- Council Activities
- Group Activities
- Quick Info
Date:1 December 2016
Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/l5LDAw
This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.2, updated on 01 September 2016.
- 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
13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; (Friday 2nd December) 00:00 Istanbul; 08:00 Hobart
Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins)
1.1 - Roll Call
1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 7 November 2016 and posted on XXXXXXX 2016.
Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 mins)
Item 3. Consent Agenda (0 mins)
Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of Consensus Recommendations from the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team (10 minutes)
On 30 June 2016, the GNSO Council created a Drafting Team (DT) to work with ICANN staff to identify the GNSO's new rights and obligations under the revised ICANN Bylaws, and prepare an implementation plan to address any needed changes by 30 September (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2). On 29 September 2016, the Council received an update on the status of the DT's work and, pending the completion of the DT's work, the Council voted to appoint the GNSO Chair as its interim representative to the Empowered Community (EC) Administration. At its meeting on 13 October, the Council reviewed the DT's report and recommendations (Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf; Minority Statement: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-minority-report-10oct16-en.pdf). At ICANN57, the Council agreed to amend the original motion that had been submitted for Council consideration.
Here the Council will vote on whether or not to pass the amended motion. Following the passage of a final motion, the GNSO is expected to confirm its process for appointing its EC representative going forward.
4.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)
4.2 – Council discussion
4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
Item 5. COUNCIL VOTE – GNSO Council Response to the Board on gTLD Policy Matters related to the GAC Communique from Hyderabad (20 minutes)
Beginning in July 2015, the GNSO Council has reviewed each GAC Communiqué for issues relating to gTLD policy, with a view toward providing feedback to the ICANN Board as well as the broader community concerning past, present or future GNSO policy activities concerning advice provided by the GAC. In the GAC Communique from ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the GAC had provided specific advice regarding protections in the domain name system for International Governmental Organization (IGO) names and acronyms as well as identifiers associated with the international Red Cross movement and its National Societies (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-icann-08nov16-en.pdf). Also at ICANN57, the ICANN Board had suggested that a facilitated discussion between the GAC and the GNSO on remaining inconsistencies between GAC advice and GNSO policy recommendations on these matters be considered as a possible path forward (http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/60/I57%20HYD_Tue08Nov2016-Public%20Forum%202-en.pdf).
A draft response [INSERT LINK] to the GAC's Communique from ICANN57 in Hyderabad was circulated to the GNSO Council on [INSERT DATE]. Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve a response to the Board, and confirm its intended next steps with regard to reconciling its policy recommendations with GAC advice on the topic of Red Cross and IGO protections.
5.1 – Presentation of the motion (Paul McGrady)
5.2 – Council discussion
5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
Item 6: (may be removed from agenda pending decision on sending letter) COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Letter to the ICANN Board concerning Implementation Issues with Part C of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (10 minutes)
Part C of ICANN's Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP), aimed at combatting domain name theft, is scheduled to come into effect on 1 December 2016 (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en). On 31 October 2016, the Registrar Stakeholder Group identified and raised a critical issue concerning the implementation of IRTP Part C in relation to the provision of privacy and proxy services (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19339.html). At ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the GNSO Council discussed the issue with ICANN's Global Domains Division staff in charge of policy implementation, and it was suggested that the most appropriate course of action would be to to request that the ICANN Board direct staff to remove the privacy/proxy services aspect from the IRTP and place it for evaluation and recommendation by the newly formed Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team.
A draft letter to the Board was circulated to the Council on 21 November.
Here the Council will discuss whether or not to approve the letter for transmission to the ICANN Board.
6.1 – Presentation of the motion (Darcy Southwell)
6.2 – Council discussion
6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
Item 7. COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of Proposed Implementation Plan for Recommendations relating to the 2014 GNSO Review (10 minutes)
Along with the ICANN Board's adoption in June 2016 of certain recommendations from the 2014 GNSO Review, the GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper outlining the possible options for implementation, taking into account past implementation of previous GNSO Reviews as well as existing mechanisms. At ICANN56 in Helsinki in June 2016, the GNSO Council discussed the options outlined in the staff discussion paper (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discussion-paper-20jun16-en.pdf). On 21 July 2016 the GNSO Council chartered the GNSO Review Working Group and directed it to submit a proposed implementation plan to the Council for approval by the ICANN57 meeting.
