Re: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC
Dear Phil, In relation to the first item, please note that the agenda was drafted prior to the last meeting and does not reflect yet the deferral of the consideration of the draft letter. The GNSO Leadership Team is meeting later today so I expect you can anticipate an updated agenda following that call. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday 19 January 2016 at 07:50 To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>, "GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Fellow Councilors: I have some concerns regarding this most recent proposed agenda for our Council call which takes place in 55 hours. The primary concern is that it allocates only ten minutes to “UPDATE & Discussion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability”, and places it as one of the last items on the agenda. To my mind the finalization of our letter to the CCWG-ACCT is our top priority at this moment, and we have yet to see a draft letter reflecting our discussion of 1/14. I would suggest that review, modification, and adoption of that draft letter (assuming it will be circulated before Thursday’s call, which is imperative) be placed first on the agenda and that more than ten minutes be allocated to it. My other concern relates to “Vote on motion: Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (20 minutes)”. We are scheduled on Thursday, after disposing of our CCWG-ACCT responsibilities, to “VOTE ON MOTION – Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes)” – which I think we can do, although it may take more than 15 minutes – as well as to “VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (20 minutes)”. So those are two weighty items that require discussion and vote, after we wrap up on the CCWG Accountability proposal. I am in general agreement with the staff suggestions on how to handle the RPM review, but am concerned that cramming our entire discussion and subsequent vote on it into a Council meeting that is already quite full of important and complex matters risks missing some important points that we might want to include within a Charter for this PDP. I welcome Council members’ feedback in regard to Thursday’s agenda. Best to all, 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> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:46 PM To: GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Dear Councillors, Please find the Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Also posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+January+20... and on the website: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-21jan16-en.htm Motions posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2... 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: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting of 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on xxxxx 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 – 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. 4.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (Donna Austin) 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) Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (20 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. 5.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (James Bladel) 5.2 – Discussion 5.3 – 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 6: Vote on motion:Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (20 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: UPDATE & Discussion – GNSO Review (15 minutes) As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements 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 priority of these recommendations. Here the Council will receive an update from the Review Working Party and discuss next steps. 7.1 – Update (Jen Wolfe) 7.2 – Discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (10 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. The CCWG-Accountability’s Third Draft Proposal was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en> for public comment on 30 November 2015. The GNSO Council discussed input to this proposal during its meeting on 14 January 2016. Here the Council will receive an update on the progress of the CCWG -Accountability, specifically the timeline and consideration of input provided by the GNSO Council and its SG/Cs. 8.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert) 8.2 – Discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: 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. 9.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr) 9.2 – Discussion 9.3 – Next steps Item 10: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.
Thanks for the update, Marika. I shall look forward to reviewing the updated agenda. Best, 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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 9:12 AM To: Phil Corwin; Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org) Subject: Re: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Importance: High Dear Phil, In relation to the first item, please note that the agenda was drafted prior to the last meeting and does not reflect yet the deferral of the consideration of the draft letter. The GNSO Leadership Team is meeting later today so I expect you can anticipate an updated agenda following that call. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday 19 January 2016 at 07:50 To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>, "GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Fellow Councilors: I have some concerns regarding this most recent proposed agenda for our Council call which takes place in 55 hours. The primary concern is that it allocates only ten minutes to "UPDATE & Discussion - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability", and places it as one of the last items on the agenda. To my mind the finalization of our letter to the CCWG-ACCT is our top priority at this moment, and we have yet to see a draft letter reflecting our discussion of 1/14. I would suggest that review, modification, and adoption of that draft letter (assuming it will be circulated before Thursday's call, which is imperative) be placed first on the agenda and that more than ten minutes be allocated to it. My other concern relates to "Vote on motion: Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (20 minutes)". We are scheduled on Thursday, after disposing of our CCWG-ACCT responsibilities, to "VOTE ON MOTION - Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes)" - which I think we can do, although it may take more than 15 minutes - as well as to "VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (20 minutes)". So those are two weighty items that require discussion and vote, after we wrap up on the CCWG Accountability proposal. I am in general agreement with the staff suggestions on how to handle the RPM review, but am concerned that cramming our entire discussion and subsequent vote on it into a Council meeting that is already quite full of important and complex matters risks missing some important points that we might want to include within a Charter for this PDP. I welcome Council members' feedback in regard to Thursday's agenda. Best to all, 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> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:46 PM To: GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Dear Councillors, Please find the Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Also posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+January+20... and on the website: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-21jan16-en.htm Motions posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2... 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: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting of 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on xxxxx 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 - 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. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (Donna Austin) 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) Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (20 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. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (James Bladel) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - 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 6: Vote on motion:Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (20 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: UPDATE & Discussion - GNSO Review (15 minutes) As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements 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 priority of these recommendations. Here the Council will receive an update from the Review Working Party and discuss next steps. 7.1 - Update (Jen Wolfe) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (10 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. The CCWG-Accountability's Third Draft Proposal was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en> for public comment on 30 November 2015. The GNSO Council discussed input to this proposal during its meeting on 14 January 2016. Here the Council will receive an update on the progress of the CCWG -Accountability, specifically the timeline and consideration of input provided by the GNSO Council and its SG/Cs. 8.1 - Update (Thomas Rickert) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: 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. 9.1 - Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: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. ________________________________ 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.
