[council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC
WUKnoben
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Thu Apr 14 20:56:44 UTC 2016
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 at t-online.de>
> 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 at t-online.de>
>> 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 at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Paul McGrady (Policy)"
>> <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 14:45
>> To: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen at icann.org>, GNSO Council List
>> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> 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 at paulmcgrady.com
>> +1-312-882-5020
>> GNSO Councilor for the IPC
>>
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
>> On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 08:53 AM
>> To: GNSO Council List (council at gnso.icann.org)
>> 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 at gnso.icann.org
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>
>
More information about the council
mailing list