The GNSO Review Working Group circulated its proposed implementation plan to the Council on 21 November.
Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve the plan for transmission to the ICANN Board.
7.1 – Presentation of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
7.2 – Council discussion
7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
Item 8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Council Response to Proposed Scope of the Forthcoming Registration Directory Services (RDS) Review (formerly the Whois Review) (10 minutes)
On 4 November 2016 ICANN staff circulated a document to all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) leaders that described a proposed limited scope for the forthcoming RDS (formerly Whois) Review https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19381.html). This topic was also discussed as part of a High Interest Topics Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, and certain concerns with the proposal noted by the GNSO Council during its Wrap Up Session. Here the Council will discuss and confirm its feedback (if any) concerning the proposed limited scope of the RDS Review.
8.1 – Summary and update (James Bladel / Susan Kawaguchi)
8.2 – Council discussion
8.3 – Next steps
Item 9. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Council Response to Questions from the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs concerning Work Stream 2 (10 minutes)
On 4 November 2016, the co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) wrote to all SO/AC leaders seeking input by early December on the resources and documents used by each SO/AC to maintain accountability to its respective designated community, taking into account the particular or specific working modalities of each SO/AC (and any subgroups) (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19440.html). The GNSO Council leadership is working on a possible response from the Council, and has requested feedback from each Stakeholder Group and Constituency on the topic. Here the Council will discuss whether or not to send a response to the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs.
9.1 – Status summary (GNSO Council leadership)
9.2 – Council discussion
9.3 – Next steps
Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Selection of GNSO Representatives to the Security, Stability & Resiliency Review Team (10 minutes)
At ICANN57 in Hyderabad, SO/AC leaders (including the chairs of several GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies) met with ICANN staff to discuss the selection process for appointments to the forthcoming Security, Stability & Resiliency (SSR) Review Team. It was agreed that selection of the final slate of Review Team members should be a collective effort by all SO/AC leaders, and that each SO/AC would develop its own internal guidelines for selecting its representatives for consideration (up to a maximum of 3 per SO/AC). The group also discussed how independent experts should be appointed to the Review Team. The current slate of applicants can be viewed at https://community.icann.org/x/xRqsAw. Here the Council will discuss the GNSO's selection process, with a view toward developing a standard mechanism for all future Review Teams.
10.1 – Status summary (James Bladel)
10.2 – Council discussion
10.3 – Next steps
Item 11: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Planning for ICANN58 (10 minutes)
At its Wrap Up Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the Council discussed the need to start planning early for ICANN58. It also agreed that confirming certain sessions (including joint meetings with other SO/ACs and the ICANN Board) as fixed in the overall meeting schedule would be helpful for scheduling purposes, as would facilitating better coordination between and with individual Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and ensuring that sufficient time is given over to policy development work. Here the Council will discuss initial suggestions for the ICANN58 meeting schedule and consider next steps. GNSO Council input on ICANN58 Council Planning Survey: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/icann58-council-planning-survey-30nov16-en.pdf
11.1 – Status summary (GNSO Council leadership)
11.2 – Council discussion
11.3 – Next steps
Item 12: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)
12.1 – Confirmation of GNSO Council meeting calendar for 2017
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:
- Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
- Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A[icann.org]): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
- Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority.
- 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.
- Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
- 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.
- 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.
- A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House."
Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4[gnso.icann.org])
Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures.
- Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
- Approve a PDP recommendation;
- Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws;
- 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) 21:00 UTC
Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere
California, USA (PDT) UTC-8 +0DST 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 17:00
London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0DST 21:00
Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00
Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2 +0DST 23:00
Istanbul, Turkey (TRT) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 (2nd December 2016)
Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 +0DST 05:00 (2nd December 2016)
Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 06:00 (2nd December 2016)
Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 08:00 (2ND December 2016)
DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2017, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)