Good morning,
If it is still timely, count with my vote.
J. Restrepo
Int. Secure Electronic Transactions Org
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of NCSG-DISCUSS automatic digest system
Sent: mardi 23 octobre 2018 14:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: NCSG-DISCUSS Digest - 22 Oct 2018 to 23 Oct 2018 - Special issue (#2018-325)
There are 15 messages totaling 11121 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Fwd: URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of
Procedure (4)
2. NCSG board meeting starting now (2)
3. URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure
(4)
4. [ICANN meeting] Final Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meetings part I and
part II -24 October 2018 at 11:00 UTC (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:25:55 +0200
From: Michael Karanicolas <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure
I support signing.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:39 AM Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I also support signing.
>
>
> Best,
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:57 PM Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> I caught a couple of typos, but it seems like a good idea. Redlined version attached.
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> On 2018-10-22 20:46, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>
>> We received this from Malcolm. An issue that we were concerned and said in our public comment. Perhaps we can add our name quickly?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As you may know, the IRP Implementation Oversight Team last week adopted
>> "Interim Rules of Procedure" that include a deadline for filing of no
>> later than 12 months after ICANN's action (rather than after anyone is
>> affected by the action complained about).
>>
>> I have just been told that these rules have been sent to the Board for
>> approval on Thursday.
>>
>> You will recall that this will deprive many potential claimants of the
>> right to bring IRP cases, simply because ICANN's action is not
>> implemented for 12 months and so nobody ever acquired the right to
>> challenge it before the deadline expired.
>>
>> Each of your constituencies (SG, for NCSG) wrote to oppose the adoption
>> of this "right of repose" for ICANN in the first public consultation,
>> and each of you (except IPC) wrote to welcome the team's decision to
>> reverse itself in the public consultation August just passed.
>>
>> I therefore assume you are as concerned as I am that the IOT has now put
>> up these "Interim Rules" for approval, at ICANN Legal's request: the
>> opposite of what was promised in the recent consultation!
>>
>> While the IOT currently plans to "continue these discussions" once the
>> interim rules are adopted, there must be a real risk that these "interim
>> rules" become permanent, if only because ICANN and the Chair refuse to
>> join a consensus to change them.
>>
>> Most Board members have no clue this is controversial (or even that it's
>> scheduled), and unless we intervene strongly it is likely to be nodded
>> through on the consent agenda on Thursday. However, I have spoken to
>> Matthew and Avri, so they are ready (and I believe supportive) should
>> Cherine ask them if this should be deferred.
>>
>> I have drafted a letter to Cherine warning him that these rules are
>> incompatible with the Bylaws (see attached).
>>
>> Will you CO-SIGN this letter on behalf of your constituency?
>>
>>
>> P.S. This needs to go out urgently if it is to persuade the Board to
>> drop this from the consent agenda. As tomorrow (Tues) is constituency
>> day, I need your answer by the 5pm tomorrow.
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:43:10 +0200
From: farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: NCSG board meeting starting now
Please join us for the NCSG meeting with board.
--
Farzaneh
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:53:15 +0200
From: Michael Karanicolas <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: NCSG board meeting starting now
Thanks for the reminder! Link: https://participate.icann.org/bcn63-111
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:43 AM farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Please join us for the NCSG meeting with board.
> --
> Farzaneh
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:21:46 +0200
From: David Cake <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure
Speaking as EFA rep, I support signing.
David
> On 22 Oct 2018, at 8:46 pm, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> We received this from Malcolm. An issue that we were concerned and said in our public comment. Perhaps we can add our name quickly?
>
>
>
>
>
> As you may know, the IRP Implementation Oversight Team last week adopted
> "Interim Rules of Procedure" that include a deadline for filing of no
> later than 12 months after ICANN's action (rather than after anyone is
> affected by the action complained about).
>
> I have just been told that these rules have been sent to the Board for
> approval on Thursday.
>
> You will recall that this will deprive many potential claimants of the
> right to bring IRP cases, simply because ICANN's action is not
> implemented for 12 months and so nobody ever acquired the right to
> challenge it before the deadline expired.
>
> Each of your constituencies (SG, for NCSG) wrote to oppose the adoption
> of this "right of repose" for ICANN in the first public consultation,
> and each of you (except IPC) wrote to welcome the team's decision to
> reverse itself in the public consultation August just passed.
>
> I therefore assume you are as concerned as I am that the IOT has now put
> up these "Interim Rules" for approval, at ICANN Legal's request: the
> opposite of what was promised in the recent consultation!
>
> While the IOT currently plans to "continue these discussions" once the
> interim rules are adopted, there must be a real risk that these "interim
> rules" become permanent, if only because ICANN and the Chair refuse to
> join a consensus to change them.
>
> Most Board members have no clue this is controversial (or even that it's
> scheduled), and unless we intervene strongly it is likely to be nodded
> through on the consent agenda on Thursday. However, I have spoken to
> Matthew and Avri, so they are ready (and I believe supportive) should
> Cherine ask them if this should be deferred.
>
> I have drafted a letter to Cherine warning him that these rules are
> incompatible with the Bylaws (see attached).
>
> Will you CO-SIGN this letter on behalf of your constituency?
>
>
> P.S. This needs to go out urgently if it is to persuade the Board to
> drop this from the consent agenda. As tomorrow (Tues) is constituency
> day, I need your answer by the 5pm tomorrow.
>
> --
>
> --
> Farzaneh
> <Letter to ICANN Board on IRP Interim Rules of Procedure 2018-10-22 draft 1.docx>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:34:54 +0200
From: Razoana Moslam <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure
As a NCUC member, I support signing...
Best regards
Razoana Moslam
On Tue, 23 Oct, 2018 at 10:22 AM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Speaking as EFA rep, I support signing.
>
> David
>
> On 22 Oct 2018, at 8:46 pm, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> We received this from Malcolm. An issue that we were concerned and said in
> our public comment. Perhaps we can add our name quickly?
>
>
>
>
>
> As you may know, the IRP Implementation Oversight Team last week adopted
> "Interim Rules of Procedure" that include a deadline for filing of no
> later than 12 months after ICANN's action (rather than after anyone is
> affected by the action complained about).
>
> I have just been told that these rules have been sent to the Board for
> approval on Thursday.
>
> You will recall that this will deprive many potential claimants of the
> right to bring IRP cases, simply because ICANN's action is not
> implemented for 12 months and so nobody ever acquired the right to
> challenge it before the deadline expired.
>
> Each of your constituencies (SG, for NCSG) wrote to oppose the adoption
> of this "right of repose" for ICANN in the first public consultation,
> and each of you (except IPC) wrote to welcome the team's decision to
> reverse itself in the public consultation August just passed.
>
> I therefore assume you are as concerned as I am that the IOT has now put
> up these "Interim Rules" for approval, at ICANN Legal's request: the
> opposite of what was promised in the recent consultation!
>
> While the IOT currently plans to "continue these discussions" once the
> interim rules are adopted, there must be a real risk that these "interim
> rules" become permanent, if only because ICANN and the Chair refuse to
> join a consensus to change them.
>
> Most Board members have no clue this is controversial (or even that it's
> scheduled), and unless we intervene strongly it is likely to be nodded
> through on the consent agenda on Thursday. However, I have spoken to
> Matthew and Avri, so they are ready (and I believe supportive) should
> Cherine ask them if this should be deferred.
>
> I have drafted a letter to Cherine warning him that these rules are
> incompatible with the Bylaws (see attached).
>
> Will you CO-SIGN this letter on behalf of your constituency?
>
>
> P.S. This needs to go out urgently if it is to persuade the Board to
> drop this from the consent agenda. As tomorrow (Tues) is constituency
> day, I need your answer by the 5pm tomorrow.
>
> --
>
> --
> Farzaneh
> <Letter to ICANN Board on IRP Interim Rules of Procedure 2018-10-22 draft
> 1.docx>
>
>
> --
Best Regards,
Razoana Moslam
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:39:11 +0000
From: Poncelet Ileleji <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure
Good morning, I concur with the signing
Kind Regards
Poncelet
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 08:38, Razoana Moslam <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> As a NCUC member, I support signing...
>
> Best regards
> Razoana Moslam
>
> On Tue, 23 Oct, 2018 at 10:22 AM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Speaking as EFA rep, I support signing.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 22 Oct 2018, at 8:46 pm, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> We received this from Malcolm. An issue that we were concerned and said
>> in our public comment. Perhaps we can add our name quickly?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As you may know, the IRP Implementation Oversight Team last week adopted
>> "Interim Rules of Procedure" that include a deadline for filing of no
>> later than 12 months after ICANN's action (rather than after anyone is
>> affected by the action complained about).
>>
>> I have just been told that these rules have been sent to the Board for
>> approval on Thursday.
>>
>> You will recall that this will deprive many potential claimants of the
>> right to bring IRP cases, simply because ICANN's action is not
>> implemented for 12 months and so nobody ever acquired the right to
>> challenge it before the deadline expired.
>>
>> Each of your constituencies (SG, for NCSG) wrote to oppose the adoption
>> of this "right of repose" for ICANN in the first public consultation,
>> and each of you (except IPC) wrote to welcome the team's decision to
>> reverse itself in the public consultation August just passed.
>>
>> I therefore assume you are as concerned as I am that the IOT has now put
>> up these "Interim Rules" for approval, at ICANN Legal's request: the
>> opposite of what was promised in the recent consultation!
>>
>> While the IOT currently plans to "continue these discussions" once the
>> interim rules are adopted, there must be a real risk that these "interim
>> rules" become permanent, if only because ICANN and the Chair refuse to
>> join a consensus to change them.
>>
>> Most Board members have no clue this is controversial (or even that it's
>> scheduled), and unless we intervene strongly it is likely to be nodded
>> through on the consent agenda on Thursday. However, I have spoken to
>> Matthew and Avri, so they are ready (and I believe supportive) should
>> Cherine ask them if this should be deferred.
>>
>> I have drafted a letter to Cherine warning him that these rules are
>> incompatible with the Bylaws (see attached).
>>
>> Will you CO-SIGN this letter on behalf of your constituency?
>>
>>
>> P.S. This needs to go out urgently if it is to persuade the Board to
>> drop this from the consent agenda. As tomorrow (Tues) is constituency
>> day, I need your answer by the 5pm tomorrow.
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>> <Letter to ICANN Board on IRP Interim Rules of Procedure 2018-10-22 draft
>> 1.docx>
>>
>>
>> --
> Best Regards,
> Razoana Moslam
>
--
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/
<http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:50:48 +0200
From: Ade Bo <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure
I also support signing
> On 22 Oct 2018, at 22:01, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I support us signing.
>
>> On 22 Oct 2018, at 20:46, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> We received this from Malcolm. An issue that we were concerned and said in our public comment. Perhaps we can add our name quickly?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As you may know, the IRP Implementation Oversight Team last week adopted
>> "Interim Rules of Procedure" that include a deadline for filing of no
>> later than 12 months after ICANN's action (rather than after anyone is
>> affected by the action complained about).
>>
>> I have just been told that these rules have been sent to the Board for
>> approval on Thursday.
>>
>> You will recall that this will deprive many potential claimants of the
>> right to bring IRP cases, simply because ICANN's action is not
>> implemented for 12 months and so nobody ever acquired the right to
>> challenge it before the deadline expired.
>>
>> Each of your constituencies (SG, for NCSG) wrote to oppose the adoption
>> of this "right of repose" for ICANN in the first public consultation,
>> and each of you (except IPC) wrote to welcome the team's decision to
>> reverse itself in the public consultation August just passed.
