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

["Paul McGrady \(Policy\)" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

 

Shouldn?t the GNSO Council?s Statement at the Public Forum include that we
expect that implementation will track perfectly, or nearly perfectly, to the
Report and that any material deviations will make us grumpy and could erode
trust?  We don?t want the reforms that empower the non-governmental portion
of the community implemented away by Staff and lawyers.

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

Paul McGrady

 <mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

+1-312-882-5020

GNSO Councilor for the IPC

 

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 05:35 AM
To: WUKnoben; Glen de Saint Géry; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Updated GNSO Public Council 9 March 2016 at 13:30 in
Toubkal

 

Wolf-Ulrich -

 

Good point.  I?ll reach out to the other SO/AC folks and see if they plan to
make a statement at the Public Forum.  If so, then we will put together a
draft statement (short & sweet) that tracks our statement closely.

 

Thanks?

 

J.

 

 

From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of WUKnoben
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:30 
To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Updated GNSO Public Council 9 March 2016 at 13:30 in
Toubkal

 

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 <mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>  

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
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> 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>
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:

 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-18feb16-en.htm> 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
<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> Projects List and
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items>
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
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en>
published for public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received,
including from the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pd
f> 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
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-gnso-council-update-21
jan16-en.pdf> written update from the Working Party chair on 29 January, and
the Working Party?s proposed Implementation and
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-e
n.pdf> 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
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+201
6> 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)>
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)>
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
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-26feb16-en.pdf> Charter and
vote on its adoption.

5.1 ? Presentation of the
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+201
6> 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
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en
.pdf> creation of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN
Accountability ( <https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg> 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
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en>
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
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20
15-11-30-en> 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 ?  <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en>
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 (
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN
A+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
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-ccwg-accountability
-22jan16-en.pdf> 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-char
tering-organization>
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-delivers-report-to-chart
ering-organization).The  <https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw> 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
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+201
6> 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)>
https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf). In October
2011, the ICANN Board
<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-28oct11-en.htm#5>
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.p
df)>
https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-roadmap-04jun12-en.pd
f). 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)>
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)>
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  <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA> 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 (
<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>
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 (
<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>
PDT) UTC-7+1DST 05:30
San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST  07:30
Iowa City, USA ( <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00> CDT)
UTC-6+0DST 07:30
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 08:30
Buenos Aires, Argentina (
<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>
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 (
<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html> 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://www.timeanddate.com
http://tinyurl.com/jzasfwr

 

Kind regards,

 

Glen de Saint Géry