Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016
Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures,<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> approved and updated on 24 June 2015. For convenience: · An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. · An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/zjkmew8 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 23:00 Istanbul; 08:00 Hobart Friday 22 January GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review/amend agenda. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Draft Minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17986.html> of the Special Meeting of the GNSO Council on 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on 27 January 2016 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes) This PDP had been requested<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm> by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN's implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf> for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Consideration of this item was deferred from the 17 December meeting. Here the Council will review the Working Group's Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (James Bladel) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House) Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION - Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes) In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO's policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2015/non-pdp-new-gtld> (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issue-31aug15-en.pdf> was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. During its meeting on 17 December, the Council initiated the PDP but deferred consideration of the Charter for the PDP Working Group to this meeting. Here the Council will review the revised charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-charter-12jan16-en.pdf> for adoption. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (Donna Austin) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) Item 6: Vote on motion: Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (15 minutes) In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS. The Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures was published on 11 January 2015 at http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/rpm. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) in order to the review Rights Protection Mechanisms in the new gTLDs and, in a subsequent, second phase, review the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the review topics are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (Amr Elsadr) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) Item 7: Vote on motion - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 minutes) In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf> of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization. In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en> an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en> for public comment on 30 November 2015. The comment period closed on 21 December 2015, with all Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt the recommendations in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016. Concurrently, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) - the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue - announced<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en> after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IANA+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions>) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. In this regard, the CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment which, while noting that several of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points that in its view merited further attention. In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team that was to review all the various public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council had an initial discussion on the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team during its meeting on 14 January, following which an updated version of the proposed response was circulated [include link when available]. Here the Council will discuss the updated proposed response developed by the Sub Team, and if appropriate vote on whether to submit this response to the CCWG-Accountability. 7.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (James Bladel) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion - Marrakesh Meeting Planning (10 minutes) During the Dublin meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr volunteered to work with the GNSO Council Leadership on the development of the proposed agenda for the GNSO Weekend Session in Marrakech. Here the Council will receive a status update on the planning for Marrakesh and any action that may be required from the GNSO Council. 8.1 - Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: Any Other Business (10 Minutes) _________________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): 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<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21:00 Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 13:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 15:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 19:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 23:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 05:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 05:00 next day Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 08:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>
Thank you Glen. Fellow Councilors, I would propose that we amend the agenda to take up Vote on motion - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability as the first item on the Consent Agenda. Leaving it as Item 7, to be addressed after discussion on three motions that require a Vote, could leave us with insufficient time to discuss the wording of the Council letter, which has yet to be received for pre-call review. In my opinion it is the most important matter on Thursday's agenda and should receive priority treatment. Also, I am confused in that I thought we had decided on the call of 1/14 to send a narrative letter at this point in time, and defer a Vote on a Motion until we had reviewed and discussed the Supplemental Proposal that we anticipate receiving from the CCWG-ACCT. Can someone please clarify whether we will be addressing a Council letter or a formal Motion on Thursday's call? Thank you and best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:53 PM To: GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org) Subject: [council] Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures,<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> approved and updated on 24 June 2015. For convenience: · An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. · An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/zjkmew8 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 23:00 Istanbul; 08:00 Hobart Friday 22 January GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review/amend agenda. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Draft Minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17986.html> of the Special Meeting of the GNSO Council on 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on 27 January 2016 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes) This PDP had been requested<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm> by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN's implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf> for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Consideration of this item was deferred from the 17 December meeting. Here the Council will review the Working Group's Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (James Bladel) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House) Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION - Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes) In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO's policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2015/non-pdp-new-gtld> (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issue-31aug15-en.pdf> was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. During its meeting on 17 December, the Council initiated the PDP but deferred consideration of the Charter for the PDP Working Group to this meeting. Here the Council will review the revised charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-charter-12jan16-en.pdf> for adoption. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (Donna Austin) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) Item 6: Vote on motion: Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (15 minutes) In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS. The Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures was published on 11 January 2015 at http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/rpm. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) in order to the review Rights Protection Mechanisms in the new gTLDs and, in a subsequent, second phase, review the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the review topics are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (Amr Elsadr) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) Item 7: Vote on motion - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 minutes) In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf> of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization. In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en> an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en> for public comment on 30 November 2015. The comment period closed on 21 December 2015, with all Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt the recommendations in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016. Concurrently, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) - the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue - announced<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en> after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IANA+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions>) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. In this regard, the CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment which, while noting that several of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points that in its view merited further attention. In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team that was to review all the various public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council had an initial discussion on the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team during its meeting on 14 January, following which an updated version of the proposed response was circulated [include link when available]. Here the Council will discuss the updated proposed response developed by the Sub Team, and if appropriate vote on whether to submit this response to the CCWG-Accountability. 7.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (James Bladel) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion - Marrakesh Meeting Planning (10 minutes) During the Dublin meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr volunteered to work with the GNSO Council Leadership on the development of the proposed agenda for the GNSO Weekend Session in Marrakech. Here the Council will receive a status update on the planning for Marrakesh and any action that may be required from the GNSO Council. 8.1 - Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: Any Other Business (10 Minutes) _________________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): 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<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21:00 Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 13:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 15:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 19:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 23:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 05:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 05:00 next day Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 08:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
That's a reasonable suggestion Phil. I agree with the inversion of the topics. With regards to the second point, i understood the goal of the motion was the approval of the narrative letter. If not, i am confused too. Best Marília Em 19/01/2016 21:06, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> escreveu:
Thank you Glen.
