Re: [council] Updated GNSO Public Council 9 March 2016 at 13:30 in Toubkal

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re item 6: 
Is there an intention to issue a statement on behalf of the GNSO at the public 
forum if the proposals get approved and sent to NTIA tomorrow? If yes then we 
should talk about after the voting.


Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Glen de Saint Géry 
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 10:35 AM
To: mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: [council] Updated GNSO Public Council 9 March 2016 at 13:30 in Toubkal

Dear Councillors,

 

Please find the updated agenda for the GNSO Public Council meeting today, 9 
March 2016. The main changes are in the order of the items and the time 
allotted for each item.

Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Marrakech 9 March 2016

This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures, 
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: 13:30 UTC

05:30 Los Angeles; 08:30 Washington; 13:30 London; 15:30 Istanbul; 00:30 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 meeting of the GNSO Council on 18 February 2016 were posted as 
approved on 6 March 2016.



Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes)

2.1 – Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, 
to include review of Projects List and Action List

 

Item 3: Consent agenda (5 minutes)

3.1 – Approve appointment of co-chairs for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures 
Policy Development Process Working Group (co-chairs: Stephen Coates, Avri 
Doria, Jeff Neuman; Council liaison: Paul McGrady)

 



Item 4: VOTE – Approval of Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations 
from the GNSO Review (5 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 for public comment on 1 
June 2015. Following feedback received, including from the GNSO Working Party, 
Westlake published its Final Report on 15 September. The Working Party reviewed 
all the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN 
Board in relation to the implementability and prioritization of the 
recommendations. The Council received a written update from the Working Party 
chair on 29 January, and the Working Party’s proposed Implementation and 
Feasibility Analysis was sent to the Council on 28 February. 

Here the Council will review the Working Party’s Implementation and Feasbility 
Analysis, and vote on its adoption as well as agree on next steps in the 
process.

4.1 – Presentation of the motion  (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)

4.2 – Discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) 

 

 

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of Charter for a PDP Working Group to review 
all RPMs in all gTLDs (15 minutes)

On 18 February 2016, the GNSO Council voted unanimously to initiate a new 
Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all Rights Protection Mechanisms 
(RPMs) in all gTLDs (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160218-3). At that meeting, a 
small group of Councilors volunteered to review the draft Charter for the PDP 
Working Group, with a view to submitting an updated Charter for the Council’s 
review and approval at the Marrakech meeting. The draft Charter had been based 
substantially on the approach recommended in the Final Issue Report, published 
on 11 January 2015 (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf). This 
recommended that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased 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 longstanding Uniform Dispute 
Resolution Policy (UDRP). A Working Group Charter typically also sets out the 
scope of work for the PDP Working Group and includes a list of topics 
identified previously by the community for the Working Group to consider 
including as part of its work. Here the Council will consider the updated draft 
Charter and vote on its adoption.

5.1 – Presentation of the motion  (Phil Corwin) 

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 – Approval of Recommendations from the Cross-Community Working 
Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (55 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 of a Cross Community Working Group on 
Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) 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 for public comment. Following significant changes 
made as a result of feedback received, the CCWG-Accountability published its 
Second Draft Proposal for public comment in August 2015. With the assistance of 
further 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 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 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 needs confirmation from the Cross Community Working Group to Develop 
an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions 
(CWG-Stewardship) 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.

Following a Special Meeting on 14 January 2016, the GNSO Council had approved a 
letter setting out its response to the recommendations in the Third Draft 
Proposal. This was sent to the CCWG-Accountability on 22 January. 

In response to the community input to its Third Draft Proposal, the 
CCWG-Accountability reworked some of its draft recommendations, resulting in a 
Final Supplemental Proposal that was sent to all its Chartering Organizations 
on 23 February (see 
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-delivers-report-to-chartering-organization).The
 Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations has the consensus 
support of the CCWG-Accountability, and contains five minority statements (see 
revised Appendix A, circulated to all Chartering Organizations on 25 February). 

On 29 February, the GNSO Council held a Special Meeting that included all the 
GNSO representatives to the CCWG-Accountability. The purpose of the meeting was 
to receive initial feedback from all the GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups and 
Constituencies, and to identify any remaining issues of concern that may 
require further discussion amongst the GNSO community. For its discussions on 
whether and how to adopt the Supplemental Final Proposal, the GNSO Council 
followed a specific agreed approach [INSERT LINK]. Here the Council will review 
the final comments from of all its SG/Cs, and, taking into account further 
discussions occurring during ICANN55, vote on whether or not to adopt the 
recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability as set forth in the Supplemental 
Final Proposal. 

6.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert, GNSO co-chair of the CCWG-Accountability) 

6.2 – Presentation of the motion  (James Bladel)

6.3 – Discussion

6.4 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)

 

Item 7: DISCUSSION – RDAP Implementation (15 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 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). Following an expected 
discussion with ICANN’s Global Domains Division staff overseeing the RDAP 
implementation during the GNSO Weekend Sessions at ICANN55 on the policy bases 
for RDAP, the linkage to Thick WHOIS, and the RDAP Operational Profile 
requirements, the Council will now consider next steps and any further actions 
that may be advisable at this time.

7.1 – Update (James Bladel)

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Next steps

 

Item 8: Open Microphone (10 minutes)

 

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): 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)
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 13:30
Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 05:30
San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST  07:30
Iowa City, USA (CDT) UTC-6+0DST 07:30
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 08:30
Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 10:30
Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 10:30
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 13:30
Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 14:30 
Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 15:30 
Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 15:30 
Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+1DST 21:30 
Singapore (SGT) UTC +8  21:30 
Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 00:30 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/jzasfwr

 

Kind regards,

 

Glen de Saint Géry