:53) @Phil, if the GNSO Council in fact is requesting that the CCWG prepare a Supplemental Proposal based on these comments, then it probably should be a Resolved clause. Philip Corwin: (13:54) Thanks Mary. Agree Mary Wong: (13:54) Something like "The GNSO Council requests that the CCWG consider the Council's feedback as regards Rec X, Y, Z etc, and prepare a Supplemental Proposal that addresses these suggested conditions and modifications." James Bladel: (13:55) Mary - that works, but can we include any Recommendat htat has "limited" or "condidttional" support as those Recs? Mary Wong: (13:55) If that's what the Council is requesting, then, sure! Philip Corwin: (14:02) +1 to Keith's point Mary Wong: (14:02) @James, I'm dropping to check that the next call is/isn't in a different AC room. James Bladel: (14:02) ok. thanks.

1 0

Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal
by Mary Wong Jan. 15, 2016

Jan. 15, 2016

Dear all, Here are the notes that staff took in relation to action items stemming from the Special GNSO Council meeting that just concluded. Please let us know if we have missed or mischaracterized anything. ACTION ITEMS: * Letter explaining GNSO Council response - James to prepare draft for Council consideration before 21 January, assisted by Keith and Ed * Rec 5, 11 - James to draft additional language along the lines of what was discussed/agreed on the call, assisted by Ed and Paul * Rec 1 - reinsert BC note about strong right of inspection (perhaps with cross-reference in/to Rec 3?) * Rec 2 - change "unanimous support" to "broad support" * Rec 3, 4 - no change * Rec 6 - remove last sentence; add note that certain questions remain to be resolved in WS2 * Rec 7 - no change * Rec 8 – further elaboration needed on note about timeliness (including replies and deadlines) * Rec 9 - Review whether IPC comment on AOC section 8(b) and direct constituency participation in review teams should be included; review generally for accuracy * Rec 10 - emphasize need for it to be a community-led effort * Rec 12 - no change Staff will follow up with James and the various Council volunteers to ensure that you have the updates as soon as practicable. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

7 16

CCC RT letter by the CSG
by Volker Greimann Jan. 15, 2016

Jan. 15, 2016

I just noted the following letter on the ICANN page: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bc-cct-to-chehade-schn… I find it interesting that a lack of gender diversity (which looks like it is an issue on this group) is (ab-)used to argue for the increase of the voice of one stakeholder group. Why that candidate in particular, if indeed 9 others were also suggested? No reasons are given! It would probably have been reasonable to request more gender diversity in general, but to use that argument to push your own interests seems ... off! -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - 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 Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- 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

Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
by WUKnoben Jan. 14, 2016

Jan. 14, 2016

James and team, when we’ll have your findings available? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: WUKnoben Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 11:37 PM To: James M. Bladel ; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Thanks James and team, if you could make available the findings before the upcoming weekend this would be very helpful with respect to the timely coordination within the SGs/C’s. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 10:08 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Colleagues - Attached and copied below, please find a Motion for consideration during our special session on 14 JAN to consider the Recommendations contained in the Third Draft CCWG-Accountability report. The small sub team reviewing comments submitted by SGs and Cs met today, and finalization of the findings/comments contained in the motion will be completed between now and our meeting. Please note that on todays call we also raised the possibility that a GNSO response might be more informal (e.g., letter) rather than a formal motion. This will also be part of our discussion on the 14th, but I wanted to have the motion submitted to the list in the event that we choose this approach. Thanks— J. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion on GNSO Joint Position on CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal Whereas, 1. The GNSO Council, together with other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, chartered the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) on 13 November 2014 ‘to deliver proposals that would enhance ICANN’s accountability towards all stakeholders. 2. The CCWG-Accountability published its third draft proposal for public comment on 30 November 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20…) 3. All GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and/or Constituencies (Cs) submitted their input on the third draft proposal and its 12 recommendations. 4. A GNSO Council sub-team was formed to review the input submitted by the GNSO SG/Cs and make a recommendation to the GNSO Council concerning a possible joint GNSO position on the third draft proposal . 5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the input provided by the sub-team on the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council views on the recommendations contained in the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal are as follows: Recommendation #1 Establishing An Empowered Community For Enforcing Community Powers for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #2 Empowering The Community Through Consensus: Engage, Escalate, Enforce for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #3 Redefining ICANN’s Bylaws As ‘Standard Bylaws’ And ‘Fundamental Bylaws’ for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #4 Ensuring Community Involvement In ICANN Decision-Making: Seven New Community Powers for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #5 Changing Aspects Of ICANN's Mission, Commitments And Core Values for more information) GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #6 Reaffirming ICANN's Commitment to Respect Internationally Recognized Human Rights as it Carries Out Its Mission for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #7 Strengthening ICANN's Independent Review Process for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #8 Improving ICANN's Request For Reconsideration Process for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #9 Incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #10 Enhancing the Accountability of Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #11 Board obligations regarding GAC Advice GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #12 Committing to further accountability work in Work Stream 2 GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments 2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to share this GNSO Council input on the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal with the Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability as soon as possible. 3. Although this GNSO input is submitted after the close of the public comment period, the GNSO Council expects the CCWG-Accountability to give this input due consideration as it is the aggregation of the individual GNSO SG/C positions that were submitted before the deadline. 4. The GNSO Council appreciates all the efforts of the CCWG-Accountability to deliver its final proposal to the Chartering Organizations in a timely manner and looks forward to considering the final proposal in due time.

