Thanks
Glen.
James, as you heard on the call
today, the GNSO Review recommendations raised a lot of unanswered
questions. Not to raise memories of Marrakech, but will the Council’s vote
on Thursday be an up or down on all the recommendations or will each
recommendation have its own vote? Or, is it also possible that Council
could send these back to the Working Party and ask them to refine them a bit
more to address certain questions, like the privacy issues raised? Thanks
in advance for your thoughts.
Best,
Paul
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016
08:53 AM
To: GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org)
Subject:
[council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00
UTC
Dear
All,
Please find the proposed draft agenda for
the GNSO Council Meeting on 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC.
http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-14apr16-en.htm
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+April+2016
This agenda was
established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures, approved and
updated on 24 June 2015.
For convenience:
<!--[if
!supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->An excerpt of the
ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at
the end of this agenda.
<!--[if
!supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->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 of the meeting of the GNSO Council
Meeting Minutes, 29 February and 9
March 2016 will be posted as approved on xxxx 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 and Action List
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 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
those of the GNSO’s PDP recommendations that are not
inconsistent with GAC advice 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), the Board requested more time to consider the GNSO’s
recommendations as these are inconsistent
with GAC advice received on the topic. In the interim period, the Board adopted
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
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 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 from the Working Party chair on 29 January, and the Working Party’s
proposed Implementation and Feasibility
Analysis 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
(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, 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 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
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-board-gac-chair-29jul15-en.pdf
and http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-gac-review-31dec15-en.pdf).
Here the Council will review the draft response 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
(Proposer name: Susan Kawaguchi /Jennifer Gore / Rubens Kuhl)
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
for public comment (closing on 30 April). The GNSO Council had previously
provided public
comments 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 (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. 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).
On 25 March a Call for
Volunteers 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
for this Cross Community Working Group was ratified 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 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): 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 March and
October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+0DST 14:00
San
José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST 16:00
Iowa City, USA (CDT) UTC-5+0DST 16:00
New
York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 17:00
Buenos Aires, Argentina
(ART) 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) 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://tinyurl.com/gn4sy7u
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