I agree with James. The step the council is asked to take is to adopt the way of handling the recommendations (reject, accept with modifications, accept, plus prioritize). On the Working Party there was broad representation from all SGs/Cs (see https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Working+Party+Members) to ensure their opinion is covered by the WP output. I’m sure that during the elaboration of an implementation plan as well as throughout the implementation phase itself clarifications are to be done in several areas (as usual in such projects). And opportunities shall be provided to the GNSO stakeholders and the council to step into the discussion at various points, including public comments etc. As James points out we should focus on the feasibility or priority assigned by the Working Party and flag related concerns. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:35 PM To: Paul McGrady (Policy) ; 'Glen de Saint Géry' ; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC Hi Paul - In fact, I had the exact same question during the call: Are we (Council) planning a vote on each recommendations individually, or is this report an all-or-nothing package? The correct answer, is that the Council is not voting on the recommendations themselves, but on the adoption GNSO Review Working Party’s analysis of the feasibility and priority of the recommendations made by West Lake. I believe this distinction is captured in the language of Wolf-Ulrich’s motion, but if it needs to be clarified we should prepare some friendly amendments. The Working Party has said that they are open to concerns or edits from Council and others in the GNSO to address concerns raised during today’s call, including your observations about privacy and other open issues (e.g. Definitions, etc.). There will also be a separate phase to develop an implementation plan, following the Board has considered the Feasibility & Priority assessment. The GNSO (Council/SGs/Cs) will be involved in that, and the Council will approve that plane. We need to make sure any implementation issues are in that phase. But if you or any other Councilors have concerns about the feasibility or priority assigned by the Working Party, please get those flagged to the list as soon as possible. Hope this helps. Thanks— J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Paul McGrady (Policy)" <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 14:45 To: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen@icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC 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 Paul McGrady policy@paulmcgrady.com +1-312-882-5020 GNSO Councilor for the IPC 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... 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

Hi, Ed, James, Carlos and Keith…, thank you very much for this. I can’t imagine that getting this done was particularly easy. I was wondering how we would be handling this on tonight’s Council call. It is listed as an agenda item for Council approval on on the Council meeting agenda (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+April+2016), but not listed as a motion to be voted on (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+201...). So I’m not entirely clear on what the outcome of this agenda item is meant to be. Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks. Amr

On Apr 13, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

My Fellow Councillors,

You will recall at our ICANN55 Council meeting, a small team (James, Carlos, Keith, myself) volunteered to formulate draft comments relating to ICANN's proposed Draft FY17 operating plan and budget. Attached you will find a starter draft of comments for the Council to consider. Track changes are enabled should any member of the Council wish to suggest edits. Please feel to do so and then send them back over the list. This small team with assistance from staff will maintain a master copy to ready for submission.

The Public Comments are due by 30 April 2016, and thus we have just over two weeks to make edits and then determine if the Council wishes to submit them. This topic is currently on the GNSO Council agenda for tomorrow. The small team also recognizes that likely all SGs & Cs will be submitting their own comments. In that regard and because we are managers of the policy process, this draft of comments attempted to only focus at a higher level of how the proposed budget impacts the GNSO and its policy development activities.

This process for submitting comments mimics what occurred last year for the FY16 draft budget. Once that draft was completed over the Council list, the comments were submitted without objection. As we will likely discuss tomorrow and based on this current experience, the Council should consider formalizing this process especially in the light of a future empowered community.

In addition to thanking James, Carlos and Keith with whom it has been a pleasure to work with, special thanks go out from all of us to Berry and Marika for their exceptional input and dedicated effort on this comment. We are extraordinarily lucky to have such fine staff assigned to help us on Council.

We looks forward to everyone's input.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris <Budget Comment.docx>

To add to Mary¹s response, the objective of the discussion is also to identify any additional questions that may exist in relation to the budget documents. The Finance Team has indicated that they are open to receiving any clarifying questions which they will attempt to answer prior to the closing of the public comment period so that these can be considered as part of the development of input for the public comment forum. On the last page of the draft you will already find a number of questions that were identified by members of the small team. If there are additional questions, you are encouraged to provide these so that these can get added. The hope is that the responses to the questions as well as feedback received on the current draft will allow for finalisation of the comment via the mailing list and submission in time for the 30 April deadline. Please note that the Finance Team is also in the process of scheduling calls with the different communities that have and/or will submit comments following the close of the public comment forum to 'enhance the understanding of the comments and so improve the quality of the response' (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-04-12-en). Best regards, Marika On 14/04/16 08:35, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Mary Wong" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

Hello Amr and everyone,

There is no motion to be voted on with respect to this topic. This was also the case last year, when the Council also submitted a comment on the FY16 Budget. The idea here is that the Council will discuss the draft that was prepared by the small team at this call, with a view toward finalizing any comments and changes via the email list subsequently but in good enough time to submit the final comment by the 30 April deadline.

FYI, while the GNSO Council will need a motion on any matter for which it is required to vote (e.g. PDP-related topics), the Council does have the ability to take action without a motion or voting on other matters. As you may recall, this has been done a number of times with respect to non-PDP and such topics for which is vote is not specifically required.

I hope this helps.

