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

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Carlos,

Thank you for informing us, this will be noted at the meeting.
Kind regards,

Glen
De : Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Envoyé : jeudi 10 décembre 2015 16:06
À : Glen de Saint Géry
Cc : <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : Re: [council] Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 17 
December 2015 at 18:00 UTC


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<mailto: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)

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://www.timeanddate.com/>
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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>