>>
>> I therefore assume you are as concerned as I am that the IOT has now put
>> up these "Interim Rules" for approval, at ICANN Legal's request: the
>> opposite of what was promised in the recent consultation!
>>
>> While the IOT currently plans to "continue these discussions" once the
>> interim rules are adopted, there must be a real risk that these "interim
>> rules" become permanent, if only because ICANN and the Chair refuse to
>> join a consensus to change them.
>>
>> Most Board members have no clue this is controversial (or even that it's
>> scheduled), and unless we intervene strongly it is likely to be nodded
>> through on the consent agenda on Thursday. However, I have spoken to
>> Matthew and Avri, so they are ready (and I believe supportive) should
>> Cherine ask them if this should be deferred.
>>
>> I have drafted a letter to Cherine warning him that these rules are
>> incompatible with the Bylaws (see attached).
>>
>> Will you CO-SIGN this letter on behalf of your constituency?
>>
>>
>> P.S. This needs to go out urgently if it is to persuade the Board to
>> drop this from the consent agenda. As tomorrow (Tues) is constituency
>> day, I need your answer by the 5pm tomorrow.
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>> <Letter to ICANN Board on IRP Interim Rules of Procedure 2018-10-22 draft 1.docx>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:56:16 +0500
From: shahzad ahmad <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure
Kindly add the endorsement of Bytes For All, Pakistan as well.
Thanks and best wishes
Shahzad
--
Shahzad Ahmad
Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan
Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup
Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060
PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Ade Bo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> I also support signing
>> On 22 Oct 2018, at 22:01, James Gannon <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> I support us signing.
>>
>>> On 22 Oct 2018, at 20:46, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We received this from Malcolm. An issue that we were concerned and said in our public comment. Perhaps we can add our name quickly?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As you may know, the IRP Implementation Oversight Team last week adopted
>>> "Interim Rules of Procedure" that include a deadline for filing of no
>>> later than 12 months after ICANN's action (rather than after anyone is
>>> affected by the action complained about).
>>>
>>> I have just been told that these rules have been sent to the Board for
>>> approval on Thursday.
>>>
>>> You will recall that this will deprive many potential claimants of the
>>> right to bring IRP cases, simply because ICANN's action is not
>>> implemented for 12 months and so nobody ever acquired the right to
>>> challenge it before the deadline expired.
>>>
>>> Each of your constituencies (SG, for NCSG) wrote to oppose the adoption
>>> of this "right of repose" for ICANN in the first public consultation,
>>> and each of you (except IPC) wrote to welcome the team's decision to
>>> reverse itself in the public consultation August just passed.
>>>
>>> I therefore assume you are as concerned as I am that the IOT has now put
>>> up these "Interim Rules" for approval, at ICANN Legal's request: the
>>> opposite of what was promised in the recent consultation!
>>>
>>> While the IOT currently plans to "continue these discussions" once the
>>> interim rules are adopted, there must be a real risk that these "interim
>>> rules" become permanent, if only because ICANN and the Chair refuse to
>>> join a consensus to change them.
>>>
>>> Most Board members have no clue this is controversial (or even that it's
>>> scheduled), and unless we intervene strongly it is likely to be nodded
>>> through on the consent agenda on Thursday. However, I have spoken to
>>> Matthew and Avri, so they are ready (and I believe supportive) should
>>> Cherine ask them if this should be deferred.
>>>
>>> I have drafted a letter to Cherine warning him that these rules are
>>> incompatible with the Bylaws (see attached).
>>>
>>> Will you CO-SIGN this letter on behalf of your constituency?
>>>
>>>
>>> P.S. This needs to go out urgently if it is to persuade the Board to
>>> drop this from the consent agenda. As tomorrow (Tues) is constituency
>>> day, I need your answer by the 5pm tomorrow.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> --
>>> Farzaneh
>>> <Letter to ICANN Board on IRP Interim Rules of Procedure 2018-10-22 draft 1.docx>
>>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:27:02 +0000
From: Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ICANN meeting] Final Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meetings part I and part II -24 October 2018 at 11:00 UTC
Hi,
Regarding the motion on the Council agenda to adopt the PDP 3.0 report; during yesterday’s NCSG PC meeting, I had suggested that our Councilors offer a friendly amendment to this motion, requiring a review of the implementation of the report's recommendations after a year following adoption of the report. Stephanie Perrin had kindly agreed to submit this proposed amendment prior to the Council meeting this week, and I had promised that I would provide her with a draft resolved clause for the Council’s consideration.
After further reflection, I’d like to withdraw this suggestion, as one of the resolved clauses already requires Council leadership to provide quarterly updates on the implementation to the rest of the Council. I believe the amendment I had first suggested would be redundant, and unnecessary. Although the motion doesn’t require a review, Council members should be vigilant enough to flag concerns identified during the implementation of the PDP 3.0 report, and doing so on a quarterly basis is even better than an annual one.
Thought I would share this here, since I brought it up yesterday.
Thanks.
Amr
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> hi all,
>
> Please find below the agenda for the public GNSO council meetings (Part I and Part II) next week on Wednesday 24th October 11:00UTC.
> The part II will be the first meeting for the incoming council for the 2018-2019 term and include the election for GNSO Chair.
> Remote participation will be available (details here https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654 and here https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please below find the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meetings part I and part II on 24 October 2018 at 11:00 UTC.
>
> Final GNSO Council Agenda 24 October 2018 - Part I
>
> Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access:https://community.icann.org/x/HxlpBQhttps://community.icann.org/x/wRVpBQ
> This agenda was established according to the [GNSO Operating Procedures](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf) v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018
> 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 agenda.
>
> Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y9663p2o
> 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 10:00 London; 16:00 Islamabad; 20:00 Tokyo; 22:00 Hobart
>
> GNSO Council Meeting remote participation details: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654
>
> 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 mins)
> 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](https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-16aug18-en.pdf) of the GNSO Council meeting on the 26 August 2018 were posted on the 03 September 2018
> [Minutes](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/minutes-council-27sep18-en.pdf) of the GNSO Council meeting on the 25 September 2018 were posted on the 13 October 2018
>
> Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 minutes)
> 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of [Projects List](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project)and [Action Item List](https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg)
>
> Item 3. Consent Agenda (5 minutes)
>
> - Reconfirmation of Julf Helsingius as GNSO Council Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee ([motion](https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ))
> - [Recommendations Report](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/reconvened-red-cross-recommendations-14oct18-en.pdf) to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Reconvened Working Group on Red Cross Names Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group.
>
> Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Confirmation of Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations Charter (10 minutes)
>
> Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations Charter (SCBO) has operated under an interim charter since its adoption on 21 December 2017. In FY18 under this interim charter, the SCBO developed four public comments (IANA-PTI FY19 Budget, ICANN's Reserve Fund Target Level, ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Operating Plan, & ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy) on behalf of the GNSO Council that were later accepted and posted to ICANN's public forum
>
> On 17 September 2018, the SCBO delivered an After Action Report on the SCBO experiences and lessons learned where the report suggested that the SCBO charter did not warrant any change and that the SCBO become a permanent standing committee of the GNSO Council
>
> Here, the Council will vote to adopt the charter of the SCBO on a permanent basis.
>
> 4.1 – Presentation of [motion](https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ) (Ayden Férdeline)
>
> 4.2 – Council discussion
>
> 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>
> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit, in respect of the financial impact on the GNSO’s responsibility “for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”
>
> Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 (20 minutes)
>
> In January 2018, the GNSO Council held an inaugural three-day Strategic Planning Session. On Day 3 of this meeting, the GNSO Council reviewed the workload for the year ahead and identified potential milestones, noting that the current average timeline for delivery of an Initial Report has increased at least 2-4 times compared to previous PDPs. In addition to noting the increased duration of the PDP lifecycle, the Council began to identify challenges being encountered in PDPs, informed by a staff discussion paper on optimizing increased engagement and participation while ensuring efficient and effective policy development.
>
> The effort to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO PDP process is called GNSO PDP 3.0. On 11 May 2018, a summary paper was shared with the Council, summarizing input received to date, as well as some proposed incremental improvements. The Council members and their respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies were invited to provide input, after which a [summary report](https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-summary-feedback-10sep18-en.pdf) was prepared and shared with the Council on 10 September 2018, followed by a dedicated [webinar](https://participate.icann.org/p1s5rcio69b/) on 11 September 2018.
>
> Based on the input received as well as the subsequent webinar, Council leadership developed a proposed [GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 How to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO Policy Development Process](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-increase-effectiveness-efficiency-16oct18-en.pdf)documentfor Council consideration. The GNSO Council and broader community will have reviewed and discussed the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Plan during the GNSO Weekend Session at ICANN63.
>
> Here, the Council will vote to adopt the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Plan.
>
> 5.1 – Presentation of [motion](https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ) (TBD)
>
> 5.2 – Council discussion
>
> 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>
> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit, in the GNSO’s pursuit to improve on its responsibility “for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”
>
> Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Termination of the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (15 minutes)
>
> On 19 November 2015, the GNSO Council adopted the[charter](https://community.icann.org/x/E4xlAw) for the next-generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process Working group. Following ICANN61 (March 2018), the RDS PDP Leadership decided to put on hold WG meetings indefinitely. This decision was made in light of the uncertain status of GDPR-related work and the possible duplication of efforts as a result of the adoption by the ICANN Board of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data.
>
> Following the initiation by the GNSO Council of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration data, Stephanie Perrin in her role as the GNSO Council Liaison to the RDS PDP WG, submitted the required Termination Summary on 17 July 2018 to recommend to the GNSO Council that the RDS PDP WG be terminated as per section 15 of the PDP Manual.
>
> Here, the Council will vote to terminate the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process.
>
> 6.1 – Presentation of [motion](https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ) (Stephanie Perrin)
>
> 6.2 – Council discussion
>
> 6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: Supermajority)
>
> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as indicated in section 11.3.i.vii of the ICANN Bylaws, where the Council may “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.”
>
> Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (15 minutes)
>
> The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG had worked to resolve a final recommendation relating to IGO jurisdictional immunity and registrants’ rights to file court proceedings. The WG has determined consensus on a set of options for this final recommendation, as well as for all other recommendations. The WG Chair proposed his determination of consensus levels for all recommendations, which the WG affirmed. On 27 June 2018, the GNSO Council passed a [resolution](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201806), thanking the PDP WG for its efforts and requesting that it submit its Final Report in time for the 19 July 2018 Council meeting.
>
> After having agreed on consensus levels for its final recommendations, the WG considered the text of its Final Report. On 9 July 2018, the PDP WG submitted its [Final Report](https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-17jul18-en.pdf) to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus recommendations and three minority statements, documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the Final Report.
>
> There remain several inconsistencies between GAC advice and consensus recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP WG, which have yet to be reconciled, including on the topic of appropriate protections for IGO acronyms (both preventative and curative). During its 19 July Council meeting, the Council [resolved](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201807) to accept the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group and has begun considering the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers.
>
> On 9 October 2018, the Council held a question and answer webinar to review the recommendations and to ask itself a series of questions, 1) Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?; 2) Has the PDP followed due process?; and 3) Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?
>
> Here, the Council will vote on to accept to recommendation and Final Report of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG.
>
> 7.1 – Presentation of [motion](https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ) (TBD)
>
> 7.2 – Council discussion
>
> 7.2.1: Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?
>
> 7.2.2: Has the PDP followed due process?