Thanks and cheers Mary

Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

On 4/14/16, 05:44, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

Ed, James, Carlos and KeithŠ, thank you very much for this. I can¹t imagine that getting this done was particularly easy.

I was wondering how we would be handling this on tonight¹s Council call. It is listed as an agenda item for Council approval on on the Council meeting agenda (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+April+ 2016), but not listed as a motion to be voted on (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April +2016). So I¹m not entirely clear on what the outcome of this agenda item is meant to be. Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 13, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

My Fellow Councillors,

You will recall at our ICANN55 Council meeting, a small team (James, Carlos, Keith, myself) volunteered to formulate draft comments relating to ICANN's proposed Draft FY17 operating plan and budget. Attached you will find a starter draft of comments for the Council to consider. Track changes are enabled should any member of the Council wish to suggest edits. Please feel to do so and then send them back over the list. This small team with assistance from staff will maintain a master copy to ready for submission.

The Public Comments are due by 30 April 2016, and thus we have just over two weeks to make edits and then determine if the Council wishes to submit them. This topic is currently on the GNSO Council agenda for tomorrow. The small team also recognizes that likely all SGs & Cs will be submitting their own comments. In that regard and because we are managers of the policy process, this draft of comments attempted to only focus at a higher level of how the proposed budget impacts the GNSO and its policy development activities.

This process for submitting comments mimics what occurred last year for the FY16 draft budget. Once that draft was completed over the Council list, the comments were submitted without objection. As we will likely discuss tomorrow and based on this current experience, the Council should consider formalizing this process especially in the light of a future empowered community.

In addition to thanking James, Carlos and Keith with whom it has been a pleasure to work with, special thanks go out from all of us to Berry and Marika for their exceptional input and dedicated effort on this comment. We are extraordinarily lucky to have such fine staff assigned to help us on Council.

We looks forward to everyone's input.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris <Budget Comment.docx>

All, Just as a reminder, Ed & Staff will finalize the list of Clarifying Questions appended to this draft public comment to Finance by 23:00 UTC 15 April. Should you or the group you represent have any more to add, please send them our way so that we can add them to the list. As noted by Marika below, there will also be upcoming webinars scheduled by Finance for each SO/AC to further explain the draft FY17 Budget and ask for any additional questions. We expect those announcement to be out early next week. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 07:51 To: Mary Wong; Amr Elsadr; GNSO Council List Cc: Edward Morris Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan To add to Mary¹s response, the objective of the discussion is also to identify any additional questions that may exist in relation to the budget documents. The Finance Team has indicated that they are open to receiving any clarifying questions which they will attempt to answer prior to the closing of the public comment period so that these can be considered as part of the development of input for the public comment forum. On the last page of the draft you will already find a number of questions that were identified by members of the small team. If there are additional questions, you are encouraged to provide these so that these can get added. The hope is that the responses to the questions as well as feedback received on the current draft will allow for finalisation of the comment via the mailing list and submission in time for the 30 April deadline. Please note that the Finance Team is also in the process of scheduling calls with the different communities that have and/or will submit comments following the close of the public comment forum to 'enhance the understanding of the comments and so improve the quality of the response' (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-04-12-en). Best regards, Marika On 14/04/16 08:35, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Mary Wong" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

Hello Amr and everyone,

There is no motion to be voted on with respect to this topic. This was also the case last year, when the Council also submitted a comment on the FY16 Budget. The idea here is that the Council will discuss the draft that was prepared by the small team at this call, with a view toward finalizing any comments and changes via the email list subsequently but in good enough time to submit the final comment by the 30 April deadline.

FYI, while the GNSO Council will need a motion on any matter for which it is required to vote (e.g. PDP-related topics), the Council does have the ability to take action without a motion or voting on other matters. As you may recall, this has been done a number of times with respect to non-PDP and such topics for which is vote is not specifically required.

I hope this helps.

Thanks and cheers Mary

Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

On 4/14/16, 05:44, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

Ed, James, Carlos and KeithŠ, thank you very much for this. I can¹t imagine that getting this done was particularly easy.

I was wondering how we would be handling this on tonight¹s Council call. It is listed as an agenda item for Council approval on on the Council meeting agenda (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+April+ 2016), but not listed as a motion to be voted on (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April +2016). So I¹m not entirely clear on what the outcome of this agenda item is meant to be. Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 13, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

My Fellow Councillors,

You will recall at our ICANN55 Council meeting, a small team (James, Carlos, Keith, myself) volunteered to formulate draft comments relating to ICANN's proposed Draft FY17 operating plan and budget. Attached you will find a starter draft of comments for the Council to consider. Track changes are enabled should any member of the Council wish to suggest edits. Please feel to do so and then send them back over the list. This small team with assistance from staff will maintain a master copy to ready for submission.

The Public Comments are due by 30 April 2016, and thus we have just over two weeks to make edits and then determine if the Council wishes to submit them. This topic is currently on the GNSO Council agenda for tomorrow. The small team also recognizes that likely all SGs & Cs will be submitting their own comments. In that regard and because we are managers of the policy process, this draft of comments attempted to only focus at a higher level of how the proposed budget impacts the GNSO and its policy development activities.

This process for submitting comments mimics what occurred last year for the FY16 draft budget. Once that draft was completed over the Council list, the comments were submitted without objection. As we will likely discuss tomorrow and based on this current experience, the Council should consider formalizing this process especially in the light of a future empowered community.