Fellow Councilors, I would propose that we amend the agenda to take up *Vote on motion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability *as the first item on the Consent Agenda. Leaving it as Item 7, to be addressed after discussion on three motions that require a Vote, could leave us with insufficient time to discuss the wording of the Council letter, which has yet to be received for pre-call review. In my opinion it is the most important matter on Thursday’s agenda and should receive priority treatment.
Also, I am confused in that I thought we had decided on the call of 1/14 to send a narrative letter at this point in time, and defer a Vote on a Motion until we had reviewed and discussed the Supplemental Proposal that we anticipate receiving from the CCWG-ACCT. Can someone please clarify whether we will be addressing a Council letter or a formal Motion on Thursday’s call?
Thank you and best regards,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Glen de Saint Géry *Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:53 PM *To:* GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org) *Subject:* [council] Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016
Dear Councillors,
Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016.
This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures, <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> approved and updated on 24 June 2015.
For convenience:
· An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in *Appendix 1* at the end of this agenda.
· An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in *Appendix 2* at the end of this agenda.
Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC *http://tinyurl.com/zjkmew8 <http://tinyurl.com/zjkmew8>*
13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 23:00 Istanbul; 08:00 Hobart Friday 22 January
*GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast* To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call.
___________________________________________
*Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)*
1.1 – Roll call
1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest
1.3 – Review/amend agenda.
1.4 – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
Draft Minutes <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17986.html> of the Special Meeting of the GNSO Council on 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on 27 January 2016
*Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)*
2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items>
*Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)*
*Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes)*
This PDP had been requested <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm> by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN’s implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf> for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Consideration of this item was deferred from the 17 December meeting. Here the Council will review the Working Group’s Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it.
4.1 – Presentation of the motion <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (James Bladel)
4.2 – Discussion
4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House)
*Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes) *
In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO’s policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2015/non-pdp-new-gtld> (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issue-31aug15-en.pdf> was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. During its meeting on 17 December, the Council initiated the PDP but deferred consideration of the Charter for the PDP Working Group to this meeting. Here the Council will review the revised charter <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-charter-12jan16-en.pdf> for adoption.
5.1 – Presentation of the motion <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (Donna Austin)
5.2 – Discussion
5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
*Item 6: Vote on motion:** Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (15 minutes)*
In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS. The Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures was published on 11 January 2015 at http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/rpm. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) in order to the review Rights Protection Mechanisms in the new gTLDs and, in a subsequent, second phase, review the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the review topics are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter.
6.1 – Presentation of the motion <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (Amr Elsadr)
6.2 – Discussion
6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
*Item 7: Vote on motion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 minutes)*
In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf> of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability ( CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization.
In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en> an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en> for public comment on 30 November 2015. The comment period closed on 21 December 2015, with all Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt the recommendations in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016.
Concurrently, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) – the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue – announced <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en> after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions ( CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IANA+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions>) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. In this regard, the CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment which, while noting that several of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points that in its view merited further attention.
In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team that was to review all the various public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council had an initial discussion on the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team during its meeting on 14 January, following which an updated version of the proposed response was circulated [include link when available]. Here the Council will discuss the updated proposed response developed by the Sub Team, and if appropriate vote on whether to submit this response to the CCWG-Accountability.
7.1 – Presentation of the motion <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (James Bladel)
7.2 – Discussion
7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
*Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion – Marrakesh Meeting Planning (10 minutes)*
During the Dublin meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr volunteered to work with the GNSO Council Leadership on the development of the proposed agenda for the GNSO Weekend Session in Marrakech. Here the Council will receive a status update on the planning for Marrakesh and any action that may be required from the GNSO Council.
8.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr)
8.2 – Discussion
8.3 – Next steps
*Item 9:* *Any Other Business (10 Minutes)*
_________________________________
*Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)*
9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): 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* <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf> *) *4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election.