>
> 7.2.3: Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?
>
> 7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: approval of PDP recommendations imposing contractual obligations on Contracted Parties: Supermajority; approval of other PDP recommendations: 50% of each House plus 1 Councilor from 3 out of 4 Stakeholder Groups in favor)
>
> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as indicated in section 11.1 of the ICANN Bylaws, where it states that the GNSO is “responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”
>
> Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE – Temporary Specification for Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process - Recurring Update (15 minutes)
>
> On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council [resolved](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20180719-2) to initiate the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data and adopt the EPDP Team [Charter](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf). Given the challenging timeline for the EPDP and the GNSO Council’s role in managing the PDP process, the Council has agreed that including a recurring update on the EPDP for each Council meeting is prudent.
>
> Here, the Council will receive an update from the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP.
>
> 8.1 – Update (Rafik Dammak, GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP and EPDP vice-chair)
>
> 8.2 – Council discussion
>
> 8.3 – Next steps
>
> Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)
>
> 9.1 - Open Microphone
>
> ________________________________
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 11.3(i))
> See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11.
> Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 4.4)
> See https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf
>
> References for Coordinated Universal Time of 11:00 UTC
> Local time between March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 04:00
> San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6 05:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 07:00
> Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 08:00
> Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3 08:00
> London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+1 12:00
> Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 12:00
> Paris, France (CEST) UTC+2 13:00
> Islamabad, Pakistan (PKT) UTC+5 16:00
> Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 19:00
> Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9 20:00
> Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEST) UTC+10 22:00
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DST starts/ends on Sunday 28 of October 2018, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 4 of November 2018 for the US.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see [http://www.timeanddate.com](http://www.timeanddate.com/) and [https://tinyurl.com/y82s88vu](https://tinyurl.com/y9663p2o)
>
> Final GNSO Council Agenda 24 October 2018 - Part II (Admin)
>
> Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/1iIhB
> This agenda was established according to the [GNSO Operating Procedures](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf) v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018
>
> 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 agenda.
>
> Coordinated Universal Time: 13:15 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/ycvf33wr
>
> GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast
>
> GNSO Council Meeting remote participation details: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655
>
> 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. Seating of the 2018 / 2019 Council (20 mins)
>
> 1.1 - Roll Call
>
> 1.2 - Statements of Interest
>
> Maxim Alzoba - [SOI](https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Maxim+Alzoba+SOI) Registries Stakeholder Group
>
> Elsa Saade - [SOI](https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Elsa+Saade+SOI) Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
>
> Flip Petillion: [SOI](https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Flip+Petillion+SOI) Intellectual Property Constituency
>
> Scott McCormick: [SOI](https://community.icann.org/x/fA28BQ) Commercial and Business Users Constituency
>
> 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
>
> Item 2. Election of the Chair (30 mins)
>
> Two nomination were received for this position, Rafik Dammak from the Non-Contracted Parties House and Keith Drazek from the Contract Parties House. The GNSO reviewed the [candidate statements](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections) and held a question & answer session with both candidates on 21 October 2018. Here the GNSO Council will proceed to hold the election for its Chair for 2019-2020, according to the GNSO Operating Procedures (note Section 2.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures on Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs (see Appendix 1 below)).
>
> Item 3: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Empowered Community Roles and Responsibilities – GNSO Operating Procedures Templates and Guideline Development
>
> Following the adoption by the GNSO Council of the revised GNSO Operating Procedures, as well as the proposed modifications to the ICANN Bylaws adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors on 13 May 2018, staff has outlined in a table the additional proposed steps to be taken to ensure preparedness as well as facilitate the ability for the GNSO Council to act in relation to the new roles and responsibilities outlined in the post-transition Bylaws. The GNSO Council is requested to review the proposed next steps and to provide feedback whether it is supportive of these proposed next steps or whether modifications should be considered. In regards to the proposed next steps in the table, staff has developed first drafts of templates and possible guidelines for the Council’s consideration, but the Council could also consider setting up a dedicated committee / drafting team to take on this task and/or collaborate with staff, noting that any proposed templates and/or guidelines would still need to come back to the GNSO Council for approval.
>
> Here, the Council will discuss next steps and an action plan.
>
> 3.1 – Update (TBD)
>
> 3.2 – Council discussion
>
> 3.3 – Next steps
>
> Item 43. Any Other Business (010 min)
>
> None
>
> Appendix 1: Excerpt from GNSO Operating Procedures (Section 2.2)
>
> 2.2 https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf
>
> Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs
>
> The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair and two Vice-Chairs as follows:
>
> - The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of each house.
> - Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of a house, but must be a current or incoming member of the GNSO Council. Should a Chair be elected from outside of the houses that Chair will be a non-voting Chair.
>
> a. All ballots will include the “none of the above” option. In the event that a 60 percent vote of each house selects the “none of the above” option, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be scheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote.
>
> b. In the case of a tie for the most votes between the two candidates, or between a candidate and “none of above,” a second election will be held no sooner than 30 days. The candidates shall remain the same for this second election. In the case this second election also results in a tie, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote.
>
> c. The leading candidate will be defined as the one with the highest score. The score is calculated by adding together the voting percentages attained from each house. The highest percentage attainable in each house is 100. Thus, the maximum score a candidate can achieve is 200 as a result of attaining 100 percent of the votes from the contracted party house and 100 percent from the non-contracted party house (100 percent + 100 percent = score of 200). In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold, a second ballot will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.”
>
> d. In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold and the candidates do not tie, a second runoff ballot will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.”
>
> e. If the single candidate does not reach the 60 percent of each house threshold in the runoff ballot, then each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful runoff ballot.
>
> - Each house shall select a Council Vice-Chair from within its respective house.
> - A Chair may not be a member of the same Stakeholder Group of either of the Vice-Chairs.
> - The Chair and Vice-Chairs shall retain their votes (if any) in their respective houses (if any).
> - In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair’s term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co- Chairs to jointly oversee the new Chair election and conduct Council business until a successful election can be held. In the event that one or both Vice-Chairs’ terms ends concurrently with the term of the previous Chair, the procedures described in Section 2.2.1 below shall apply.
> - The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following each election and runoff ballot, whether successful or unsuccessful.
>
> Appendix 2: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds ([ICANN Bylaws,](https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11) Article 11, Section 3)
>
> (i) Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A, Annex A-1 or Annex A-2 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:
>
> (i) Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
>
> (ii) 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.
>
> (iii) Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority (as defined in Section 11.3(i)(xix)).
>
> (iv) 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.
>
> (v) Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>
> (vi) Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under (iv) or (v) above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
>
> (vii) 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.
>
> (viii) 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.
>
> (ix) Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
>
> (x) 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.
>
> (xi) Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>
> (xii) Initiation of an Expedited Policy Development Process ("EPDP"): requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>
> (xiii) Approve an EPDP Team Charter: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>
> (xiv) Approval of EPDP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>
> (xv) Approve an EPDP 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.
>
> (xvi) Initiation of a GNSO Guidance Process ("GGP"): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>
> (xvii) Rejection of Initiation of a GGP Requested by the Board: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>
> (xviii) Approval of GGP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>
> (xix) A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (B) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council members of one House and a majority of the Council members of the other House.
>
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf
>
> Appendix 1 GNSO Council Voting Results table
>
> Absentee Voting Procedures https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf
>
> 4.4 Absentee Voting
>
> 4.1.1 Applicability
>
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures.
>
> - Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> - Approve a PDP recommendation;
> - Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws;
> - Fill a Council position open for election.
>
> 4.1.2 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.
>
> 4.1.3 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.
>
> 4.1.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 16:17:44 +0530
From: Buddha Halder <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure
Hi,
I also support signing.
Please add my name as well.
Dr. Buddhadeb Halder, PhD (ICT and Law).
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:26 PM shahzad ahmad <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Kindly add the endorsement of Bytes For All, Pakistan as well.
>
> Thanks and best wishes
>
> Shahzad
>
>
> --
> Shahzad Ahmad
> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan
> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup
> Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060
> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F
>
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Ade Bo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> I also support signing
>
> On 22 Oct 2018, at 22:01, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I support us signing.
>
> On 22 Oct 2018, at 20:46, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> We received this from Malcolm. An issue that we were concerned and said in
> our public comment. Perhaps we can add our name quickly?
>
>
>
>
>
> As you may know, the IRP Implementation Oversight Team last week adopted
> "Interim Rules of Procedure" that include a deadline for filing of no
> later than 12 months after ICANN's action (rather than after anyone is
> affected by the action complained about).
>
> I have just been told that these rules have been sent to the Board for
> approval on Thursday.
>
> You will recall that this will deprive many potential claimants of the
> right to bring IRP cases, simply because ICANN's action is not
> implemented for 12 months and so nobody ever acquired the right to
> challenge it before the deadline expired.
>
> Each of your constituencies (SG, for NCSG) wrote to oppose the adoption
> of this "right of repose" for ICANN in the first public consultation,
> and each of you (except IPC) wrote to welcome the team's decision to
> reverse itself in the public consultation August just passed.
>
> I therefore assume you are as concerned as I am that the IOT has now put
> up these "Interim Rules" for approval, at ICANN Legal's request: the
> opposite of what was promised in the recent consultation!
>
> While the IOT currently plans to "continue these discussions" once the
> interim rules are adopted, there must be a real risk that these "interim
> rules" become permanent, if only because ICANN and the Chair refuse to
> join a consensus to change them.
>
> Most Board members have no clue this is controversial (or even that it's
> scheduled), and unless we intervene strongly it is likely to be nodded
> through on the consent agenda on Thursday. However, I have spoken to
> Matthew and Avri, so they are ready (and I believe supportive) should
> Cherine ask them if this should be deferred.
>
> I have drafted a letter to Cherine warning him that these rules are
> incompatible with the Bylaws (see attached).
>
> Will you CO-SIGN this letter on behalf of your constituency?
>
>
> P.S. This needs to go out urgently if it is to persuade the Board to
> drop this from the consent agenda. As tomorrow (Tues) is constituency
> day, I need your answer by the 5pm tomorrow.
>
> --
>
> --
> Farzaneh
> <Letter to ICANN Board on IRP Interim Rules of Procedure 2018-10-22 draft
> 1.docx>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:36:48 +0000
From: "Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure
I strongly support co-signing
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of shahzad ahmad
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 5:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure
Kindly add the endorsement of Bytes For All, Pakistan as well.
Thanks and best wishes
Shahzad
--
Shahzad Ahmad
Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan
Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup
Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060
PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F
On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Ade Bo <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I also support signing
On 22 Oct 2018, at 22:01, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I support us signing.
On 22 Oct 2018, at 20:46, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
We received this from Malcolm. An issue that we were concerned and said in our public comment. Perhaps we can add our name quickly?
As you may know, the IRP Implementation Oversight Team last week adopted
"Interim Rules of Procedure" that include a deadline for filing of no
later than 12 months after ICANN's action (rather than after anyone is
affected by the action complained about).
I have just been told that these rules have been sent to the Board for
approval on Thursday.
You will recall that this will deprive many potential claimants of the
right to bring IRP cases, simply because ICANN's action is not
implemented for 12 months and so nobody ever acquired the right to
challenge it before the deadline expired.
Each of your constituencies (SG, for NCSG) wrote to oppose the adoption
of this "right of repose" for ICANN in the first public consultation,
and each of you (except IPC) wrote to welcome the team's decision to
reverse itself in the public consultation August just passed.
