April 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

IETF Anti-Harassment Policy
by Bruce Tonkin 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

Hello All, As piece of information for the discussions on harassment policies for those that attend ICANN meetings, the IETF has a written policy that covers participation in meetings, virtual meetings, and mailing lists that is fairly short and simple that is worth considering as a starting point: From: https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy November 2, 2013 IETF meetings, virtual meetings, and mailing lists are intended for professional collaboration and networking. The IETF strives to create and maintain an environment in which people of many different backgrounds are treated with dignity, decency, and respect. Those who participate in the IETF are expected to behave according to professional standards and demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior. IETF participants must not engage in harassment while at IETF meetings, virtual meetings, social events, or on mailing lists. Harassment is unwelcome hostile or intimidating behavior -- in particular, speech or behavior that is sexually aggressive or intimidates based on attributes such as race, gender, religion, age, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Harassment of this sort will not be tolerated in the IETF. Examples of harassment include the use of offensive language or sexual imagery in public presentations and displays, degrading verbal comments, deliberate intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior must comply immediately. If you believe you have been harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, you are encouraged to raise your concern in confidence with one of the Ombudspersons. The IETF commits that each such case will be considered and that concrete actions will be taken as appropriate, up to and including exclusion from all IETF activities." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: Written version of the presentation by the Red Cross representatives on 14 April
by Glen de Saint Géry 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

Dear All, The presentation has been published at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/curtet-to-gnso-council-14apr16-en.p…<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen De : owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] De la part de Mary Wong Envoyé : lundi 18 avril 2016 18:55 À : GNSO Council List Objet : [council] Written version of the presentation by the Red Cross representatives on 14 April Dear Councilors, The written version of the presentation made to the Council at the Thursday meeting by Charlotte Lindsey Curtet, representative of the Red Cross, is attached for your review. We will be circulating the Action Items list from the meeting shortly, which will include the Chairs’ suggestion for next steps on the topic as well as clarifications concerning a number of points raised by the Red Cross during their presentation. As always, please continue to raise any questions and discussions on the list. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

Agenda for Board meeting - 19 April 2016
by Bruce Tonkin 17 Apr '16

17 Apr '16

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2016-04-19-en Agenda | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 19 Apr 2016 Consent Agenda . Thank You to the ICG Secretariat . Thank You to Fadi Chehadé for his service as President and Chief Executive Office and member of the ICANN Board of Directors Main Agenda . Discussion regarding draft new ICANN Bylaws - including ICANN Legal assessment of whether it is consistent with the proposals . Board Action to post draft new Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period . AOB Published on 14 April 2016

1 0

GNSO Council MP3 recording and Adobe Chat transcript 14 April 2016
by Terri Agnew 14 Apr '16

14 Apr '16

Dear Council, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference held on Thursday, 14 April 2016 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-14apr16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> as well as the Adobe chat transcript at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-14apr16-en.pdf<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnjfgjJp6GMAHPLM…> all on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr Thank you. Happy listening and reading! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Latest version - GNSO Review of GAC Marrakech Communique
by Mary Wong 14 Apr '16

14 Apr '16

Dear all, We have just noticed that the document that was posted on the GNSO website is not the latest version of the small group’s draft of a proposed GNSO Council review of the GAC Marrakech Communique. Please use the attached – which will also be posted to the Adobe Connect room during the meeting – for purposes of discussion and voting today. The small group had requested that the posted version not contain the suggestions and open questions they had for the Council to discuss. Glen had sent these via email yesterday but for your convenience, here they are again: Under “Future gTLD Rounds: Public Policy Issues”: * Are there any other reviews not referenced by the GAC that we should note? * Other than approving PDPs, how else can the GNSO ensure that policy is not created after the reviews are completed? * Is the suggestion to prioritize logical sequencing something that the GNSO should take the lead on? The RySG and RrSG have raised this issue with the Board on a number of occasions. Bruce Tonkin is of the new that there are two efforts that need to be complete before the launch of any new gTLDs: the CCT Review and the Subsequent Procedures PDP. Under “Privacy and Proxy Services”: * The first sentence was suggested by Steve Metalitz, one of the co-chairs of the PPSAI WG. He and Graeme Bunton reached out to the GAC’s Public Safety WG in Marrakech and discussed the matter with them there. The second sentence was added subsequently by the small team. Thank you, and please accept our apologies for any inconvenience or confusion. Best regards, 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

Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Apr '16

14 Apr '16

Dear Councillors, This letter has been published at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/tomasso-to-bladel-13apr16-en.pdf<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen De : owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] De la part de James M. Bladel Envoyé : jeudi 14 avril 2016 04:41 À : GNSO Council List Objet : [council] FW: [gnso-chairs] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf Councilor Colleagues - Please see attached for a letter form Nick Tomasso, responding to our earlier request regarding a face-to-face PDP meeting. During our discussions in Marrakech and with smaller groups, we have tried to balance the value of having these sessions at ICANN meetings, while trying to remain faithful to the intention of the "Meeting B" policy forum concept. As for Nick's response, I would like to draw your attention to this statement in particular: "It is anticipated that the PDP Working Groups Pilot Program will be absorbed into the 'Meeting B' schedule rather than having an additional day specifically for that purpose." I agree that the Policy Forum concept must recognize the importance of advancing the work of ongoing PDPs, but would emphasize incorporating these in to the 4 day schedule, rather than add an optional 5th day. I welcome thoughts from others on this topics and Nicks' letter, and I'm looking forward to further discussions on tomorrow's call. Thank you, J. From: <owner-gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@icann.org>> on behalf of "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org<mailto:tanzanica.king@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 21:26 To: "gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>" <gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>> Cc: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>, "Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>" <board-ops-team(a)icann.org<mailto:board-ops-team@icann.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org<mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-chairs] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf Dear James, Please find the attached letter from Nick Tomasso concerning your request for face-to-face sessions of PDP Working Groups linked to ICANN56. Best regards, Tanzanica ________________________________ Tanzanica S. King Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design ICANN Office +1 310 301 5800 Mobile +1 310 995 3038 Email king(a)icann.org<mailto:king@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

9 10

Updated proposed agenda for GNSO Council teleconference Thursday 14 April at 21:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Apr '16

