Dear All, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 December 2016 at 12:00 UTC. Links will be provided for Item 6 when available. Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/IZfDAw This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> v3.2, updated on 01 September 2016. 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: 12:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/jmry4q4 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 23:00 Hobart ___________________________________ Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins) 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 Part I on 7 November 2016, posted on 11 December 2016 Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council Part II on 7 November 2016, posted on XXXXX 2016. Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 1 December 2016, posted on XXXXXXX 2016. Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 mins) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List<https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> Item 3. Consent Agenda (10 mins) 3.1 Confirmation of Appointment of GNSO Members and GNSO Co-Chair to the New Cross Community Working Group for New gTLD Auction Proceeds The 2012 New gTLD Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention. Although most string contention sets have been resolved through other means prior to reaching the stage of an auction conducted by ICANN's authorized auction service provider, it was recognized from the outset that significant funds could accrue as a result of several auctions. As such, any and all auction proceeds have been reserved and earmarked until the Board authorizes a plan for the appropriate use of the funds. The Board, staff, and community are expected to work together in designing the appropriate processes for addressing the use of the new gTLD auction proceeds. To this end, a cross-community Drafting Team (DT) was formed, and the DT subsequently submitted a proposed Charter<https://community.icann.org/x/mRuOAw> – a document that was the result of extensive community input to the DT - for a new cross-community working group (CCWG) to all SO/ACs for consideration. At its meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the GNSO Council approved<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161107-4> the Charter and a set of criteria for GNSO-appointed members to the new CCWG. Following the approval of the Charter by the ALAC, SSAC and ccNSO, a Call for Volunteers was to be issued on 13 December 2016. For the GNSO, the Council has received the following nominations for approval: · Jonathan Robinson (nominated to be the GNSO CCWG co-chair) · Tony Harris (nominated by the Commercial Stakeholders Group) · Jon Nevett (nominated by the Registries Stakeholder Group) · Eliot Noss (nominated by the Registrars Stakeholder Group) · Stephanie Perrin (nominated by the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group) 3.2 – Confirmation of Council response to ICANN Board letter regarding policy implications of the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Expert Working Group On 11 May 2016, ICANN Board Chair Dr. Steve Crocker sent a letter to the GNSO Council following up on the Board’s 10 March 2016 Resolution (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-11may16-en.pdf). The Board’s request was for the GNSO Council to “review the broader policy implications of the IRD Final Report<http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/ird-expert-wg-final-23sep15...> as they relate to other GNSO policy development work on WHOIS issues, and, at a minimum, forward the IRD Final Report as an input to the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS that is currently underway.” The GNSO Council sought input from the co-chairs and members of the recently completed GNSO Policy Development Process on the Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data (T&T PDP), requesting feedback on several specific points, viz.: (1) how certain recommendations in the IRD Final Report were considered, if at all, in the Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/translation-transliteration-contact-f...> of the T&T PDP Working Group; (2) how those recommendations could potentially conflict with the T&T PDP Working Group’s recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board; and (3) what steps are recommended to the GNSO Council in considering the policy implications of the IRD Final Report. Following input received, the GNSO Council Chairs circulated a draft response to the Council on 5 December (see https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19547.html) for approval to send on to the Board. ** The two items described in 3.1 and 3.2 above will be considered approved if the Council votes to pass the Consent Agenda ** Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE – GNSO Council Response to the Board on gTLD Policy Matters related to the GAC Communique from Hyderabad (25 minutes) Beginning in July 2015, the GNSO Council has reviewed each GAC Communiqué for issues relating to gTLD policy, with a view toward providing information to the ICANN Board and the broader community concerning past, present or future GNSO policy activities relating to GAC advice touching on these topics. A placeholder motion was proposed for the 1 December Council meeting, and deferred pending the completion of a draft response being prepared by a small group of Council volunteers. The draft response (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-08dec16-en.pdf) to the GAC’s Communique from ICANN57 in Hyderabad was circulated to the GNSO Council on 8 December. Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve the response to the Board. 4.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+2...