January 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#195]
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Jan '16

20 Jan '16

De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mercredi 20 janvier 2016 14:58 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#195] Name of Officer: * Michele Neylon Officer Email Address: * michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, January 20, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Registrars Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Volker unable to attend meeting Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any and all Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Wednesday, January 27, 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: * Jennifer Standiford

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#194]
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Jan '16

20 Jan '16

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mercredi 20 janvier 2016 11:03 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#194] Name of Officer: * Tony Holmes Officer Email Address: * tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, January 20, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Internet Services Provider Constituency Officer Position or Title: * Tony Harris ISPCP GNSP Councelor Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Unable to attend GNSO call 21st January due to a business conflict Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Full proxy voting rights passed to Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, January 22, 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: * Wolf Ulrich Knoben

1 0

TR: [council] FW: Public Interest within ICANN's remit
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Jan '16

20 Jan '16

Dear Councillors, The letter has been posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> and can be viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/abusitta-to-bladel-21dec15-en.pdf<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Monday 28 December 2015 at 21:02 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Public Interest within ICANN's remit Council Colleagues - Please see the note below from Nora Abusitta, who is coordinating the work of the Community to define ICANN's remit with respect to the "public interest." There are links to additional background materials in Nora's message below, and stay tuned for future updates on this topic, including potential sessions at ICANN 55 in Morocco. Thanks- J. From: Nora Abusitta <nora.abusitta(a)icann.org<mailto:nora.abusitta@icann.org>> Date: Monday, December 21, 2015 at 21:28 Subject: Public Interest within ICANN's remit Dear James, Further to my participation in the GNSO Council meeting which discussed the topic of 'public interest', as promised, I am writing to update you regarding the topic of 'the public interest within ICANN's remit.' Discussions on this topic have been ongoing for some time now, and in 2013, the Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-responsibility-2013-10-11-en> was tasked with exploring defining this term and the separate but related topic of public responsibility. The Panel, informed by open discussions at ICANN meetings, webinars and through a public comment period, produced a report in May 2014, which proposed the definition of 'public interest' as follows: "Ensuring that the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable, inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single and open Internet. In addressing its public responsibility, ICANN must build trust in the Internet and its governance ecosystem." While some welcomed the report and recommendations, it is evident that there is a desire and need to further explore what the term 'public interest' means within ICANN's remit. In response to requests to prepare for such exploration (at a time when all have sufficient bandwidth to do so) staff have been compiling some initial resources and research on this theme. As per recommendations received during conversations on this preparatory work (such as on the GNSO call), these resources have been placed on a community wikispace on Confluence and can be located here<https://community.icann.org/x/epRYAw>. To facilitate discussion on next steps, a mailing list has also been created as a forum for dialogue and coordination, found here<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/publicinterest>. Additionally, a request has been submitted to hold a High Interest Session at ICANN55 that will be collaboratively designed, providing an informed and comprehensive base from which to initiate discussions on next steps. This will require global, multistakeholder, bottom-up discussion and ICANN wants to make sure that, when the time is right, there are enough resources and background research available. We all will need to understand the operational, legal, and fiscal parameters and limitations to any potential definition(s). If you have specific suggestions or resources to add, please do not hesitate to get in contact. I would be grateful if you could kindly socialize this wikispace and above information with your colleagues and encourage participation where possible to help guide this conversation. Best wishes, Nora -- Nora Abusitta Senior Vice President Development and Public Responsibility Programs ICANN

1 0

Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Jan '16

20 Jan '16

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016. 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: Draft Minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17986.html> of the Special Meeting of the GNSO Council on 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on 27 January 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 - Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes) This PDP had been requested<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm> by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN's implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf> for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. 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. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+…> (James Bladel) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - 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 5: 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. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+…> (Donna Austin) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - 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 6: Vote on motion: Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (15 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: Vote on motion - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 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. The GNSO Council had an initial discussion on the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team during its meeting on 14 January, following which an updated version of the proposed response was circulated [include link when available]. Here the Council will discuss the updated proposed response developed by the Sub Team, and if appropriate vote on whether to submit this response to the CCWG-Accountability. 7.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+…> (James Bladel) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8: 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. 8.1 - Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: 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/>

4 3

Re: [council] Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016
by James M. Bladel 19 Jan '16

19 Jan '16

Colleagues: To allow sufficient time for discussion/review of the CCWG response, we have made a few changes to the proposed Agenda. First, the motions for three PDPs have been re-ordered, and time allowed for discussion reduced to 10 minutes each. To keep us on track, we need to spend no more than 30 minutes discussing all motions, and it would also be helpful to know as soon as possible if any Councilors intend to request a deferral. (Only the RPM PDP is eligible). Also, we’ve asked Jennifer Wolfe to provide her update from the GNSO Review Working Party via email to the Council list, rather than on the call. We will hold space for discussion & approval of these recommendations for our February call, and/or during our face to face meeting in Marrakesh. Time saved has been added to discussions of the CCWG. Thanks for your patience, and look forward to our call on Thursday. J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 15:52 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016. 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: Draft Minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17986.html> of the Special Meeting of the GNSO Council on 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on 27 January 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 – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes) This PDP had been requested<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm>by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN’s implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf> for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. 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. 4.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+…> (James Bladel) 4.2 – Discussion 4.3 – 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 5: 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. 5.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+…> (Donna Austin) 5.2 – Discussion 5.3 – 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 6: Vote on motion:Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (15 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: Vote on motion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 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. The GNSO Council had an initial discussion on the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team during its meeting on 14 January, following which an updated version of the proposed response was circulated [include link when available]. Here the Council will discuss the updated proposed response developed by the Sub Team, and if appropriate vote on whether to submit this response to the CCWG-Accountability. 7.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+…> (James Bladel) 7.2 – Discussion 7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8: 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. 8.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr) 8.2 – Discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: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/>

1 0

Re: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC
by Marika Konings 19 Jan '16

19 Jan '16

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 18 Jan '16

18 Jan '16

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 17 Jan '16

17 Jan '16

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 16 Jan '16

16 Jan '16

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 15 Jan '16

15 Jan '16

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