Thanks for the update, Marika. I
shall look forward to reviewing the updated agenda.
Best,
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: Marika Konings
[mailto:marika.konings@icann.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016
9:12 AM
To: Phil Corwin; Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List
(council@gnso.icann.org)
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda
for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00
UTC
Importance: High
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@gnso.icann.org>
on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>
Date: Tuesday 19
January 2016 at 07:50
To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org>, "GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org)" <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@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@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+2016
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+2016
This agenda was
established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures, 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 and Action List
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. Preparation of
the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO’s
New
gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG) as the basis for analysis.
The Preliminary
Issue Report 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 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
for adoption.
4.1 – Presentation of
the motion
(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
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 approvedby 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
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 for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final
Report 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
(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
(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 for public
comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including from the GNSO
Working Party, Westlake published its Final Report 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 of a Cross
Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which
the GNSO is a chartering organization.
The
CCWG-Accountability’s Third Draft Proposal was published
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): 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)
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) UTC-7+1DST
13:00
San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 15:00
Iowa City, USA
(CDT) 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 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) 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://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@gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org
No
virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus
Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out
of date.
No virus found in this
message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus
Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out
of date.