[council] RE: Updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 at 11:00 UTC.

Jonathan Robinson jrobinson at afilias.info
Wed Jun 12 19:01:22 UTC 2013



The agenda has been reviewed and posted with some adjusted timings.


We can work hard to close out the routine business efficiently in order to
permit sufficient time on the substantive issues.





From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us] 
Sent: 11 June 2013 19:45
To: 'Glen de Saint Géry'; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: [council] RE: Updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 13
June 2013 at 11:00 UTC.




I think the discussion time for the Reconsideration request is way too
limited and we need (in my view) to have MUCH more time discussing that
subject.  Can I request that we shorten the remarks of the chair to 5
minutes (Sorry Jonathan), and then move item 4 to the consent agenda would
give us another 15 minutes.  What is the action item on the call for GNSO
Review?  We have allocated 15 minutes to confirm whether we should set up a
group to discuss this issue?

Finally, I am not sure that we should spend actual Council time talking
about the “Planning for Durban.”  I personally think we should establish a
meetings subcommittee to help the vice chairs in planning for meetings and
then perhaps solicit other opinions on e-mail.  If we have to use Council
time for these things, then perhaps we need to have additional special
meetings that are topic specific.

I believe we are at a cross-roads here for the GNSO and the whole bottom-up
process.  We need to devote the appropriate amount of time to discussing the
ramifications and take ownership of the role that the Council and the
Community are supposed to play.


I ask therefore that we commit 45 minutes at a minimum to this topic.  



From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:17 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June
2013 at 11:00 UTC.


Dear All,


Please find the updated Council agenda for GNSO Council Meeting – 13 June
2013 at 11:00 UTC.

The wording of the motion in Item 4 has been adjusted.
In Item 5, the second paragraph now reads:

Contrary to its initial recommendation, Staff now recommends that a PDP be
initiated as it is expected that the work of this PDP will helpfully inform
the deliberations of other efforts that are looking into gTLD registration
data services such as the Expert Working Group (EWG) and the subsequent PDP.


Thank you.

Kind regards,




the motions are published on page:

This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
Procedures approved 16 May 2013 for the GNSO Council and updated.


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

 <http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> Meeting Times 11:00 UTC

Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC
04:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Paris; 23:00

Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors
should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.

Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)

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:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 16 May 2013
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-16may13-en.htm>  posted
as approved on 30 May 2013

Item 2: Opening remarks from the Chair (10 minutes)

Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics

Include brief review of  <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf>
Projects List and
Action List

Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes)


Item 4: MOTION – to Adopt Proposed Modification of the GNSO Operating
Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions
(10 minutes)

The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline
for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating
Procedures lacks clarity.  The GNSO Council proposes a modification of the
GNSO Operating Procedures that reports and motions should be submitted to
the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no
later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar
days before the GNSO Council meeting.

Link to motion

4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
4.2 Discussion of motion.
4.3 Vote (Threshold: Simple majority of Both 4 CPH, 7 NCPH).

Item 5: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the
Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10 minutes)

A Final Issue Report on the translation and transliteration of contact
information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/library> http://gnso.icann.org/en/library).

Contrary to its initial recommendation, Staff now recommends that a PDP be
initiated as it is expected that the work of this PDP will helpfully inform
the deliberations of other efforts that are looking into gTLD registration
data services such as the Expert Working Group (EWG) and the subsequent PDP.

Also, as recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team, the Final Issue Report
recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the commercial
feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized
contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its

ICANN's General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly within the
scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.

An overview of the Final Issue Report was provided in Beijing. Voting on
this motion was deferred at the GNSO Council Meeting of 16 May 2013. The
Council is now expected to consider whether or not to initiate a PDP.  


5.1 Reading of the motion (Ching Chiao)
5.2 Discussion
5.3 Vote (Threshold: 33% of Both 3 CPH, 5 NCPH; OR 66% of ONE 5 CPH, 9 NCPH)

Item 6: DISCUSSION – Reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial
Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse (15

On the 19th April 2013, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group submitted a
Reconsideration Request to the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC). On
the 16 May 2013, the BGC Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request was
published.  Concerns have been raised within the Council about:

1.	The nature of the response to this particular request.  Specifically
in terms of the arguments presented within the response and the perceived or
actual implications of these arguments on the workings of the
multi-stakeholder model. 
2.	More generally about the effectiveness of the reconsideration

The Council will consider the content of the recent Recommendation on the
Reconsideration Request and the discussion will focus not on the outcome of
the Reconsideration Request but rather on the arguments presented and any
potential implications for the GNSO and the multi-stakeholder model.

Item 7: DISCUSSION – Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council (15

As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model,
both the GNSO Council and the GNSO will come up for ICANN Board initiated
review.  In order to be effectively prepared for these reviews, it was
proposed in Beijing that a group be formed to understand the issues and
begin to take appropriate next steps.  One key suggestion from Beijing was
that any group (such as the Council) being reviewed undertakes a form of

Here the Council will confirm the intended course of action and provide
input into a draft call for volunteers for a non-PDP WG.

Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Report on User Experience Implications of
Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board (10 mins)

During its meeting in Beijing, the ICANN Board requested that, by 1 July
2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide
staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into
implementation of the Recommendations from the
> Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs' (see
2.a). The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs
examines potential challenges from a user experience perspective when
variants of IDN TLDs are activated and offers recommendations to users to
minimize risks and optimize the implementation. 


Ideally, input is requested on:

a)      Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation
of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not
proceed until these recommendations are implemented),

b)      Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time,

c)       c) Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by
the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group
for further policy work


Furthermore, it was suggested that the GNSO Council should send a letter to
the Board highlighting the importance of IDN related issues. A first draft
of such letter was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list on 11/4 (see


At the 16 may 2013 Council Meeting, the Council received a presentation on
the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs


8.1 Discussion

8.2 Next steps – Any additional action to be taken?

8.3 Update on letter to the Board (Ching Chiao)

Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Planning for Durban (20 minutes) 

Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN
Meeting in Durban will take planning.  GNSO Council VC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is
working with staff to lead this effort. 

The Council has had the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input
based on past experience, including most recently in Beijing.  Included in
this item will be the opportunity to shape the topics and substance of the
Council’s proposed meetings with other groups in Durban such as the CCNSO,
the GAC and the ICANN board.

9.1 – Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
9.2 – Discussion
9.3 – Next steps

Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes)

Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section

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

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

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

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
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 11:00 UTC
California, USA (
PST) UTC-7+1DST 04:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 07:00
Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 08:00
Montevideo, Uruguay (
UYST) UTC-3+1DST 08:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST12:00
Abuja, Nigeria (
WAT) UTC+1DST12:00
Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST13:00
Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+1DST13:00
Ramat Hasharon, Israel(
html> IST) UTC+2+1DST 14:00
Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+1DST 14:00
Karachi, Pakistan (
PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00
Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 
Perth, Australia (
<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html> WST)
UTC+8+0DST 19:00 
Wellington, New Zealand (
l> NZDT ) UTC+12+0DST 23:00 
The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time
(with exceptions)
For other times see:


Glen de Saint Géry 

GNSO Secretariat 

gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130612/4502c7d5/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list