In addition to thanking James, Carlos and Keith with whom it has been a pleasure to work with, special thanks go out from all of us to Berry and Marika for their exceptional input and dedicated effort on this comment. We are extraordinarily lucky to have such fine staff assigned to help us on Council.

We looks forward to everyone's input.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris <Budget Comment.docx>

Thank you Berry! my comments and questions on version 0.3 as per attachment Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:20, Berry Cobb wrote:

All,

Just as a reminder, Ed & Staff will finalize the list of Clarifying Questions appended to this draft public comment to Finance by 23:00 UTC 15 April. Should you or the group you represent have any more to add, please send them our way so that we can add them to the list.

As noted by Marika below, there will also be upcoming webinars scheduled by Finance for each SO/AC to further explain the draft FY17 Budget and ask for any additional questions. We expect those announcement to be out early next week.

Thank you.

B

Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 07:51 To: Mary Wong; Amr Elsadr; GNSO Council List Cc: Edward Morris Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan

To add to Mary¹s response, the objective of the discussion is also to identify any additional questions that may exist in relation to the budget documents. The Finance Team has indicated that they are open to receiving any clarifying questions which they will attempt to answer prior to the closing of the public comment period so that these can be considered as part of the development of input for the public comment forum. On the last page of the draft you will already find a number of questions that were identified by members of the small team. If there are additional questions, you are encouraged to provide these so that these can get added. The hope is that the responses to the questions as well as feedback received on the current draft will allow for finalisation of the comment via the mailing list and submission in time for the 30 April deadline. Please note that the Finance Team is also in the process of scheduling calls with the different communities that have and/or will submit comments following the close of the public comment forum to 'enhance the understanding of the comments and so improve the quality of the response' (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-04-12-en).

Best regards,

Marika

On 14/04/16 08:35, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Mary Wong" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hello Amr and everyone,

There is no motion to be voted on with respect to this topic. This was also the case last year, when the Council also submitted a comment on the FY16 Budget. The idea here is that the Council will discuss the draft that was prepared by the small team at this call, with a view toward finalizing any comments and changes via the email list subsequently but in good enough time to submit the final comment by the 30 April deadline.

FYI, while the GNSO Council will need a motion on any matter for which it is required to vote (e.g. PDP-related topics), the Council does have the ability to take action without a motion or voting on other matters. As you may recall, this has been done a number of times with respect to non-PDP and such topics for which is vote is not specifically required.

I hope this helps.

Thanks and cheers Mary

Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

On 4/14/16, 05:44, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

Ed, James, Carlos and KeithŠ, thank you very much for this. I can¹t imagine that getting this done was particularly easy.

I was wondering how we would be handling this on tonight¹s Council call. It is listed as an agenda item for Council approval on on the Council meeting agenda (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+April+ 2016), but not listed as a motion to be voted on (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April +2016). So I¹m not entirely clear on what the outcome of this agenda item is meant to be. Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 13, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

My Fellow Councillors,

You will recall at our ICANN55 Council meeting, a small team (James, Carlos, Keith, myself) volunteered to formulate draft comments relating to ICANN's proposed Draft FY17 operating plan and budget. Attached you will find a starter draft of comments for the Council to consider. Track changes are enabled should any member of the Council wish to suggest edits. Please feel to do so and then send them back over the list. This small team with assistance from staff will maintain a master copy to ready for submission.

The Public Comments are due by 30 April 2016, and thus we have just over two weeks to make edits and then determine if the Council wishes to submit them. This topic is currently on the GNSO Council agenda for tomorrow. The small team also recognizes that likely all SGs & Cs will be submitting their own comments. In that regard and because we are managers of the policy process, this draft of comments attempted to only focus at a higher level of how the proposed budget impacts the GNSO and its policy development activities.

This process for submitting comments mimics what occurred last year for the FY16 draft budget. Once that draft was completed over the Council list, the comments were submitted without objection. As we will likely discuss tomorrow and based on this current experience, the Council should consider formalizing this process especially in the light of a future empowered community.

In addition to thanking James, Carlos and Keith with whom it has been a pleasure to work with, special thanks go out from all of us to Berry and Marika for their exceptional input and dedicated effort on this comment. We are extraordinarily lucky to have such fine staff assigned to help us on Council.

We looks forward to everyone's input.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris <Budget Comment.docx>

Berry - Thank you for driving this topic. Appreciate your efforts to gather edits and coordinate the contributions. Council Colleagues - Please note that the window between the time we receive a response to our Clarifying Questions and the comment due day (30 APR) will be quite small—perhaps only a day or two. So if you spot anything problematic in this draft, or in the responses please post those thoughts to the Council list as soon as you can. Thank you, J. On 4/25/16, 13:43 , "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Berry Cobb" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of mail@berrycobb.com> wrote:

All,

This is just a reminder about the FY17 Draft Budget out for Public Comment. I've attached the latest draft version that will be submitted on behalf of the GNSO Council. If you have any other suggestions or edits, please send them to the Council mail list by 23:59 UTC, Friday 29 April. I will compile the latest edits and ready the draft for submission by James on the 30th.

Also, we did submit a few clarifying questions to the Finance team. We should see responses to those in the next day or so. I will forward them to the Council as soon as we receive them.

