Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference on 18 February 2016 at 12:00 UTC. 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: 12:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/zz9uf5m 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 23:00 Hobart 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/msg18053.html> of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 21 January 2016 were posted as approved<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-21jan16-en.htm> on 4 February 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 (5 minutes) 3.1 - Approve Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Policy Development Process Working Group. Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) and Approval of Charter for a PDP Working Group to review all RPMs in all gTLDs (20 minutes) In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the UDRP and URS. The Final Issue Report was published on 11 January 2015 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). Based on public comments received in response to the publication of the Preliminary Issue Report, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP), with the first phase focused on a review of the RPMs developed for the New gTLD Program and, the subsequent, second phase on a review of the UDRP. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf) setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+February+...> (James Bladel) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - 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) 4.4 - Review of draft charter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf) 4.5 - Next steps Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - 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 the US 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....> 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 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-201...> for public comment on 30 November 2015. 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...>) 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 to the CCWG-Accountability 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 to review all the public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council held a special meeting on 14 January 2016 to discuss the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team, and, following updates made as a result and further discussion at the 21 January Council meeting, the Council approved a letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-ccwg-accountability-...> setting out its response to the recommendations in the Third Draft Proposal that was sent to the CCWG-Accountability on 22 January. Here the Council will receive an update on the subsequent discussions of the CCWG-Accountability and discuss next steps toward possible approval of the final recommendations that are expected shortly from the group. 5.1 - Update (James Bladel) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Next steps ITEM 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - GNSO Review (10 minutes) As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (now known as the Organizational Effectiveness Committee) appointed Westlake Governance as the independent examiner to conduct the current review of the performance and operations of the GNSO. A GNSO Working Party, chaired by former Councillor Jennifer Wolfe and comprising representatives of all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, was formed to consult with Westlake over the design and conduct of the review. Westlake's Draft Report was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en> for public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including from the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf> on 15 September. The Working Party has been reviewing the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board's consideration in relation to the implementability and prioritization of these recommendations. The Council received a written update from the Working Party chair on 29 January. Here the Council will receive a further update, following the Working Party's meeting in early February where it is expected to finalize its recommendations that are to be sent to the GNSO Council for approval and submission to the Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee for its consideration. 6.1 - Update (Jen Wolfe) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Next steps Item 7: BRIEFING & DISCUSSION - RDAP Implementation (25 minutes) Building on previous advisories, ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) had recommended the replacement of the longstanding WHOIS protocol in SAC051 (see https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf). In October 2011, the ICANN Board directed<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-28oct11-en.htm#5> staff to produce, in consultation with the community, a roadmap for the coordination of the technical and policy discussions necessary to implement the recommendations outlined in SAC 051. The Roadmap was published in 2012 (see https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-roadmap-04jun12-en.pd...). Also in 2012, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) chartered the WEIRDS (Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Services) working group, which concluded its work in early 2015 with the publication of several specifications defining the behavior of the Registry Data Access Protocol (RDAP), a standardized replacement for WHOIS. ICANN-accredited registrars subject to the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), registry operators from the 2012 New gTLD round and several other gTLD registries are contractually obligated to deploy RDAP. In February 2014 the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO Council's recommendations for a new Consensus Policy that would require the provision of "thick" WHOIS services for all gTLD registries. The GNSO Implementation Review Team that was formed for the Thick Whois Policy Implementation agreed with the proposal of ICANN staff to synchronize implementation of the policy with the adoption of RDAP. On 3 December 2015 ICANN staff published a draft RDAP Operational Profile for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en). Public comments will be received through 15 February 2015. Some concern has been expressed as to the policy implications of adopting RDAP in view of a number of other parallel efforts with potential cross-cutting impact, such as the recent initiation by the GNSO Council of a PDP for a Next-Generation Registration Directory Service to Replace WHOIS (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201511). Here the Council will receive a briefing from ICANN's Global Domains Division staff overseeing the RDAP implementation, describing the policy bases for RDAP, the linkage to Thick WHOIS, and the RDAP Operational Profile requirements (including timeline). 7.1 - Briefing (Cyrus Namazi / Francisco Arias) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps 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 / Donna Austin) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: Any Other Business (5 Minutes) _________________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 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 12:00 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 04:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 06:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 10:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 14:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 20:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 20:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/zz9uf5m 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/>