I therefore assume you are as concerned as I am that the IOT has now put
up these "Interim Rules" for approval, at ICANN Legal's request: the
opposite of what was promised in the recent consultation!
While the IOT currently plans to "continue these discussions" once the
interim rules are adopted, there must be a real risk that these "interim
rules" become permanent, if only because ICANN and the Chair refuse to
join a consensus to change them.
Most Board members have no clue this is controversial (or even that it's
scheduled), and unless we intervene strongly it is likely to be nodded
through on the consent agenda on Thursday. However, I have spoken to
Matthew and Avri, so they are ready (and I believe supportive) should
Cherine ask them if this should be deferred.
I have drafted a letter to Cherine warning him that these rules are
incompatible with the Bylaws (see attached).
Will you CO-SIGN this letter on behalf of your constituency?
P.S. This needs to go out urgently if it is to persuade the Board to
drop this from the consent agenda. As tomorrow (Tues) is constituency
day, I need your answer by the 5pm tomorrow.
--
--
Farzaneh
<Letter to ICANN Board on IRP Interim Rules of Procedure 2018-10-22 draft 1.docx>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:07:28 +0200
From: Collin Kurre <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ICANN meeting] Final Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meetings part I and part II -24 October 2018 at 11:00 UTC
Thanks for sharing, Amr!
I am very interested in keeping track of the implementation of PDP 3.0, particularly in the context of wide conversations about the evolution of the multistakeholder model. Perhaps we could establish a task force of interested NCSG members to assist our councilors in monitoring developments and providing substantiated feedback to the wider GNSO Council. I’m happy to assist with coordination if there is an appetite for that.
- Collin
--
Collin Kurre
ARTICLE 19
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Regarding the motion on the Council agenda to adopt the PDP 3.0 report; during yesterday’s NCSG PC meeting, I had suggested that our Councilors offer a friendly amendment to this motion, requiring a review of the implementation of the report's recommendations after a year following adoption of the report. Stephanie Perrin had kindly agreed to submit this proposed amendment prior to the Council meeting this week, and I had promised that I would provide her with a draft resolved clause for the Council’s consideration.
>
> After further reflection, I’d like to withdraw this suggestion, as one of the resolved clauses already requires Council leadership to provide quarterly updates on the implementation to the rest of the Council. I believe the amendment I had first suggested would be redundant, and unnecessary. Although the motion doesn’t require a review, Council members should be vigilant enough to flag concerns identified during the implementation of the PDP 3.0 report, and doing so on a quarterly basis is even better than an annual one.
>
> Thought I would share this here, since I brought it up yesterday.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Oct 17, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> hi all,
>>
>> Please find below the agenda for the public GNSO council meetings (Part I and Part II) next week on Wednesday 24th October 11:00UTC.
>> The part II will be the first meeting for the incoming council for the 2018-2019 term and include the election for GNSO Chair.
>> Remote participation will be available (details here https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654 <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654> and here https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655 <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655>).
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please below find the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meetings part I and part II on 24 October 2018 at 11:00 UTC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Final GNSO Council Agenda 24 October 2018 - Part I
>> Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: <https://community.icann.org/x/HxlpBQ>https://community.icann.org/x/wRVpBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/wRVpBQ>
>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf> v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018
>> 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 agenda.
>>
>>
>> Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y9663p2o <https://tinyurl.com/y9663p2o>
>> 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 10:00 London; 16:00 Islamabad; 20:00 Tokyo; 22:00 Hobart
>>
>>
>> GNSO Council Meeting remote participation details: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654 <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654>
>>
>>
>> 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 mins)
>> 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 <https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-16aug18-en.pdf> of the GNSO Council meeting on the 26 August 2018 were posted on the 03 September 2018
>> Minutes <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/minutes-council-27sep18-en.pdf> of the GNSO Council meeting on the 25 September 2018 were posted on the 13 October 2018
>>
>>
>> Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 minutes)
>> 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project>and Action Item List <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg>
>> Item 3. Consent Agenda (5 minutes)
>> Reconfirmation of Julf Helsingius as GNSO Council Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ>)
>> Recommendations Report <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/reconvened-red-cross-recommendations-14oct18-en.pdf> to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Reconvened Working Group on Red Cross Names Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group.
>>
>>
>> Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Confirmation of Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations Charter (10 minutes)
>>
>> Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations Charter (SCBO) has operated under an interim charter since its adoption on 21 December 2017. In FY18 under this interim charter, the SCBO developed four public comments (IANA-PTI FY19 Budget, ICANN's Reserve Fund Target Level, ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Operating Plan, & ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy) on behalf of the GNSO Council that were later accepted and posted to ICANN's public forum
>>
>>
>> On 17 September 2018, the SCBO delivered an After Action Report on the SCBO experiences and lessons learned where the report suggested that the SCBO charter did not warrant any change and that the SCBO become a permanent standing committee of the GNSO Council
>>
>> Here, the Council will vote to adopt the charter of the SCBO on a permanent basis.
>> 4.1 – Presentation of motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ> (Ayden Férdeline)
>> 4.2 – Council discussion
>> 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit, in respect of the financial impact on the GNSO’s responsibility “for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”
>>
>> Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 (20 minutes)
>> In January 2018, the GNSO Council held an inaugural three-day Strategic Planning Session. On Day 3 of this meeting, the GNSO Council reviewed the workload for the year ahead and identified potential milestones, noting that the current average timeline for delivery of an Initial Report has increased at least 2-4 times compared to previous PDPs. In addition to noting the increased duration of the PDP lifecycle, the Council began to identify challenges being encountered in PDPs, informed by a staff discussion paper on optimizing increased engagement and participation while ensuring efficient and effective policy development.
>>
>> The effort to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO PDP process is called GNSO PDP 3.0. On 11 May 2018, a summary paper was shared with the Council, summarizing input received to date, as well as some proposed incremental improvements. The Council members and their respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies were invited to provide input, after which a summary report <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-summary-feedback-10sep18-en.pdf> was prepared and shared with the Council on 10 September 2018, followed by a dedicated webinar <https://participate.icann.org/p1s5rcio69b/> on 11 September 2018.
>> Based on the input received as well as the subsequent webinar, Council leadership developed a proposed GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 How to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO Policy Development Process <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-increase-effectiveness-efficiency-16oct18-en.pdf>document for Council consideration. The GNSO Council and broader community will have reviewed and discussed the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Plan during the GNSO Weekend Session at ICANN63.
>> Here, the Council will vote to adopt the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Plan.
>> 5.1 – Presentation of motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ> (TBD)
>> 5.2 – Council discussion
>> 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit, in the GNSO’s pursuit to improve on its responsibility “for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”
>>
>> Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Termination of the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (15 minutes)
>> On 19 November 2015, the GNSO Council adopted the charter <https://community.icann.org/x/E4xlAw> for the next-generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process Working group. Following ICANN61 (March 2018), the RDS PDP Leadership decided to put on hold WG meetings indefinitely. This decision was made in light of the uncertain status of GDPR-related work and the possible duplication of efforts as a result of the adoption by the ICANN Board of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data.
>> Following the initiation by the GNSO Council of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration data, Stephanie Perrin in her role as the GNSO Council Liaison to the RDS PDP WG, submitted the required Termination Summary on 17 July 2018 to recommend to the GNSO Council that the RDS PDP WG be terminated as per section 15 of the PDP Manual.
>>
>> Here, the Council will vote to terminate the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process.
>>
>> 6.1 – Presentation of motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ> (Stephanie Perrin)
>> 6.2 – Council discussion
>> 6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: Supermajority)
>> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as indicated in section 11.3.i.vii of the ICANN Bylaws, where the Council may “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.”
>>
>> Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (15 minutes)
>>
>> The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG had worked to resolve a final recommendation relating to IGO jurisdictional immunity and registrants’ rights to file court proceedings. The WG has determined consensus on a set of options for this final recommendation, as well as for all other recommendations. The WG Chair proposed his determination of consensus levels for all recommendations, which the WG affirmed. On 27 June 2018, the GNSO Council passed a resolution <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201806>, thanking the PDP WG for its efforts and requesting that it submit its Final Report in time for the 19 July 2018 Council meeting.
>>
>> After having agreed on consensus levels for its final recommendations, the WG considered the text of its Final Report. On 9 July 2018, the PDP WG submitted its Final Report <https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-17jul18-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus recommendations and three minority statements, documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the Final Report.
>>
>> There remain several inconsistencies between GAC advice and consensus recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP WG, which have yet to be reconciled, including on the topic of appropriate protections for IGO acronyms (both preventative and curative). During its 19 July Council meeting, the Council resolved <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201807> to accept the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group and has begun considering the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers.
>> On 9 October 2018, the Council held a question and answer webinar to review the recommendations and to ask itself a series of questions, 1) Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?; 2) Has the PDP followed due process?; and 3) Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?
>>
>> Here, the Council will vote on to accept to recommendation and Final Report of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG.
>>
>> 7.1 – Presentation of motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ> (TBD)
>>
>> 7.2 – Council discussion
>> 7.2.1: Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?
>> 7.2.2: Has the PDP followed due process?
>> 7.2.3: Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?
>>
>>
>> 7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: approval of PDP recommendations imposing contractual obligations on Contracted Parties: Supermajority; approval of other PDP recommendations: 50% of each House plus 1 Councilor from 3 out of 4 Stakeholder Groups in favor)
>> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as indicated in section 11.1 of the ICANN Bylaws, where it states that the GNSO is “responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”
>>
>> Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE – Temporary Specification for Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process - Recurring Update (15 minutes)
>> On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council resolved <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20180719-2> to initiate the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data and adopt the EPDP Team Charter <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf>. Given the challenging timeline for the EPDP and the GNSO Council’s role in managing the PDP process, the Council has agreed that including a recurring update on the EPDP for each Council meeting is prudent.
>> Here, the Council will receive an update from the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP.
>> 8.1 – Update (Rafik Dammak, GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP and EPDP vice-chair)
>> 8.2 – Council discussion
>> 8.3 – Next steps
>>
>>
>>
>> Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)
>>
>>
>> 9.1 - Open Microphone
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 11.3(i))
>> See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11 <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11>.
>> Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 4.4)
>> See https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf>
>>
>>
>> References for Coordinated Universal Time of 11:00 UTC
>> Local time between March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 04:00
>> San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6 05:00
>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 07:00
>> Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 08:00
>> Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3 08:00
>> London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+1 12:00
>> Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 12:00
>> Paris, France (CEST) UTC+2 13:00
>> Islamabad, Pakistan (PKT) UTC+5 16:00
>> Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 19:00
>> Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9 20:00
>> Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEST) UTC+10 22:00
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DST starts/ends on Sunday 28 of October 2018, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 4 of November 2018 for the US.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com <http://www.timeanddate.com/> and https://tinyurl.com/y82s88vu <https://tinyurl.com/y9663p2o>
>> Final GNSO Council Agenda 24 October 2018 - Part II (Admin)
>> Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/1iIhB <https://community.icann.org/x/1iIhB>
>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf> v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018
>>
>> 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 agenda.