14 Apr '16

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting today, Thursday 14 April at 21:00 UTC, (already Friday for Istanbul and Hobart) please find the updated proposed Agenda. The updates relate to links that have been added, viz: Item 1.4 Minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18420.html> of the meeting of the Special GNSO Council session 29 February 2016 will be posted as approved on 22 April 2016. Item 7: Here the Council will review the draft response<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-11mar16-en.pdf> to the GAC's Marrakech Communique, drafted by a volunteer group of Councillors ..... Item 8: 8.1 - Update and summary of comments<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-comments-plan-budget-13apr16-en.pdf> 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/gn4sy7u 14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington; 22:00 London; 00:00 Istanbul; 07:00 Hobart Please be aware that the clocks will have changed in some parts of the world, so refer to the other times below to ensure you join the meeting at the correct time. UTC time remains the same for Council meetings, local time changes. 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<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18420.html> of the meeting of the Special GNSO Council session 29 February 2016 will be posted as approved on 22 April 2016. Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 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: PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION - Possible Next Steps in Resolving the Issue of Permanent Protection of Certain Red Cross Identifiers (20 minutes) In November 2013, the GNSO Council approved<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> the final recommendations from its Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs. Subsequently, in April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-04-30-en#2.a> those of the GNSO's PDP recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-a-30apr14…> received on the topic. For the Red Cross movement, the protections adopted were for the full names Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun at the top and second levels, in the 6 official languages of the United Nations, with an Exception Procedure to be designed during the implementation phase for the affected organizations. However, with respect to the names and acronyms of the 189 national Red Cross societies and the names of the International Red Cross Movement (as noted by the GAC in its Singapore Communique<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/34373692/Final%20Communique%2…)>), the Board requested more time to consider the GNSO's recommendations as these are inconsistent with GAC advice<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-b-30apr14-en.…> received on the topic. In the interim period, the Board adopted<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-10…> temporary protections for the Red Cross national society and international movement names noted in the GAC's Singapore Communique. At ICANN55, representatives of the Red Cross met with the GNSO Council leadership to discuss possible next steps. Here the Red Cross representatives will brief the Council on the scope of the Red Cross' continuing request for permanent protections for those of its national society and international movement identifiers that are not currently covered by the policy recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. 4.1 - Introduction (James Bladel) 4.2 - Presentation by representatives of the Red Cross (by invitation) 4.3 - Q&A / next steps Item 5: VOTE - Approval of Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations from the GNSO Review (10 minutes) As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (now known as the Organizational Effectiveness 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 reviewed all the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board in relation to the implementability and prioritization of the recommendations. The Council received a written update<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-gnso-council-update-21…> from the Working Party chair on 29 January, and the Working Party's proposed Implementation and Feasibility Analysis<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-e…> was sent to the Council on 28 February. Here the Council will review the Working Party's Implementation and Feasibility Analysis, and vote on its adoption as well as agree on next steps in the process. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+20…> (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of Procedures Governing the Selection of the GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (10 minutes) As part of a two-year pilot program initiated in June 2014, the GNSO Council and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) agreed, through its joint GAC-GNSO Consultation Group<https://community.icann.org/x/phPRAg>, to appoint a GNSO Liaison to the GAC. The purpose of the Liaison role was to facilitate more effective early engagement by the GAC in GNSO policy activities and to contribute toward better information flow between the two bodies. Following Consultation Group review<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-liaison-gac-pilot-29feb16-en.pdf> of the pilot program, the Consultation Group recommended that the Liaison role be made a permanent one in March 2016. Here the Council will review and approve the scope of such a permanent Liaison role as well as the application, selection and confirmation process. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+20…> (James Bladel) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of GNSO Input to the ICANN Board on the GAC's Marrakech Communique (20 minutes) Beginning in mid-2015 with the GAC's Buenos Aires Communique, the GNSO Council developed a mechanism for reviewing and commenting on aspects of that Communique that are relevant to gTLD policy. The resulting GNSO input on both the GAC's Buenos Aires and Dublin Communiques were approved by the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board and the GAC Chair (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/robinson-to-icann-boar… and http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-gac-review-31dec15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the draft response<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-11mar16-en.pdf> to the GAC's Marrakech Communique, drafted by a volunteer group of Councillors, and, if appropriate, approve its being forwarded to the ICANN Board and GAC Chair. 7.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+20…> (Susan Kawaguchi) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8: COUNCIL APPROVAL - Public Comment on ICANN's FY17 Proposed Budget (15 minutes) On 5 March 2016, the draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan and Budget was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/op-budget-fy17-five-year-2016-03-04-en> for public comment (closing on 30 April). The GNSO Council had previously provided public comments<https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-op-budget-fy16-18mar15/pdfWW7Sy3WTwV…> to the FY16 Operating Plan and Budget. At ICANN55, a small group of Councillors had volunteered to work on possible Council comments to the draft FY17 budget. Here the Council will review and, if appropriate, agree to send in the proposed comments. 8.1 - Update and summary of comments<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-comments-plan-budget-13apr16-en.pdf> (Keith Drazek / Edward Morris / Carlos Raul Gutierrez) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION - Implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan (10 minutes) At ICANN55, community discussions were held concerning the upcoming implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan, including at a session on 7 March<https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-imp…>. Several GNSO community members voiced concerns about whether the proposed implementation plan would meet the requirements of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Proposal on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg>). On 25 March a Call for Volunteers<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en> was issued for additional CCWG participation, including for implementation of the adopted Work Stream 1 recommendations. Here the Council will discuss the community concerns that have been raised, and review possible next steps in relation to the CWG-Stewardship and ICANN staff that have been charged with developing the implementation plan. 9.1 - Summary & update (James Bladel) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: DISCUSSION - Planning for "Meeting B" (ICANN Policy Forum) (10 Minutes) At ICANN55, the GNSO held several discussions, including with the ICANN Board, concerning the focus, duration and meeting schedule for the first designated ICANN Policy Forum, to take place in Helsinki as ICANN56 (i.e. the initial so-called "Meeting B"). Specific concerns were raised about the apparent lack of time for actual policy work in the overall Meeting B schedule when all the current draft SO/AC/Board proposals were put together, and about the lack of opportunity for different SO/AC/Board groups to interact with one another. A small group of SO/AC volunteers has been formed to address these concerns. Here the Council will hear from its representatives to this group, and discuss further plans for finalizing the GNSO's schedule for ICANN56 so as to maximize the policy focus for Meeting B. This includes confirmation of the PDP Working Group(s) to be invited to consider conducting a face-to-face working meeting in Helsinki, on a day either precedent or subsequent to the ICANN56 schedule. 10.1 - Update (Donna Austin / Volker Greimann) 10.2 - Discussion 10.3 - Next steps Item 11: DISCUSSION - Status of Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (10 minutes) The Charter<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888213/Charter%20ccWG%20…> for this Cross Community Working Group was ratified<https://community.icann.org/x/oQInAw> by the ccNSO Council (September 2014), the GNSO Council (October 2014), and the ALAC (April 2015). The CCWG Charter states its scope as doing "whatever it deems relevant and necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes", with regular updates to be provided to its Chartering Organizations and a periodic Progress Paper where appropriate. The Charter also provides that the Chartering Organizations should review the Charter and CCWG deliverables in order to determine whether the group should continue or be dissolved, with the proviso that the CCWG will continue if at least two of its Chartering Organizations extend the Charter and notify the other Chartering Organizations accordingly. During the CCWG co-chairs' update to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils at ICANN55, there was some discussion over whether a CCWG format or other arrangement might be the most appropriate form for SO/AC interaction on Internet governance matters, especially given the expected forthcoming finalization<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-…> of a Uniform Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs by the CCWG-Principles. Here the GNSO Council will continue that discussion, with a view toward agreeing on the appropriate next steps for the CCWG on Internet Governance. 11.1 - Introduction and summary (Carlos Raul Gutierrez) 11.2 - Discussion 11.3 - Next steps Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 12.1 - Proposed approach to Expert Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Final Report _________________________________ 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+0DST 14:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST 16:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 17:00 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-3+0DST 18:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 22:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 23:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 next day Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 07:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 05:00 next day Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 07:00 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/gn4sy7u 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