11 32

MP3 recording & AC Chat transcript Special GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 14 January 2016
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 14, 2016

Jan. 14, 2016

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the Special GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 14 January 2016. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-14jan16-en.mp3 on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jan the Adobe chat transcript can be viewed here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-14jan16-en.pdf 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

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#193]
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 14, 2016

Jan. 14, 2016

FYI Glen Glen de Saint Géry From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: jeudi 14 janvier 2016 11:41 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#193] Name of Officer: * Tapani Tarvainen Officer Email Address: * ncsg(a)tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> Date Prepared: * Thursday, January 14, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Amr Elsadr won't be able to attend the GNSO meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Edward Morris will submit Amr's vote by proxy for the motions to be approved, and any other matters needing a vote. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Thursday, January 14, 2016 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: * Edward Morris

1 0

TR: For your review - CCWG Sub-Team Review of Recommendations
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 13, 2016

Jan. 13, 2016

Dear Councillors, The updated proposed responses to each of the CCWG Accountability recommendations have been posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/drafts http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccwg-subteam-review-recommendations-12jan16…<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnuFT4taHix-2FWC…> And on the motions Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+January+… Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Council Sub-Team that was tasked to review the SG/C comments received on the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal, please find attached the proposed responses to each of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations for your review. Please note that due to the short time frame not all of the sub-team members may have had an opportunity to weigh in on this latest draft, but in the interest of time, this version is shared with the Council so everyone has an opportunity to weigh in ahead of the Council meeting. Best regards, Marika

1 0

For your review - CCWG Sub-Team Review of Recommendations
by Marika Konings Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Council Sub-Team that was tasked to review the SG/C comments received on the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal, please find attached the proposed responses to each of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations for your review. Please note that due to the short time frame not all of the sub-team members may have had an opportunity to weigh in on this latest draft, but in the interest of time, this version is shared with the Council so everyone has an opportunity to weigh in ahead of the Council meeting. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars
by Volker Greimann Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

Dear all, ICANN recently launched a Public Comment on the above. This proposal as it stands is not merely a technical protocal, but appears to have significant policy implicantions that I feel need to be approved by the GNSO prior to adoption and implementation. I would therefore propose that the council comments and firmly establishes its intent to review the policy implications with a view of initiating policy work to either confirm or reject the policy aspects of this proposal. I also worry that this proposal is somewhat superfluous with regard to the already ongoing implementation work for thick whois and the upcoming policy work on the RDS, which would replace all of this. Bearing in mind the costs of implementation, we would be well advised to avoid work that is potentially overridden in short order. Potentially, the council might therefore also request that the implementation work on RDAP be halted until the RDS work is completed. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - 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 Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- 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.