>> Coordinated Universal Time: 13:15 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/ycvf33wr <https://tinyurl.com/ycvf33wr>
>> GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast
>> GNSO Council Meeting remote participation details: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655 <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655>
>> 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. Seating of the 2018 / 2019 Council (20 mins)
>> 1.1 - Roll Call
>> 1.2 - Statements of Interest
>> Maxim Alzoba - SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Maxim+Alzoba+SOI> Registries Stakeholder Group
>> Elsa Saade - SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Elsa+Saade+SOI> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
>> Flip Petillion: SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Flip+Petillion+SOI> Intellectual Property Constituency
>> Scott McCormick: SOI <https://community.icann.org/x/fA28BQ> Commercial and Business Users Constituency
>> 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
>> Item 2. Election of the Chair (30 mins)
>> Two nomination were received for this position, Rafik Dammak from the Non-Contracted Parties House and Keith Drazek from the Contract Parties House. The GNSO reviewed the candidate statements <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections> and held a question & answer session with both candidates on 21 October 2018. Here the GNSO Council will proceed to hold the election for its Chair for 2019-2020, according to the GNSO Operating Procedures (note Section 2.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures on Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs (see Appendix 1 below)).
>> Item 3: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Empowered Community Roles and Responsibilities – GNSO Operating Procedures Templates and Guideline Development
>> Following the adoption by the GNSO Council of the revised GNSO Operating Procedures, as well as the proposed modifications to the ICANN Bylaws adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors on 13 May 2018, staff has outlined in a table the additional proposed steps to be taken to ensure preparedness as well as facilitate the ability for the GNSO Council to act in relation to the new roles and responsibilities outlined in the post-transition Bylaws. The GNSO Council is requested to review the proposed next steps and to provide feedback whether it is supportive of these proposed next steps or whether modifications should be considered. In regards to the proposed next steps in the table, staff has developed first drafts of templates and possible guidelines for the Council’s consideration, but the Council could also consider setting up a dedicated committee / drafting team to take on this task and/or collaborate with staff, noting that any proposed templates and/or guidelines would still need to come back to the GNSO Council for approval.
>> Here, the Council will discuss next steps and an action plan.
>> 3.1 – Update (TBD)
>> 3.2 – Council discussion
>> 3.3 – Next steps
>>
>> Item 43. Any Other Business (010 min)
>> None
>> Appendix 1: Excerpt from GNSO Operating Procedures (Section 2.2)
>> 2.2 https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf>
>> Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs
>>
>> The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair and two Vice-Chairs as follows:
>> The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of each house.
>> Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of a house, but must be a current or incoming member of the GNSO Council. Should a Chair be elected from outside of the houses that Chair will be a non-voting Chair.
>> a. All ballots will include the “none of the above” option. In the event that a 60 percent vote of each house selects the “none of the above” option, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be scheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote.
>> b. In the case of a tie for the most votes between the two candidates, or between a candidate and “none of above,” a second election will be held no sooner than 30 days. The candidates shall remain the same for this second election. In the case this second election also results in a tie, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote.
>> c. The leading candidate will be defined as the one with the highest score. The score is calculated by adding together the voting percentages attained from each house. The highest percentage attainable in each house is 100. Thus, the maximum score a candidate can achieve is 200 as a result of attaining 100 percent of the votes from the contracted party house and 100 percent from the non-contracted party house (100 percent + 100 percent = score of 200). In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold, a second ballot will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.”
>> d. In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold and the candidates do not tie, a second runoff ballot will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.”
>> e. If the single candidate does not reach the 60 percent of each house threshold in the runoff ballot, then each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful runoff ballot.
>> Each house shall select a Council Vice-Chair from within its respective house.
>> A Chair may not be a member of the same Stakeholder Group of either of the Vice-Chairs.
>> The Chair and Vice-Chairs shall retain their votes (if any) in their respective houses (if any).
>> In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair’s term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co- Chairs to jointly oversee the new Chair election and conduct Council business until a successful election can be held. In the event that one or both Vice-Chairs’ terms ends concurrently with the term of the previous Chair, the procedures described in Section 2.2.1 below shall apply.
>> The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following each election and runoff ballot, whether successful or unsuccessful.
>> Appendix 2: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11> Article 11, Section 3)
>> (i) Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A, Annex A-1 or Annex A-2 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:
>> (i) Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
>> (ii) 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.
>> (iii) Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority (as defined in Section 11.3(i)(xix)).
>> (iv) 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.
>> (v) Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>> (vi) Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under (iv) or (v) above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
>> (vii) 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.
>> (viii) 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.
>> (ix) Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
>> (x) 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.
>> (xi) Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>> (xii) Initiation of an Expedited Policy Development Process ("EPDP"): requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>> (xiii) Approve an EPDP Team Charter: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>> (xiv) Approval of EPDP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>> (xv) Approve an EPDP 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.
>> (xvi) Initiation of a GNSO Guidance Process ("GGP"): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>> (xvii) Rejection of Initiation of a GGP Requested by the Board: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>> (xviii) Approval of GGP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>> (xix) A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (B) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council members of one House and a majority of the Council members of the other House.
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf>
>> Appendix 1 GNSO Council Voting Results table
>> Absentee Voting Procedures https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf>
>> 4.4 Absentee Voting
>> 4.1.1 Applicability
>> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures.
>> Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
>> Approve a PDP recommendation;
>> Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws;
>> Fill a Council position open for election.
>> 4.1.2 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.
>> 4.1.3 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.
>> 4.1.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:26:23 +0000
From: Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ICANN meeting] Final Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meetings part I and part II -24 October 2018 at 11:00 UTC
Hi,
Sounds good to me. Count me in.
Thanks.
Amr
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Collin Kurre <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for sharing, Amr!
>
> I am very interested in keeping track of the implementation of PDP 3.0, particularly in the context of wide conversations about the evolution of the multistakeholder model. Perhaps we could establish a task force of interested NCSG members to assist our councilors in monitoring developments and providing substantiated feedback to the wider GNSO Council. I’m happy to assist with coordination if there is an appetite for that.
>
> - Collin
>
> --
> Collin Kurre
>
> ARTICLE 19
>
>> On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <[[log in to unmask]](mailto:[log in to unmask])> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Regarding the motion on the Council agenda to adopt the PDP 3.0 report; during yesterday’s NCSG PC meeting, I had suggested that our Councilors offer a friendly amendment to this motion, requiring a review of the implementation of the report's recommendations after a year following adoption of the report. Stephanie Perrin had kindly agreed to submit this proposed amendment prior to the Council meeting this week, and I had promised that I would provide her with a draft resolved clause for the Council’s consideration.
>>
>> After further reflection, I’d like to withdraw this suggestion, as one of the resolved clauses already requires Council leadership to provide quarterly updates on the implementation to the rest of the Council. I believe the amendment I had first suggested would be redundant, and unnecessary. Although the motion doesn’t require a review, Council members should be vigilant enough to flag concerns identified during the implementation of the PDP 3.0 report, and doing so on a quarterly basis is even better than an annual one.
>>
>> Thought I would share this here, since I brought it up yesterday.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Oct 17, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> Please find below the agenda for the public GNSO council meetings (Part I and Part II) next week on Wednesday 24th October 11:00UTC.
>>> The part II will be the first meeting for the incoming council for the 2018-2019 term and include the election for GNSO Chair.
>>> Remote participation will be available (details here https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654 and here https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655).
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Please below find the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meetings part I and part II on 24 October 2018 at 11:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> Final GNSO Council Agenda 24 October 2018 - Part I
>>>
>>> Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access:https://community.icann.org/x/HxlpBQhttps://community.icann.org/x/wRVpBQ
>>> This agenda was established according to the [GNSO Operating Procedures](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf) v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018
>>> 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 agenda.
>>>
>>> Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y9663p2o
>>> 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 10:00 London; 16:00 Islamabad; 20:00 Tokyo; 22:00 Hobart
>>>
>>> GNSO Council Meeting remote participation details: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654
>>>
>>> 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 mins)
>>> 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](https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-16aug18-en.pdf) of the GNSO Council meeting on the 26 August 2018 were posted on the 03 September 2018
>>> [Minutes](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/minutes-council-27sep18-en.pdf) of the GNSO Council meeting on the 25 September 2018 were posted on the 13 October 2018
>>>
>>> Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 minutes)
>>> 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of [Projects List](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project)and [Action Item List](https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg)
>>>
>>> Item 3. Consent Agenda (5 minutes)
>>>
>>> - Reconfirmation of Julf Helsingius as GNSO Council Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee ([motion](https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ))
>>> - [Recommendations Report](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/reconvened-red-cross-recommendations-14oct18-en.pdf) to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Reconvened Working Group on Red Cross Names Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group.
>>>
>>> Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Confirmation of Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations Charter (10 minutes)
>>>
>>> Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations Charter (SCBO) has operated under an interim charter since its adoption on 21 December 2017. In FY18 under this interim charter, the SCBO developed four public comments (IANA-PTI FY19 Budget, ICANN's Reserve Fund Target Level, ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Operating Plan, & ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy) on behalf of the GNSO Council that were later accepted and posted to ICANN's public forum
>>>
>>> On 17 September 2018, the SCBO delivered an After Action Report on the SCBO experiences and lessons learned where the report suggested that the SCBO charter did not warrant any change and that the SCBO become a permanent standing committee of the GNSO Council
>>>
>>> Here, the Council will vote to adopt the charter of the SCBO on a permanent basis.
>>>
>>> 4.1 – Presentation of [motion](https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ) (Ayden Férdeline)
>>>
>>> 4.2 – Council discussion
>>>
>>> 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>>>
>>> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit, in respect of the financial impact on the GNSO’s responsibility “for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”
>>>
>>> Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 (20 minutes)
>>>
>>> In January 2018, the GNSO Council held an inaugural three-day Strategic Planning Session. On Day 3 of this meeting, the GNSO Council reviewed the workload for the year ahead and identified potential milestones, noting that the current average timeline for delivery of an Initial Report has increased at least 2-4 times compared to previous PDPs. In addition to noting the increased duration of the PDP lifecycle, the Council began to identify challenges being encountered in PDPs, informed by a staff discussion paper on optimizing increased engagement and participation while ensuring efficient and effective policy development.
>>>
>>> The effort to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO PDP process is called GNSO PDP 3.0. On 11 May 2018, a summary paper was shared with the Council, summarizing input received to date, as well as some proposed incremental improvements. The Council members and their respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies were invited to provide input, after which a [summary report](https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-summary-feedback-10sep18-en.pdf) was prepared and shared with the Council on 10 September 2018, followed by a dedicated [webinar](https://participate.icann.org/p1s5rcio69b/) on 11 September 2018.
>>>
>>> Based on the input received as well as the subsequent webinar, Council leadership developed a proposed [GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 How to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO Policy Development Process](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-increase-effectiveness-efficiency-16oct18-en.pdf)documentfor Council consideration. The GNSO Council and broader community will have reviewed and discussed the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Plan during the GNSO Weekend Session at ICANN63.
>>>
>>> Here, the Council will vote to adopt the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Plan.
>>>
>>> 5.1 – Presentation of [motion](https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ) (TBD)
>>>
>>> 5.2 – Council discussion
>>>
>>> 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>>>
>>> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit, in the GNSO’s pursuit to improve on its responsibility “for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”
>>>
>>> Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Termination of the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (15 minutes)
>>>
>>> On 19 November 2015, the GNSO Council adopted the[charter](https://community.icann.org/x/E4xlAw) for the next-generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process Working group. Following ICANN61 (March 2018), the RDS PDP Leadership decided to put on hold WG meetings indefinitely. This decision was made in light of the uncertain status of GDPR-related work and the possible duplication of efforts as a result of the adoption by the ICANN Board of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data.
>>>
>>> Following the initiation by the GNSO Council of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration data, Stephanie Perrin in her role as the GNSO Council Liaison to the RDS PDP WG, submitted the required Termination Summary on 17 July 2018 to recommend to the GNSO Council that the RDS PDP WG be terminated as per section 15 of the PDP Manual.
