Re: [council] RE: Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

As I suspect this/these matters will rebound to the GNSO policy apparatus, I 
agree getting a jump on it makes sense.

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 28, 2013, at 10:19 AM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> All,
>  
> I would like to add an agenda item to discuss the conflicting  strong 
> confusion decisions that are now out there (i.e., plurals, conflicts of 
> decisions on the same string, etc.).  In a recent interview with Akram, he 
> intimated that if there were conflicting decisions, that this would be for 
> the GNSO community to assist on this issue.  The gTLD Registries discussed 
> this issue on its bi-weekly call this morning and would really like to see a 
> solution from the community as opposed to ICANN staff.  
> 
> I would be happy to put together some ideas for discussion at the meeting 
> next week.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:25 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [council] Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 5 September 2013 
> at 15:00 UTC
>  
> Dear Councillors,
> Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 5 
> September 2013 at 15:00 UTC.
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating 
> Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated.
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-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 15:00 UTC
> http://tinyurl.com/mdmrnk9
> Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC
> 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 16:00 London; 17:00 Paris; 03:00 
> 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 meeting audio cast 
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
> 
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 mins)
> 
> 1.1 Roll Call
> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
> 
> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 mins)
> Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics
> Include review of Projects List and Action List.
> Comments or questions arising.
> 
> Item 3: Consent agenda
> 3.1 - Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings
> GNSO Council approval of Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board
> 3.2 – Policy & Implementation Working Group
> GNSO Council approval of co-chairs J.Scott Evans (BC) and Chuck Gomes (RySG).
> 
> Item 4: DRAFT MOTION - To approve Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) final 
> report and recommendations (10 mins)
>  
> This report is published in response to a request by the GNSO Council for a 
> report and analysis on a survey about possible technical requirements of a 
> future WHOIS Service.  The objective for the Working Group is to develop a 
> set of proposed recommendations around the measurement of support of proposed 
> technical requirements.  After consideration of community input on a draft 
> survey and the implementation of the Lime Survey software within the ICANN IT 
> infrastructure, the survey was made available to the community in September 
> 2012.  ICANN staff compiled and consolidated the survey results and the WSWG 
> completed the WSWG Final Report for delivery to the GNSO Council. Here the 
> Council will review a draft motion in preparation for voting to approve the 
> report it at the next meeting.
> 
> 4.1 – Review the draft motion
> Motion to approve Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) Final Report and 
> Recommendations:
> WHEREAS,
>  
> 1.    on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the 
> assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should 
> collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois 
> service policy tools;
>  
> 2.    on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service 
> Requirements - Final Report;
>  
> 3.    in July 2011, volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey 
> "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in 
> this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf;
>  
> 4.    on 30 May 2012, the WSWG published a draft of the Whois Service 
> Requirements Survey for public comment, 
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey-30may12-en.htm;
>  
> 5.    on 13 September 2012, the WSWG released the final Whois Service 
> Requirements Survey to solicit input from community members on the possible 
> technical requirements of a future Whois system, 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13sep12-en.htm;   
>  
> 6.    on 13 September 2012, ICANN staff compiled and consolidated the survey 
> results and the WSWG completed the WSWG Final Report, 
> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf)
>  
> NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
>  
> 1.    that the GNSO Council thanks the Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) and 
> ICANN staff for their efforts in conducting the survey and compiling survey 
> results of possible technical requirements of a future Whois system;
>  
> 2.    the GNSO Council further approves the recommendations, as defined in 
> the Final Report 
> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf),  to send 
> the survey results to other applicable efforts regarding Whois and Domain 
> Name Registration Data for their consideration. 
>  
> 
> 4.2 – Discussion
>  
> Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – A PDP to develop relevant policies for issues 
> not dealt with during the course of the development of the 2013 Registrar 
> Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
> ICANN staff has prepared a paper which summarises the outcomes of the 2013 
> RAA negotiations and so sets the scene  for the subsequent, relevant policy 
> development work to be managed by the Council.  Here the Council will receive 
> an update from staff and confirm the intended course of action.
> 5.1 Staff update (Margie Milam /Mary Wong)
> 5.2 Discussion
> 5.3 Next steps
> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Metrics and Reporting Working Group (WG)
> Despite the unanimous support for this resolution, only six volunteers (3 
> GNSO, 3 ALAC) have signed up for this effort to date, which is not considered 
> sufficiently representative to kick off the Drafting Team (DT).  At the ICANN 
> meeting in Durban, ICANN staff was tasked with looking into and proposing 
> alternative ways forward. Apart from renewing the call for volunteers or 
> delaying this effort, the GNSO Council could consider, as this is a non-PDP 
> WG, to explore an alternative approach not necessarily requiring the 
> formation of a DT or WG.  Here the Council will review and discuss the 
> alternatives and consider the next steps.
> 6.1 Staff update (Berry Cobb)
> 6.2 Discussion
> 6.3 Next steps
> Item 7: DISCUSSION – GAC Engagement / Working with the BGRC WG
> Here the Council will discuss activity to date and confirm the intended 
> course of action going forward.
> 7.1 – Status update
> 7.2 – Discussion
> 7.3 – Next steps
> Item 8: INPUT & DISCUSSION – Prospective improvements to the Policy 
> Development Process (PDP)
> The Council is committed to ongoing enhancements to the methods of working of 
> the Council and the work initiated and managed by the Council. The PDP 
> process is a cornerstone of policy making within the GNSO and, as such, the 
> work of the Council.  The PDP outcomes and associated processes are the 
> subject of focus and attention both within the GNSO and the broader ICANN 
> Community. In this agenda item we will discuss a paper prepared by ICANN 
> staff on potential improvements to the PDP process and consider the 
> appropriate next steps.
> 8.1 – Input on GNSO PDP Improvements (Marika Konings)
> 8.2 – Discussion
> 8.3 – Next steps
> Item 9: DISCUSSION – Role and scope of the Standing Committee on GNSO 
> Improvements Implementation (SCI)
> Here the Council will review input received at the ICANN meeting in Durban as 
> well as any subsequent information and confirm the intended course of action.
> 9.1 – Status update
> 9.2 – Discussion
> 9.3 – Next steps
> Item 10: DISCUSSION – Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council
> As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, 
> board initiated reviews of the GNSO and the GNSO Council as an integral part 
> of the GNSO are expected.  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.  The intended course of action may have been impacted by 
> the recently announced proposal to delay any board initiated review activity. 
>  Here the Council will discuss and potentially confirm the intended course of 
> action of initiating a non-PDP WG.
> 
> 10.1 – Current status
> 10.2 – Discussion
> 10.3 – Next steps
> 
> Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Planning for Buenos Aeries
> 
> Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN 
> Meeting in Buenos Aires will take planning.  GNSO Council Vice Chair, 
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben has again volunteered to lead this and will be working 
> with the Council and staff on this effort.
> Here the Council has the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input 
> based on past experience.  Included in this item will be the opportunity to 
> shape the approach to and substance of the Council’s proposed meetings with 
> other groups in such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board.
> 11.1 – Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 11.2 – Discussion
> 11.3 – Next steps
> Item 12:  Any Other Business 
> 
> 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. Initiat