...and I look forward to see the draft letter to the CCWG – maybe tomorrow morning?? Good night! Wolf-Ulrich From: Phil Corwin Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:14 PM To: Marika Konings ; Glen de Saint Géry ; mailto:council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Thanks for the update, Marika. I shall look forward to reviewing the updated agenda. Best, 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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 9:12 AM To: Phil Corwin; Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org) Subject: Re: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Importance: High Dear Phil, In relation to the first item, please note that the agenda was drafted prior to the last meeting and does not reflect yet the deferral of the consideration of the draft letter. The GNSO Leadership Team is meeting later today so I expect you can anticipate an updated agenda following that call. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tuesday 19 January 2016 at 07:50 To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org>, "GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org)" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Fellow Councilors: I have some concerns regarding this most recent proposed agenda for our Council call which takes place in 55 hours. The primary concern is that it allocates only ten minutes to “UPDATE & Discussion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability”, and places it as one of the last items on the agenda. To my mind the finalization of our letter to the CCWG-ACCT is our top priority at this moment, and we have yet to see a draft letter reflecting our discussion of 1/14. I would suggest that review, modification, and adoption of that draft letter (assuming it will be circulated before Thursday’s call, which is imperative) be placed first on the agenda and that more than ten minutes be allocated to it. My other concern relates to “Vote on motion: Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (20 minutes)”. We are scheduled on Thursday, after disposing of our CCWG-ACCT responsibilities, to “VOTE ON MOTION – Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes)” – which I think we can do, although it may take more than 15 minutes – as well as to “VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (20 minutes)”. So those are two weighty items that require discussion and vote, after we wrap up on the CCWG Accountability proposal. I am in general agreement with the staff suggestions on how to handle the RPM review, but am concerned that cramming our entire discussion and subsequent vote on it into a Council meeting that is already quite full of important and complex matters risks missing some important points that we might want to include within a Charter for this PDP. I welcome Council members’ feedback in regard to Thursday’s agenda. Best to all, 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: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:46 PM To: GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org) Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Dear Councillors, Please find the Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Also posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+January+20... and on the website: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-21jan16-en.htm Motions posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2... This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures, 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: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting of 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on xxxxx 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 and Action List Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) Item 4: 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. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report 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 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 for adoption. 4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Donna Austin) 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) Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (20 minutes) This PDP had been requested 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 approvedby 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 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 for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report 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. 5.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel) 5.2 – Discussion 5.3 – 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 6: Vote on motion:Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (20 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 (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: UPDATE & Discussion – GNSO Review (15 minutes) As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee appointed Westlake Governance as the independent examiner to conduct the current review of the performance and operations of the GNSO. A GNSO Working Party, chaired by former Councillor Jennifer Wolfe and comprising representatives of all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, was formed to consult with Westlake over the design and conduct of the review. Westlake's Draft Report was published for public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including from the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its Final Report on 15 September. The Working Party has been reviewing the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board’s consideration in relation to the implementability and priority of these recommendations. Here the Council will receive an update from the Review Working Party and discuss next steps. 7.1 – Update (Jen Wolfe) 7.2 – Discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (10 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 of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization. The CCWG-Accountability’s Third Draft Proposal was published for public comment on 30 November 2015. The GNSO Council discussed input to this proposal during its meeting on 14 January 2016. Here the Council will receive an update on the progress of the CCWG -Accountability, specifically the timeline and consideration of input provided by the GNSO Council and its SG/Cs. 8.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert) 8.2 – Discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: 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. 