>>>
>>> Here, the Council will vote to terminate the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process.
>>>
>>> 6.1 – Presentation of [motion](https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ) (Stephanie Perrin)
>>>
>>> 6.2 – Council discussion
>>>
>>> 6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: Supermajority)
>>>
>>> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as indicated in section 11.3.i.vii of the ICANN Bylaws, where the Council may “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.”
>>>
>>> Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (15 minutes)
>>>
>>> The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG had worked to resolve a final recommendation relating to IGO jurisdictional immunity and registrants’ rights to file court proceedings. The WG has determined consensus on a set of options for this final recommendation, as well as for all other recommendations. The WG Chair proposed his determination of consensus levels for all recommendations, which the WG affirmed. On 27 June 2018, the GNSO Council passed a [resolution](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201806), thanking the PDP WG for its efforts and requesting that it submit its Final Report in time for the 19 July 2018 Council meeting.
>>>
>>> After having agreed on consensus levels for its final recommendations, the WG considered the text of its Final Report. On 9 July 2018, the PDP WG submitted its [Final Report](https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-17jul18-en.pdf) to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus recommendations and three minority statements, documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the Final Report.
>>>
>>> There remain several inconsistencies between GAC advice and consensus recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP WG, which have yet to be reconciled, including on the topic of appropriate protections for IGO acronyms (both preventative and curative). During its 19 July Council meeting, the Council [resolved](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201807) to accept the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group and has begun considering the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers.
>>>
>>> On 9 October 2018, the Council held a question and answer webinar to review the recommendations and to ask itself a series of questions, 1) Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?; 2) Has the PDP followed due process?; and 3) Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?
>>>
>>> Here, the Council will vote on to accept to recommendation and Final Report of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG.
>>>
>>> 7.1 – Presentation of [motion](https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ) (TBD)
>>>
>>> 7.2 – Council discussion
>>>
>>> 7.2.1: Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?
>>>
>>> 7.2.2: Has the PDP followed due process?
>>>
>>> 7.2.3: Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?
>>>
>>> 7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: approval of PDP recommendations imposing contractual obligations on Contracted Parties: Supermajority; approval of other PDP recommendations: 50% of each House plus 1 Councilor from 3 out of 4 Stakeholder Groups in favor)
>>>
>>> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as indicated in section 11.1 of the ICANN Bylaws, where it states that the GNSO is “responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”
>>>
>>> Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE – Temporary Specification for Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process - Recurring Update (15 minutes)
>>>
>>> On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council [resolved](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20180719-2) to initiate the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data and adopt the EPDP Team [Charter](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf). Given the challenging timeline for the EPDP and the GNSO Council’s role in managing the PDP process, the Council has agreed that including a recurring update on the EPDP for each Council meeting is prudent.
>>>
>>> Here, the Council will receive an update from the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP.
>>>
>>> 8.1 – Update (Rafik Dammak, GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP and EPDP vice-chair)
>>>
>>> 8.2 – Council discussion
>>>
>>> 8.3 – Next steps
>>>
>>> Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)
>>>
>>> 9.1 - Open Microphone
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 11.3(i))
>>> See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11.
>>> Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 4.4)
>>> See https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf
>>>
>>> References for Coordinated Universal Time of 11:00 UTC
>>> Local time between March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 04:00
>>> San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6 05:00
>>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 07:00
>>> Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 08:00
>>> Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3 08:00
>>> London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+1 12:00
>>> Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 12:00
>>> Paris, France (CEST) UTC+2 13:00
>>> Islamabad, Pakistan (PKT) UTC+5 16:00
>>> Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 19:00
>>> Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9 20:00
>>> Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEST) UTC+10 22:00
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DST starts/ends on Sunday 28 of October 2018, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 4 of November 2018 for the US.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> For other places see [http://www.timeanddate.com](http://www.timeanddate.com/) and [https://tinyurl.com/y82s88vu](https://tinyurl.com/y9663p2o)
>>>
>>> Final GNSO Council Agenda 24 October 2018 - Part II (Admin)
>>>
>>> Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/1iIhB
>>> This agenda was established according to the [GNSO Operating Procedures](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf) v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018
>>>
>>> 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 agenda.
>>>
>>> Coordinated Universal Time: 13:15 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/ycvf33wr
>>>
>>> GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast
>>>
>>> GNSO Council Meeting remote participation details: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655
>>>
>>> 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. Seating of the 2018 / 2019 Council (20 mins)
>>>
>>> 1.1 - Roll Call
>>>
>>> 1.2 - Statements of Interest
>>>
>>> Maxim Alzoba - [SOI](https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Maxim+Alzoba+SOI) Registries Stakeholder Group
>>>
>>> Elsa Saade - [SOI](https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Elsa+Saade+SOI) Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
>>>
>>> Flip Petillion: [SOI](https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Flip+Petillion+SOI) Intellectual Property Constituency
>>>
>>> Scott McCormick: [SOI](https://community.icann.org/x/fA28BQ) Commercial and Business Users Constituency
>>>
>>> 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
>>>
>>> Item 2. Election of the Chair (30 mins)
>>>
>>> Two nomination were received for this position, Rafik Dammak from the Non-Contracted Parties House and Keith Drazek from the Contract Parties House. The GNSO reviewed the [candidate statements](https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections) and held a question & answer session with both candidates on 21 October 2018. Here the GNSO Council will proceed to hold the election for its Chair for 2019-2020, according to the GNSO Operating Procedures (note Section 2.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures on Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs (see Appendix 1 below)).
>>>
>>> Item 3: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Empowered Community Roles and Responsibilities – GNSO Operating Procedures Templates and Guideline Development
>>>
>>> Following the adoption by the GNSO Council of the revised GNSO Operating Procedures, as well as the proposed modifications to the ICANN Bylaws adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors on 13 May 2018, staff has outlined in a table the additional proposed steps to be taken to ensure preparedness as well as facilitate the ability for the GNSO Council to act in relation to the new roles and responsibilities outlined in the post-transition Bylaws. The GNSO Council is requested to review the proposed next steps and to provide feedback whether it is supportive of these proposed next steps or whether modifications should be considered. In regards to the proposed next steps in the table, staff has developed first drafts of templates and possible guidelines for the Council’s consideration, but the Council could also consider setting up a dedicated committee / drafting team to take on this task and/or collaborate with staff, noting that any proposed templates and/or guidelines would still need to come back to the GNSO Council for approval.
>>>
>>> Here, the Council will discuss next steps and an action plan.
>>>
>>> 3.1 – Update (TBD)
>>>
>>> 3.2 – Council discussion
>>>
>>> 3.3 – Next steps
>>>
>>> Item 43. Any Other Business (010 min)
>>>
>>> None
>>>
>>> Appendix 1: Excerpt from GNSO Operating Procedures (Section 2.2)
>>>
>>> 2.2 https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf
>>>
>>> Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs
>>>
>>> The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair and two Vice-Chairs as follows:
>>>
>>> - The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of each house.
>>> - Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of a house, but must be a current or incoming member of the GNSO Council. Should a Chair be elected from outside of the houses that Chair will be a non-voting Chair.
>>>
>>> a. All ballots will include the “none of the above” option. In the event that a 60 percent vote of each house selects the “none of the above” option, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be scheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote.
>>>
>>> b. In the case of a tie for the most votes between the two candidates, or between a candidate and “none of above,” a second election will be held no sooner than 30 days. The candidates shall remain the same for this second election. In the case this second election also results in a tie, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote.
>>>
>>> c. The leading candidate will be defined as the one with the highest score. The score is calculated by adding together the voting percentages attained from each house. The highest percentage attainable in each house is 100. Thus, the maximum score a candidate can achieve is 200 as a result of attaining 100 percent of the votes from the contracted party house and 100 percent from the non-contracted party house (100 percent + 100 percent = score of 200). In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold, a second ballot will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.”
>>>
>>> d. In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold and the candidates do not tie, a second runoff ballot will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.”
>>>
>>> e. If the single candidate does not reach the 60 percent of each house threshold in the runoff ballot, then each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful runoff ballot.
>>>
>>> - Each house shall select a Council Vice-Chair from within its respective house.
>>> - A Chair may not be a member of the same Stakeholder Group of either of the Vice-Chairs.
>>> - The Chair and Vice-Chairs shall retain their votes (if any) in their respective houses (if any).
>>> - In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair’s term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co- Chairs to jointly oversee the new Chair election and conduct Council business until a successful election can be held. In the event that one or both Vice-Chairs’ terms ends concurrently with the term of the previous Chair, the procedures described in Section 2.2.1 below shall apply.
>>> - The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following each election and runoff ballot, whether successful or unsuccessful.
>>>
>>> Appendix 2: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds ([ICANN Bylaws,](https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11) Article 11, Section 3)
>>>
>>> (i) Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A, Annex A-1 or Annex A-2 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:
>>>
>>> (i) Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
>>>
>>> (ii) 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.
>>>
>>> (iii) Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority (as defined in Section 11.3(i)(xix)).
>>>
>>> (iv) 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.
>>>
>>> (v) Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>>
>>> (vi) Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under (iv) or (v) above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
>>>
>>> (vii) 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.
>>>
>>> (viii) 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.
>>>
>>> (ix) Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
>>>
>>> (x) 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.
>>>
>>> (xi) Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>>>
>>> (xii) Initiation of an Expedited Policy Development Process ("EPDP"): requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>>
>>> (xiii) Approve an EPDP Team Charter: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>>
>>> (xiv) Approval of EPDP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>>
>>> (xv) Approve an EPDP 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.
>>>
>>> (xvi) Initiation of a GNSO Guidance Process ("GGP"): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>>>
>>> (xvii) Rejection of Initiation of a GGP Requested by the Board: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>>
>>> (xviii) Approval of GGP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>>
>>> (xix) A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (B) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council members of one House and a majority of the Council members of the other House.
>>>
>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf
>>>
>>> Appendix 1 GNSO Council Voting Results table
>>>
>>> Absentee Voting Procedures https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf
>>>
>>> 4.4 Absentee Voting
>>>
>>> 4.1.1 Applicability
>>>
>>> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures.
>>>
>>> - Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
>>> - Approve a PDP recommendation;
>>> - Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws;
>>> - Fill a Council position open for election.
>>>
>>> 4.1.2 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.
>>>
>>> 4.1.3 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.
>>>
>>> 4.1.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:29:09 +0200
From: Farell FOLLY <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ICANN meeting] Final Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meetings part I and part II -24 October 2018 at 11:00 UTC
Very good idea Collin. I would be happy to join this supporting team.
@__f_f__
Best Regards
____________________________________
(Ekue) Farell FOLLY
NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee
linkedin.com/in/farellf
> On 23 Oct 2018, at 14:07, Collin Kurre <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for sharing, Amr!
>
> I am very interested in keeping track of the implementation of PDP 3.0, particularly in the context of wide conversations about the evolution of the multistakeholder model. Perhaps we could establish a task force of interested NCSG members to assist our councilors in monitoring developments and providing substantiated feedback to the wider GNSO Council. I’m happy to assist with coordination if there is an appetite for that.
>
> - Collin
>
> --
> Collin Kurre
> ARTICLE 19
>
>
>
>
>> On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Regarding the motion on the Council agenda to adopt the PDP 3.0 report; during yesterday’s NCSG PC meeting, I had suggested that our Councilors offer a friendly amendment to this motion, requiring a review of the implementation of the report's recommendations after a year following adoption of the report. Stephanie Perrin had kindly agreed to submit this proposed amendment prior to the Council meeting this week, and I had promised that I would provide her with a draft resolved clause for the Council’s consideration.