Thank you.

B

Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb

-----Original Message----- From: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. [mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:27 To: Berry Cobb Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan

Thank you Berry!

my comments and questions on version 0.3 as per attachment

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:20, Berry Cobb wrote:

...

All,

Just as a reminder, Ed & Staff will finalize the list of Clarifying Questions appended to this draft public comment to Finance by 23:00 UTC 15 April. Should you or the group you represent have any more to add, please send them our way so that we can add them to the list.

As noted by Marika below, there will also be upcoming webinars scheduled by Finance for each SO/AC to further explain the draft FY17 Budget and ask for any additional questions. We expect those announcement to be out early next week.

Thank you.

B

Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 07:51 To: Mary Wong; Amr Elsadr; GNSO Council List Cc: Edward Morris Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan

To add to Mary¹s response, the objective of the discussion is also to identify any additional questions that may exist in relation to the budget documents. The Finance Team has indicated that they are open to receiving any clarifying questions which they will attempt to answer prior to the closing of the public comment period so that these can be considered as part of the development of input for the public comment forum. On the last page of the draft you will already find a number of questions that were identified by members of the small team. If there are additional questions, you are encouraged to provide these so that these can get added. The hope is that the responses to the questions as well as feedback received on the current draft will allow for finalisation of the comment via the mailing list and submission in time for the 30 April deadline. Please note that the Finance Team is also in the process of scheduling calls with the different communities that have and/or will submit comments following the close of the public comment forum to 'enhance the understanding of the comments and so improve the quality of the response' (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-04-12-en).

Best regards,

Marika

On 14/04/16 08:35, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Mary Wong" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hello Amr and everyone,

There is no motion to be voted on with respect to this topic. This was also the case last year, when the Council also submitted a comment on the FY16 Budget. The idea here is that the Council will discuss the draft that was prepared by the small team at this call, with a view toward finalizing any comments and changes via the email list subsequently but in good enough time to submit the final comment by the 30 April deadline.

FYI, while the GNSO Council will need a motion on any matter for which it is required to vote (e.g. PDP-related topics), the Council does have the ability to take action without a motion or voting on other matters. As you may recall, this has been done a number of times with respect to non-PDP and such topics for which is vote is not specifically required.

I hope this helps.

Thanks and cheers Mary

Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

On 4/14/16, 05:44, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

Ed, James, Carlos and KeithŠ, thank you very much for this. I can¹t imagine that getting this done was particularly easy.

I was wondering how we would be handling this on tonight¹s Council call. It is listed as an agenda item for Council approval on on the Council meeting agenda (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+A pril+ 2016), but not listed as a motion to be voted on (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+ April +2016). So I¹m not entirely clear on what the outcome of this agenda item is meant to be. Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 13, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

My Fellow Councillors,

You will recall at our ICANN55 Council meeting, a small team (James, Carlos, Keith, myself) volunteered to formulate draft comments relating to ICANN's proposed Draft FY17 operating plan and budget. Attached you will find a starter draft of comments for the Council to consider. Track changes are enabled should any member of the Council wish to suggest edits. Please feel to do so and then send them back over the list. This small team with assistance from staff will maintain a master copy to ready for submission.

The Public Comments are due by 30 April 2016, and thus we have just over two weeks to make edits and then determine if the Council wishes to submit them. This topic is currently on the GNSO Council agenda for tomorrow. The small team also recognizes that likely all SGs & Cs will be submitting their own comments. In that regard and because we are managers of the policy process, this draft of comments attempted to only focus at a higher level of how the proposed budget impacts the GNSO and its policy development activities.

This process for submitting comments mimics what occurred last year for the FY16 draft budget. Once that draft was completed over the Council list, the comments were submitted without objection. As we will likely discuss tomorrow and based on this current experience, the Council should consider formalizing this process especially in the light of a future empowered community.

In addition to thanking James, Carlos and Keith with whom it has been a pleasure to work with, special thanks go out from all of us to Berry and Marika for their exceptional input and dedicated effort on this comment. We are extraordinarily lucky to have such fine staff assigned to help us on Council.

We looks forward to everyone's input.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris <Budget Comment.docx>

All, Please find attached the responses from the ICANN Finance team to the Clarifying Questions submitted by several SO/ACs. Items 15 through 23 are what was submitted from the GNSO. I've also attached v0.4 of the latest draft of comments. This includes a few suggestions from Carlos and I took the liberty of deleting one bullet point that was answered from the CQs. I also deleted the last page which contained the original CQs, all with track changes. As noted in a prior email, please submit any suggested changes or comments over the list until 23:59 UTC, 29 April (this Friday). Should there be zero objections to the draft comments, I will work with James to get these submitted on the Council's behalf by 30 April. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 09:39 To: James M. Bladel Cc: Berry Cobb; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan Dear James, Berry! I think it is an impressive list of real questions. Nevertheless I had suggested to Ed Morris to either start or end the letter with some overarching forward looking questions about the way the GNSO is about to face this new important role. I exchanged some ideas with Ed but I´m not sure if he is going to make a proposal in time. I will check again with him Best Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 25 Apr 2016, at 17:52, James M. Bladel wrote:

Berry - Thank you for driving this topic. Appreciate your efforts to gather edits and coordinate the contributions.

