[council] Re: Briefing Note on the status of protections for Red Cross names and acronyms

[Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello again everyone,

To aid in your review of this topic, you can find a copy of the Briefing Note 
at http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/red-cross-protections-status-30mar16-en.pdf.

In answer to a few questions received, I hope the following information is also 
helpful:

(1) Page 1 of the Briefing Note includes a list of the relevant Red Cross 
recommendations for which there is inconsistent GAC advice and GNSO policy.

(2) GAC advice up to the point when the PDP ended (late 2013) was considered by 
the Working Group. In making its final recommendations, the WG based its 
conclusions in various instances on GAC recommendations – for example, the list 
of IGOs whose identifiers were to be protected was the list provided by the GAC 
in April 2013, and the scope of IGO and Red Cross names to be reserved was also 
based on GAC advice. In general, the inconsistency between the GAC advice and 
the final GNSO recommendations lies mostly in the difference in the scope of 
protection using different types of mechanisms, rather than differences in the 
names and acronyms recommended for protection by the GAC.

(3) The former Council had noted the possibility of considering amendment of 
the GNSO recommendations, but had decided not to proceed without further 
information and input from the Board, especially in relation to the Red Cross 
identifiers still at issue. This is noted in the status section on Page 3 of 
the Briefing Note.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
Telephone: +1-603-5744889


From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, April 8, 2016 at 13:16
To: "GNSO Council List (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: Briefing Note on the status of protections for Red Cross names and 
acronyms

Dear all,

We have just received word that the Red Cross representatives will indeed be at 
the Council’s 14 April meeting, where their short briefing is the first 
substantive item on your agenda. We have asked them to limit their briefing to 
10 minutes or less, which should allow for a further 10 minutes for Q&A.

We hope that the Briefing Note we circulated last Wednesday is helpful to you 
in preparing for this session. Should you have any questions prior to that, 
staff will try our best to answer them so that you may have a productive 
discussion next Thursday.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889


From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:30
To: "GNSO Council List (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Briefing Note on the status of protections for Red Cross names and 
acronyms

Dear all,

Per proposed agenda item #4, staff has contacted the Red Cross representatives 
who met with Heather and James in Marrakech, to invite them to participate on 
the Council’s April call (as noted below). Given the fact that many current 
Council members may be new to this topic as well as the fullness of the April 
agenda, staff has also prepared the attached Briefing Note for the Council.

The Briefing Note is essentially a summary of the current state of protections 
(both interim and permanent) for different Red Cross names and acronyms, and 
includes notes on the timelines of the GNSO work, GAC advice and Board action 
on the topic.

We hope you will find the Briefing Note helpful in your preparation for the 
April call and in considering potential next steps for the Council on the 
matter.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889


From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 09:52
To: "GNSO Council List (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 
21:00 UTC

Dear All,


Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 14 April 
2016 at 21:00 UTC.

http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-14apr16-en.htm
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+April+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/gn4sy7u
14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington; 22:00 London; 00:00 Istanbul; 07:00 Hobart


Please be aware that the clocks will have changed in some parts of the world, 
so refer to the other times below to ensure you join the meeting at the correct 
time. UTC time remains the same for Council meetings, local time changes.

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 Meeting Minutes,  29 February and 9 
March 2016 will be posted as approved on xxxx 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<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: PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION – Possible Next Steps in Resolving the Issue 
of Permanent Protection of Certain Red Cross Identifiers (20 minutes)



In November 2013, the GNSO Council 
approved<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> the final 
recommendations from its Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on the 
Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs. Subsequently, in April 2014, 
the ICANN Board 
approved<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-04-30-en#2.a>
 those of the GNSO’s PDP recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC 
advice<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-a-30apr14-en.pdf>
 received on the topic. For the Red Cross movement, the protections adopted 
were for the full names Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun at 
the top and second levels, in the 6 official languages of the United Nations, 
with an Exception Procedure to be designed during the implementation phase for 
the affected organizations. However, with respect to the names and acronyms of 
the 189 national Red Cross societies and the names of the International Red 
Cross Movement (as noted by the GAC in its Singapore 
Communique<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/34373692/Final%20Communique%20-%20Singapore%202014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1396971674000&api=v2)>),
 the Board requested more time to consider the GNSO’s recommendations as these 
are inconsistent with GAC 
advice<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-b-30apr14-en.pdf>
 received on the topic. In the interim period, the Board 
adopted<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-10-12-en#2.d>
 temporary protections for the Red Cross national society and international 
movement names noted in the GAC’s Singapore Communique.



