<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] RE: Updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 at 11:00 UTC.
Dear Jonathan,
I should have clarified. I mean for this to be scheduled for Durban, not
tomorrow. On issues of interest I think the extent of applicability of the Ry
Agreement to brand TLDs and also the notion of unilateral changes by ICANN may
be just a couple. We hear a lot about circumvention of the GNSOs role and the
latter may make for interesting discussion.
Best regards,
Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
Fax: +92 21 35655026
www.jamilandjamil.com
Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by
mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the
intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute
privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The
reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever
of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by
electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use
of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil &
Jamil is prohibited.
Sent from my iPad
On 12 Jun 2013, at 13:19, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks Zahid,
>
> Two points / questions:
>
> 1. We do not have this currently scheduled for discussion. Where did
> you anticipate we might cover this topic?
> 2. Please can you be more specific as to:
> a. Where there may be concerns or issues?
> b. Why these are within the purview of the Council?
>
> Jonathan
>
> From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 12 June 2013 07:03
> To: <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting -
> 13 June 2013 at 11:00 UTC.
>
> I support Jeff's observations.
>
> Also on a separate but related note would suggest we ensure we have the
> relevant person in staff be available for a discussion focused on the new
> Registry Agreement quite separate from a new gTLD update. I think there may
> be issues to which some may wish to get answers.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Zahid Jamil
> Barrister-at-law
> Jamil & Jamil
> Barristers-at-law
> 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
> Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
> Cell: +923008238230
> Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
> Fax: +92 21 35655026
> www.jamilandjamil.com
>
> Notice / Disclaimer
> This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
> communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
> recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by
> mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are
> the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute
> privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The
> reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind
> whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any
> medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some
> other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent
> of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 12 Jun 2013, at 00:09, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thanks Jeff,
>
> The current times are not too accurate as what may or not be required in
> terms of discussion
>
> I am more than willing to revise. I will await any other input and then
> republish with revised times.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 11 June 2013 19:45
> To: 'Glen de Saint Géry'; 'GNSO Council List'
> Subject: [council] RE: Updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 13
> June 2013 at 11:00 UTC.
>
> All,
>
> I think the discussion time for the Reconsideration request is way too
> limited and we need (in my view) to have MUCH more time discussing that
> subject. Can I request that we shorten the remarks of the chair to 5 minutes
> (Sorry Jonathan), and then move item 4 to the consent agenda would give us
> another 15 minutes. What is the action item on the call for GNSO Review? We
> have allocated 15 minutes to confirm whether we should set up a group to
> discuss this issue?
>
> Finally, I am not sure that we should spend actual Council time talking about
> the “Planning for Durban.” I personally think we should establish a meetings
> subcommittee to help the vice chairs in planning for meetings and then
> perhaps solicit other opinions on e-mail. If we have to use Council time for
> these things, then perhaps we need to have additional special meetings that
> are topic specific.
>
> I believe we are at a cross-roads here for the GNSO and the whole bottom-up
> process. We need to devote the appropriate amount of time to discussing the
> ramifications and take ownership of the role that the Council and the
> Community are supposed to play.
>
> I ask therefore that we commit 45 minutes at a minimum to this topic.
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:17 PM
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: [council] Updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June
> 2013 at 11:00 UTC.
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please find the updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting – 13 June
> 2013 at 11:00 UTC.
>
> The wording of the motion in Item 4 has been adjusted.
> In Item 5, the second paragraph now reads:
> Contrary to its initial recommendation, Staff now recommends that a PDP be
> initiated as it is expected that the work of this PDP will helpfully inform
> the deliberations of other efforts that are looking into gTLD registration
> data services such as the Expert Working Group (EWG) and the subsequent PDP.
>
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+June+2013
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-13jun13-en.htm
>
> the motions are published on page:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013
>
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
> Procedures approved 16 May 2013 for the GNSO Council and updated.
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16may13-en.pdf
> 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.
> Meeting Times 11:00 UTC
> http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap
>
> Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC
> 04:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Paris; 23:00
> Wellington
> 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.
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> 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:
> Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 16 May 2013 posted as approved on 30 May
> 2013
> Item 2: Opening remarks from the Chair (10 minutes)
> Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics
> Include brief review of Projects List and Action List
> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes)
> TBC.