4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21:00 Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 13:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 15:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 19:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 23:00 Perth, Australia (WST <http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 05:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 05:00 next day Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 08:00 next day
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com *http://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt <http://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt>*
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat *gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>* *http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hello everyone, On the question of the CCWG-Accountability motion, there seemed to be consensus on the 14 January Council call that the focus should be on the substance rather than the format of the Council response. While some Councilors thought a letter incorporating a more detailed GNSO Council response would be preferable, a few other Councilors noted the benefit of recording a formal Council vote on the response itself (not to be confused with Council approval of any of the CCWG’s recommendations, on which the Council agreed that a formal vote would only be appropriate after these are finalized.) It may therefore be easier for the Council to confirm the format it wishes to adopt after it has reviewed the updated Council response and proposed letter (to be circulated shortly). Should the general preference be not to go forward with a motion, presumably James will then withdraw the motion. If a motion is, however, viewed as appropriate, it may be that the motion can be amended to more accurately capture the outcome of the Council’s deliberations to date (seeing as the original motion was proposed prior to the 14 January discussion). 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 From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel@gmail.com<mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 08:18 To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 That's a reasonable suggestion Phil. I agree with the inversion of the topics. With regards to the second point, i understood the goal of the motion was the approval of the narrative letter. If not, i am confused too. Best Marília Em 19/01/2016 21:06, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> escreveu: Thank you Glen. Fellow Councilors, I would propose that we amend the agenda to take up Vote on motion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability as the first item on the Consent Agenda. Leaving it as Item 7, to be addressed after discussion on three motions that require a Vote, could leave us with insufficient time to discuss the wording of the Council letter, which has yet to be received for pre-call review. In my opinion it is the most important matter on Thursday’s agenda and should receive priority treatment. Also, I am confused in that I thought we had decided on the call of 1/14 to send a narrative letter at this point in time, and defer a Vote on a Motion until we had reviewed and discussed the Supplemental Proposal that we anticipate receiving from the CCWG-ACCT. Can someone please clarify whether we will be addressing a Council letter or a formal Motion on Thursday’s call? Thank you and best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:53 PM To: GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) Subject: [council] Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures,<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> approved and updated on 24 June 2015. For convenience: · An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. · An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/zjkmew8 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 23:00 Istanbul; 08:00 Hobart Friday 22 January GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 – Roll call 1.2 – Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 – Review/amend agenda. 1.4 – Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Draft Minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17986.html> of the Special Meeting of the GNSO Council on 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on 27 January 2016 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes) 2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes) This PDP had been requested<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm>by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN’s implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf> for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Consideration of this item was deferred from the 17 December meeting. Here the Council will review the Working Group’s Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it. 4.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (James Bladel) 4.2 – Discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House) Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes) In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO’s policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2015/non-pdp-new-gtld> (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issue-31aug15-en.pdf> was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. During its meeting on 17 December, the Council initiated the PDP but deferred consideration of the Charter for the PDP Working Group to this meeting. Here the Council will review the revised charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-charter-12jan16-en.pdf> for adoption. 5.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (Donna Austin) 5.2 – Discussion 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) Item 6: Vote on motion:Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (15 minutes) In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS. The Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures was published on 11 January 2015 at http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/rpm. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) in order to the review Rights Protection Mechanisms in the new gTLDs and, in a subsequent, second phase, review the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the review topics are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter. 6.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (Amr Elsadr) 6.2 – Discussion 6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) Item 7: Vote on motion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 minutes) In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf> of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization. In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en> an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en> for public comment on 30 November 2015. The comment period closed on 21 December 2015, with all Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt the recommendations in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016. Concurrently, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) – the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue – announced<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en> after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IANA+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions>) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. In this regard, the CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment which, while noting that several of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points that in its view merited further attention. In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team that was to review all the various public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council had an initial discussion on the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team during its meeting on 14 January, following which an updated version of the proposed response was circulated [include link when available]. Here the Council will discuss the updated proposed response developed by the Sub Team, and if appropriate vote on whether to submit this response to the CCWG-Accountability. 7.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (James Bladel) 7.2 – Discussion 7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion – Marrakesh Meeting Planning (10 minutes) During the Dublin meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr volunteered to work with the GNSO Council Leadership on the development of the proposed agenda for the GNSO Weekend Session in Marrakech. Here the Council will receive a status update on the planning for Marrakesh and any action that may be required from the GNSO Council. 8.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr) 8.2 – Discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9:Any Other Business (10 Minutes) _________________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): 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<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21:00 Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 13:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 15:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 19:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 23:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 05:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 05:00 next day Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 08:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
participants (4)
-
Glen de Saint Géry -
Marilia Maciel -
Mary Wong -
Phil Corwin