<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] RE: Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016
- To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council List (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] RE: Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016
- From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:02:08 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Importance: high
- In-reply-to: <d1da42360c014a61a3cdcedc38b45e78@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <d1da42360c014a61a3cdcedc38b45e78@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AdFTA7fVQmXFHpMLQzaGuHV8IOZY+AACLZSA
- Thread-topic: Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 21 January 2016
Thank you Glen.
Fellow Councilors, I would propose that we amend the agenda to take up Vote on
motion - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability as the
first item on the Consent Agenda. Leaving it as Item 7, to be addressed after
discussion on three motions that require a Vote, could leave us with
insufficient time to discuss the wording of the Council letter, which has yet
to be received for pre-call review. In my opinion it is the most important
matter on Thursday's agenda and should receive priority treatment.
Also, I am confused in that I thought we had decided on the call of 1/14 to
send a narrative letter at this point in time, and defer a Vote on a Motion
until we had reviewed and discussed the Supplemental Proposal that we
anticipate receiving from the CCWG-ACCT. Can someone please clarify whether we
will be addressing a Council letter or a formal Motion on Thursday's call?
Thank you and best regards,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:53 PM
To: GNSO Council List (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/>
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|