[council] Proposed GNSO Council Teleconference Agenda 18 February 2016 at 12:00 UTC

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Councillors,
Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference on 18 
February 2016 at 12:00 UTC.
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: 12:00 UTC
http://tinyurl.com/zz9uf5m

04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 23:00 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:

Draft 
minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18053.html> of 
the meeting of the GNSO Council on 21 January 2016 were posted as 
approved<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-21jan16-en.htm> on 4 
February 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 (5 minutes)
3.1 - Approve Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of 
the Final 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> from the 
Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Policy Development Process 
Working Group.

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) and 
Approval of Charter for a PDP Working Group to review all RPMs in all gTLDs (20 
minutes)
In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current 
state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing 
and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the UDRP and URS. The Final Issue 
Report was published on 11 January 2015 (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf).  
Based on public comments received in response to the publication of the 
Preliminary Issue Report, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO 
Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP), with the 
first phase focused on a review of the RPMs developed for the New gTLD Program 
and, the subsequent, second phase on a review of the UDRP. Here the Council 
will review the report, including the draft Charter 
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf) setting out the 
proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP.
4.1 - Presentation of the 
motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+February+2016>
 (James Bladel)
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)
4.4 - Review of draft charter 
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf)
4.5 - Next steps
Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - 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 the US 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 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.

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 to the CCWG-Accountability 
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 to review all the 
public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO 
Council held a special meeting on 14 January 2016 to discuss the proposed 
responses provided by the Sub Team, and, following updates made as a result and 
further discussion at the 21 January Council meeting, the Council approved a 
letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-ccwg-accountability-22jan16-en.pdf>
 setting out its response to the recommendations in the Third Draft Proposal 
that was sent to the CCWG-Accountability on 22 January. Here the Council will 
receive an update on the subsequent discussions of the CCWG-Accountability and 
discuss next steps toward possible approval of the final recommendations that 
are expected shortly from the group.
5.1 - Update (James Bladel)
5.2 - Discussion
5.3 - Next steps
ITEM 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - GNSO Review (10 minutes)
As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN 
Board's Structural Improvements Committee (now known as the Organizational 
Effectiveness Committee) appointed Westlake Governance as the independent 
examiner to conduct the current review of the performance and operations of the 
GNSO. A GNSO Working Party, chaired by former Councillor Jennifer Wolfe and 
comprising representatives of all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and 
Constituencies, was formed to consult with Westlake over the design and conduct 
of the review. Westlake's Draft Report was 
published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en>
 for public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including from 
the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its Final 
Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf>
 on 15 September. The Working Party has been reviewing the recommendations to 
develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board's consideration in 
relation to the implementability and prioritization of these recommendations. 
The Council received a written update from the Working Party chair on 29 
January. Here the Council will receive a further update, following the Working 
Party's meeting in early February where it is expected to finalize its 
recommendations that are to be sent to the GNSO Council for approval and 
submission to the Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee for its 
consideration.
6.1 - Update (Jen Wolfe)
6.2 - Discussion
6.3 - Next steps
Item 7: BRIEFING & DISCUSSION - RDAP Implementation (25 minutes)
Building on previous advisories, ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory 
Committee (SSAC) had recommended the replacement of the longstanding WHOIS 
protocol in SAC051 (see 
https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf). In October 
2011, the ICANN Board 
directed<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-28oct11-en.htm#5>
 staff to produce, in consultation with the community, a roadmap for the 
coordination of the technical and policy discussions necessary to implement the 
recommendations outlined in SAC 051. The Roadmap was published in 2012 (see 
https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-roadmap-04jun12-en.pdf). 
Also in 2012, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) chartered the WEIRDS 
(Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Services) working group, which 
concluded its work in early 2015 with the publication of several specifications 
defining the behavior of the Registry Data Access Protocol (RDAP), a 
standardized replacement for WHOIS. ICANN-accredited registrars subject to the 
2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), registry operators from the 2012 
New gTLD round and several other gTLD registries are contractually obligated to 
deploy RDAP.
In February 2014 the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO Council's recommendations for 
a new Consensus Policy that would require the provision of "thick" WHOIS 
services for all gTLD registries. The GNSO Implementation Review Team that was 
formed for the Thick Whois Policy Implementation agreed with the proposal of 
ICANN staff to synchronize implementation of the policy with the adoption of 
RDAP. On 3 December 2015 ICANN staff published a draft RDAP Operational Profile 
for public comment (see 
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en). Public 
comments will be received through 15 February 2015.
Some concern has been expressed as to the policy implications of adopting RDAP 
in view of a number of other parallel efforts with potential cross-cutting 
impact, such as the recent initiation by the GNSO Council of a PDP for a 
Next-Generation Registration Directory Service to Replace WHOIS (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201511). Here the Council will 
receive a briefing from ICANN's Global Domains Division staff overseeing the 
RDAP implementation, describing the policy bases for RDAP, the linkage to Thick 
WHOIS, and the RDAP Operational Profile requirements (including timeline).
7.1 - Briefing (Cyrus Namazi / Francisco Arias)
7.2 - Discussion
7.3 - Next steps
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 / Donna Austin)
8.2 - Discussion
8.3 - Next steps
Item 9: Any Other Business (5 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 12:00
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 04:00
San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST  06:00
Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 
06:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 07:00
Buenos Aires, Argentina 
(ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) 
UTC-3+0DST 09:00
Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 10:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 12:00
Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00
Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 14:00
Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 14:00
Perth, Australia 
(WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) 
UTC+8+1DST 20:00
Singapore (SGT) UTC +8  20:00
Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 23:00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/zz9uf5m


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/>