November 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: [EXTERNAL] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#226]
by Glen de Saint Géry 29 Nov '16

29 Nov '16

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 6:48 PM To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#226] Name of Officer: * Greg Shatan Officer Email Address: * gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, November 29, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Intellectual Property Constituency Officer Position or Title: * President Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Per Heather Forrest: "mid-way through the Council meeting I will stay on the phone but drop off Adobe to get to the airport for a flight to Perth. The flight time is 30 mins after our Council call is scheduled to end, but unfortunately we've run over in Council meetings lately, so I will likely miss whatever happens after our scheduled stop time. All the votes are on the front end of the meeting, but in case I have any connectivity issues it would be prudent to do the proper process so that Paul has my proxy if I drop off. I don't expect problems, but it's better to be prepared than to cause issues on the day." Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any subjects/measures/motions/actions taking place during any periods where Heather Forrest loses connectivity or needs to leave the call. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, December 2, 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: * Paul McGrady

1 0

Action items and voting results from the ICANN57 GNSO Council Public Meeting and Wrap Up Session
by Mary Wong 29 Nov '16

29 Nov '16

Dear Councilors, Please find attached for your review the list of action items and voting results from the Council’s Public Meeting (Parts 1 & 2) and Wrap Up Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad earlier this month. You’ll note that a couple of the action items have been picked up for discussion/action at the Council’s upcoming 1 December meeting, while others remain in progress. 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

1 0

Re: [council] RE: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy
by James M. Bladel 29 Nov '16

29 Nov '16

Thanks, Susan & Phil. I think some folks in the IPC were discussing today, so let’s give them an opportunity to weigh in as well. Thanks – J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Monday, November 28, 2016 at 18:09 To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy Concurring with my BC colleague. 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] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 6:11 PM To: Darcy Southwell; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Re: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy Hello, I agree with the letter being sent to the Board instead of a formal motion. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook, Inc. Legal Dept. 1601 Willow Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> Date: Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 3:41 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy All, Attached is the Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy along with a proposed draft communication. You will recall from our meetings in Hyderabad that ICANN GDD staff advised us that Council would need to submit this issue to the Board for consideration and further direction to ICANN staff. This motion and the draft communication were prepared based on that advice, and I’d appreciate this being heard at our December 1 meeting. Best, Darcy __________ Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart [mage removed by sender. ttps://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/tjCmzaF_7Z] ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13314 - Release Date: 10/30/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

Re: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy
by Susan Kawaguchi 29 Nov '16

29 Nov '16

Hello, I agree with the letter being sent to the Board instead of a formal motion. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook, Inc. Legal Dept. 1601 Willow Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com> Date: Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 3:41 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy All, Attached is the Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy along with a proposed draft communication. You will recall from our meetings in Hyderabad that ICANN GDD staff advised us that Council would need to submit this issue to the Board for consideration and further direction to ICANN staff. This motion and the draft communication were prepared based on that advice, and I’d appreciate this being heard at our December 1 meeting. Best, Darcy __________ Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart [ttps://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/tjCmzaF_7ZGN1PtB2KAV5OVQn-Q_Xvh_p3zh…]

2 1

FOR INFORMATION/CONSIDERATION - ccNSO Selection Process for Future Review Teams
by Mary Wong 28 Nov '16

28 Nov '16

Dear all, As the GNSO Council continues to discuss its processes for selecting GNSO representatives to the various Bylaws-mandated Review Teams, you may be interested in the guidelines that were recently adopted by the ccNSO concerning its selection process. Highlights include a two-week nomination period following a Call for Volunteers, different processes that apply where 3 or fewer nominations are received versus 4 or more, recusal by a Council member if he/she is a nominee, and a suggested path to follow if there are additional vacancies in any particular Review Team to be filled by agreement amongst the SO/ACs. The full set of ccNSO guidelines can be found here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/62398942/Item%207%20-%207%…. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Re: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy
by James M. Bladel 25 Nov '16

25 Nov '16

Thanks, Darcy, for raising this motion. Councilors – as we discussed in Hyderabad, this request is coming from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, regarding the implementation of a very narrow element of IRTP-C. ICANN GDD Staff has indicated that they do not have the ability to agree to this request, absent a request from the GNSO Council and direction by the ICANN Board. Question for the Council: are there any questions or concerns on this topic, or is this relatively non-controversial? If the latter, then I would ask that we consider the short time frame before the Board’s next meeting (8 DEC) and ask if we can proceed without a formal motion and submit the letter. Interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks— J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com> Date: Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 17:41 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy All, Attached is the Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy along with a proposed draft communication. You will recall from our meetings in Hyderabad that ICANN GDD staff advised us that Council would need to submit this issue to the Board for consideration and further direction to ICANN staff. This motion and the draft communication were prepared based on that advice, and I’d appreciate this being heard at our December 1 meeting. Best, Darcy __________ Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart [ttps://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/tjCmzaF_7ZGN1PtB2KAV5OVQn-Q_Xvh_p3zh…]