Council Colleagues - Please note that the window between the time we receive a response to our Clarifying Questions and the comment due day (30 APR) will be quite small—perhaps only a day or two. So if you spot anything problematic in this draft, or in the responses please post those thoughts to the Council list as soon as you can.

Thank you,

J.

On 4/25/16, 13:43 , "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Berry Cobb" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of mail@berrycobb.com> wrote:

...

All,

This is just a reminder about the FY17 Draft Budget out for Public Comment. I've attached the latest draft version that will be submitted on behalf of the GNSO Council. If you have any other suggestions or edits, please send them to the Council mail list by 23:59 UTC, Friday 29 April. I will compile the latest edits and ready the draft for submission by James on the 30th.

Also, we did submit a few clarifying questions to the Finance team. We should see responses to those in the next day or so. I will forward them to the Council as soon as we receive them.

Thank you.

B

Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb

-----Original Message----- From: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. [mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:27 To: Berry Cobb Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan

Thank you Berry!

my comments and questions on version 0.3 as per attachment

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:20, Berry Cobb wrote:

...

All,

Just as a reminder, Ed & Staff will finalize the list of Clarifying Questions appended to this draft public comment to Finance by 23:00 UTC 15 April. Should you or the group you represent have any more to add, please send them our way so that we can add them to the list.

As noted by Marika below, there will also be upcoming webinars scheduled by Finance for each SO/AC to further explain the draft FY17 Budget and ask for any additional questions. We expect those announcement to be out early next week.

Thank you.

B

Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 07:51 To: Mary Wong; Amr Elsadr; GNSO Council List Cc: Edward Morris Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan

To add to Mary¹s response, the objective of the discussion is also to identify any additional questions that may exist in relation to the budget documents. The Finance Team has indicated that they are open to receiving any clarifying questions which they will attempt to answer prior to the closing of the public comment period so that these can be considered as part of the development of input for the public comment forum. On the last page of the draft you will already find a number of questions that were identified by members of the small team. If there are additional questions, you are encouraged to provide these so that these can get added. The hope is that the responses to the questions as well as feedback received on the current draft will allow for finalisation of the comment via the mailing list and submission in time for the 30 April deadline. Please note that the Finance Team is also in the process of scheduling calls with the different communities that have and/or will submit comments following the close of the public comment forum to 'enhance the understanding of the comments and so improve the quality of the response' (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-04-12-en).

Best regards,

Marika

On 14/04/16 08:35, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Mary Wong" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hello Amr and everyone,

There is no motion to be voted on with respect to this topic. This was also the case last year, when the Council also submitted a comment on the FY16 Budget. The idea here is that the Council will discuss the draft that was prepared by the small team at this call, with a view toward finalizing any comments and changes via the email list subsequently but in good enough time to submit the final comment by the 30 April deadline.

FYI, while the GNSO Council will need a motion on any matter for which it is required to vote (e.g. PDP-related topics), the Council does have the ability to take action without a motion or voting on other matters. As you may recall, this has been done a number of times with respect to non-PDP and such topics for which is vote is not specifically required.

I hope this helps.

Thanks and cheers Mary

Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

On 4/14/16, 05:44, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

Ed, James, Carlos and KeithŠ, thank you very much for this. I can¹t imagine that getting this done was particularly easy.

I was wondering how we would be handling this on tonight¹s Council call. It is listed as an agenda item for Council approval on on the Council meeting agenda (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+A pril+ 2016), but not listed as a motion to be voted on (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+ April +2016). So I¹m not entirely clear on what the outcome of this agenda item is meant to be. Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 13, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

My Fellow Councillors,

You will recall at our ICANN55 Council meeting, a small team (James, Carlos, Keith, myself) volunteered to formulate draft comments relating to ICANN's proposed Draft FY17 operating plan and budget. Attached you will find a starter draft of comments for the Council to consider. Track changes are enabled should any member of the Council wish to suggest edits. Please feel to do so and then send them back over the list. This small team with assistance from staff will maintain a master copy to ready for submission.

The Public Comments are due by 30 April 2016, and thus we have just over two weeks to make edits and then determine if the Council wishes to submit them. This topic is currently on the GNSO Council agenda for tomorrow. The small team also recognizes that likely all SGs & Cs will be submitting their own comments. In that regard and because we are managers of the policy process, this draft of comments attempted to only focus at a higher level of how the proposed budget impacts the GNSO and its policy development activities.

This process for submitting comments mimics what occurred last year for the FY16 draft budget. Once that draft was completed over the Council list, the comments were submitted without objection. As we will likely discuss tomorrow and based on this current experience, the Council should consider formalizing this process especially in the light of a future empowered community.

In addition to thanking James, Carlos and Keith with whom it has been a pleasure to work with, special thanks go out from all of us to Berry and Marika for their exceptional input and dedicated effort on this comment. We are extraordinarily lucky to have such fine staff assigned to help us on Council.

