ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] GNSO Council Meeting - Thursday, 17 January 2013 at 20:00UTC:

  • To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - Thursday, 17 January 2013 at 20:00UTC:
  • From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:19:28 -0000
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac30nAPU5hdnFouJTtyr1hrxOU6Waw==



Our list has been a little quiet but we clearly need to be thinking about
and prepared to make progress with a few key items.  

So, I felt it was appropriate to flag these ahead of our call later today.


Please find below my personal attempt to both capture the key issues and
highlight where we need to make progress.

Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Strawman
Proposal and Defensive Registrations Discussion (20 Minutes) 


·         We have a draft letter to Fadi Chehade and an ultimate deadline of
the end of February (according to Fadi?s note of 19 December 2012).

·         Our next full Council meeting is scheduled for 14 February 2012 so
there is one more meeting available to us if necessary.  

·         At our last meeting, I suggested sending some form of interim
response to Fadi and that remains an option. 

·         There seemed to be quite strong support for the letter in the form
drafted but there were also significant opposition from some groups and that
needs to be accounted for.

·         We did discuss waiting to assess the public comment input on the
topic and that initial public comment period has now closed.

·         There was some discussion of providing additional text to go into
the letter but I do not recall seeing anything on list.

·         Ideally we should produce a letter which has consensus support but
clearly that may be challenging in this case. 

·         Mason made the original draft and absent any suggestions to the
contrary, holds the pen on this one.  Regardless, we need to move it

·         If you have strong views on this, please contribute on list by
providing constructive input on the draft text and/or be prepared to guide
our direction at the meeting.

·         Also, is there any additional work that the Council should or
could be organising in order to move this and related issues forwards?


Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Response to the GAC Letter


·         We have a draft letter to the GAC and a self-imposed deadline of
January 2013 in order to provide a full  response.

·         I had hoped to use January in order to potentially talk with the
GAC Chair and/or members of the GAC about our likely response but that has
not happened to date.

·         Jeff (and colleagues) made a good attempt at a first draft and we
now need to move this forward to a conclusion.


Item 9: INFORMATION & DISCUSION ?  <http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/36239>
Policy vs. Implementation


·         ICANN staff have prepared and circulated a paper.  This has been
distributed to the Council and beyond (e.g. to other SOs and ACs)

·         This is clearly a ?meta-issue? which threads through both items 7
& 8 above and therefore throughout the broader community.

·         It?s also very closely linked to the core of our function as a
Council and therefore something we need to be informed on and prepared to
provide quality input and direction on.

·         Input needs to be in the form of both contribution to the content
as well as the mechanics of how to move the issue forward within the broader


Item 10: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - ATRT2 Developments


·         The application period closed on 14 January 2013 so we now have
the full set of applicants visible.

·         This includes 7 applicants who are associated with the GNSO.


The GNSO Council?s next steps  in this respect need to be as follows:


·         Encourage / remind stakeholder groups to provide their
endorsements as soon as possible (done by me yesterday).

·         Take those endorsements and review these against diversity

·         Propose up to two additional candidates if necessary to meet
diversity criteria.

·         Announce our list of endorsed candidates.


The SGs were previously advised to provide endorsements by 24 January 2013.

We planned to meet as a council to review these endorsements between 24
January & 28 January but this has proved not to be practical.

We now plan to meet as a Council on 21st January at 15h00 UTC in order to
review these endorsements and so I have indicated to SGs that we need to
receive their endorsements by then.

Please can Councillors assist by doing what they can to ensure we have the
endorsements from SGs by 20th January.


I trust that this will be helpful in assisting us to move forward with key
items and that this approach will be taken in the spirit it is intended i.e.
to contribute to one of the key themes of us being and being seen to be a
constructive and effective GNSO Council.


Thank-you for giving these items your attention and I look forward to
meeting with you at 20h00 UTC.





From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: 14 January 2013 22:39
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List
Subject: [council] GNSO Council Meeting Agenda Thursday, 17 January 2013 at


Dear Councillors,

Please find the updated draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on
Thursday, 17 January 2013 at 20:00UTC:

The main updates are the description of the  two motions, Items 4 & 5 and
the addition of Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Whois Privacy and Proxy Relay
and Reveal Study (10 minutes) 

The agenda is published on pages:


On the Wiki at:


and the motions can be viewed at:

This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated.

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

 <http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> Meeting Times 20:00 UTC
 <http://tinyurl.com/ado9n7t> http://tinyurl.com/ado9n7t

Coordinated Universal Time 20:00 UTC
12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 09:00
Wellington (next day 14 January 2013)

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 meeting audio cast 


Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)

1.1 Roll Call

1.2 Statement of interest updates
General updates and/or for specific current agenda items.

1.3 Review main changes.

1.4 Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO
Operating Procedures:
Minutes of the
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-20dec12-en.htm> GNSO
Council meeting 20 December 2012 were approved effective  2 January 2013. 

1.5 GNSO Pending Projects List 

*       Review main changes.
*       Comments and/or questions.

Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (5 minutes)

Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics

Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)



Item 4: MOTION ? Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D (10 minutes)


The Council requested an Issue Report on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
(IRTP) Part D at its meeting on 17 October 2012. The Final Issue Report was
submitted to the GNSO Council on 8 January 2013. The Council is now
requested to consider the initiation of a PDP on the issues outlined in the
Final Issue Report.