8 9

Request for input: GNSO Council meeting dates 2017
by Nathalie Peregrine 25 Nov '16

25 Nov '16

Dear all, Staff has put together the following date proposals for the GNSO Council meetings in 2017, based on the principle of the third Thursday of the month, as scheduled previous years. 19 January 2017 at 21:00 UTC 16 February 2017 at 12:00 UTC 11-16 March 2017 (ICANN MEETING) 20 April 2017 21:00 UTC 18 May 2017 12:00 UTC 26-29 June 2017 (ICANN MEETING) 20 July 2017 21:00 UTC 31 August 2017: 12:00 UTC 28 September 2017 21:00 UTC 21 October 2017 12:00 UTC 28 October- 3 November ICANN Meeting) 30 November 2017 21:00UTC 21 December 2017 12:00 UTC The main issues are with the above list are: * The 21 October is too close to the 28 October so suggestion would be to advance the 21th to the 12th October. * This would make it too close to the 28th September, so this meeting would need to be advanced too. * To avoid conflict with Rosh Hashanah (Thursday 21 September) we propose to have a meeting exceptionally on Wednesday 20 September (replacing the 28th September) Updated list would read as: 19 January 2017 at 21:00 UTC 16 February 2017 at 12:00 UTC 11-16 March 2017 (ICANN MEETING) 20 April 2017 21:00 UTC 18 May 2017 12:00 UTC 26-29 June 2017 (ICANN MEETING) 20 July 2017 21:00 UTC 31 August 2017: 12:00 UTC 20 September 2017 21:00 UTC 12 October 2017 12:00 UTC 28 October- 3 November (ICANN Meeting) 30 November 2017 21:00UTC 21 December 2017 12:00 UTC We welcome all input from councilors prior to publishing these dates to the GNSO website and mailing lists. Kind regards Nathalie

4 3

Draft Agenda GNSO Council Meeting 1 December 2016 at 21:00UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 24 Nov '16

