Proposed GNSO Council Public Meeting Agenda on 15 October 2014 at 20:00 UTC. 13:00 PDT
This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated.
- 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.
Meeting Times 20:00 UTC:
Coordinated Universal Time 20:00 UTC
13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 22:00 Brussels; 04:00 Perth
Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who cannot be physically present at the meeting. Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
Item 1: Administrative matters (5 mins)
1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)
Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics
Comments or questions arising.
Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins)
Item 4: MOTION - On the adoption of the IRTP Part D Final Report and Recommendations (15 mins)
The final report of the policy work on the inter-registrar transfer process has been published. The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) provides the policy framework for domain name transfers between registrars. The IRTP also provides standardized requirements for inter-registrar transfer disputes - through the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP). The policy is an existing community consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and has been revised numerous times since then.
The IRTP Part D Policy Development Process (PDP) is the forth and final PDP of this series of revisions. The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council resolved at its meeting on 17 October 2012 to launch an Issue Report on IRTP Part D, “which should include all the remaining issues identified by the original transfers Working Groups as well as the additional issue identified by the IRTP Part C WG.”
Here the Council will vote on whether or not to adopt the IRTP Part D Final Report and Recommendations.
4.1 – Review the motion: Motion 1
4.2 – Discussion
4.3 – Vote
Item 5: MOTION – To adopt the Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and to make recommendations to the chartering organisation on these issues (15 mins)
The Internet Governance Cross Community Working Group CWG has been established by the participating SO’s and AC’s to coordinate, facilitate, and increase the participation of the ICANN community in discussions and processes pertaining to Internet Governance.
All issues, processes and discussions regarding the Transition of NTIA’s Stewardship of the IANA Functions, and/or current and future accountability and accountability mechanisms related to the aforementioned Transition, are deemed to be out of scope of the objective of the WG.
The CWG has a charter which has previously been adopted by ICANN’s ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC. In this item the GNSO Council will vote on whether or not to adopt the charter of the CWG.
5.1 – Review the motion: Motion 2
5.2 – Discussion
5.3 – Vote
Item 6: UPDATE – A GNSO liaison to the GAC (10 mins)
The council voted to appoint Mason Cole as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC with immediate effect such that he can be well informed and up to speed in order to participate effectively as soon as possible and, in particular, at ICANN 51.
Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear from Mason Cole with any initial input and feedback derived from the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles.
6.1 – Update (Mason Cole)
6.2 – Discussion
Item 7: UPDATE – A letter to the ICANN NGPC regarding the proposed modification of GNSO consensus recommendations relating to IGO acronyms and Red Cross identifiers (10 mins)
On 10 November 2013 the PDP Working Group (IGO-INGO PDP WG) delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council that included twenty-five consensus recommendations. On 20 November 2013 the GNSO Council unanimously adopted all twenty-five consensus recommendations of the IGO-INGO PDP WG and forwarded them to the ICANN Board in January 2014 with a recommendation for their adoption.
On 30 April 2014 the Board resolved to adopt those of the GNSO's recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice, and to facilitate dialogue between the affected parties in order to reconcile the remaining differences, as further detailed in Annex A and Annex B of the Board's resolution. The GNSO's recommendations and GAC advice are largely consistent except in relation to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and the full names and acronyms of 189 Red Cross national societies and the international Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, for which the GNSO had recommended a 90-day period of protection by way of a claim notification service utilising the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH).
On 16 June 2014 the NGPC sent a letter to the GNSO Council requesting that the GNSO consider modifying its recommendations relating to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and national society names of the Red Cross. This modification to be in accordance with and as envisaged by Section 16 of the GNSO's PDP Manual.
On 24 July 2014, the Chair of the NGPC followed up with a note to the Chair of the GNSO Council and offered to provide a written or oral briefing to provide greater clarity on the GAC’s advice and expectations with respect to protections of IGO-INGO Identifiers. As a result of the briefing it was agreed to send a follow-up letter to the NGPC which has now been done (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-chalaby-disspain-07oct14-en.pdf) .
Here the Council will have the opportunity to receive an update and discuss any next steps.
7.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong)
7.2 – Next steps
Item 8: – UPDATE - Name Collision
On the 30 July 2014, the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board directed staff to "provide information to, and work with the GNSO to consider whether policy work on developing a long-term plan to manage gTLD name collision issues should be undertaken." ICANN Staff submitted this paper to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2014 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-gnso-policy-07oct14-en.pdf).
This is an opportunity for the Council to discuss which steps, if any, it would like to take in relation to this topic.
8.2 Next steps
Item 9: UPDATE – A cross community working group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (10 mins)
A drafting team (DT) was formed with participants from the ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions.
Following adoption of the charter at the previous meeting, this is an opportunity for the Council to receive a brief update on the next steps.
9.1 – Update (Jonathan Robinson)
9.2 – Next steps
Item 10: Thanks to outgoing councillors and ALAC Liaison (5 mins)
- Jennifer Wolfe (NCA)
- Ching Chiao (RySG)
- John Berard (CSG / BC)
- Magaly Pazello (NCSG)
- Klaus Stoll (NCSG)
- Alan Greenberg (ALAC Liaison)
- Maria Farrell (NCSG)
- Petter Rindforth (IPC)
Item 11: Any Other Business (5 mins)
11.1 GNSO Review update (Jennifer Wolfe)
Item 12: Open microphone
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)
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.)
Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00
California, USA (PDT) UTC-7+1DST 13:00
Iowa City, USA (CDT) UTC-5+1DST 15:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 16:00
Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 17:00
Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-2+1DST 18:00
Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 17:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 21:00
Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00
Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00
Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 22:00
Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 23:00
Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IDT) UTC+3+0DST 23:00
Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 (next day)
Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 (next day)
DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2014, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com