4 4

REMINDER: Ethos Award Nomination Period Announcement
by Terri Agnew Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en Nomination Period Opens For ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award | Award Targeted for ICANN 56 | Nominations Close 12 March 2016 ICANN is pleased to announce the opening of the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award. This award program, launched in June 2014 in London, seeks to recognize long-standing community members who have served in leadership roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees, and demonstrated collaboration with different Supporting Organizationsand/or Advisory Committees. The Multistakeholder Ethos Award will recognize ICANN participants who have deeply invested in consensus-based solutions, acknowledging the importance of ICANN's multistakeholder model of Internet governance, and contributed in a substantive way to the higher interests of ICANN's organization and its community. The nomination period for community nominees opens today, 10 December 2015 and closes on12 March 2016. Community members interested in submitting a nomination are invited to send an email to <mailto:ethosaward2016@icann.org?subject=Multistakeholder%20Ethos%20Award%20 Nomination> ethosaward2016(a)icann.org including: * Name of nominee. * Community of nominee. * Reasons for nomination. Please note that the reasons outlining the candidate's merit for the nomination may be as brief or as long as required. Candidates for the award will demonstrate at least five years of participation in the ICANNCommunity. A panel of community members is being gathered to help review all community nominations and determine the best candidate(s) for the award(s). The decisions of the panel will be made based on the following criteria: 1. Demonstrated multistakeholder volunteer service via working groups or committees. 2. Demonstrated spirit of collaboration through engagement with other community members with the aim of consensus building. 3. Demonstrated facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair, cordial and collegial manner. 4. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness. Please submit your nominations via email to <mailto:ethosaward2016@icann.org?subject=Multistakeholder%20Ethos%20Award%20 Nomination> ethosaward2016(a)icann.org. Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2016 at ICANN56 Panama City. For more insights on the award program, please consult the <https://community.icann.org/x/qCDxAg> ICANN Community Wiki.

