<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC
Yes Amr, changing the colour coding is correct.
We should discuss the handling at the meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Amr Elsadr
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 10:00 PM
To: WUKnoben
Cc: James M. Bladel ; 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 Wulf-Ulrich,
I will not object to this amendment being a friendly one, but like I said
earlier, I would have preferred a different approach — perhaps an annex to
the working party spreadsheet with details on the input received during the
webinar. I’m not very comfortable with changing the working party assessment
as a result of comments received on Tuesday.
I note also that this amendment doesn’t include some of the other feedback
the working party received such as on recommendation 35, and the privacy
concerns raised by Paul in association with recommendations that involve
collection of data from community members.
One final question…, in changing the working party assessment on
recommendation 21, and listing it as “low priority”, I’m assuming the color
coding for this recommendation will be changed from red to yellow, correct?
Thanks.
Amr
On Apr 14, 2016, at 8:42 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
All,
following the discussion on 12 April there is one request to alter
recommendation 21 with regards to its suggested level of acceptance.
I therefore like to introduce the following amendment to the motion:
<<
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and
Prioritization analysis (see:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf)
with the modification of Recommendation 21, that
the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of
information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help
the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority)
I'd like to ask Amr as the seconder of the motion whether he accepts this
amendment as friendly.
I apologize for the late submission and am looking forward to a fruitful
discussion.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:49 PM
To: WUKnoben
Cc: James M. Bladel ; 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,
Thanks for raising this question. I pretty much see things the same as
James and Wolf-Ulrich. Additionally, it may be helpful to consider this
motion within the broader process of the GNSO review, and the ongoing
dialogue between the GNSO (wether via the Council or the Working Party)
and the Board’s OEC.
Remember, this isn’t a GNSO PDP. The GNSO review was initiated by the
Board, and the Board will ultimately decide how to proceed with the
recommendations made by the independent examiner. The Working Party input
(as far as I can tell) is meant to assist in informing the OEC’s
deliberations and ultimate decisions along with other inputs and
considerations. So none of the input the GNSO provides will be binding in
any way really, even as far as what level of consensus is required among
the board to reject it.
Having said that, I agree that the feedback provided during Tuesday’s
webinar is important, and needs to find a way of being included. Instead
of making changes to the assessment conducted by the Working Party, I
suggest creating some sort of annex attached to it with the input of the
GNSO community members who provided comments during the webinar. This may
require an amendment to the motion, but considering the little time
available between the webinar and today’s Council call and motion/vote, it
may be the least messy way of managing this. I find this to be a more
desirable method of including the input to making changes to the Working
Party’s output, which took considerable time and effort to wrap up.
Thoughts?
Thanks.
Amr
On Apr 13, 2016, at 3:21 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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
Par!
ty 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|