> (Paul McGrady) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5. COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of Proposed Implementation Plan for Recommendations relating to the 2014 GNSO Review (10 minutes) Along with the ICANN Board’s adoption in June 2016 of certain recommendations from the 2014 GNSO Review, the GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper outlining the possible options for implementation, taking into account past implementation of previous GNSO Reviews as well as existing mechanisms. At ICANN56 in Helsinki in June 2016, the GNSO Council discussed the options outlined in the staff discussion paper (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discus...). On 21 July 2016 the GNSO Council chartered<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-21jul16-en.pdf> the GNSO Review Working Group and directed it to submit a proposed implementation plan to the Council for approval by the ICANN57 meeting. The GNSO Review Working Group circulated its proposed implementation plan to the Council on 21 November. https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-plan-.... A motion to adopt the proposed plan was submitted for the Council’s 1 December meeting but was withdrawn to allow the Council additional time to consider the details. A webinar was held on 8 December 2016 to go through the plan. Here the Council will consider whether to approve the plan for transmission to the ICANN Board. 5.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+2...> (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Council Response to Proposed Scope of the Forthcoming Registration Directory Services (RDS) Review (formerly the Whois Review) (10 minutes) On 4 November 2016 ICANN staff circulated a document to all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) leaders that described a proposed limited scope for the forthcoming RDS (formerly Whois) Review https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19381.html). This topic was also discussed as part of a High Interest Topics Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, and certain concerns with the proposal were noted by the GNSO Council during its Wrap Up Session. At its meeting on 1 December, the Council discussed the likely nature of the feedback it may provide to ICANN staff, and Susan Kawaguchi and Keith Drazek volunteered to draft a proposed response. The draft response was circulated to the Council on [INSERT DATE HERE] Here the Council will discuss the draft response, and decide what to include in the final document to be sent. 6.1 – Summary and update (Susan Kawaguchi / Keith Drazek) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next steps Item 7. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposal for a Uniform Selection of GNSO Representatives to Future Review Teams, and Selection of GNSO Representatives to the Second Security, Stability & Resiliency Review Team (20 minutes) At ICANN57 in Hyderabad, SO/AC leaders (including the chairs of several GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies) met with ICANN staff to discuss the selection process for appointments to the forthcoming Security, Stability & Resiliency (SSR) Review Team (SSR-RT-2). It was agreed that selection of the final slate of Review Team members should be a collective effort by all SO/AC leaders, and that each SO/AC would develop its own internal guidelines for selecting its representatives for consideration (up to a maximum of 3 per SO/AC). The group also discussed how independent experts should be appointed to the Review Team. The current slate of applicants can be viewed at https://community.icann.org/x/xRqsAw. At the Council’s 1 December meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Ed Morris confirmed that they were working on a proposed set of criteria and a uniform process for selection of GNSO representatives to all future Review Teams. The draft document (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf) was circulated to the Council on 13 December 2016. Here the Council will discuss the proposal, and confirm its deadline for selecting the GNSO’s representatives on the SSR-RT-2 using the new, agreed criteria and process. 7.1 – Status summary (Susan Kawaguchi / Ed Morris) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Planning for ICANN58 (15 minutes) At its Wrap Up Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the Council discussed the need to start planning early for ICANN58. It also agreed that confirming certain sessions (including joint meetings with other SO/ACs and the ICANN Board) as fixed in the overall meeting schedule would be helpful for scheduling purposes, as would facilitating better coordination between and with individual Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and ensuring that sufficient time is given over to policy development work. To assist in the Council’s deliberations, staff compiled all GNSO Council input received on the ICANN58 Council Planning Survey: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/icann58-council-planning-survey-30nov16-en..... At the Council’s 1 December meeting, the Council Chairs provided an update on the latest SO/AC leadership call where planning for ICANN58 was discussed. The Council agreed that it would be helpful to create a draft GNSO Block Schedule, to be shared with the other SO/AC leaders ahead of the next SO/AC leadership call. The Council also noted that, with several important Policy Development Processes (PDPs) ongoing, it will be important to ensure that ICANN58 scheduling take into account those PDP Working Groups that will need face to face meeting time. Here the Council will continue its discussion of scheduling priorities for the GNSO as well as next steps. 8.1 – Status summary (GNSO Council leadership) 8.2 – Council discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes) 9.1 – Hold on request of SO/AC Support Team Leader 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[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_about_g...>): 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[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_council_g...>) 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) 12:00 UTC Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8 +0DST 04:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC--6 +0DST 06:00 Iowa City, USA (CST) UTC--6 +0DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5 +0DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2 +0DST 10:00 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2 +0DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (TRT) UTC+3+0DST 15:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 +0DST 20:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 21:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2017, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/jmry4q4 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much Kind regards, Nathalie -- Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine@icann.org <nathalie.peregrine@icann.org> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>