- Council Activities
- Group Activities
- Quick Info
Date:30 June 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/aCOOAw
This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures, approved and updated on 24 June 2015.
- 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: 07:45 UTC
00:45 Los Angeles; 03:45 Washington; 08:45 London; 10:45 Helsinki; 10:45 Istanbul; Hobart 17:45
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 meeting of the GNSO Council on 12 May 2016 to be approved on 30 June 2016.
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes)
Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)
Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval to Permanently Integrate Successful PDP Improvements into the GNSO Policy Development Process (10 minutes)
In 2013, the GNSO Council in collaboration with ICANN staff gathered a number of ideas and suggestions that could be explored in order to improve and streamline the existing GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). These ideas and suggestions were refined into ten possible PDP Improvements (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-table-16jan14-en.pdf). Many of these improvements were closely aligned with the recommendations of the ATRT2 in relation to the GNSO PDP. Staff was tasked to analyze and implement next steps for each of the ten items, including their launch in pilot format. The implementation status of these PDP Improvements was the subject of regular staff updates to the GNSO Council at ICANN Public Meetings. On 9 June 2016, staff submitted a memo to the GNSO Council that was intended to provide a final status update, including proposed next steps on how to integrate those Improvements that have been determined to be successful into permanent features of the GNSO PDP, and close out this project until such time as the Council either identifies further new improvements it deems worth exploring and/or elects to revisit those improvements that are currently considered unsuitable for implementation at this stage.
4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Donna Austin)
4.2 – Discussion
4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval to Form a Drafting Team to Develop an Implementation Plan for New and Additional GNSO Powers and Obligations under the Revised ICANN Bylaws (15 minutes)
On 21 April 2016 a revised version of the ICANN Bylaws was posted for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-new-bylaws-2016-04-21-en). The revisions were intended to reflect the proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), to be consistent with the community proposals relating to the IANA Stewardship Transition. On 25 May 2016, a further revised version of the Bylaws was posted, reflecting changes made as a result of public comments received (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/revised-new-bylaws-25may16-en.pdf). To facilitate the Council's review of the new, additional and amended powers and obligations of the GNSO under the revised Bylaws, ICANN staff prepared a table for discussion at ICANN56. In view of the fact that some of these powers and obligations will require additions and changes to the GNSO's procedures, the Council will consider a proposal to form a Drafting Team comprised of GNSO community members, to report back to the Council with an implementation plan no later than 31 July 2016.
5.1 – Presentation of the motion (Paul McGrady)
5.2 – Discussion
5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Temporary Extension of Term of Current GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (10 minutes)
As part of a two-year pilot program initiated in June 2014, the GNSO Council and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) had agreed, through its joint GAC-GNSO Consultation Group, to appoint a GNSO Liaison to the GAC. The purpose of the Liaison role was to facilitate more effective early engagement by the GAC in GNSO policy activities and to contribute toward better information flow between the two bodies. Following Consultation Group review of the pilot program, the Consultation Group recommended that the Liaison role be made a permanent one in March 2016. At its meeting on 14 April 2016, the Council approved the creation of this permanent Liaison role and a process for the application, selection and confirmation of a Liaison (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf). As there were few applications received by the closing date that the Selection Committee (comprising the GNSO Chair and Vice-Chairs) believed met all the criteria that had been approved, however, the Council has been asked to approve an extension of the current Liaison's term through the Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad in November 2016, at which meeting the Council will be expected to review and appoint a permanent Liaison recommended by the Selection Committee for a renewable one-year term.
6.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)
6.2 – Discussion
6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Response to ICANN Board Request concerning Expert Working Group Final Report on Internationalized Registration Data (15 minutes)
At its meeting during ICANN55 in Marrakech, the ICANN Board requested that the GNSO Council "review the broader policy implications of the IRD Final Report as they relate to other GNSO policy development work on WHOIS issues, and, at a minimum, forward the IRD Final Report as an input to the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS that is currently underway". The Board also directed ICANN staff to "work with the implementation review team for the new consensus policy on translation and transliteration to consider the IRD Working Group's data model and requirements and incorporate them, where appropriate, to the extent that the IRD's recommendations are consistent with, and facilitate the implementation of the new consensus policy on translation and transliteration" (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#1.e).
In relation to the Board direction regarding implementation, ICANN staff from the Global Domains Division (GDD) proposed to the GNSO Council that one approach could be to merge the ongoing implementation team for Thick WHOIS with that to be formed to implement the new Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Information consensus policy; however, community consultations indicated that there was no consensus on the proposal such that GDD staff is now proceeding with two separate implementation teams (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdffIuTrOsGIs.pdf).
Here the GNSO Council will discuss the Board's request relating to the IRD Final Report, and decide on next steps.
7.1 – Council discussion
7.2 – Next steps
Item 8: COMMITTEE UPDATE - Selection of Primary and Alternate Delegates from the GNSO to the New Bylaws-mandated Customer Standing Committee (10 minutes)
The package of proposals that was developed by the community in relation to the IANA Stewardship Transition called for the creation of a new structure to provide operational oversight of the performance of the IANA naming function, a role currently performed by the United States government through the National Telecommunications and Information Authority (NTIA). This new oversight structure is to be called the Customer Standing Committee (CSC), and its role is to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function against agreed service level targets. The CSC may also initiate review and make recommendations for changes to service level targets. On 1 June 2016, ICANN sent a request to the ICANN Supporting Organizations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) and Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) to initiate their respective organization's processes and appoint candidates to serve as members and liaisons on the CSC. As a ICANN SO, the GNSO may appoint a liaison to the CSC, in addition to the two gTLD registry operator members to be selected by the RySG. For the liaison, a primary and a secondary candidate that meet the qualification requirements in the expression of interest, and are geographically diverse, needs to be appointed.
