See attached for a very useful illustration which should help inform the discussion. Sourced from here: http://domainincite.com/14321-all-gtld-confusion-decisions-in-one-handy-char... Jonathan From: John Berard [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 28 August 2013 16:40 To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] RE: Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC Jeff, As I suspect this/these matters will rebound to the GNSO policy apparatus, I agree getting a jump on it makes sense. Berard Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2013, at 10:19 AM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> wrote: All, I would like to add an agenda item to discuss the conflicting strong confusion decisions that are now out there (i.e., plurals, conflicts of decisions on the same string, etc.). In a recent interview with Akram, he intimated that if there were conflicting decisions, that this would be for the GNSO community to assist on this issue. The gTLD Registries discussed this issue on its bi-weekly call this morning and would really like to see a solution from the community as opposed to ICANN staff. I would be happy to put together some ideas for discussion at the meeting next week. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:25 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC. 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%20> > 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 15:00 UTC <http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> http://tinyurl.com/mdmrnk9 Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 16:00 London; 17:00 Paris; 03:00 Wellington next day Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audio cast <http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 mins) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 mins) Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics Include review of Projects List <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> . Comments or questions arising. Item 3: Consent agenda 3.1 - Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings GNSO Council approval of Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board 3.2 – Policy & Implementation Working Group GNSO Council approval of co-chairs J.Scott Evans (BC) and Chuck Gomes (RySG). Item 4: DRAFT MOTION - To approve Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) final report and recommendations <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf> (10 mins) This report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf> is published in response to a request by the GNSO Council for a report and analysis on a survey about possible technical requirements of a future WHOIS Service. The objective for the Working Group is to develop a set of proposed recommendations around the measurement of support of proposed technical requirements. After consideration of community input on a draft survey and the implementation of the Lime Survey software within the ICANN IT infrastructure, the survey was made available to the community in September 2012. ICANN staff compiled and consolidated the survey results and the WSWG completed the WSWG Final Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf> for delivery to the GNSO Council. Here the Council will review a draft motion in preparation for voting to approve the report it at the next meeting. 4.1 – Review the draft motion Motion to approve Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) Final Report and Recommendations: WHEREAS, 1. on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools; 2. on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements - Final Report; 3. in July 2011, volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf; 4. on 30 May 2012, the WSWG published a draft of the Whois Service Requirements Survey for public comment, <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey-...> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey-...; 5. on 13 September 2012, the WSWG released the final Whois Service Requirements Survey to solicit input from community members on the possible technical requirements of a future Whois system, <http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13sep12-en.htm> http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13sep12-en.htm; 6. on 13 September 2012, ICANN staff compiled and consolidated the survey results and the WSWG completed the WSWG Final Report, (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf) NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, 1. that the GNSO Council thanks the Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) and ICANN staff for their efforts in conducting the survey and compiling survey results of possible technical requirements of a future Whois system; 2. the GNSO Council further approves the recommendations, as defined in the Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf), to send the survey results to other applicable efforts regarding Whois and Domain Name Registration Data for their consideration. 4.2 – Discussion Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – A PDP to develop relevant policies for issues not dealt with during the course of the development of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) ICANN staff has prepared a paper which summarises the outcomes of the 2013 RAA negotiations and so sets the scene for the subsequent, relevant policy development work to be managed by the Council. Here the Council will receive an update from staff and confirm the intended course of action. 5.1 Staff update (Margie Milam /Mary Wong) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Metrics and Reporting Working Group (WG) Despite the unanimous support for this resolution, only six volunteers (3 GNSO, 3 ALAC) have signed up for this effort to date, which is not considered sufficiently representative to kick off the Drafting Team (DT). At the ICANN meeting in Durban, ICANN staff was tasked with looking into and proposing alternative ways forward. Apart from renewing the call for volunteers or delaying this effort, the GNSO Council could consider, as this is a non-PDP WG, to explore an alternative approach not necessarily requiring the formation of a DT or WG. Here the Council will review and discuss the alternatives and consider the next steps. 6.1 Staff update (Berry Cobb) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: DISCUSSION – GAC Engagement / Working with the BGRC WG Here the Council will discuss activity to date and confirm the intended course of action going forward. 7.1 – Status update 7.2 – Discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: INPUT & DISCUSSION – Prospective improvements to the Policy Development Process (PDP) The Council is committed to ongoing enhancements to the methods of working of the Council and the work initiated and managed by the Council. The PDP process is a cornerstone of policy making within the GNSO and, as such, the work of the Council. The PDP outcomes and associated processes are the subject of focus and attention both within the GNSO and the broader ICANN Community. In this agenda item we will discuss a paper prepared by ICANN staff on potential improvements to the PDP process and consider the appropriate next steps. 8.1 – Input on GNSO PDP Improvements (Marika Konings) 8.2 – Discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION – Role and scope of the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI) Here the Council will review input received at the ICANN meeting in Durban as well as any subsequent information and confirm the intended course of action. 9.1 – Status update 9.2 – Discussion 9.3 – Next steps Item 10: DISCUSSION – Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, board initiated reviews of the GNSO and the GNSO Council as an integral part of the GNSO are expected. In order to be effectively prepared for these reviews, it was proposed in Beijing that a group be formed to understand the issues and begin to take appropriate next steps. One key suggestion from Beijing was that any group (such as the Council) being reviewed undertakes a form of self-review. The intended course of action may have been impacted by the recently announced proposal to delay any board initiated review activity. Here the Council will discuss and potentially confirm the intended course of action of initiating a non-PDP WG. 10.1 – Current status 10.2 – Discussion 10.3 – Next steps Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Planning for Buenos Aeries Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Buenos Aires will take planning. GNSO Council Vice Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben has again volunteered to lead this and will be working with the Council and staff on this effort. 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 in such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. 11.1 – Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 11.2 – Discussion 11.3 – Next steps Item 12: Any Other Business 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. Initiat