At ICANN55, representatives of the Red Cross met with the GNSO Council 
leadership to discuss possible next steps. Here the Red Cross representatives 
will brief the Council on the scope of the Red Cross’ continuing request for 
permanent protections for those of its national society and international 
movement identifiers that are not currently covered by the policy 
recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.



4.1 – Introduction (James Bladel)

4.2 – Presentation by representatives of the Red Cross (by invitation)

4.3 – Q&A / next steps





Item 5: VOTE – Approval of Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations 
from the 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 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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-gnso-council-update-21jan16-en.pdf>
 from the Working Party chair on 29 January, and the Working Party’s proposed 
Implementation and Feasibility 
Analysis<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf>
 was sent to the Council on 28 February.



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



5.1 – Presentation of the 
motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016>
  (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
5.2 – Discussion

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)





Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Procedures Governing the Selection of the 
GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (10 minutes)



As part of a two-year pilot program initiated in June 2014, the GNSO Council 
and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) agreed, through its joint 
GAC-GNSO Consultation Group<https://community.icann.org/x/phPRAg>, to appoint a 
GNSO Liaison to the GAC. The purpose of the Liaison role was to facilitate more 
effective early engagement by the GAC in GNSO policy activities and to 
contribute toward better information flow between the two bodies. Following 
Consultation Group 
review<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-liaison-gac-pilot-29feb16-en.pdf> 
of the pilot program, the Consultation Group recommended that the Liaison role 
be made a permanent one in March 2016. Here the Council will review and approve 
the scope of such a permanent Liaison role as well as the application, 
selection and confirmation process.



6.1 – Presentation of the 
motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+2016>

6.2 – Discussion

6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)





Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of GNSO Input to the ICANN Board on the GAC’s 
Marrakech Communique (20 minutes)



Beginning in mid-2015 with the GAC’s Buenos Aires Communique, the GNSO Council 
developed a mechanism for reviewing and commenting on aspects of that 
Communique that are relevant to gTLD policy. The resulting GNSO input on both 
the GAC’s Buenos Aires and Dublin Communiques were approved by the GNSO Council 
and sent to the ICANN Board and the GAC Chair (see 
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/robinson-to-icann-board-gac-chair-29jul15-en.pdf
 and http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-gac-review-31dec15-en.pdf). 
Here the Council will review the draft response to the GAC’s Marrakech 
Communique, drafted by a volunteer group of Councillors, and, if appropriate, 
approve its being forwarded to the ICANN Board and GAC Chair.



7.1 – Presentation of the 
motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+2016>
 (Proposer name: Susan Kawaguchi /Jennifer Gore / Rubens Kuhl)

7.2 – Discussion

7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)





Item 8: COUNCIL APPROVAL – Public Comment on ICANN’s FY17 Proposed Budget (15 
minutes)



On 5 March 2016, the draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan and Budget was 
published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/op-budget-fy17-five-year-2016-03-04-en>
 for public comment (closing on 30 April). The GNSO Council had previously 
provided public 
comments<https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-op-budget-fy16-18mar15/pdfWW7Sy3WTwV.pdf>
 to the FY16 Operating Plan and Budget. At ICANN55, a small group of 
Councillors had volunteered to work on possible Council comments to the draft 
FY17 budget. Here the Council will review and, if appropriate, agree to send in 
the proposed comments.



