Re: [council] Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC

[Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

Please excuse me but I'm out of broadband connectivity for the whole next
week in one of our National Parks. I would be available for any additional
call the Council may suggest for the following week.

Best regards

Carlos Raúl
On Dec 9, 2015 5:36 PM, "Glen de Saint Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear Councillors,
>
> Please find the proposed draft Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference
> on 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC.
>
> Please note the agenda is still subject to change, but we wanted you and
> your groups to have a timely review of the agenda before the next Council
> meeting.
>
> The agenda is also posted on the Wiki at and will reflect the latest
> updates:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+17+December+2015
>
> And posted on the website at:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-17dec15-en.htm
>
> The motions are posted on page:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December+2015
>
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
> Procedures,
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> 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: 18:00 UTC (*http://tinyurl.com/oobnrtf
> <http://tinyurl.com/oobnrtf>*)
>
> 10:00 Los Angeles; 13:00 Washington; 18:00 London; 20:00 Istanbul; 05:00
> 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 meetings of 19 November have been posted as
> approved on 5 December 2015
>
>
>
> *Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)*
>
> 2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
> topics, to include review of Projects List
> <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items>
>
> *Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)*
>
>
> *Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION – Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP)
> for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures* *(15 minutes)*
>
> In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze
> subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD
> procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO’s
> policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the
> Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>.
> Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of
> deliverables from the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion
> Group
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2015/non-pdp-new-gtld>
> (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issue-31aug15-en.pdf>
> was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period
> closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend
> the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf>
> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. Here the Council will
> review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed
> scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the
> Charter.
>
> 4.1 – Presentation of the motion
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December+2015>
> (Donna Austin)
>
> 4.2 – Discussion
>
> 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: 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: VOTE ON MOTION – Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy &
> Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes)*
>
> This PDP had been requested
> <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7>
> by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar
> Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation
> Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved
> <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm> by
> the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy
> and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in
> the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a
> PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> the
> Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop
> policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN’s implementation of the
> planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The
> PDP Working Group published its Initial Report
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf> for
> public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> to the
> GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Here the Council will review the Working
> Group’s Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus
> recommendations contained in it.
>
> 5.1 – Presentation of the motion
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December+2015>
> (James Bladel)
>
> 5.2 – Discussion
>
> 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than
> two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one
> House and one-half (1/2) of the other House)
>
>
>
> *Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION – Endorsement of GNSO Candidates for the
> Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (20 minutes)*
>
> Under ICANN’s *Affirmation of Commitments (AoC)
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en>*
> with the United States government, ICANN is mandated to review the extent
> to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust
> and Consumer Choice (CCT Review). The CCT Review Team is expected to also
> assess the effectiveness of the application and evaluation processes, as
> well as the safeguards put in place by ICANN to mitigate issues involved in
> the introduction or expansion of new gTLDs. A Call for Volunteers
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en>
> to the CCT Review Team closed on 13 November 2015, and twenty-six (26)
> applicants indicated that they wished to be endorsed as representatives of
> the GNSO to the Review Team. ICANN staff has since followed up with all
> these applicants for further information to assist the Council in its
> decision on endorsements (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw). Here
> the Council will discuss and determine which of the applicants to endorse
> for the CCT Review Team.
>
> 6.1 – Presentation of the motion
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December+2015>
> (James Bladel)
>
> 6.2 – Discussion
>
> 6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>
>
>
> *Item 7: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin
> Communique (10 mins)*
>
> Following discussions at the Council level in late 2014 to develop a means
> for the GNSO to provide input to the ICANN Board regarding gTLD policy
> matters highlighted in a GAC Communique, a template framework to review
> each GAC Communique was created by a group of Council volunteers assisted
> by ICANN staff. The Council agreed that while it would review carefully
> each GAC Communique issued at an ICANN meeting, it would not always provide
> input to the Board unless it also agreed that such feedback was either
> necessary or desirable, on a case-by-case basis. The first GNSO Review of a
> GAC Communique was of the GAC’s Communique from ICANN53 in Buenos Aires.
> That Review document was sent
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-08jul15-en.pdf> to
> the ICANN Board in July 2015 and acknowledged
