Draft Agenda GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2012 at 15:00
Dear Councillors, Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2012 at 15:00 attached, below in text: and posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+16+February+2... Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting – 16 February 2012 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-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 Time 15:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+meetin...> Coordinated Universal Time: 15:00 UTC 07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington DC; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo; 17 February 2012 04:00 Wellington 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 audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 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: · 19 January 2012 GNSO Council minutes –approved on 16 February 2012. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12612.html 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf · Review main changes. · Comments and/or questions. Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes) A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. • Approval of the Recommendations Report on IRTP B Rec 9 part 2 that Staff is proposing be sent to the Board. Refer to the Recommendations Report: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-council-report-irtp-part-b-recommendation-... Item 3: 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report (10 minutes) As recommended by the IRTP Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of ‘thick’ WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm). Staff has now submitted the Final Issue Report,<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> which includes the report of comments received and additional updates as a result of the comments made. The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> and decide whether or not to initiate a PDP. 3.1 Presentation of Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> (Marika Konings) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf Refer to motion: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+... 3.2 Reading of the motion (XY) 3.3 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: IRTP B Rec 8 (15 minutes) As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet the following recommendation "prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status". Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html A motion was presented at the Jan 19, 2012 meeting, but was withdrawn to give Staff and Council more time to fine tune. A new motion is presented today. Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+... 4.1 Reading of the motion (X Y). 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes) On January 4, 2012, the CCWG Drafting Team sent the Council Chair its final recommendations with regard to the GNSO's approach on Community Working Groups. Refer to: Draft Principles for Cross‐Community Working Groups (CWGs) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf Council must now consider whether to approve these recommendations. A motion to that effect was made at the Jan 19 meeting and deferred to this meeting. Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+... 5.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson). 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote Item 6: JIG letter to the Board (10 minutes) The ccNSO has not approved the joint letter the GNSO suggested sending to the Board on the JIG. As a way forward, the ccNSO is proposing two options: 1. Sending their proposed letter https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+... as a joint letter to the Board. 2. If the GNSO does not approve option 1, the ccNSO will send a letter on its own. In that case, the GNSO must decide on what it wants to do, as we had approved sending a joint letter before http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112 6.1 Update by staff (X Y) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: Costa Rica Weekend agenda (20 minutes) At the Jan 19 Council meeting, it was suggested that our weekend sessions need to be focussed more on preparation work for the Council's week and less on updates. This is a discussion item on the proposed agenda. 7.1 Update and presentation of agenda (Wolf Knoben Ulrich) 7.2 Agenda for GNSO Council meeting with the Board 7.3 Agenda for GNSO Council meeting with the GAC 7.4 Agenda for GNSO Council lunch with the ccNSO 7.5 Discussion Item 8: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names (20 minutes) A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names under the new gTLD program. This agenda item is to provide the Council with an update on that work. 8.1 Update by staff (X Y) 8.2 Discussion Item 9: GNSO liaison to the ccNSO (5 minutes) Olga Cavalli had served as GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO, but has now left the GNSO Council. Therefore the GNSO Council must now appoint a new liaison to the ccNSO. 9.1 Call for volunteers 9.2 Discussion Item 10: Any Other Business (5 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: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. 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; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. 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 with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. 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.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October & March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+0DST 07:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 10:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 13:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.h...>) UTC+2+0DST 17:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing, China (CST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/cst.html> ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+1DST 04:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org
Hi Thanks Glen. One point:
Item 5: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes)
As with outreach, NCSG would prefer to defer this to a F2F in San Jose so that we could probe a little deeper together and benefit from hearing the views of any affected parties in the room before voting on how we might best interface with them. I recognize that'd be a double deferral but we've already done the same with outreach, and Wolf-Ulrich had included it on the tentative SJ schedule he circulated a few weeks back. Would there be a problem doing this? Thanks, Bill
Jonathan, as leader of this team, would you see a problem with Bill's request? One alternate solution could be to start the discussion at this meeting with a view to completing it in CR. However, there is a motion on the table here so we may also feel we'd like to try and not delay this any more… Stéphane Le 8 févr. 2012 à 09:13, William Drake a écrit :
Hi
Thanks Glen. One point:
Item 5: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes)
As with outreach, NCSG would prefer to defer this to a F2F in San Jose so that we could probe a little deeper together and benefit from hearing the views of any affected parties in the room before voting on how we might best interface with them. I recognize that'd be a double deferral but we've already done the same with outreach, and Wolf-Ulrich had included it on the tentative SJ schedule he circulated a few weeks back. Would there be a problem doing this?
Thanks,
Bill
Hi Stéphane, A few thoughts / points. 1. We worked hard to bring the WGs work to the council early this year and it is unfortunate that a short term shift in my schedule meant that I was not there to present our work at the last council meeting. 2. That said, this seems to be an important area of work which has broad interest in it. Therefore it is both urgent to keep it moving but also important that it gets the maximum engagement. 3. I checked the transcript and noted that the primary point discussed at the most recent past GNSO Council Meeting was in and around the single charter / multiple charter issue. This was a point we grappled with in the working group. On balance we decided to present a view that a single charter was required. But, this was not the result of a unanimous view so it is not surprising that it received further discussion. 4. When the schedule was proposed for the meetings this year, I made it clear that I would not be able to make the forthcoming council meeting and that remains the case. I cannot attend the meeting next week. Taking Bills suggestion into account as well as all of the above, it seems sensible if not necessary to defer further discussion and the motion until Costa Rica. However, Id like to take this opportunity emphasise my sense of both the urgency and importance of moving this out beyond the GNSO and fully engaging the broader community on the topic in order to aim to achieve wider, deeper consensus on the issues involved as soon as possible., Best wishes, Jonathan From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: 08 February 2012 09:06 To: jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2012 at 15:00 Jonathan, as leader of this team, would you see a problem with Bill's request? One alternate solution could be to start the discussion at this meeting with a view to completing it in CR. However, there is a motion on the table here so we may also feel we'd like to try and not delay this any more Stéphane Le 8 févr. 2012 à 09:13, William Drake a écrit : Hi Thanks Glen. One point: Item 5: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes) As with outreach, NCSG would prefer to defer this to a F2F in San Jose so that we could probe a little deeper together and benefit from hearing the views of any affected parties in the room before voting on how we might best interface with them. I recognize that'd be a double deferral but we've already done the same with outreach, and Wolf-Ulrich had included it on the tentative SJ schedule he circulated a few weeks back. Would there be a problem doing this? Thanks, Bill __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6866 (20120207) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
participants (4)
-
Glen de Saint Géry -
Jonathan Robinson -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
William Drake