1 1

Public Comments: Final Report Recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en Final Report Recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group Follow Updates<https://www.icann.org/users/sign_up?document_id=13559&following=true> Open Date:23 Dec 2015 23:59 UTC Close Date:24 Apr 2016 23:59 UTC Staff Report Due:9 May 2016 23:59 UTC Comments close in 103 Days Contents * Brief Overview<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en#brief> * Submit Comment to Forum<mailto:geo-regions-23dec15@icann.org> : geo-regions-23dec15(a)icann.org * Comments Forum<http://forum.icann.org/lists/geo-regions-23dec15> : http://forum.icann.org/lists/geo-regions-23dec15/ * Section I: Description, Explanation & Purpose<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en#section1> * Section II: Background<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en#section2> * Section III: Relevant Resources<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en#section3> * Section IV: Additional Information<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en#section4> * Section V: Reports<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en#section5> * Staff Contact<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en#staff_conta…> Brief Overview Purpose: The cross-community Geographic Regions Review Working Group has produced its Final Report in which it proposes a series of recommendations regarding the ongoing application of the organization's geographic regions framework. The ICANN Board is interested in further community reaction to those recommendations and has instructed the Staff to open and manage a public comment period of at least 120 days to give the community an opportunity to thoroughly review the proposals and provide any additional comments on the working group recommendations. Current Status: Community feedback is requested concerning the Working Group recommendations. Next Steps: Upon completion of the public comment period, staff will summarize and forward any community input to the ICANN Board of Directors. Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The cross-community Geographic Regions Review Working Group has produced its Final Report in which it proposes a series of recommendations regarding the ongoing application of the organization's geographic regions framework. The ICANN Board is interested in further community reaction to those recommendations and has instructed the Staff to open and manage a public comment period of at least 120 days to give the community an opportunity to thoroughly review the proposals and provide any additional comments on the working group recommendations. The Working Group's Final Report provides an extensive series of conclusions, proposals and recommendations including: 1. The Working Group concludes that the general principle of geographic diversity is valuable and should be preserved. 2. Application of the geographic diversity principles must be more rigorous, clear and consistent. 3. Adjusting the number of ICANN geographic regions is not currently practical. 4. No other International Regional Structures offer useful options for ICANN. 5. ICANN must formally adopt and maintain its own unique Geographic Regions Framework. 6. The Community wants to minimize any changes to the current structure. 7. ICANN must acknowledge the sovereignty and right of self-determination of states to let them choose their region of allocation. 8. ICANN communities have flexibly applied geographic diversity principles over the years. While the Board should remain strictly subject to the current framework, flexibility should be preserved for other structures. 9. "Special Interest Groups" or "Cross-Regional Sub-Groups" offer new diversity opportunities. 10. Implementation mechanisms and processes must be developed by Staff; and 11. The Board must preserve its oversight and future review opportunities. The comment period will give individuals and community groups an opportunity to thoroughly review the proposals and provide any additional comments on the working group recommendations. Section II: Background The ICANN Board chartered a cross-community working group to (1) identify the different purposes for which ICANN's Geographic Regions are used; (2) determine whether the uses of ICANN's Geographic Regions (as currently defined, or at all) continue to meet the requirements of the relevant stakeholders; and (3) submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. Over the course of its deliberations, the Working Group (1) reviewed the underlying history, objectives and general principles of ICANN's Geographic Regions Framework, (2) identified the various applications and functions to which the regions framework has been applied by existing structures and the ICANN staff; and (3) engaged the ICANN community in an extensive collaborative dialogue about issues and potential solutions to maintain and potentially expand the value of the geographic regions framework for the entire community. The Working Group concluded its work and presented its Final Report recommendations to the Chair of the ICANN Board on 4 November 2015. The Working Group recommended that the Board direct staff to manage a public comment forum period to give the community an opportunity to review and evaluate the recommendations and share comments with the Board before it begins its assessment of and deliberations on the recommendations. The Board agreed. Section III: Relevant Resources Final Report by the Geographic Regions Review Working Group<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/geo-regions-wg-31oct15-en.pdf> [EN] [PDF, 409 KB] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/geo-regions-wg-31oct15-en.pdf [AR<https://www.icann.org/ar/system/files/files/geo-regions-wg-31oct15-ar.pdf>] [PDF, 283 KB] [ES<https://www.icann.org/es/system/files/files/geo-regions-wg-31oct15-es.pdf>] [PDF, 377 KB] [FR<https://www.icann.org/fr/system/files/files/geo-regions-wg-31oct15-fr.pdf>] [PDF, 331 KB] [PT<https://www.icann.org/pt/system/files/files/geo-regions-wg-31oct15-pt.pdf>] [PDF, 313 KB] [RU<https://www.icann.org/ru/system/files/files/geo-regions-wg-31oct15-ru.pdf>] [PDF, 323 KB] [ZH<https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/geo-regions-wg-31oct15-zh.pdf>] [PDF, 763 KB] Staff Contact Robert Hoggarth robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org<mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org> 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: [council] Charter for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Steve Chan Jan. 11, 2016

Jan. 11, 2016

Dear Councilors, As was agreed on the 17 December GNSO Council call, staff has worked with Susan, Philip, and Paul to develop the attached proposed red-lined changes to the Charter for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP. This amended language is intended to avoid any ambiguity in regards to Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) related activities for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP. In particular: * RPM related topics can be discussed, but proposing recommendations directly concerning RPMs is beyond the remit of this PDP. * A community liaison should be jointly appointed by the two PDP Working Groups (i.e., New gTLD Subsequent Procedures and RPMs) and confirmed by the GNSO Council in order to promote effective collaboration and coordination, Discussion on these proposed changes is welcomed and encouraged. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz> Date: Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 12:36 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Charter for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Hi All Happy New Year I see by the Council list that many of you have not stopped to rest during the holiday season. I¹m not wishing to add to the burden of workload, but I¹m interested to know if we have an update on the status of Charter for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, in particular, whether we will be in a position to reconsider a motion to approve the Charter at our meeting on 21 January 2016. >From memory, I think Susan, Phil and Paul were going to review the Charter provided in the Final Issues Report to ensure that there is no duplication or overlap of Rights Protection Mechanisms given the issue appears as an item in the Subsequent Procedures Final Issue Report and is also being considered in a stand-alone Issues Report on the Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs. I am happy to contribute to this effort if required in order to move this along if required. Thanks in advance Donna Donna Austin:Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell:+1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin(a)neustar.biz <mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