8.1 – Update and summary of comments (Keith Drazek / Edward Morris / Carlos 
Raul Gutierrez)

8.2 – Discussion

8.3 – Next steps





Item 9: DISCUSSION – Implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan (10 
minutes)



At ICANN55, community discussions were held concerning the upcoming 
implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan, including at a session 
on 7 
March<https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-implementation/transcript-iana-stewardship-implementation-07mar16-en>.
 Several GNSO community members voiced concerns about whether the proposed 
implementation plan would meet the requirements of the Cross Community Working 
Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Proposal on Naming-Related Functions 
(CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg>). On 25 March a Call for 
Volunteers<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en> was issued 
for additional CCWG participation, including for implementation of the adopted 
Work Stream 1 recommendations.



Here the Council will discuss the community concerns that have been raised, and 
review possible next steps in relation to the CWG-Stewardship and ICANN staff 
that have been charged with developing the implementation plan.



9.1 – Summary & update (James Bladel)

9.2 – Discussion

9.3 – Next steps





Item 10: DISCUSSION – Planning for “Meeting B” (ICANN Policy Forum) (10 Minutes)

At ICANN55, the GNSO held several discussions, including with the ICANN Board, 
concerning the focus, duration and meeting schedule for the first designated 
ICANN Policy Forum, to take place in Helsinki as ICANN56 (i.e. the initial 
so-called “Meeting B”). Specific concerns were raised about the apparent lack 
of time for actual policy work in the overall Meeting B schedule when all the 
current draft SO/AC/Board proposals were put together, and about the lack of 
opportunity for different SO/AC/Board groups to interact with one another. A 
small group of SO/AC volunteers has been formed to address these concerns.



Here the Council will hear from its representatives to this group, and discuss 
further plans for finalizing the GNSO’s schedule for ICANN56 so as to maximize 
the policy focus for Meeting B. This includes confirmation of the PDP Working 
Group(s) to be invited to consider conducting a face-to-face working meeting in 
Helsinki, on a day either precedent or subsequent to the ICANN56 schedule.



10.1 – Update (Donna Austin / Volker Greimann)

10.2 – Discussion

10.3 – Next steps





Item 11: DISCUSSION – Status of Cross Community Working Group on Internet 
Governance (10 minutes)



The 
Charter<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888213/Charter%20ccWG%20IG%202014%20v05.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1423208903000&api=v2>
 for this Cross Community Working Group was 
ratified<https://community.icann.org/x/oQInAw> by the ccNSO Council (September 
2014), the GNSO Council (October 2014), and the ALAC (April 2015). The CCWG 
Charter states its scope as doing “whatever it deems relevant and necessary to 
facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in 
the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making 
processes”, with regular updates to be provided to its Chartering Organizations 
and a periodic Progress Paper where appropriate. The Charter also provides that 
the Chartering Organizations should review the Charter and CCWG deliverables in 
order to determine whether the group should continue or be dissolved, with the 
proviso that the CCWG will continue if at least two of its Chartering 
Organizations extend the Charter and notify the other Chartering Organizations 
accordingly.



During the CCWG co-chairs’ update to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils at ICANN55, 
there was some discussion over whether a CCWG format or other arrangement might 
be the most appropriate form for SO/AC interaction on Internet governance 
matters, especially given the expected forthcoming 
finalization<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-02-22-en>
 of a Uniform Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs by the CCWG-Principles. 
Here the GNSO Council will continue that discussion, with a view toward 
agreeing on the appropriate next steps for the CCWG on Internet Governance.



11.1 – Introduction and summary (Carlos Raul Gutierrez)

11.2 – Discussion

11.3 – Next steps



Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes)



12.1 – Proposed approach to Expert Working Group on Internationalized 
Registration Data (IRD) Final Report



_________________________________



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 March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere

----------------------------------------------------------------------------



California, USA 
(PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) 
UTC-7+0DST 14:00
San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST  16:00
Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-5+0DST 
16:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 17:00
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-3+0DST 18:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 22:00
Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 23:00
Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00
Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 next day
Perth, Australia 
(WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) 
UTC+8+0DST 07:00 next day
Singapore (SGT) UTC +8  05:00 next day
Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 07:00 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/gn4sy7u

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/>