FW: [gnso-chairs] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf
by James M. Bladel 13 Apr '16

13 Apr '16

Councilor Colleagues - Please see attached for a letter form Nick Tomasso, responding to our earlier request regarding a face-to-face PDP meeting. During our discussions in Marrakech and with smaller groups, we have tried to balance the value of having these sessions at ICANN meetings, while trying to remain faithful to the intention of the "Meeting B" policy forum concept. As for Nick's response, I would like to draw your attention to this statement in particular: "It is anticipated that the PDP Working Groups Pilot Program will be absorbed into the 'Meeting B' schedule rather than having an additional day specifically for that purpose." I agree that the Policy Forum concept must recognize the importance of advancing the work of ongoing PDPs, but would emphasize incorporating these in to the 4 day schedule, rather than add an optional 5th day. I welcome thoughts from others on this topics and Nicks' letter, and I'm looking forward to further discussions on tomorrow's call. Thank you, J. From: <owner-gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@icann.org>> on behalf of "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org<mailto:tanzanica.king@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 21:26 To: "gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>" <gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>> Cc: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>, "Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>" <board-ops-team(a)icann.org<mailto:board-ops-team@icann.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org<mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-chairs] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf Dear James, Please find the attached letter from Nick Tomasso concerning your request for face-to-face sessions of PDP Working Groups linked to ICANN56. Best regards, Tanzanica ________________________________ Tanzanica S. King Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design ICANN Office +1 310 301 5800 Mobile +1 310 995 3038 Email king(a)icann.org<mailto:king@icann.org> www.icann.org

1 0

Item 7: Council Vote: Updated GNSO Review of the GAC's Marrakech Communique
by Glen de Saint Géry 13 Apr '16

13 Apr '16

Dear Councillors, With regard to: Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of GNSO Input to the ICANN Board on the GAC’s Marrakech Communique Please find the updated version of the GNSO Review of the GAC Communique http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-11mar16-en.pdf The small team that drafted the proposed GNSO Council review of the Marrakech GAC Communique had the following notes and questions that are not reflected in the publicly-posted document, but that we include here to facilitate the Council’s discussion of these points (please note that in some cases we have paraphrased some of the comments to clarify their context): Under “Future gTLD Rounds: Public Policy Issues”: * Are there any other reviews not referenced by the GAC that we should note? * Other than approving PDPs, how else can the GNSO ensure that policy is not created after the reviews are completed? * Is the suggestion to prioritize logical sequencing something that the GNSO should take the lead on? The RySG and RrSG have raised this issue with the Board on a number of occasions. Bruce Tonkin is of the view that there are two efforts that need to be complete before the launch of any new gTLDs: the CCT Review and the Subsequent Procedures PDP. Under “Privacy and Proxy Services”: * The first sentence was suggested by Steve Metalitz, one of the co-chairs of the PPSAI WG. He and Graeme Bunton reached out to the GAC’s Public Safety WG in Marrakech and discussed the matter with them there. The second sentence was added subsequently by the small team. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ________________________________

1 0

Updated [Correspondence] Steve Crocker to James Bladel re:GNSO Query on Public Interest and Exclusive Registry Access for gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry 13 Apr '16

13 Apr '16

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated correspondence Steve Crocker to James Bladel re: GNSO Query on Public Interest and Exclusive Registry Access for gTLDs. This updated version has one very minor edit in the last sentence. Apologies for the inconvenience of double posting. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen

1 1