Link to
y+2013> motion

4.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole).

4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps.

4.3 Vote (Initiate a PDP: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3)
of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

Item 5: MOTION ? Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar
Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group (WG) (10 minutes)


Normally, when a PDP is initiated, the Council convenes a DT to draft a
charter for the work to be carried out. In this instance, in the interest of
efficiency and because the issues laid out in the IRTP-D Final Issues Report
are very precise, it is being suggested that the Council adopt the charter
as proposed and request that this work be started by a WG asap. A motion is
being made to that effect, to be considered only if the first IRTP-D motion


Link to
y+2013> motion


5.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole).

5.2 Discussion of motion and next steps.

5.3 Vote (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)

Item 6: INFORMATION & DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Review and SIC Update (15

In Toronto, the Chair of the SIC provided an overview of a new framework for
future independent review efforts at ICANN.  The GNSO was used as a case
study to describe the effort because it is the first Supporting Organization
lined-up in the next review cycle. Staff will brief the Council on the set
of criteria metrics for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and the
work underway to develop metrics for the Council and the Working Group Model
of policy. 

6.1          Update from Staff (Rob Hogarth) 

6.2          Discussion

6.3          Next Steps


Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Strawman
Proposal and Defensive Registrations Discussion (20 Minutes) 


ICANN?s CEO has requested GNSO Council input on the
Strawman Proposal  recently developed through the TMCH related
implementation discussions, which has been posted for public comment.
ICANN?s CEO additionally requested Council input on the joint proposal from
the Business Constituency/Intellectual Property Constituency (BC/IPC) for a
?limited preventative registration mechanism? which is also currently
available for public comment.  A subsequent note (19 December 2012) from
ICANN?s CEO clarified the desired deadline for input to be no later than 22
February 2013.


Related to this discussion is the Staff briefing paper (
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/32287> http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/32287)
to the GNSO Council on the topic of defensive registrations at the second
level, in response to a previous request from the New GLTD Committee
(2012.04.10.NG2).  The New GTLD Committee requested the GNSO to consider
whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level
should be undertaken.  

The Council is to continue to discuss: (i) a response to the ICANN CEOs
request, and (ii) to consider whether to undertake any additional work
related to the BC/IPC proposal and/or the Staff briefing paper, on the topic
of second level defensive registrations.

7.1          Update 

7.2          Discussion

7.3          Next Steps


Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Response to the GAC Letter (20 minutes)


The GAC has sent a
letter  to the GNSO Council with regard to the initiation of a PDP on the
IGO/INGO issue, and specifically requesting a rationale for undertaking a
PDP i.e. an explanation as to why GNSO believes this issue should be
evaluated through a PDP rather than simply executed as an implementation
process. The Council has sent an initial response and now needs to move
ahead with developing a full response.

This is a discussion item.

8.1 Update
8.2 Discussion 
8.3 Next steps 

Item 9: INFORMATION & DISCUSION ?  <http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/36239>
Policy vs. Implementation (20 minutes)

The recent letter from the GAC as well as activities relating to work on the
Trademark Clearinghouse, highlights a broader issue regarding the boundary
between policy development and implementation work as well as the effective
integration of policy development and integration work from the outset.

Recent discussions on the Council mailing list indicate that there is an
interest to undertake further work on this issue. At the same time, ICANN
Staff has published a paper ( <http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/36239>
http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/36239) that is intended to facilitate further
community discussions on this topic.


9.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings)

9.2 Discussion

9.3 Next steps


Item 10: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - ATRT2 Developments (5 minutes) 


The call for applicants to serve on the next Accountability and Transparency
Review Team (ATRT) has been extended until 14 January 2013.  (See:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03dec12-en.htm ).
An update on the process and next steps to provide GNSO Council endorsements
of applicants will be provided.

This is a discussion item.

10.1 Update (Wolfe-Ulrich Knoben)
10.2 Discussion 
10.3 Next steps 

Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Whois Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal
Study (10 minutes) 


At the ICANN Meeting in Toronto, Lyman Chapin presented the results of the
survey that evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future in-depth study
into communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for gTLD domain
names registered using Proxy and Privacy services (include link to
presentation). The Council should consider whether to go ahead with the


11.1 ? Update from Staff (Barbara Roseman)

11.2 ? Discussion

11.3 ? Next steps


Item 12:  Any Other Business (5 minutes) 

Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section
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

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  <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA> 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

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

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)
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
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 October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere 

Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 
California, USA (
PST) UTC-8+0DST 12:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 15:00
Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 18:00
Montevideo, Uruguay (
UYST) UTC-3+1DST 18:00
Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00 
Abuja, Nigeria (
WAT) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 
Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 
Ramat Hasharon, Israel (
html> IST) UTC+2+0DST 22:00
Karachi, Pakistan (
PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 - next day
Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 - next day
Perth, Australia (
<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html> WST)
UTC+8+0DST 04:00 ? next day 
Wellington, New Zealand (
l> NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 09:00 ? next day 

The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time
(with exceptions)
For other places see:  <http://www.timeanddate.com>
 <http://tinyurl.com/ado9n7t> http://tinyurl.com/ado9n7t

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen de Saint Géry 

GNSO Secretariat 

 <mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>