We looks forward to everyone's input.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris <Budget Comment.docx>

Dear All, The GNSO Council comments on the FY17 Draft Budget and Ops plan have been published to http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-icann-30apr16-en.pdf Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -----Message d'origine----- Envoyé : samedi 30 avril 2016 23:11 Objet : RE: [council] Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan All, The GNSO Council comments on the FY17 Draft Budget and Ops plan have now been submitted to the public comment forum. Here is a link to the submission where the final PDF letter can be found https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-op-budget-fy17-five-year-05mar16/msg0.... Staff will continue to work with Council leadership in tracking the FY17 Budgeting process leading up to Board approval. We'll continue to notify the Council of primary events as they occur. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb -----Original Message----- From: Berry Cobb [mailto:mail@berrycobb.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 15:39 To: 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan All, Please find attached the responses from the ICANN Finance team to the Clarifying Questions submitted by several SO/ACs. Items 15 through 23 are what was submitted from the GNSO. I've also attached v0.4 of the latest draft of comments. This includes a few suggestions from Carlos and I took the liberty of deleting one bullet point that was answered from the CQs. I also deleted the last page which contained the original CQs, all with track changes. As noted in a prior email, please submit any suggested changes or comments over the list until 23:59 UTC, 29 April (this Friday). Should there be zero objections to the draft comments, I will work with James to get these submitted on the Council's behalf by 30 April. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 09:39 To: James M. Bladel Cc: Berry Cobb; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan Dear James, Berry! I think it is an impressive list of real questions. Nevertheless I had suggested to Ed Morris to either start or end the letter with some overarching forward looking questions about the way the GNSO is about to face this new important role. I exchanged some ideas with Ed but I´m not sure if he is going to make a proposal in time. I will check again with him Best Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 25 Apr 2016, at 17:52, James M. Bladel wrote:

Berry - Thank you for driving this topic. Appreciate your efforts to gather edits and coordinate the contributions.

Council Colleagues - Please note that the window between the time we receive a response to our Clarifying Questions and the comment due day (30 APR) will be quite small—perhaps only a day or two. So if you spot anything problematic in this draft, or in the responses please post those thoughts to the Council list as soon as you can.

Thank you,

J.

On 4/25/16, 13:43 , "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Berry Cobb" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of mail@berrycobb.com> wrote:

...

All,

This is just a reminder about the FY17 Draft Budget out for Public Comment. I've attached the latest draft version that will be submitted on behalf of the GNSO Council. If you have any other suggestions or edits, please send them to the Council mail list by 23:59 UTC, Friday 29 April. I will compile the latest edits and ready the draft for submission by James on the 30th.

Also, we did submit a few clarifying questions to the Finance team. We should see responses to those in the next day or so. I will forward them to the Council as soon as we receive them.

Thank you.

B

Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb

-----Original Message----- From: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. [mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:27 To: Berry Cobb Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan

Thank you Berry!

my comments and questions on version 0.3 as per attachment

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:20, Berry Cobb wrote:

...

All,

Just as a reminder, Ed & Staff will finalize the list of Clarifying Questions appended to this draft public comment to Finance by 23:00 UTC 15 April. Should you or the group you represent have any more to add, please send them our way so that we can add them to the list.

As noted by Marika below, there will also be upcoming webinars scheduled by Finance for each SO/AC to further explain the draft FY17 Budget and ask for any additional questions. We expect those announcement to be out early next week.

Thank you.

B

Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 07:51 To: Mary Wong; Amr Elsadr; GNSO Council List Cc: Edward Morris Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Comment on FY17 Budget and Operating Plan

To add to Mary¹s response, the objective of the discussion is also to identify any additional questions that may exist in relation to the budget documents. The Finance Team has indicated that they are open to receiving any clarifying questions which they will attempt to answer prior to the closing of the public comment period so that these can be considered as part of the development of input for the public comment forum. On the last page of the draft you will already find a number of questions that were identified by members of the small team. If there are additional questions, you are encouraged to provide these so that these can get added. The hope is that the responses to the questions as well as feedback received on the current draft will allow for finalisation of the comment via the mailing list and submission in time for the 30 April deadline. Please note that the Finance Team is also in the process of scheduling calls with the different communities that have and/or will submit comments following the close of the public comment forum to 'enhance the understanding of the comments and so improve the quality of the response' (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-04-12-en).

Best regards,

Marika

On 14/04/16 08:35, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Mary Wong" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hello Amr and everyone,

There is no motion to be voted on with respect to this topic. This was also the case last year, when the Council also submitted a comment on the FY16 Budget. The idea here is that the Council will discuss the draft that was prepared by the small team at this call, with a view toward finalizing any comments and changes via the email list subsequently but in good enough time to submit the final comment by the 30 April deadline.

FYI, while the GNSO Council will need a motion on any matter for which it is required to vote (e.g. PDP-related topics), the Council does have the ability to take action without a motion or voting on other matters. As you may recall, this has been done a number of times with respect to non-PDP and such topics for which is vote is not specifically required.

I hope this helps.

Thanks and cheers Mary

Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

On 4/14/16, 05:44, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

Ed, James, Carlos and KeithŠ, thank you very much for this. I can¹t imagine that getting this done was particularly easy.