9.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr) 9.2 – Discussion 9.3 – Next steps Item 10: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): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21:00 Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 13:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 15:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT) UTC-6+0DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) 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) 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 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. Draft letter should be ready soon, just waiting for some final feedback. Also, the Chairs met with Staff this afternoon and made some tweaks to the agenda. A revised copy of this will be circulated shortly. J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 14:48 To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC ...and I look forward to see the draft letter to the CCWG – maybe tomorrow morning?? Good night! Wolf-Ulrich From: Phil Corwin<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:14 PM To: Marika Konings<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> ; Glen de Saint Géry<mailto:Glen@icann.org> ; mailto:council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Thanks for the update, Marika. I shall look forward to reviewing the updated agenda. Best, 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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 9:12 AM To: Phil Corwin; Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) Subject: Re: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Importance: High Dear Phil, In relation to the first item, please note that the agenda was drafted prior to the last meeting and does not reflect yet the deferral of the consideration of the draft letter. The GNSO Leadership Team is meeting later today so I expect you can anticipate an updated agenda following that call. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday 19 January 2016 at 07:50 To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>, "GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Fellow Councilors: I have some concerns regarding this most recent proposed agenda for our Council call which takes place in 55 hours. The primary concern is that it allocates only ten minutes to “UPDATE & Discussion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability”, and places it as one of the last items on the agenda. To my mind the finalization of our letter to the CCWG-ACCT is our top priority at this moment, and we have yet to see a draft letter reflecting our discussion of 1/14. I would suggest that review, modification, and adoption of that draft letter (assuming it will be circulated before Thursday’s call, which is imperative) be placed first on the agenda and that more than ten minutes be allocated to it. My other concern relates to “Vote on motion: Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (20 minutes)”. We are scheduled on Thursday, after disposing of our CCWG-ACCT responsibilities, to “VOTE ON MOTION – Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes)” – which I think we can do, although it may take more than 15 minutes – as well as to “VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (20 minutes)”. So those are two weighty items that require discussion and vote, after we wrap up on the CCWG Accountability proposal. I am in general agreement with the staff suggestions on how to handle the RPM review, but am concerned that cramming our entire discussion and subsequent vote on it into a Council meeting that is already quite full of important and complex matters risks missing some important points that we might want to include within a Charter for this PDP. I welcome Council members’ feedback in regard to Thursday’s agenda. Best to all, 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> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:46 PM To: GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Dear Councillors, Please find the Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016 at 21:00 UTC Also posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+January+20... and on the website: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-21jan16-en.htm Motions posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2... 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: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting of 14 January 2016 will be posted as approved on xxxxx 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 – 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. 4.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (Donna Austin) 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) Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (20 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. 5.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016> (James Bladel) 5.2 – Discussion 5.3 – 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 6: Vote on motion:Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all RPMs in all gTLDs for (20 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: UPDATE & Discussion – GNSO Review (15 minutes) As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements 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 priority of these recommendations. Here the Council will receive an update from the Review Working Party and discuss next steps. 7.1 – Update (Jen Wolfe) 7.2 – Discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (10 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. The CCWG-Accountability’s Third Draft Proposal was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en> for public comment on 30 November 2015. The GNSO Council discussed input to this proposal during its meeting on 14 January 2016. Here the Council will receive an update on the progress of the CCWG -Accountability, specifically the timeline and consideration of input provided by the GNSO Council and its SG/Cs. 8.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert) 8.2 – Discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: 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. 9.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr) 9.2 – Discussion 9.3 – Next steps Item 10: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. ________________________________ 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)
-
James M. Bladel -
Marika Konings -
Phil Corwin -
WUKnoben