The final composition of members of and liaisons to the CSC is approved first by the RySG and ccNSO, and secondly by the GNSO and ccNSO, who will also decide which members and liaisons will serve the inaugural three-year term. In their review, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils are expected to ensure diversity when approving the final composition of members and liaisons. Liaison candidates are to be confirmed by 22 July 2016, and the final slate as determined by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils to be sent to ICANN on 10 August.
On 2 June 2016, the GNSO Council confirmed a selection committee for the primary and secondary GNSO liaison appointment consisting of Councilors Susan Kawaguchi, David Cake, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Rubens Kuhl. Here the Selection Committee will update the Council on its work to date, and confirm the timeline for selection, including consideration of any Special Meeting that may be necessary to enable the GNSO to meet the timelines for the appointment of CSC members and liaisons.
8.1 – Update (Donna Austin / CSC Selection Committee members)
8.2 – Next steps
Item 9: WORKING GROUP PROGRESS REPORT – Activities of the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (10 minutes)
The Charter for this Cross Community Working Group was ratified by the ccNSO Council (September 2014), the GNSO Council (October 2014), and the ALAC (April 2015). The CCWG Charter states its scope as doing "whatever it deems relevant and necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes", with regular monthly updates to be provided to its Chartering Organizations and a periodic Progress Paper where appropriate. The Charter also provides that the Chartering Organizations should review the Charter and CCWG deliverables in order to determine whether the group should continue or be dissolved, with the proviso that the CCWG will continue if at least two of its Chartering Organizations extend the Charter and notify the other Chartering Organizations accordingly.
At ICANN55, there was some discussion over the most appropriate forum for SO/AC interaction on Internet governance matters, especially given the expected forthcoming finalization of a Uniform Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs. The Council has since continued that discussion, with a view toward agreeing on the appropriate next steps for the CCWG on Internet Governance. Here the co-chairs of the CCWG-IG will provide the Council with a Progress Report on its recent activities, as required by its Charter.
9.1 – Update (Olivier Crepin-Leblond & Rafik Dammak)
9.2 – Council discussion
9.3 - Next steps
Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Next Steps relating to Implementation of Recommendations for the GNSO Review (10 minutes)
In September 2015, the Independent Examiner that had been appointed to conduct the GNSO organizational review published its Final Report. At its meeting in April 2016, the GNSO Council adopted, with one modification, the proposed Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the Independent Examiner's recommendations that was prepared by the GNSO Working Party (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201604). The Working Party had been formed to liaise between the GNSO, the Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) and the Independent Examiner. The OEC considered the Final Report and the GNSO's modified Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis at its meeting in May 2016, and is expected to recommend action by the Board on the GNSO organizational review in Helsinki.
To prepare for implementation of the recommendations that may be adopted by the ICANN Board, ICANN staff was requested to prepare a Discussion Paper for the GNSO. The Discussion Paper was circulated to the Council on 20 June 2016. Here the Council is expected to discuss and agree on possible mechanisms for implementation of the adopted recommendations, following consideration of the Discussion Paper.
10.1 – Council Discussion
10.2 – Next steps
Item 11: STAFF UPDATE TO COUNCIL – Next Steps relating to the Final Report of the Implementation Advisory Group on Review of the WHOIS Conflicts with National Law Procedure (10 Minutes)
The GNSO's 2005 Policy on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois-privacy/council-rpt-18jan06.htm) recommended the creation of a procedure to address conflicts between a contracted party's WHOIS obligations and local/national privacy laws or regulations. Under the existing procedure dating from January 2008, a contracted party that credibly demonstrates that it is legally prevented from complying with its WHOIS obligations can invoke the procedure, which defines a credible demonstration as one in which the contracted party has received "notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action that might affect its compliance." The procedure has never been invoked. ICANN launched a review of the procedure in May 2014. An Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) was formed and began its work in January 2015. The IAG's Initial Report was published for public comment in November 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/iag-whois-conflicts-privacy-2015-10-05-en).
On 25 May 2016, the IAG's Final Report, accompanying Appendices and a summary Memo to the GNSO Council was delivered to the GNSO Council. The IAG is proposing modifications to the procedure that do not affect the underlying Policy. Here the Council will receive a brief update on its expected next steps, which may include confirming that the IAG's proposed modifications conform with the GNSO Policy.
11.1 – Staff update (Marika Konings)
11.2 – Council discussion
11.3 - Next steps
Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes)
Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)
9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
- 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): 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)
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) UTC 07:45
Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere
California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 00:45
San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 02:45
Iowa City, USA (CDT) UTC-6+0DST 02:45
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 03:45
Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 04:45
Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 04:45
Helsinki, Finland (EEST) UTC +3 10:45
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 08:45
Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 09:45
Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 09:45
Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 10:45
Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+1DST 15:45
Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 15:45
Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 17:45
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