>>
>> After further reflection, I’d like to withdraw this suggestion, as one of the resolved clauses already requires Council leadership to provide quarterly updates on the implementation to the rest of the Council. I believe the amendment I had first suggested would be redundant, and unnecessary. Although the motion doesn’t require a review, Council members should be vigilant enough to flag concerns identified during the implementation of the PDP 3.0 report, and doing so on a quarterly basis is even better than an annual one.
>>
>> Thought I would share this here, since I brought it up yesterday.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Oct 17, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> Please find below the agenda for the public GNSO council meetings (Part I and Part II) next week on Wednesday 24th October 11:00UTC.
>>> The part II will be the first meeting for the incoming council for the 2018-2019 term and include the election for GNSO Chair.
>>> Remote participation will be available (details here https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654 <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654> and here https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655 <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655>).
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please below find the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meetings part I and part II on 24 October 2018 at 11:00 UTC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Final GNSO Council Agenda 24 October 2018 - Part I
>>> Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: <https://community.icann.org/x/HxlpBQ>https://community.icann.org/x/wRVpBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/wRVpBQ>
>>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf> v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018
>>> 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 agenda.
>>>
>>>
>>> Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y9663p2o <https://tinyurl.com/y9663p2o>
>>> 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 10:00 London; 16:00 Islamabad; 20:00 Tokyo; 22:00 Hobart
>>>
>>>
>>> GNSO Council Meeting remote participation details: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654 <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 mins)
>>> 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 <https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-16aug18-en.pdf> of the GNSO Council meeting on the 26 August 2018 were posted on the 03 September 2018
>>> Minutes <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/minutes-council-27sep18-en.pdf> of the GNSO Council meeting on the 25 September 2018 were posted on the 13 October 2018
>>>
>>>
>>> Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 minutes)
>>> 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project>and Action Item List <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg>
>>> Item 3. Consent Agenda (5 minutes)
>>> Reconfirmation of Julf Helsingius as GNSO Council Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ>)
>>> Recommendations Report <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/reconvened-red-cross-recommendations-14oct18-en.pdf> to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Reconvened Working Group on Red Cross Names Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group.
>>>
>>>
>>> Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Confirmation of Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations Charter (10 minutes)
>>>
>>> Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations Charter (SCBO) has operated under an interim charter since its adoption on 21 December 2017. In FY18 under this interim charter, the SCBO developed four public comments (IANA-PTI FY19 Budget, ICANN's Reserve Fund Target Level, ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Operating Plan, & ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy) on behalf of the GNSO Council that were later accepted and posted to ICANN's public forum
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 September 2018, the SCBO delivered an After Action Report on the SCBO experiences and lessons learned where the report suggested that the SCBO charter did not warrant any change and that the SCBO become a permanent standing committee of the GNSO Council
>>>
>>> Here, the Council will vote to adopt the charter of the SCBO on a permanent basis.
>>> 4.1 – Presentation of motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ> (Ayden Férdeline)
>>> 4.2 – Council discussion
>>> 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>>> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit, in respect of the financial impact on the GNSO’s responsibility “for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”
>>>
>>> Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 (20 minutes)
>>> In January 2018, the GNSO Council held an inaugural three-day Strategic Planning Session. On Day 3 of this meeting, the GNSO Council reviewed the workload for the year ahead and identified potential milestones, noting that the current average timeline for delivery of an Initial Report has increased at least 2-4 times compared to previous PDPs. In addition to noting the increased duration of the PDP lifecycle, the Council began to identify challenges being encountered in PDPs, informed by a staff discussion paper on optimizing increased engagement and participation while ensuring efficient and effective policy development.
>>>
>>> The effort to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO PDP process is called GNSO PDP 3.0. On 11 May 2018, a summary paper was shared with the Council, summarizing input received to date, as well as some proposed incremental improvements. The Council members and their respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies were invited to provide input, after which a summary report <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-summary-feedback-10sep18-en.pdf> was prepared and shared with the Council on 10 September 2018, followed by a dedicated webinar <https://participate.icann.org/p1s5rcio69b/> on 11 September 2018.
>>> Based on the input received as well as the subsequent webinar, Council leadership developed a proposed GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 How to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO Policy Development Process <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-increase-effectiveness-efficiency-16oct18-en.pdf>document for Council consideration. The GNSO Council and broader community will have reviewed and discussed the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Plan during the GNSO Weekend Session at ICANN63.
>>> Here, the Council will vote to adopt the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Plan.
>>> 5.1 – Presentation of motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ> (TBD)
>>> 5.2 – Council discussion
>>> 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>>> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit, in the GNSO’s pursuit to improve on its responsibility “for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”
>>>
>>> Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Termination of the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (15 minutes)
>>> On 19 November 2015, the GNSO Council adopted the charter <https://community.icann.org/x/E4xlAw> for the next-generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process Working group. Following ICANN61 (March 2018), the RDS PDP Leadership decided to put on hold WG meetings indefinitely. This decision was made in light of the uncertain status of GDPR-related work and the possible duplication of efforts as a result of the adoption by the ICANN Board of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data.
>>> Following the initiation by the GNSO Council of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration data, Stephanie Perrin in her role as the GNSO Council Liaison to the RDS PDP WG, submitted the required Termination Summary on 17 July 2018 to recommend to the GNSO Council that the RDS PDP WG be terminated as per section 15 of the PDP Manual.
>>>
>>> Here, the Council will vote to terminate the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process.
>>>
>>> 6.1 – Presentation of motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ> (Stephanie Perrin)
>>> 6.2 – Council discussion
>>> 6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: Supermajority)
>>> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as indicated in section 11.3.i.vii of the ICANN Bylaws, where the Council may “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.”
>>>
>>> Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (15 minutes)
>>>
>>> The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG had worked to resolve a final recommendation relating to IGO jurisdictional immunity and registrants’ rights to file court proceedings. The WG has determined consensus on a set of options for this final recommendation, as well as for all other recommendations. The WG Chair proposed his determination of consensus levels for all recommendations, which the WG affirmed. On 27 June 2018, the GNSO Council passed a resolution <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201806>, thanking the PDP WG for its efforts and requesting that it submit its Final Report in time for the 19 July 2018 Council meeting.
>>>
>>> After having agreed on consensus levels for its final recommendations, the WG considered the text of its Final Report. On 9 July 2018, the PDP WG submitted its Final Report <https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-17jul18-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus recommendations and three minority statements, documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the Final Report.
>>>
>>> There remain several inconsistencies between GAC advice and consensus recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP WG, which have yet to be reconciled, including on the topic of appropriate protections for IGO acronyms (both preventative and curative). During its 19 July Council meeting, the Council resolved <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201807> to accept the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group and has begun considering the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers.
>>> On 9 October 2018, the Council held a question and answer webinar to review the recommendations and to ask itself a series of questions, 1) Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?; 2) Has the PDP followed due process?; and 3) Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?
>>>
>>> Here, the Council will vote on to accept to recommendation and Final Report of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG.
>>>
>>> 7.1 – Presentation of motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ> (TBD)
>>>
>>> 7.2 – Council discussion
>>> 7.2.1: Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?
>>> 7.2.2: Has the PDP followed due process?
>>> 7.2.3: Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?
>>>
>>>
>>> 7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: approval of PDP recommendations imposing contractual obligations on Contracted Parties: Supermajority; approval of other PDP recommendations: 50% of each House plus 1 Councilor from 3 out of 4 Stakeholder Groups in favor)
>>> Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as indicated in section 11.1 of the ICANN Bylaws, where it states that the GNSO is “responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”
>>>
>>> Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE – Temporary Specification for Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process - Recurring Update (15 minutes)
>>> On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council resolved <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20180719-2> to initiate the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data and adopt the EPDP Team Charter <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf>. Given the challenging timeline for the EPDP and the GNSO Council’s role in managing the PDP process, the Council has agreed that including a recurring update on the EPDP for each Council meeting is prudent.
>>> Here, the Council will receive an update from the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP.
>>> 8.1 – Update (Rafik Dammak, GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP and EPDP vice-chair)
>>> 8.2 – Council discussion
>>> 8.3 – Next steps
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)
>>>
>>>
>>> 9.1 - Open Microphone
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 11.3(i))
>>> See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11 <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11>.
>>> Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 4.4)
>>> See https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf>
>>>
>>>
>>> References for Coordinated Universal Time of 11:00 UTC
>>> Local time between March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 04:00
>>> San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6 05:00
>>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 07:00
>>> Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 08:00
>>> Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3 08:00
>>> London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+1 12:00
>>> Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 12:00
>>> Paris, France (CEST) UTC+2 13:00
>>> Islamabad, Pakistan (PKT) UTC+5 16:00
>>> Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 19:00
>>> Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9 20:00
>>> Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEST) UTC+10 22:00
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DST starts/ends on Sunday 28 of October 2018, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 4 of November 2018 for the US.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com <http://www.timeanddate.com/> and https://tinyurl.com/y82s88vu <https://tinyurl.com/y9663p2o>
>>> Final GNSO Council Agenda 24 October 2018 - Part II (Admin)
>>> Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/1iIhB <https://community.icann.org/x/1iIhB>
>>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf> v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018
>>>
>>> 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 agenda.
>>> Coordinated Universal Time: 13:15 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/ycvf33wr <https://tinyurl.com/ycvf33wr>
>>> GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast
>>> GNSO Council Meeting remote participation details: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655 <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655>
>>> 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. Seating of the 2018 / 2019 Council (20 mins)
>>> 1.1 - Roll Call
>>> 1.2 - Statements of Interest
>>> Maxim Alzoba - SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Maxim+Alzoba+SOI> Registries Stakeholder Group
>>> Elsa Saade - SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Elsa+Saade+SOI> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
>>> Flip Petillion: SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Flip+Petillion+SOI> Intellectual Property Constituency
>>> Scott McCormick: SOI <https://community.icann.org/x/fA28BQ> Commercial and Business Users Constituency
>>> 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
>>> Item 2. Election of the Chair (30 mins)
>>> Two nomination were received for this position, Rafik Dammak from the Non-Contracted Parties House and Keith Drazek from the Contract Parties House. The GNSO reviewed the candidate statements <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections> and held a question & answer session with both candidates on 21 October 2018. Here the GNSO Council will proceed to hold the election for its Chair for 2019-2020, according to the GNSO Operating Procedures (note Section 2.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures on Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs (see Appendix 1 below)).
>>> Item 3: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Empowered Community Roles and Responsibilities – GNSO Operating Procedures Templates and Guideline Development
>>> Following the adoption by the GNSO Council of the revised GNSO Operating Procedures, as well as the proposed modifications to the ICANN Bylaws adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors on 13 May 2018, staff has outlined in a table the additional proposed steps to be taken to ensure preparedness as well as facilitate the ability for the GNSO Council to act in relation to the new roles and responsibilities outlined in the post-transition Bylaws. The GNSO Council is requested to review the proposed next steps and to provide feedback whether it is supportive of these proposed next steps or whether modifications should be considered. In regards to the proposed next steps in the table, staff has developed first drafts of templates and possible guidelines for the Council’s consideration, but the Council could also consider setting up a dedicated committee / drafting team to take on this task and/or collaborate with staff, noting that any proposed templates and/or guidelines would still need to come back to the GNSO Council for approval.
>>> Here, the Council will discuss next steps and an action plan.
