Thanks Amr, The way the agenda gets put together is that I typically build a first draft based on the previous meeting and my knowledge of anything that is coming up. This is then shared with council vice-chairs and staff who then contribute and shape the agenda prior to a first draft being circulated with the Council. Priority is always given to motions before the Council and any councillor is welcome to make a motion at any time before the cut-off date (23h59UTC, 10 days before the meeting). Other items are added based on proposals from Councillors that gain some support. In the case of the CCWG-IG, I have raised it for discussion previously and formally placed it on the agenda as a discussion item at the last meeting. As you correctly note, it received no comment or discussion last time around. Like you, I have heard that other groups have not yet adopted the charter and that there is some frustration on the part of the WG participants. I suspect that some of this is simply down to volume of work and possibly a question of what is most urgent and / or important to focus on. Hope that helps some. Jonathan From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: 23 September 2014 09:01 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Updated GNSO Council Agenda 25 September 2014 at 18:00 UTC Hi, I see the CCWG-IG charter is still not on the agenda. The way I see it (and since the WG is asking for GNSO endorsement of the charter), we can either eventually vote on this charter, or after a discussion, decide that we have problems with it. These problems should be identified and communicated to the WG to determine wether they would consider amending the charter accordingly. This discussion could take place over email, and not necessarily during a council meeting. I keep bringing this up because the WG leadership has expressed some frustration over the lack of response on our part (as well as others), and also because some NCSG members on that WG would also like to see this issue moved along. I recall that when this was a discussion topic during our last meeting, there were no comments offered. I believe the most recent version of the charter can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/Charter+Version+3.2 Thanks. Amr On Sep 23, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Glen de Saint G��ry <Glen@icann.org> wrote: Dear Councillors, Please find the updated GNSO Council Agenda for the meeting on 25 September 2014 at 18:00 UTC. The updates are as follows: Item 7: UPDATE �C Subsequent rounds of new gTLDs �C status report (15 mins) A link to the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-new-gtld-subsequent-22 sep14-en.pdf> detailed report received from Karen Lentz And an additional item under: Item 11: Any Other Business (5 mins) 11.1 �C Input from Jennifer Wolfe on the GNSO Review including Survey participation. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. < <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf > 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. Meeting Times 18:00 UTC: <http://tinyurl.com/qek29ro> http://tinyurl.com/qek29ro Coordinated Universal Time 18:00 UTC 11:00 Los Angeles; 14:00 Washington; 19:00 London; 20:00 Brussels; 02:00 Perth Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast <http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (5 mins) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 4 September 2014 will be posted as approved on xxxxxxx 2014 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins) Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics Include review of <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> Projects List and <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Action List. Comments or questions arising. Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins) Item 4: DISCUSSION �C A letter to the ICANN NGPC regarding the proposed modification of GNSO consensus recommendations relating to IGO acronyms and Red Cross identifiers (10 mins) On 10 November 2013 the PDP Working Group (IGO-INGO PDP WG) delivered its <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf> Final Report to the GNSO Council that included twenty-five consensus recommendations. On 20 November 2013 the GNSO Council unanimously <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> adopted all twenty-five consensus recommendations of the IGO-INGO PDP WG and forwarded them to the ICANN Board in January 2014 with a recommendation for their adoption. On 30 April 2014 the Board <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-04-30-en> resolved to adopt those of the GNSO's recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice, and to facilitate dialogue between the affected parties in order to reconcile the remaining differences, as further detailed in <https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-a-30apr14 -en.pdf> Annex A and <https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-b-30apr14 -en.pdf> Annex Bof the Board's resolution. The GNSO's recommendations and GAC advice are largely consistent except in relation to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and the full names and acronyms of 189 Red Cross national societies and the international Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, for which the GNSO had <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> recommended a 90-day period of protection by way of a claim notification service utilising the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). On 16 June 2014 the NGPC <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/chalaby-to-robinson-16jun14-en.pdf> sent a letter to the GNSO Council requesting that the GNSO consider modifying its recommendations relating to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and national society names of the Red Cross. This modification to be in accordance with and as envisaged by Section 16 of the GNSO's <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-13jun13-en.pdf> PDP Manual. On 24 July 2014, the Chair of the NGPC followed up with a note to the Chair of the GNSO Council and offered to provide a written or oral briefing to provide greater clarity on the GAC��s advice and expectations with respect to protections of IGO-INGO Identifiers. As a result of the briefing it was agreed to send a follow-up letter to the NGPC. Here the Council will review the letter with the objective of providing sufficient input and/or support such that the letter can now be sent. 4.1 �C <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16658.html> Review the letter (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) 4.2 �C Discussion Item 5: UPDATE �C A GNSO liaison to the GAC (10 mins) The council voted to appoint Mason Cole as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC with immediate effect such that he can be well informed and up to speed in order to participate effectively as soon as possible and, in particular, at ICANN 51. Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear from Mason Cole ahead of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in order to be clear on the proposed objectives and plan of action. 5.1 �C Introduction (Mason Cole) 5.2 �C Discussion Item 6: UPDATE - PDP WG on IRTP Part D - Final Recommendations (10 mins) The WG anticipates that it will be in a position to submit its Final Report in advance of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. As such, James Bladel, the Chair of the WG, has proposed that he presents the Final Report and recommendations to the Council now so that there is ample time for review and discussion prior to and during the LA meeting which with the objective being that the Council is in a well-informed position to vote on the report during the meeting in LA. Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear from James Bladel ahead of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. 6.1 �C Presentation (James Bladel) 6.2 �C Discussion Item 7: UPDATE �C Subsequent rounds of new gTLDs �C status report (15 mins) A status report from ICANN staff following on from the GNSO Council��s <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406> motion on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds was requested during the ICANN 50 meeting in London. This status update is expected to include status reporting on: (a) the new gTLD program in general; (b) ICANN's anticipated timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments; (c) ICANN's work to date on any evaluation of the first round; (d) the work to date on the post-launch independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse; (e) ICANN's current projection for a timetable for subsequent rounds. An interim update has previously been <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16606.html> provided by Karen Lentz but a more <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-new-gtld-subsequent-22 sep14-en.pdf> detailed reportis anticipated in advance of this council meeting. Here the Council will have an initial discussion during in order to be best prepared for and potentially provide more detailed topics for review / discussion during the LA meeting. 7.1 �C <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-new-gtld-subsequent-22 sep14-en.pdf> Update (Karen Lentz) 7.2 �C Discussion Item 8: UPDATE �C A cross community working group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (10 mins) A drafting team (DT) was formed with participants from the ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. Following adoption of the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-stewardship-naming-function-charter-14 aug14-en.pdf> charter at the previous meeting, this is an opportunity for the Council to receive a brief update on the next steps. 8.1 �C Update (Jonathan Robinson) 8.2 - Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION �C The report of the ICANN Board Working Group on the Nominating Committee (10 mins) The Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG�\NomCom) is charged with performing the review called for in Recommendation 10 of the Nominating Committee Review Finalization Working Group, addressing issues of the size and composition of the Nominating Committee, as well as the related issues of NomCom��s recruitment and selection functions. The Board Working Group on Nominating Committee has recently published its <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en> report. Here the Council will take the opportunity to consider what if any action that should be taken on the part of the Council. 9.1 �C Introduction 9.2 �C Discussion 9.3 �C Next steps Item 10: UPDATE & DISCUSSION �C Planning for LA (10 mins) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in LA will take planning and preparation work. The Council has output from the <https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QMQJY7Z> survey of the ICANN 50 meeting in London. Here the Council has the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience. Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the approach to and substance of the Council's proposed meetings with other groups such as the ccNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. Please Note: The LA Meeting is an ICANN annual meeting and so will include the GNSO Council development session on the second Friday i.e. Friday 17 October 2014. This is a day and evening session focused on the successful and productive functioning of the Council for the period Annual Meeting 2014 to Annual Meeting 2015. 10.1 �C Update (David Cake & Jonathan Robinson) 10.2 �C Discussion 10.3 �C Next steps Item 11: Any Other Business (5 mins) 11.1 �C Input from Jennifer Wolfe on the GNSO Review including Survey participation. 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 <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA> Annex A): 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 ( <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf> GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) 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.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 18:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA ( <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html> PDT) UTC-7+1DST 11:00 Iowa City, USA ( <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00> CDT) UTC-5+1DST 13:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 14:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 15:00 Montevideo, Uruguay ( <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html> UYST) UTC-2+1DST 15:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina ( <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html> ART) UTC-3+0DST 15:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 19:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 21:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 21:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel( <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel. html> IDT) UTC+3+0DST 21:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 Perth, Australia ( <http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html> WST) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2014, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see <http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://www.timeanddate.com <http://tinyurl.com/qek29ro> http://tinyurl.com/qek29ro Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G��ry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>