24 Nov '16

Dear Councillors, Please find the draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 1 December 2016 at 21:00UTC. Links will be provided for Item 5 when available. Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/l5LDAw This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> v3.2, updated on 01 September 2016. 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/zqkas4h 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; (Friday 2nd December) 00:00 Istanbul; 08:00 Hobart ___________________________________ Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins) 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 meeting of the GNSO Council on 7 November 2016 and posted on XXXXXXX 2016. Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 mins) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List<https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> Item 3. Consent Agenda (0 mins) Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of Consensus Recommendations from the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team (10 minutes) On 30 June 2016, the GNSO Council created a Drafting Team (DT) to work with ICANN staff to identify the GNSO's new rights and obligations under the revised ICANN Bylaws, and prepare an implementation plan to address any needed changes by 30 September (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2)<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2%29>. On 29 September 2016, the Council received an update on the status of the DT's work and, pending the completion of the DT's work, the Council voted to appoint the GNSO Chair as its interim representative to the Empowered Community (EC) Administration. At its meeting on 13 October, the Council reviewed the DT's report and recommendations (Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-…; Minority Statement: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-minority-report-10oct…). At ICANN57, the Council agreed to amend the original motion that had been submitted for Council consideration. Here the Council will vote on whether or not to pass the amended motion. Following the passage of a final motion, the GNSO is expected to confirm its process for appointing its EC representative going forward. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+…> (James Bladel) 4.2 - Council discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5. COUNCIL VOTE - GNSO Council Response to the Board on gTLD Policy Matters related to the GAC Communique from Hyderabad (20 minutes) Beginning in July 2015, the GNSO Council has reviewed each GAC Communiqué for issues relating to gTLD policy, with a view toward providing feedback to the ICANN Board as well as the broader community concerning past, present or future GNSO policy activities concerning advice provided by the GAC. In the GAC Communique from ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the GAC had provided specific advice regarding protections in the domain name system for International Governmental Organization (IGO) names and acronyms as well as identifiers associated with the international Red Cross movement and its National Societies (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-icann-08nov16-e…). Also at ICANN57, the ICANN Board had suggested that a facilitated discussion between the GAC and the GNSO on remaining inconsistencies between GAC advice and GNSO policy recommendations on these matters be considered as a possible path forward (http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/60/I57%20HYD_Tue08Nov2016-Public%20…). A draft response [INSERT LINK] to the GAC's Communique from ICANN57 in Hyderabad was circulated to the GNSO Council on [INSERT DATE]. Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve a response to the Board, and confirm its intended next steps with regard to reconciling its policy recommendations with GAC advice on the topic of Red Cross and IGO protections. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+…> (Paul McGrady) 5.2 - Council discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of Letter to the ICANN Board concerning Implementation Issues with Part C of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (10 minutes) Part C of ICANN's Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP), aimed at combatting domain name theft, is scheduled to come into effect on 1 December 2016 (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en). On 31 October 2016, the Registrar Stakeholder Group identified and raised a critical issue concerning the implementation of IRTP Part C in relation to the provision of privacy and proxy services (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19339.html). At ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the GNSO Council discussed the issue with ICANN's Global Domains Division staff in charge of policy implementation, and it was suggested that the most appropriate course of action would be to to request that the ICANN Board direct staff to remove the privacy/proxy services aspect from the IRTP and place it for evaluation and recommendation by the newly formed Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team. A draft letter to the Board was circulated to the Council on 21 November. https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-icann-board-21nov1… Here the Council will discuss whether or not to approve the letter for transmission to the ICANN Board. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+…> (Darcy Southwell) 6.2 - Council discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7. COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of Proposed Implementation Plan for Recommendations relating to the 2014 GNSO Review (10 minutes) Along with the ICANN Board's adoption in June 2016 of certain recommendations from the 2014 GNSO Review, the GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper outlining the possible options for implementation, taking into account past implementation of previous GNSO Reviews as well as existing mechanisms. At ICANN56 in Helsinki in June 2016, the GNSO Council discussed the options outlined in the staff discussion paper (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discu…). On 21 July 2016 the GNSO Council chartered<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-21jul16-en.pdf> the GNSO Review Working Group and directed it to submit a proposed implementation plan to the Council for approval by the ICANN57 meeting. The GNSO Review Working Group circulated its proposed implementation plan to the Council on 21 November. https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-plan… Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve the plan for transmission to the ICANN Board. 7.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+…> (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 7.2 - Council discussion 7.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Response to Proposed Scope of the Forthcoming Registration Directory Services (RDS) Review (formerly the Whois Review) (10 minutes) On 4 November 2016 ICANN staff circulated a document to all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) leaders that described a proposed limited scope for the forthcoming RDS (formerly Whois) Review https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19381.html). This topic was also discussed as part of a High Interest Topics Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, and certain concerns with the proposal noted by the GNSO Council during its Wrap Up Session. Here the Council will discuss and confirm its feedback (if any) concerning the proposed limited scope of the RDS Review. 8.1 - Summary and update (James Bladel / Susan Kawaguchi) 8.2 - Council discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9. COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Response to Questions from the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs concerning Work Stream 2 (10 minutes) On 4 November 2016, the co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) wrote to all SO/AC leaders seeking input by early December on the resources and documents used by each SO/AC to maintain accountability to its respective designated community, taking into account the particular or specific working modalities of each SO/AC (and any subgroups) (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19440.html). The GNSO Council leadership is working on a possible response from the Council, and has requested feedback from each Stakeholder Group and Constituency on the topic. Here the Council will discuss whether or not to send a response to the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs. 9.1 - Status summary (GNSO Council leadership) 9.2 - Council discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Selection of GNSO Representatives to the Security, Stability & Resiliency Review Team (10 minutes) At ICANN57 in Hyderabad, SO/AC leaders (including the chairs of several GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies) met with ICANN staff to discuss the selection process for appointments to the forthcoming Security, Stability & Resiliency (SSR) Review Team. It was agreed that selection of the final slate of Review Team members should be a collective effort by all SO/AC leaders, and that each SO/AC would develop its own internal guidelines for selecting its representatives for consideration (up to a maximum of 3 per SO/AC). The group also discussed how independent experts should be appointed to the Review Team. The current slate of applicants can be viewed at https://community.icann.org/x/xRqsAw. Here the Council will discuss the GNSO's selection process, with a view toward developing a standard mechanism for all future Review Teams. 10.1 - Status summary (James Bladel) 10.2 - Council discussion 10.3 - Next steps Item 11: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Planning for ICANN58 (10 minutes) At its Wrap Up Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the Council discussed the need to start planning early for ICANN58. It also agreed that confirming certain sessions (including joint meetings with other SO/ACs and the ICANN Board) as fixed in the overall meeting schedule would be helpful for scheduling purposes, as would facilitating better coordination between and with individual Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and ensuring that sufficient time is given over to policy development work. Here the Council will discuss initial suggestions for the ICANN58 meeting schedule and consider next steps. 11.1 - Status summary (GNSO Council leadership) 11.2 - Council discussion 11.3 - Next steps Item 12: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes) 12.1 - Confirmation of GNSO Council meeting calendar<https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19445.html> for 2017 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[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_about_…>): 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[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_council_…>) 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) 21:00 UTC Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8 +0DST 13:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC--6 +0DST 15:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__fr.wikipedia.org_wiki_U…>) UTC--6 +0DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5 +0DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2 +0DST 17:00 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2 +0DST 23:00 Istanbul, Turkey (TRT) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 (2nd December 2016) Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 +0DST 05:00 (2nd December 2016) Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 06:00 (2nd December 2016) Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 08:00 (2ND December 2016) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2017, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com[timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.timeanddate.com&d=D…> http://tinyurl.com/zqkas4h Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

