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.
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/zhymnek
14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington; 22:00 London; 00:00 Istanbul; 07:00 Hobart
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 Public Meeting on 30 June 2016 to be approved on xxxxx 2016
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 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: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Primary and Secondary Liaison Candidates for the Customer Standing Committee (20 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 reviews of and make recommendations for changes to service level targets. As a ICANN Supporting Organization, the GNSO may appoint a liaison to the CSC, in addition to the two gTLD registry operator members to be selected by the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG). The liaison appointment is of a primary and a secondary candidate, both of whom must meet the qualification requirements and be geographically diverse.
The final composition of members of and liaisons to the CSC is to be approved first by the RySG and the ccNSO, and secondly by the GNSO and ccNSO, who will also decide which members and liaisons will serve inaugural three-year terms. Liaison candidates are to be confirmed by 22 July 2016, and the final slate of members and liaisons, as determined by the ccNSO and GNSO, is to be sent to ICANN on 10 August.
The GNSO's CSC Selection Committee consists of Councilors Susan Kawaguchi, David Cake, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Rubens Kuhl and Heather Forrest. At ICANN56, the Selection Committee updated the Council on its work to date and confirmed the timeline for CSC appointments. Here the Council will consider the recommendations of the Selection Committee for the primary and secondary GNSO liaison appointments.
4.1 – Presentation of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
4.2 – Discussion
4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Implementation Mechanism for the Adopted Recommendations from the 2014 GNSO Organizational Review (15 minutes)
In September 2015, the Independent Examiner that had been appointed to conduct the 2014 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. On 25 June 2016, the ICANN Board agreed with the OEC's advice that the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis (as adopted by the GNSO Council) should guide the implementation process, and requested that the GNSO Council convene a group to oversee the implementation. The Board further requested that an implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, be submitted to the Board no later than six months after the adoption of the Board's resolution, and the GNSO Council provide a regular report on the progress of the implementation effort (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e).
The GNSO Council had previously requested that ICANN staff prepare a paper on possible mechanisms for implementation upon Board approval of the GNSO organizational review recommendations. The Discussion Paper was circulated to the Council on 20 June 2016 and discussed by the Council at its Public Meeting during ICANN56. Here the Council will consider the suggestion and a draft Charter , stemming from its ICANN56 discussion, for repurposing the GNSO's Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements to function as a Working Group to develop the implementation plan.
5.1 – Presentation of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
5.2 – Discussion
5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Response to GAC Communique from ICANN56 (25 minutes)
The GAC Communique from ICANN56 contained GAC advice on several gTLD policy issues, including future gTLD policies and procedures, privacy and proxy services accreditation, and protections for International Governmental Organizations' (IGO) names and acronyms. Starting 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 relating to advice provided by the GAC. A draft response was circulated to the GNSO Council on 19 July 2016. Here the Council will consider whether or not to provide a response to the Board concerning the relevant gTLD issues raised by the GAC in its Helsinki Communique.
6.1 – Presentation of the motion (James Bladel)
6.2 – Council discussion
6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Next Steps on Proposed Modifications to the Procedure to Address WHOIS Conflicts with National Law (20 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) had 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. In May 2014, ICANN launched a review of the procedure. 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. The Council received an update on the modifications at ICANN56. Here the Council will discuss its next steps, which may include confirming whether the IAG's proposed modifications conform with the underlying GNSO Policy.
7.1 – Review of status of Council discussion (James Bladel)
7.2 – Council discussion
7.3 – Next steps
Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Schedule for ICANN57 (20 minutes)
ICANN57 will take place in Hyderabad, India, from 3-9 November 2016. This will be the first "Meeting C" under the new ICANN Meeting Strategy as well as the Annual General Meeting for ICANN. A draft GNSO schedule for the meeting was circulated to the GNSO Council on 11 July 2016. Here the Council will review the proposed schedule, including the need to possibly accommodate face to face Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group meetings and the customary annual Development Session for incoming and continuing GNSO Councilors.
8.1 – Overview of the proposed schedule (James Bladel)
8.2 – Council discussion
8.3 – Next steps
Item 9: Any Other Business (10 minutes)
9.1 – Update on Council representatives from the Registrars Stakeholder Group
9.2 – Update on status of progress on the Drafting Team that is to identify new and additional rights and responsibilities for the GNSO under the revised ICANN Bylaws
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)
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 14:00
San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST 16:00
Iowa City, USA (CDT) UTC-5+0DST 16:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 17:00
Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 18:00
Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 18:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 22:00
Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 23:00
Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00
Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 next day
Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+1DST 07:00 next day
Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 05:00 next day
Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 07:00 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