Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 12 May 2016
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: 12:00 UTC: http://tinyurl.com/haro7hn
05:00 Los Angeles; 08:00 Washington; 13:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 22:00 Hobart
GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast
To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.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:
GNSO Council meeting Minutes, 14 April 2016 are posted as approved.
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes)
Item 3: Consent agenda (5 minutes)
3.1 – Council confirmation of Kathy Kleiman, Philip Corwin and J. Scott Evans as co-chairs for the RPM Review PDP Working Group
Item 4: DISCUSSION – "Meeting B" (ICANN Policy Forum) Scheduling (15 Minutes)
Specific concerns had been raised at ICANN55 about the need to build in sufficient time for substantive policy work and opportunities for the Board and different SO/AC/Board groups to interact with one another at the upcoming Helsinki meeting. The GNSO had held several discussions, including with the ICANN Board, concerning the focus, duration and meeting schedule for this first designated ICANN Policy Forum (i.e. the initial so-called "Meeting B"). Following ICANN55, a small group of SO/AC volunteers was formed to address these concerns and to provide input on behalf of their SO/ACs on an updated Meeting B schedule. Here the Council will hear from its representatives to this group, and discuss further plans for finalizing the GNSO's schedule for ICANN56 so as to maximize the policy focus for Meeting B.
4.1 – Update (Donna Austin)
4.2 – Discussion
4.3 – Next steps
Item 5: DISCUSSION – Status of Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (15 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 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.
During the CCWG co-chairs' update to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils at ICANN55, there was some discussion over whether a CCWG format or other arrangement might be the most appropriate form for SO/AC interaction on Internet governance matters, especially given the expected forthcoming finalization of a Uniform Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs by the CCWG-Principles. Having deferred further discussion on this topic from its April meeting for lack of time, the GNSO Council will continue that discussion here, with a view toward agreeing on the appropriate next steps for the CCWG on Internet Governance.
5.1 – Introduction and summary (Carlos Raul Gutierrez)
5.2 – Discussion
5.3 – Next steps
Item 6: DISCUSSION – Implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan (30 minutes)
There had been community discussions at ICANN55 concerning the upcoming implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan, including at a session on 7 March. Several GNSO community members voiced concerns about whether the proposed implementation plan would meet the requirements of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Proposal on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). On 25 March a Call for Volunteers was issued for additional participation in the Cross Community Working Group for Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) to work on implementation of the CCWG's adopted Work Stream 1 recommendations and on developing recommendations for Work Stream 2. On 21 April, proposed revised Bylaws for ICANN intended to reflect the recommendations from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the CCWG-Accountability were published for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-04-21-en). The public comment period closes on 21 May 2016.
ICANN staff have been providing status updates on implementation planning for the transition, and Council representatives have also been working with staff to identify specific likely areas of work for the GNSO, particularly in relation to the establishment of the Customer Standing Committee as part of the transition.
Here the Council will determine whether or not the amended Bylaws accurately reflect the ICG and CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and consequently whether a public comment from the Council is warranted. The Council will also discuss any concerns that have been identified relating to the establishment of the CSC, and begin deliberations over broader issues arising from the implementation of the transition plan, including the possible need to develop mechanisms that will facilitate the GNSO's participation in the new Empowered Community to be created.
6.1 – Discussion of possible Council comment on the proposed amended Bylaws (Heather Forrest)
6.2 – Update on CSC implementation and discussion (Donna Austin)
6.3 – Next steps
Item 7: DISCUSSION – Next Steps in Resolving the Issue of Permanent Protection of Certain Red Cross Identifiers (15 minutes)
Representatives of the Red Cross had briefed the GNSO Council at the Council meeting in April 2016 on the status and nature of the movement's continuing request for permanent protections for those of its national society and international movement identifiers not currently covered by those of the GNSO's adopted policy recommendations that were approved by the ICANN Board in April 2014. ICANN staff had previously circulated a Briefing Note describing the inconsistencies between GAC advice and those GNSO policy recommendations that had not been adopted by the Board as well as possible procedural steps the Council can take to amend previously-adopted policy recommendations. The Board-approved recommendations currently cover the full names Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun at the top and second levels, in the 6 official languages of the United Nations, with an Exception Procedure to be designed during the implementation phase for the affected organizations. However, with respect to the names and acronyms of the 189 national Red Cross societies and the names of the International Red Cross Movement (as noted by the GAC in its Singapore Communique), the Board had requested more time to consider the GNSO's recommendations as these are inconsistent with GAC advice received on the topic. In the interim period, the Board adopted temporary protections for the Red Cross national society and international movement names noted in the GAC's Singapore Communique. Here the Council will discuss next steps it may wish to take to resolve this issue.
7.1 – Introduction (Heather Forrest)
7.2 – Discussion
7.3 - Next steps
Item 8: DISCUSSION - Possible Integration of the Pending Implementation of the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data PDP Recommendations with the implementation of Thick WHOIS (15 minutes)
ICANN operations staff have requested that the GNSO Council consider this option, as they are of the view that there are certain synergies that would benefit from such a bundling (especially in relation to consistent labelling and display). Input has been requested from the ongoing Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT) on this proposal. As the Council had directed the creation of an IRT for the implementation of the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data PDP recommendations when they adopted the policy, staff is of the view that it would require an affirmative decision by the GNSO Council to integrate the implementation of this policy into the work of the Thick WHOIS IRT. Here the Council will discuss whether or not to adopt the suggested integrated approach or pursue two different IRTs.
8.1 – Update (Francisco Arias / Cyrus Namazi)
8.2 – Discussion
8.3 – Next steps
Item 9: Call for volunteers for Council liaisons (5 minutes)
With the stepping down of the current Council liaison to become one of the three new co-chairs of the new Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs PDP Working Group, a new Council liaison will be needed for that Working Group. In addition, the following IRTs also do not currently have Council liaisons: IRTP–C, IRTP-D, and IGO-INGO Protections in All gTLDs. Here the Council will call for volunteers from among the current Councilors to fill these vacant positions.
Item 12: 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:
- 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 12:00
Local time between March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+0DST 05:00
San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST 07:00
Iowa City, USA (CDT) UTC-5+0DST 07:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 08:00
Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 09:00
Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 09:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 13:00
Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 14:00
Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 14:00
Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 15:00
Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 20:00
Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 20:00
Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEST) UTC+10+0DST 22:00
DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com