1 0

Motion to Adopt the Final Issue Report on a PDP to Review all RPMs in all gTLDs
by Amr Elsadr Jan. 11, 2016

Jan. 11, 2016

Hi, Please find attached to this email a motion to adopt the final issue report on the PDP to review all RPMs. There is a link in the motion to the page on the GNSO website for this PDP, but the final issue report hasn’t been uploaded there yet (I’m sure it’ll be up there soon). Lars circulated the report on this list a little earlier today, and I’ve attached it to this email as well. The motion includes some information on how this PDP will be conducted over two phases, which should also be described in detail in the report itself (although I haven’t had time to read it yet). The motion also clarifies that the review of RPMs for all gTLDs will be within the scope of this PDP, and additionally addresses how this work will be coordinate with the PDP on new gTLDs subsequent procedures. Thanks. Amr

2 1

Updated proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting on 14 January 2016 at 12:00 UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 11, 2016

Jan. 11, 2016

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting on 14 January 2016 at 12:00 UTC. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+January+2… http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-14jan16-en.htm https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+January+… The update relates to the additional sub-items in Item 2, namely: Item 2: Opening Remarks (5 minutes) 2.1 - Overview of the purpose of this special Council meeting (James Bladel) 2.2 - Explanation of format of response to the CCWG 2.3 - Scope of Council consideration of the substance of the response to the CCWG 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: 12:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 14:00 Istanbul; 23:00 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. Item 2: Opening Remarks (5 minutes) 2.1 - Overview of the purpose of this special Council meeting (James Bladel) 2.2 - Explanation of format of response to the CCWG 2.3 - Scope of Council consideration of the substance of the response to the CCWG Item 3: VOTE ON MOTION - GNSO Endorsement of the Third Draft Proposal from the Cross-Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability (90 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 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. The comment period closed on 21 December 2015, with all Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt the recommendations in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016. Concurrently, 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> after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its 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. In this regard, the CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment which, while noting that several of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points that in its view merited further attention. In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team that was to review all the various public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Here the Council will discuss the status of the work of the Sub Team, and if appropriate vote on whether to adopt the CCWG-Accountability's recommendations. 3.1 - Summary and update from GNSO Council Sub-Team (James Bladel / Philip Corwin / Keith Drazek / Paul McGrady / Edward Morris) 3.2 - Discussion 3.3 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+January+…> (James Bladel) 3.4 - Vote on motion (voting threshold: simple majority) 3.5 - Next steps Item 4: Any Other Business (10 Minutes) _________________________________ 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 12:00 Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 04:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 06:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 10:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 14:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 20:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 20:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt 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

Final Issue Report on a PDP to Review all RPMs in all gTLDs
by Lars Hoffmann Jan. 11, 2016

Jan. 11, 2016

Dear Councillors, For your consideration, please find attached the Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All Generic Top-Level Domains. A motion to launch a PDP should be submitted shortly. Please note, the report is based on the Preliminary Issue Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-prelim-issue-09oct15-en.pdf> and the feedback submitted through the public comment forum <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en> . If you have any questions on procedure or substance, please do not hesitate to contact either Mary Wong or myself. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars --- Lars Hoffmann | Policy Manager lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org | +1 310-804-2586 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

1 0

Policy Development Process (PDP) Updates
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 8, 2016

Jan. 8, 2016

Dear Councillors, In an effort to assure that the GNSO and wider ICANN community stays informed in these busy times, we would like to remind you that the GNSO support staff puts out monthly PDP Updates. The latest version can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/pdp-updates Please feel free to share this with your colleagues and any other interested parties. Many thanks and best wishes, 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

Document and Motion deadline Monday, 11 January 2016 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 8, 2016

Jan. 8, 2016

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 11 January 2016 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+… Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Charter for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Austin, Donna Jan. 7, 2016

