This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated.
- 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 13:00 UTC
06:00 Los Angeles; 09:00 Washington; 14:00 London; 15:00 Paris; 01:00 Wellington next day
Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
GNSO Council Public Forum – 15h00 - 18h00 (Local Time / Durban)
15h00 – 15h45 (Local Time / Durban)
Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency Leaders
- Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) – Elisa Cooper
- Registries Stakeholder Group(RySG) – Keith Drazek
- Registrars Stakeholder Group (RrSG) – Michele Neylon
- Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) – Tony Holmes
- Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) – Kristina Rosette
- Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) –Marie-Laure Lemineur
- Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) – Bill Drake
- Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) –David Cake
15h45 - 18h00 (Local Time / Durban) Onwards
Item 1: Administrative matters (10 mins)
1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 13 July 2013 approved on 10 July 2013.
Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 mins)
Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics
Comments or questions arising.
Item 3: Consent agenda
Item 4: MOTION - On ICANN Bylaw recommendation (15 mins)
The work undertaken to deal with the most recent Reconsideration Request (13-3) highlighted the point that there is no currently defined policy or process within ICANN that requires the Board of ICANN or the ICANN staff to consult with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the policy development process (PDP).
This motion recognises this point and seeks to recommend to the ICANN Board, a change to the bylaws of ICANN to mandate such consultation in future.
Item 5: MOTION - To adopt the charter for the Policy & Implementation Working Group (15 mins)
The issue regarding the boundary between policy development and implementation work has been a discussion point for some time and it has been a central theme in the execution of the new gTLD programme. In addition, the Council has been asked to consider issues for policy guidance and may well need to look at the evolution of its own work and processes to accommodate this type of request in future.
ICANN Staff has previously published a paper intended to facilitate further community discussions on this topic. Further community discussion took place in Beijing and the Council agreed to form a drafting team to develop a charter for a Working Group to address the issues that have been raised in the context of the recent discussions on policy and implementation that affect the GNSO.
This motion seeks to conclude the work of the Drafting Team by adopting the proposed charter for the Policy & Implementation Working Group.
Item 6: MOTION - Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings (15 mins)
The "locking" of a domain name registration associated with UDRP proceedings is not something that is literally required by the UDRP as written, but is a practice that has developed around it. As a result, there is no uniform approach, which has resulted in confusion and misunderstandings. The GNSO Council initiated a PDP on this specific topic in December 2011 and tasked the WG to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings.
The PDP Working Group has now submitted its Final Report for GNSO Council consideration containing 17 full consensus recommendations (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-final-05jul13-en.pdf).
6.1 Update as necessary
6.2 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman)
6.3 Discussion of the motion
6.4 Vote (Threshold: super majority; >50% in both houses >75% in one house i.e. 4 CPH 10 NCPH or 6 CPH 7 NCPH)
Item 7: UPDATE AND DISCUSSION – Proposed GNSO Council Letter on IDN Variants (15 mins)
During its meeting in Beijing, the ICANN Board requested that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs' (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm#2.a). The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs examines potential challenges from a user experience perspective when variants of IDN TLDs are activated and offers recommendations to users to minimize risks and optimize the implementation.
Ideally, input is requested on:
- Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not proceed until these recommendations are implemented),
- Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and
- Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work
On 30 June 2013, a letter was sent to the ICANN Board confirming that this work was being undertaken within the JIG (Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Group) and that a response for consideration by the GNSO Council as well as the ccNSO Council would be tabled at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Accordingly, an extension of deadline to 19 July 2013 was requested.
Here, we review the proposed response, in the form of a letter from the Chair of the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board and give consideration to approving such a letter.
7.2 Next steps
Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – GNSO Review (15 mins)
The GNSO Council has previously discussed the action it may take in anticipation of an ICANN Board initiated review.
Under this item, the Council will receive an update with the latest information on the likely timing and detail of the Board initiated review. On the basis of the latest information, the Council will decide on what, if any, next steps are to be taken
8.1 – Update – Rob Hoggarth
8.2 - Discussion
8.3 - Next steps
Item 9: DISCUSSION – Cross Community Working Groups (15 mins)
The GNSO has previously drafted a set of Principles on Cross Community working groups and circulated these widely for comment and input.
In response to the GNSO Council request to provide feed-back from the broader community, a paper was adopted at the ccNSO Council meeting on 11 June 2013. The ccNSO Council looks forward to further dialogue on this topic.
9.1 - Review CCNSO paper
9.2 - Discussion
9.3 - Next steps
Item 10: DISCUSSION – Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (10 mins)
The Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services has published its initial report.
The EWG is seeking input prior to presenting a final report containing recommended design principles, features, and a suggested Model to ICANN's CEO and Board.
Further, the EWG have stated their expectation that upon conclusion of the EWG's deliberations, the Final Report will serve as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. And; as specified by the Board, an issues report based on the Final Report will form the basis of a Board-initiated, tightly focused GNSO policy development process (PDP).
Recognition of the need to work within the framework of established GNSO operating principles has been emphasised in correspondence between the GNSO Council and the EWG.
All input received by August 12 will be carefully considered as the EWG finalise recommendations and bring their work to a conclusion. Therefore, the GNSO Council needs to decide what, if any, action is appropriate at this stage.
10.1 – Consider EWG Initial Report
10.2 - Discussion
10.3 - Next steps
Item 11: Any Other Business (5 min)
Item 12: Open Microphone (10 mins)
ICANN Meetings are intended to maximise interaction within the broader community. An open microphone session provides the opportunity for input from contributors other than GNSO Councillors and all such input is welcome in the form of questions, comments or suggestions.
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)
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.)
Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 13:00
California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 06:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 09:00
Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 10:00
Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 10:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 14:00
Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 14:00
Durban South Africa (SAST) UTC+2+0DST 15:00
Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 15:00
Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 15:00
Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 16:00
Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 18:00
Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 21:00
Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 21:00
Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 01:00 (next day)
The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com