Preliminary planning for ICANN58
by James M. Bladel 24 Nov '16

24 Nov '16

Councilors – As discussed in Hyderabad, the SO/ACs are pushing ICANN Staff to get an early start on planning for ICANN58, in an effort to avoid/mitigate some of the pain points experienced at ICANN57. To this end, Staff has prepared the attached document (PDF), outlining the timeline for finalizing the ICANN58 schedule, along with two draft “Block Schedules”: one with a single Constituency Day, the other with a split Constituency Day(s). Finally, the PDF displays results and feedback gathered from the meeting survey. SO/AC leaders (including Donna, Heather and myself) are planning to meet with ICANN Meeting Staff in early December to discuss the Block Schedule. Questions for the GNSO Council: (1) Do we prefer a Single or Split Constituency Day? (2) What is the right number of High Interest Topics (HIT)? The current Block Schedule drafts contain five HIT sessions. (3) Any thoughts on the best way to solicit topics for HIT sessions, and how to choose the top 5? (4) Similarly, any thoughts on how to address the inevitable conflicts between working sessions and HITs? (5) Any other specific feedback you’d like us to bring to the SO/AC meeting Please respond by next week with your ideas, and we’ll take them back to the planning group. Thanks— J.

4 3

Re: [council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 23 Nov '16

23 Nov '16

James Thanks for sharing this. My personal thoughts: 1 – Single is easier. Rationale: some of the RrSG members plan their attendance around the SG meeting with some only coming to meetings in Europe to attend it. 2 / 3/ 4 – I think the entire HIT thing needs to be revisited. What is the rationale behind this? What exactly constitutes “high interest”? For whom? ICANN staff? Community? The GAC? I’m not opposed to the concept of these plenary sessions, but if they are to be truly plenary then the number of them needs to be reduced and that would also mean the number of conflicts would be more manageable. In Hyderabad there were too many of these sessions and the conflicts were a mess. How topics are chosen will always be a difficult point, but other organisations manage to schedule these things without it being such a big deal and headache Why not adopt a “sane” process like others have? Ie. “call for topics / papers” which generates the intitial list and then some kind of simple polling / ranking system to choose the two or three that should take place? The way it was handled for India seems to have been completely random Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blacknight.blog/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Date: Wednesday 23 November 2016 at 05:57 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58 Councilors – As discussed in Hyderabad, the SO/ACs are pushing ICANN Staff to get an early start on planning for ICANN58, in an effort to avoid/mitigate some of the pain points experienced at ICANN57. To this end, Staff has prepared the attached document (PDF), outlining the timeline for finalizing the ICANN58 schedule, along with two draft “Block Schedules”: one with a single Constituency Day, the other with a split Constituency Day(s). Finally, the PDF displays results and feedback gathered from the meeting survey. SO/AC leaders (including Donna, Heather and myself) are planning to meet with ICANN Meeting Staff in early December to discuss the Block Schedule. Questions for the GNSO Council: (1) Do we prefer a Single or Split Constituency Day? (2) What is the right number of High Interest Topics (HIT)? The current Block Schedule drafts contain five HIT sessions. (3) Any thoughts on the best way to solicit topics for HIT sessions, and how to choose the top 5? (4) Similarly, any thoughts on how to address the inevitable conflicts between working sessions and HITs? (5) Any other specific feedback you’d like us to bring to the SO/AC meeting Please respond by next week with your ideas, and we’ll take them back to the planning group. Thanks— J.

1 0