I was wondering how we would be handling this on tonight¹s Council call. It is listed as an agenda item for Council approval on on the Council meeting agenda (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14 +A pril+ 2016), but not listed as a motion to be voted on (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1 4+ April +2016). So I¹m not entirely clear on what the outcome of this agenda item is meant to be. Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 13, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

My Fellow Councillors,

You will recall at our ICANN55 Council meeting, a small team (James, Carlos, Keith, myself) volunteered to formulate draft comments relating to ICANN's proposed Draft FY17 operating plan and budget. Attached you will find a starter draft of comments for the Council to consider. Track changes are enabled should any member of the Council wish to suggest edits. Please feel to do so and then send them back over the list. This small team with assistance from staff will maintain a master copy to ready for submission.

The Public Comments are due by 30 April 2016, and thus we have just over two weeks to make edits and then determine if the Council wishes to submit them. This topic is currently on the GNSO Council agenda for tomorrow. The small team also recognizes that likely all SGs & Cs will be submitting their own comments. In that regard and because we are managers of the policy process, this draft of comments attempted to only focus at a higher level of how the proposed budget impacts the GNSO and its policy development activities.

This process for submitting comments mimics what occurred last year for the FY16 draft budget. Once that draft was completed over the Council list, the comments were submitted without objection. As we will likely discuss tomorrow and based on this current experience, the Council should consider formalizing this process especially in the light of a future empowered community.

In addition to thanking James, Carlos and Keith with whom it has been a pleasure to work with, special thanks go out from all of us to Berry and Marika for their exceptional input and dedicated effort on this comment. We are extraordinarily lucky to have such fine staff assigned to help us on Council.

We looks forward to everyone's input.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris <Budget Comment.docx>

All, following the discussion on 12 April there is one request to alter recommendation 21 with regards to its suggested level of acceptance. I therefore like to introduce the following amendment to the motion: << Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en...) with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority)

...

I'd like to ask Amr as the seconder of the motion whether he accepts this amendment as friendly. I apologize for the late submission and am looking forward to a fruitful discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:49 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: James M. Bladel ; Paul McGrady (Policy) ; Glen de Saint Géry ; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC Hi Paul, Thanks for raising this question. I pretty much see things the same as James and Wolf-Ulrich. Additionally, it may be helpful to consider this motion within the broader process of the GNSO review, and the ongoing dialogue between the GNSO (wether via the Council or the Working Party) and the Board’s OEC. Remember, this isn’t a GNSO PDP. The GNSO review was initiated by the Board, and the Board will ultimately decide how to proceed with the recommendations made by the independent examiner. The Working Party input (as far as I can tell) is meant to assist in informing the OEC’s deliberations and ultimate decisions along with other inputs and considerations. So none of the input the GNSO provides will be binding in any way really, even as far as what level of consensus is required among the board to reject it. Having said that, I agree that the feedback provided during Tuesday’s webinar is important, and needs to find a way of being included. Instead of making changes to the assessment conducted by the Working Party, I suggest creating some sort of annex attached to it with the input of the GNSO community members who provided comments during the webinar. This may require an amendment to the motion, but considering the little time available between the webinar and today’s Council call and motion/vote, it may be the least messy way of managing this. I find this to be a more desirable method of including the input to making changes to the Working Party’s output, which took considerable time and effort to wrap up. Thoughts? Thanks. Amr

On Apr 13, 2016, at 3:21 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:

I agree with James. The step the council is asked to take is to adopt the way of handling the recommendations (reject, accept with modifications, accept, plus prioritize). On the Working Party there was broad representation from all SGs/Cs (see https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Working+Party+Members) to ensure their opinion is covered by the WP output. I’m sure that during the elaboration of an implementation plan as well as throughout the implementation phase itself clarifications are to be done in several areas (as usual in such projects). And opportunities shall be provided to the GNSO stakeholders and the council to step into the discussion at various points, including public comments etc.

As James points out we should focus on the feasibility or priority assigned by the Working Party and flag related concerns.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:35 PM To: Paul McGrady (Policy) ; 'Glen de Saint Géry' ; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC

Hi Paul -

In fact, I had the exact same question during the call: Are we (Council) planning a vote on each recommendations individually, or is this report an all-or-nothing package?

The correct answer, is that the Council is not voting on the recommendations themselves, but on the adoption GNSO Review Working Party’s analysis of the feasibility and priority of the recommendations made by West Lake. I believe this distinction is captured in the language of Wolf-Ulrich’s motion, but if it needs to be clarified we should prepare some friendly amendments.

The Working Party has said that they are open to concerns or edits from Council and others in the GNSO to address concerns raised during today’s call, including your observations about privacy and other open issues (e.g. Definitions, etc.). There will also be a separate phase to develop an implementation plan, following the Board has considered the Feasibility & Priority assessment. The GNSO (Council/SGs/Cs) will be involved in that, and the Council will approve that plane. We need to make sure any implementation issues are in that phase.

But if you or any other Councilors have concerns about the feasibility or priority assigned by the Working Party, please get those flagged to the list as soon as possible.

Hope this helps.

Thanks—

J.

From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Paul McGrady (Policy)" <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 14:45 To: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen@icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC

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

Paul McGrady policy@paulmcgrady.com +1-312-882-5020 GNSO Councilor for the IPC

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 Par! ty 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... 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

Thanks Rubens, I think both approaches have its value. And to avoid useless work the recommendation is intended to start with a light approach of elaborating and defining the methods. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Rubens Kuhl Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 8:55 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: Amr Elsadr ; James M. Bladel ; Paul McGrady (Policy) ; Glen de Saint Géry ; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC

Em 14 de abr de 2016, à(s) 15:42:000, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> escreveu:

All,

following the discussion on 12 April there is one request to alter recommendation 21 with regards to its suggested level of acceptance. I therefore like to introduce the following amendment to the motion:

<< Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en...) with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority)

...

