Re: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC

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

I agree with James. The step the council is asked to take is to adopt the way 
of handling the recommendations (reject, accept with modifications, accept, 
plus prioritize).
On the Working Party there was broad representation from all SGs/Cs (see 
https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Working+Party+Members) to ensure their 
opinion is covered by the WP output.
I’m sure that during the elaboration of an implementation plan as well as 
throughout the implementation phase itself clarifications are to be done in 
several areas (as usual in such projects). And  opportunities shall be provided 
to the GNSO stakeholders and the council to step into the discussion at various 
points, including public comments etc.

As James points out we should focus on the feasibility or priority assigned by 
the Working Party and flag related concerns.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: James M. Bladel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:35 PM
To: Paul McGrady (Policy) ; 'Glen de Saint Géry' ; 'GNSO Council List' 
Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 
at 21:00 UTC

Hi Paul -

In fact, I had the exact same question during the call:  Are we (Council) 
planning a vote on each recommendations individually, or is this report an 
all-or-nothing package?

The correct answer, is that the Council is not voting on the recommendations 
themselves, but on the adoption GNSO Review Working Party’s analysis of the 
feasibility and priority of the recommendations made by West Lake.  I believe 
this distinction is captured in the language of Wolf-Ulrich’s motion, but if it 
needs to be clarified we should prepare some friendly amendments.  

The Working Party has said that they are open to concerns or edits from Council 
and others in the GNSO to address concerns raised during today’s call, 
including your observations about privacy and other open issues (e.g. 
Definitions, etc.).  There will also be a separate phase to develop an 
implementation plan, following the Board has considered the Feasibility & 
Priority assessment.  The GNSO (Council/SGs/Cs) will be involved in that, and 
the Council will approve that plane.  We need to make sure any implementation 
issues are in that phase.

But if you or any other Councilors have concerns about the feasibility or 
priority assigned by the Working Party, please get those flagged to the list as 
soon as possible.

Hope this helps.

Thanks—


J.






From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "Paul McGrady (Policy)" 
<policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 14:45 
To: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 
at 21:00 UTC


Thanks Glen.

 

James, as you heard on the call today, the GNSO Review recommendations raised a 
lot of unanswered questions.  Not to raise memories of Marrakech, but will the 
Council’s vote on Thursday be an up or down on all the recommendations or will 
each recommendation have its own vote?  Or, is it also possible that Council 
could send these back to the Working Party and ask them to refine them a bit 
more to address certain questions, like the privacy issues raised?  Thanks in 
advance for your thoughts.

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

Paul McGrady

policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

+1-312-882-5020

GNSO Councilor for the IPC

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 08:53 AM
To: GNSO Council List (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, 
approved and updated on 24 June 2015.

For convenience:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws 
defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this 
agenda.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->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 and Action List

 

 

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 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 
those of the GNSO’s PDP recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC 
advice 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), the Board requested more time to consider the GNSO’s 
recommendations as these are inconsistent with GAC advice received on the 
topic. In the interim period, the Board adopted 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 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 Feasibility 
Analysis, and vote on its adoption as well as agree on next steps in the 
process.

 

5.1 – Presentation of the motion  (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, 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 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 

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 (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 
for public comment (closing on 30 April). The GNSO Council had previously 
provided public comments 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. 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). On 25 March a Call for Volunteers 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 for this Cross Community Working Group was ratified 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 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): 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 21:00

Local time between March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere

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

 

California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+0DST 14:00
San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST  16:00
Iowa City, USA (CDT) UTC-5+0DST 16:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 17:00
Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) 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) 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://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
http://gnso.icann.org