>
> Item 4: MOTION – to Adopt Proposed Modification of the GNSO Operating
> Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions
> (10 minutes)
> The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for
> the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating
> Procedures lacks clarity. The GNSO Council proposes a modification of the
> GNSO Operating Procedures that reports and motions should be submitted to the
> GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later
> than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days
> before the GNSO Council meeting.
>
> Link to motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 4.2 Discussion of motion.
> 4.3 Vote (Threshold: Simple majority of Both 4 CPH, 7 NCPH).
>
> Item 5: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the
> Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10 minutes)
> A Final Issue Report on the translation and transliteration of contact
> information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/library).
> Contrary to its initial recommendation, Staff now recommends that a PDP be
> initiated as it is expected that the work of this PDP will helpfully inform
> the deliberations of other efforts that are looking into gTLD registration
> data services such as the Expert Working Group (EWG) and the subsequent PDP.
> Also, as recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team, the Final Issue Report
> recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the commercial feasibility
> of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data,
> which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations;
> ICANN's General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly within the
> scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.
> An overview of the Final Issue Report was provided in Beijing. Voting on this
> motion was deferred at the GNSO Council Meeting of 16 May 2013. The Council
> is now expected to consider whether or not to initiate a PDP.
>
> Motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013
> 5.1 Reading of the motion (Ching Chiao)
> 5.2 Discussion
> 5.3 Vote (Threshold: 33% of Both 3 CPH, 5 NCPH; OR 66% of ONE 5 CPH, 9 NCPH)
> Item 6: DISCUSSION – Reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial
> Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse (15
> mins)
> On the 19th April 2013, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group submitted a
> Reconsideration Request to the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC). On the
> 16 May 2013, the BGC Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request was
> published. Concerns have been raised within the Council about:
> The nature of the response to this particular request. Specifically in terms
> of the arguments presented within the response and the perceived or actual
> implications of these arguments on the workings of the multi-stakeholder
> model.
> More generally about the effectiveness of the reconsideration process.
> The Council will consider the content of the recent Recommendation on the
> Reconsideration Request and the discussion will focus not on the outcome of
> the Reconsideration Request but rather on the arguments presented and any
> potential implications for the GNSO and the multi-stakeholder model.
> Item 7: DISCUSSION – Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council (15
> mins)
> As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, both
> the GNSO Council and the GNSO will come up for ICANN Board initiated review.
> In order to be effectively prepared for these reviews, it was proposed in
> Beijing that a group be formed to understand the issues and begin to take
> appropriate next steps. One key suggestion from Beijing was that any group
> (such as the Council) being reviewed undertakes a form of self-review.
> Here the Council will confirm the intended course of action and provide input
> into a draft call for volunteers for a non-PDP WG.
> Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Report on User Experience Implications of
> Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board (10 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:
> a) 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),
> b) Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and
> c) c) 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
>
> Furthermore, it was suggested that the GNSO Council should send a letter to
> the Board highlighting the importance of IDN related issues. A first draft of
> such letter was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list on 11/4 (see
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14489.html).
>
> At the 16 may 2013 Council Meeting, the Council received a presentation on
> the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-variant-tlds-ux-16may13-en.pdf
>
> 8.1 Discussion
> 8.2 Next steps – Any additional action to be taken?
> 8.3 Update on letter to the Board (Ching Chiao)
> Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Planning for Durban (20 minutes)
> Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN
> Meeting in Durban will take planning. GNSO Council VC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is
> working with staff to lead this effort.
> The Council has had the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input
> based on past experience, including most recently in Beijing. Included in
> this item will be the opportunity to shape the topics and substance of the
> Council’s proposed meetings with other groups in Durban such as the CCNSO,
> the GAC and the ICANN board.
> 9.1 – Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 9.2 – Discussion
> 9.3 – Next steps
> Item 10: 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:
> 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)
> 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.)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00 UTC
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-7+1DST 04:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 07:00
> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 08:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 08:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST12:00
> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1DST12:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST13:00
> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+1DST13:00
> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+1DST 14:00
> Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+1DST 14:00
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00
> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 19:00
> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+0DST 23:00
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time
> (with exceptions)
> For other times see:
> http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|