...

I'd like to ask Amr as the seconder of the motion whether he accepts this amendment as friendly. I apologize for the late submission and am looking forward to a fruitful discussion.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

Wolf-Urich, Not to propose any language modifications but to add to the discussion, I would like to mention the RySG comments on this recommendation: "To the extent it is possible to predict in advance what stakeholder groups may be impacted by future policy development efforts, that would be very helpful. It is probably more likely though to be able to do that after specific policy issues are identified. Certainly, this seems like a very good recommendation to be implemented in Issue Reports. It would make more sense to commission an analysis that is specific to the policy development process, rather than a wide-ranging analysis that may serve no purpose." Rubens

Hi Wulf-Ulrich, I will not object to this amendment being a friendly one, but like I said earlier, I would have preferred a different approach — perhaps an annex to the working party spreadsheet with details on the input received during the webinar. I’m not very comfortable with changing the working party assessment as a result of comments received on Tuesday. I note also that this amendment doesn’t include some of the other feedback the working party received such as on recommendation 35, and the privacy concerns raised by Paul in association with recommendations that involve collection of data from community members. One final question…, in changing the working party assessment on recommendation 21, and listing it as “low priority”, I’m assuming the color coding for this recommendation will be changed from red to yellow, correct? Thanks. Amr

On Apr 14, 2016, at 8:42 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:

All,

following the discussion on 12 April there is one request to alter recommendation 21 with regards to its suggested level of acceptance. I therefore like to introduce the following amendment to the motion:

<< Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en...) with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority)

...

...

I'd like to ask Amr as the seconder of the motion whether he accepts this amendment as friendly. I apologize for the late submission and am looking forward to a fruitful discussion.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:49 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: James M. Bladel ; Paul McGrady (Policy) ; Glen de Saint Géry ; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC

Hi Paul,

Thanks for raising this question. I pretty much see things the same as James and Wolf-Ulrich. Additionally, it may be helpful to consider this motion within the broader process of the GNSO review, and the ongoing dialogue between the GNSO (wether via the Council or the Working Party) and the Board’s OEC.

Remember, this isn’t a GNSO PDP. The GNSO review was initiated by the Board, and the Board will ultimately decide how to proceed with the recommendations made by the independent examiner. The Working Party input (as far as I can tell) is meant to assist in informing the OEC’s deliberations and ultimate decisions along with other inputs and considerations. So none of the input the GNSO provides will be binding in any way really, even as far as what level of consensus is required among the board to reject it.

Having said that, I agree that the feedback provided during Tuesday’s webinar is important, and needs to find a way of being included. Instead of making changes to the assessment conducted by the Working Party, I suggest creating some sort of annex attached to it with the input of the GNSO community members who provided comments during the webinar. This may require an amendment to the motion, but considering the little time available between the webinar and today’s Council call and motion/vote, it may be the least messy way of managing this. I find this to be a more desirable method of including the input to making changes to the Working Party’s output, which took considerable time and effort to wrap up.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 13, 2016, at 3:21 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:

I agree with James. The step the council is asked to take is to adopt the way of handling the recommendations (reject, accept with modifications, accept, plus prioritize). On the Working Party there was broad representation from all SGs/Cs (see https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Working+Party+Members) to ensure their opinion is covered by the WP output. I’m sure that during the elaboration of an implementation plan as well as throughout the implementation phase itself clarifications are to be done in several areas (as usual in such projects). And opportunities shall be provided to the GNSO stakeholders and the council to step into the discussion at various points, including public comments etc.

As James points out we should focus on the feasibility or priority assigned by the Working Party and flag related concerns.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:35 PM To: Paul McGrady (Policy) ; 'Glen de Saint Géry' ; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC

Hi Paul -

In fact, I had the exact same question during the call: Are we (Council) planning a vote on each recommendations individually, or is this report an all-or-nothing package?

The correct answer, is that the Council is not voting on the recommendations themselves, but on the adoption GNSO Review Working Party’s analysis of the feasibility and priority of the recommendations made by West Lake. I believe this distinction is captured in the language of Wolf-Ulrich’s motion, but if it needs to be clarified we should prepare some friendly amendments.

The Working Party has said that they are open to concerns or edits from Council and others in the GNSO to address concerns raised during today’s call, including your observations about privacy and other open issues (e.g. Definitions, etc.). There will also be a separate phase to develop an implementation plan, following the Board has considered the Feasibility & Priority assessment. The GNSO (Council/SGs/Cs) will be involved in that, and the Council will approve that plane. We need to make sure any implementation issues are in that phase.

But if you or any other Councilors have concerns about the feasibility or priority assigned by the Working Party, please get those flagged to the list as soon as possible.

Hope this helps.

Thanks—

J.

From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Paul McGrady (Policy)" <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 14:45 To: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen@icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC

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

Paul McGrady policy@paulmcgrady.com +1-312-882-5020 GNSO Councilor for the IPC

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 Par! ty 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... 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