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-robinson-21oct15-en.pdf>
> by the Board in October. At its last meeting, the Council discussed an
> initial draft
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-10nov15-en.pdf> of
> a possible review document to be sent to the Board in response to the GAC’s 
> Dublin
> Communique
> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20Dublin%2054%20Communique.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445470409191&api=v2>.
> Here the Council will review an updated draft document
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-10nov15-en.pdf>
> and vote on whether to adopt it for forwarding to the ICANN Board.
>
> 7.1 – Presentation of the motion
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December+2015>
> (Stephanie Perrin)
>
> 7.2 – Discussion
>
> 7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>
>
>
> *Item 8: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION – Cross-Community Working Group on
> Enhancing ICANN Accountability (25 minutes)*
>
> In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the
> community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN’s
> historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The
> community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability
> mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders’ expectations. As that the
> U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information
> Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus
> on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder
> expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf>
> of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (
> CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>) of which the
> GNSO is a chartering organization.
>
> In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability *published
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en>*
>  an
> initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with
> the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In
> August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en>
> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included
> significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received
> in the first public comment period. Following community input, including
> from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54,
> the CCWG-Accountability has made further adjustments to its draft
> recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en>
> for public comment on 30 November 2015.
>
> Following ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
> (ICG) – the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals
> relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet
> communities affected by the issue – announced
> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en> that it had
> completed its task. However, before the ICG can send the consolidated
> proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm
> with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship
> Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IANA+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions>)
> that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1
> recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. Public comments on these
> latest recommendations closes on 21 December 2015, with all the Chartering
> Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt them in time for the
> CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN
> Board by late January 2016.
>
> Here the Council will discuss its review and adoption of the
> CCWG-Accountability recommendations, including the timeline and
> consideration of any input from its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.
>
> 8.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert)
>
> 8.2 – Discussion
>
> 8.3 – Next steps
>
>
>
> *Item 9: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION – New gTLD Auction Proceeds (10
> minutes)*
>
> On 8 September 2015 ICANN published for public comment
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-en>
> a Discussion Paper concerning possible next steps in the community process
> regarding proceeds obtained from ICANN-conducted auctions for contested
> strings in the New gTLD Program. The Discussion Paper summarized the
> community discussions that had occurred to date, including discussions
> started by the GNSO Council and conducted at ICANN52. An updated [INSERT
> LINK] Discussion Paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 December
> 2015, noting that there seems to be general community support for a
> Cross-Community Working Group to be formed on the topic and proposing that
> the next step be confirming the interest of each ICANN Supporting
> Organization and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) in participating in this
> effort. Interested SO/ACs would then be requested to nominate up to 2
> volunteers for the Drafting Team to be formed, to develop a charter for
> adoption by all the potential Chartering Organizations.
>
> 9.1 – Status update (Marika Konings)
>
> 9.2 – Discussion
>
> 9.3 – Next steps
>
>
>
> *Item 10:* *Any Other Business (10 Minutes)*
>
> 10.1 – Confirming schedule of GNSO Council meetings for 2016
>
> 10.2 – Marrakech meeting planning (note: weekend session planning being
> led by Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr)
>
> _________________________________
>
> *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
> <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): 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*
> <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>
> *) *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 18:00
> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA (PDT
> <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>)
> UTC-7+1DST 10:00
> San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST  12:00
> Iowa City, USA (CDT <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>)
> UTC-6+0DST 12:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 13:00
> Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART
> <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>)
> UTC-3+0DST 15:00
> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 16:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 18:00
> Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 19:00
> Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 20:00
> Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 20:00
> Perth, Australia (WST
> <http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>)
> UTC+8+1DST 02:00 next day
> Singapore (SGT) UTC +8  02:00
> Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 05:00
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2015, 2:00 or 3:00 local time
> (with exceptions)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
> *http://tinyurl.com/j8rmlem <http://tinyurl.com/j8rmlem>*
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Thank you
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
>
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> *gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
> *http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*
>
>
>