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

[Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx>]

That's a reasonable suggestion Phil. I agree with the inversion of the
topics. With regards to the second point, i understood the goal of the
motion was the approval of the narrative letter. If not, i am confused too.
Best
Marília
Em 19/01/2016 21:06, "Phil Corwin" <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:

> 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 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <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 <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://tinyurl.com/ha4rugt <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 <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
> *http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>