Re: [council] Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Colleagues:

To allow sufficient time for discussion/review of the CCWG response, we have 
made a few changes to the proposed Agenda.

First, the motions for three PDPs have been re-ordered, and time allowed for 
discussion reduced to 10 minutes each.  To keep us on track, we need to spend 
no more than 30 minutes discussing all motions, and it would also be helpful to 
know as soon as possible if any Councilors intend to request a deferral.  (Only 
the RPM PDP is eligible).

Also, we’ve asked Jennifer Wolfe to provide her update from the GNSO Review 
Working Party via email to the Council list, rather than on the call.  We will 
hold space for discussion & approval of these recommendations for our February 
call, and/or during our face to face meeting in Marrakesh.

Time saved has been added to discussions of the CCWG.  Thanks for your 
patience, and look forward to our call on Thursday.

J.



From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 15:52
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 
21 January 2016

Dear Councillors,

Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 
January 2016.
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: 21:00 UTC
http://tinyurl.com/zjkmew8

13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 23:00 Istanbul; 08:00 Hobart 
Friday 22 January

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:

Draft 
Minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17986.html> of 
the Special Meeting of the GNSO Council on 14 January 2016 will be posted as 
approved on 27 January 2016

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 – 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. Consideration of this item was deferred from 
the 17 December meeting. Here the Council will review the Working Group’s Final 
Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in 
it.
4.1 – Presentation of the 
motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016>
 (James Bladel)
4.2 – Discussion
4.3 – 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 5: VOTE ON MOTION – Charter for Policy Development Process (PDP) Working 
Group on 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. During its meeting on 17 
December, the Council initiated the PDP but deferred consideration of the 
Charter for the PDP Working Group to this meeting. Here the Council will review 
the revised 
charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-charter-12jan16-en.pdf>
 for adoption.
5.1 – Presentation of the 
motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016>
 (Donna Austin)
5.2 – Discussion
5.3 – 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 6: Vote on motion:Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) to review 
all RPMs in all gTLDs for (15 minutes)
In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current 
state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new 
gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS. The Final Issue Report 
on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures was published on 11 January 2015 at 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/rpm. The Final Issue Report 
recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development 
Process (PDP) in order to the review Rights Protection Mechanisms in the new 
gTLDs and, in a subsequent, second phase, review the Uniform Dispute Resolution 
Policy (UDRP), and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the review topics 
are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope 
of the GNSO. 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.
6.1 – Presentation of the 
motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016>
 (Amr Elsadr)
6.2 – Discussion
6.3 – 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 7: Vote on motion – Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN 
Accountability (30 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 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. The comment period closed on 21 
December 2015, with all Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether 
to adopt the recommendations in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its 
final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016.

Concurrently, 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> 
after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send 
its 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. In this regard, the 
CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment which, while noting that several 
of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the 
CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points 
that in its view merited further attention.
In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council 
had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team that was to review 
all the various public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and 
Constituencies. The GNSO Council had an initial discussion on the proposed 
responses provided by the Sub Team during its meeting on 14 January, following 
which an updated version of the proposed response was circulated [include link 
when available]. Here the Council will discuss the updated proposed response 
developed by the Sub Team, and if appropriate vote on whether to submit this 
response to the CCWG-Accountability.
7.1 – Presentation of the 
motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+2016>
 (James Bladel)
7.2 – Discussion
7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

Item 8: UPDATE & Discussion – Marrakesh Meeting Planning (10 minutes)
During the Dublin meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr volunteered to work 
with the GNSO Council Leadership on the development of the proposed agenda for 
the GNSO Weekend Session in Marrakech. Here the Council will receive a status 
update on the planning for Marrakesh and any action that may be required from 
the GNSO Council.
8.1 – Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr)
8.2 – Discussion
8.3 – Next steps

Item 9:Any Other Business (10 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<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 21:00
Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
California, USA 
(PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) 
UTC-7+1DST 13:00
San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST  15:00
Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 
15:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:00
Buenos Aires, Argentina 
(ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) 
UTC-3+0DST 18:00
Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 19:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 21:00
Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00
Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00
Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 23:00
Perth, Australia 
(WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) 
UTC+8+1DST 05:00 next day
Singapore (SGT) UTC +8  05:00 next day
Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 08:00 next day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with 
exceptions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/>
http://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt

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/>