Jan. 7, 2016

Hi All Happy New Year I see by the Council list that many of you have not stopped to rest during the holiday season. I'm not wishing to add to the burden of workload, but I'm interested to know if we have an update on the status of Charter for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, in particular, whether we will be in a position to reconsider a motion to approve the Charter at our meeting on 21 January 2016. >From memory, I think Susan, Phil and Paul were going to review the Charter provided in the Final Issues Report to ensure that there is no duplication or overlap of Rights Protection Mechanisms given the issue appears as an item in the Subsequent Procedures Final Issue Report and is also being considered in a stand-alone Issues Report on the Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs. I am happy to contribute to this effort if required in order to move this along if required. Thanks in advance Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

1 0

Proposed agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting of 14 January 2016 at 12:00UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 6, 2016

Jan. 6, 2016

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting of 14 January 2016 at 12:00UTC 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: 12:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 14:00 Istanbul; 23:00 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. Item 2: Opening Remarks (5 minutes) 2.1 - Overview of the purpose of this special Council meeting (James Bladel) Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION - GNSO Endorsement of the Third Draft Proposal from the Cross-Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability (90 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 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. The comment period closed on 21 December 2015, with all Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt the recommendations in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016. Concurrently, 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> after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its 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. In this regard, the CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment which, while noting that several of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points that in its view merited further attention. In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team that was to review all the various public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Here the Council will discuss the status of the work of the Sub Team, and if appropriate vote on whether to adopt the CCWG-Accountability's recommendations. 4.1 - Summary and update from GNSO Council Sub-Team (James Bladel / Philip Corwin / Keith Drazek / Paul McGrady / Edward Morris) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+January+…> (James Bladel) 4.4 - Vote on motion (voting threshold: simple majority) 4.5 - Next steps Item 5: Any Other Business (10 Minutes) _________________________________ 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 12:00 Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 04:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 06:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 10:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 14:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 20:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 20:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt 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

TR: Board with GNSO - ICANN 55
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 6, 2016

Jan. 6, 2016

FYI De : Megan Bishop Envoyé : jeudi 7 janvier 2016 00:34 À : Glen de Saint Géry Objet : Board with GNSO - ICANN 55 Dear Glen, Happy New Year! Just confirming the GNSO's joint meeting with the ICANN Board for Sunday, 6 March from 1pm-2:30pm in Marrakech. Thank you, Megan Megan Bishop Board Operations Coordinator Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 One World. One Internet.

1 0

GNSO Council meeting dates and times for 2016
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 5, 2016

Jan. 5, 2016

Dear Councillors, The GNSO Council meeting dates and times for the whole year 2016 are posted on the GNSO website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar In particular see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jan 4 January Motions and Documents Due for GNSO Council Meeting 14 January 11 January Motions and Documents Due for GNSO Council Meeting 21 January 14 January GNSO Council Teleconference 12:00 UTC 21 January GNSO Council Teleconference 21:00 UTC http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb 8 February Motions and Documents Due for GNSO Council Meeting 18 February 18 February GNSO Council Teleconference 12:00 UTC 28 February Motions and Documents Due for GNSO Council Meeting 9 March 9 March ICANN Meeting - Public Council meeting Marrakech 13:30 Local Time 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

Re: [council] Re: Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 17 December 2015
by James M. Bladel Jan. 5, 2016

Jan. 5, 2016

Hi Heather - The next regular Council meeting will be on 21 JAN. the 14 JAN meeting is a special session for consideration of the CCWG-Accountabilty response. Hope this helps. Thanks-- J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest(a)acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>> Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 16:35 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 17 December 2015 Dear colleagues, I'm catching up on our December meeting, unfortunately having missed it. May I just quickly confirm that the Motion on Adoption of the Final Report from Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group is deferred to our upcoming 14 January meeting? Many thanks and best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> <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>> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2016 4:09 To: GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) Subject: [council] Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 17 December 2015 Dear Councillors, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 December 2015 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 14 January 2016. GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> gnso.icann.org GNSO Operating Procedures, Version 3.0 Page 5 between a candidate and "none of above," a second election will be held no sooner than 30 days. 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/>

2 1