>>> 3.1 – Update (TBD)
>>> 3.2 – Council discussion
>>> 3.3 – Next steps
>>>
>>> Item 43. Any Other Business (010 min)
>>> None
>>> Appendix 1: Excerpt from GNSO Operating Procedures (Section 2.2)
>>> 2.2 https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf>
>>> Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs
>>>
>>> The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair and two Vice-Chairs as follows:
>>> The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of each house.
>>> Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of a house, but must be a current or incoming member of the GNSO Council. Should a Chair be elected from outside of the houses that Chair will be a non-voting Chair.
>>> a. All ballots will include the “none of the above” option. In the event that a 60 percent vote of each house selects the “none of the above” option, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be scheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote.
>>> b. In the case of a tie for the most votes between the two candidates, or between a candidate and “none of above,” a second election will be held no sooner than 30 days. The candidates shall remain the same for this second election. In the case this second election also results in a tie, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote.
>>> c. The leading candidate will be defined as the one with the highest score. The score is calculated by adding together the voting percentages attained from each house. The highest percentage attainable in each house is 100. Thus, the maximum score a candidate can achieve is 200 as a result of attaining 100 percent of the votes from the contracted party house and 100 percent from the non-contracted party house (100 percent + 100 percent = score of 200). In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold, a second ballot will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.”
>>> d. In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold and the candidates do not tie, a second runoff ballot will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.”
>>> e. If the single candidate does not reach the 60 percent of each house threshold in the runoff ballot, then each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful runoff ballot.
>>> Each house shall select a Council Vice-Chair from within its respective house.
>>> A Chair may not be a member of the same Stakeholder Group of either of the Vice-Chairs.
>>> The Chair and Vice-Chairs shall retain their votes (if any) in their respective houses (if any).
>>> In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair’s term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co- Chairs to jointly oversee the new Chair election and conduct Council business until a successful election can be held. In the event that one or both Vice-Chairs’ terms ends concurrently with the term of the previous Chair, the procedures described in Section 2.2.1 below shall apply.
>>> The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following each election and runoff ballot, whether successful or unsuccessful.
>>> Appendix 2: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11> Article 11, Section 3)
>>> (i) Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A, Annex A-1 or Annex A-2 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:
>>> (i) Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
>>> (ii) 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.
>>> (iii) Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority (as defined in Section 11.3(i)(xix)).
>>> (iv) 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.
>>> (v) Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>> (vi) Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under (iv) or (v) above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
>>> (vii) 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.
>>> (viii) 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.
>>> (ix) Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
>>> (x) 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.
>>> (xi) Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>>> (xii) Initiation of an Expedited Policy Development Process ("EPDP"): requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>> (xiii) Approve an EPDP Team Charter: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>> (xiv) Approval of EPDP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>> (xv) Approve an EPDP 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.
>>> (xvi) Initiation of a GNSO Guidance Process ("GGP"): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>>> (xvii) Rejection of Initiation of a GGP Requested by the Board: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>> (xviii) Approval of GGP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>> (xix) A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (B) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council members of one House and a majority of the Council members of the other House.
>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf>
>>> Appendix 1 GNSO Council Voting Results table
>>> Absentee Voting Procedures https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf>
>>> 4.4 Absentee Voting
>>> 4.1.1 Applicability
>>> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures.
>>> Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
>>> Approve a PDP recommendation;
>>> Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws;
>>> Fill a Council position open for election.
>>> 4.1.2 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.
>>> 4.1.3 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.
>>> 4.1.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:38:37 +0900
From: Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ICANN meeting] Final Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meetings part I and part II -24 October 2018 at 11:00 UTC
Hi,
thanks
I think in term of effectiveness and in order to manage such effort, the
NCSG Policy Committee will organize that via approaches we used before such
as ad-hoc group etc.
Best,
Rafik
On Tue 23 Oct. 2018 at 21:10, Collin Kurre <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks for sharing, Amr!
>
> I am very interested in keeping track of the implementation of PDP 3.0,
> particularly in the context of wide conversations about the evolution of
> the multistakeholder model. The GNSO Council may need to provide guidance
> to the GNSO Council. I'm happy to assist with coordination, there is an
> appetite for that.
>
> - Collin
>
> -
> Collin Kurre
> ARTICLE 19
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:27 PM, Amr Elsadr < [log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]> > wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Looking at the motion on the Council agenda to adopt the PDP 3.0 report; During
> yesterday's NCSG PC meeting, I had suggested that our Councilors offer a
> friendly amendment to this motion, requiring a review of the implementation
> of the report's recommendations after a year following adoption of the
> report. Stephanie Perrin had kindly agreed to submit a proposal to the
> Council meeting, and I had promised that it would be possible to have a
> draft clause for the Council's consideration.
>
> After further reflection, I would like to make this suggestion, as it is
> already in place. I believe the amendment would be redundant, and
> unnecessary. Although it should be noted that the Council should be aware
> of the implementation of the PDP 3.0 report, it is also better than an
> annual one.
>
> Thought I would share this here, since I brought it up yesterday.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak < [log in to unmask] >
> wrote:
>
> hi all,
>
> GNSO council meetings (Part II and Part II) next week on Wednesday 24th
> October 11: 00UTC.
> The part will be the first meeting for the incoming council for the
> 2018-2019 term and include the election for GNSO Chair.
> Remote participation will be available (details here https://63.schedule.icann.org/
> meetings / 901,654 <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654> and
> here https://63.schedule.icann.org/ meetings / 901,655
> <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655> ).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please see the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meetings part I
> and part II on 24 October 2018 at 11:00 UTC.
>
>
> Final GNSO Council Agenda 24 October 2018 - Part I
> Please Note That All documentation referenced in the agenda-have-been was
> Gathered Wiki page for convenience and Easier Access: https://community.icann.org/x/
> <https://community.icann.org/x/wRVpBQ>wRVpBQ
> <https://community.icann.org/x/wRVpBQ>
> <https://community.icann.org/x/HxlpBQ>
> <https://community.icann.org/x/wRVpBQ>
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf> v3.3,
> updated on 30 January 2018
> For convenience:
>
> - An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is
> provided in Appendix 1 to 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.
>
>
> Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y9663p2o
> 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 10:00 London; 16:00 Islamabad; 20:00
> Tokyo; 22:00 Hobart
>
>
> GNSO Council Meeting remote participation details:
> https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901654
>
>
> 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 mins)*
> 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
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-16aug18-en.pdf> of
> the GNSO Council meeting on the 26 August 2018 were posted on the 03
> September 2018
> Minutes
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/minutes-council-27sep18-en.pdf>
> of the GNSO Council meeting on the 25 September 2018 were posted on the 13
> October 2018
>
>
> *Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 minutes)*
> 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
> topics, to include review of Projects List
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project>and Action Item List
> <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg>
> *Item 3. Consent Agenda (5 minutes) *
>
> - Reconfirmation of Julf Helsingius as GNSO Council Liaison to the
> Governmental Advisory Committee (motion
> <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ>)
> - Recommendations Report
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/reconvened-red-cross-recommendations-14oct18-en.pdf>
> to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the
> Reconvened Working Group on Red Cross Names Policy Development Process
> (PDP) Working Group.
>
>
> *Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Confirmation of Standing Committee on ICANN’s
> Budget and Operations Charter (10 minutes)*
>
> Standing Committee on ICANN’s Budget and Operations Charter (SCBO) has
> operated under an interim charter since its adoption on 21 December 2017.
> In FY18 under this interim charter, the SCBO developed four public comments
> (IANA-PTI FY19 Budget, ICANN's Reserve Fund Target Level, ICANN's Draft
> FY19 Budget and Operating Plan, & ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed
> Replenishment Strategy) on behalf of the GNSO Council that were later
> accepted and posted to ICANN's public forum
>
>
> On 17 September 2018, the SCBO delivered an After Action Report on the
> SCBO experiences and lessons learned where the report suggested that the
> SCBO charter did not warrant any change and that the SCBO become a
> permanent standing committee of the GNSO Council
>
> Here, the Council will vote to adopt the charter of the SCBO on a
> permanent basis.
>
> 4.1 – Presentation of motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ>
> (Ayden Férdeline)
>
> 4.2 – Council discussion
>
> 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>
> *Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit, in respect of the
> financial impact on the GNSO’s responsibility “for developing and
> recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic
> top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in
> these Bylaws.”*
>
>
>
> *Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 (20 minutes)*
>
> In January 2018, the GNSO Council held an inaugural three-day Strategic
> Planning Session. On Day 3 of this meeting, the GNSO Council reviewed the
> workload for the year ahead and identified potential milestones, noting
> that the current average timeline for delivery of an Initial Report has
> increased at least 2-4 times compared to previous PDPs. In addition to
> noting the increased duration of the PDP lifecycle, the Council began to
> identify challenges being encountered in PDPs, informed by a staff
> discussion paper on optimizing increased engagement and participation while
> ensuring efficient and effective policy development.
>
> The effort to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO PDP
> process is called GNSO PDP 3.0. On 11 May 2018, a summary paper was shared
> with the Council, summarizing input received to date, as well as some
> proposed incremental improvements. The Council members and their respective
> Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies were invited to provide input, after
> which a summary report
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-summary-feedback-10sep18-en.pdf>
> was prepared and shared with the Council on 10 September 2018, followed by
> a dedicated webinar <https://participate.icann.org/p1s5rcio69b/> on 11
> September 2018.
>
> Based on the input received as well as the subsequent webinar, Council
> leadership developed a proposed GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 *How
> to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO Policy Development
> Process *
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-increase-effectiveness-efficiency-16oct18-en.pdf>
> document for Council consideration. The GNSO Council and broader
> community will have reviewed and discussed the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation
> Plan during the GNSO Weekend Session at ICANN63.
>
> Here, the Council will vote to adopt the GNSO PDP 3.0 Implementation Plan.
>
> 5.1 – Presentation of motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ> (TBD)
>
> 5.2 – Council discussion
>
> 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>
> *Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit, in the GNSO’s pursuit to
> improve on its responsibility “for developing and recommending to the Board
> substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other
> responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws.”*
>
>
>
> *Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE – Termination of the Next-Generation gTLD
> Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development
> Process (15 minutes)*
>
> On 19 November 2015, the GNSO Council adopted the charter
> <https://community.icann.org/x/E4xlAw> for the next-generation gTLD
> Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development
> Process Working group. Following ICANN61 (March 2018), the RDS PDP
> Leadership decided to put on hold WG meetings indefinitely. This decision
> was made in light of the uncertain status of GDPR-related work and the
> possible duplication of efforts as a result of the adoption by the ICANN
> Board of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data.
>
> Following the initiation by the GNSO Council of the Expedited Policy
> Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD
> Registration data, Stephanie Perrin in her role as the GNSO Council Liaison
> to the RDS PDP WG, submitted the required Termination Summary on 17 July
> 2018 to recommend to the GNSO Council that the RDS PDP WG be terminated as
> per section 15 of the PDP Manual.
>
> Here, the Council will vote to terminate the Next-Generation gTLD
> Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development
> Process.
>
> 6.1 – Presentation of motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ>
> (Stephanie Perrin)
>
> 6.2 – Council discussion
>
> 6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: Supermajority)
>
> *Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as indicated in section
> 11.3.i.vii of the ICANN Bylaws, where the Council may “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.”*
>
>
>
> *Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection
> Mechanisms (15 minutes)*
>
> The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG had
> worked to resolve a final recommendation relating to IGO jurisdictional
> immunity and registrants’ rights to file court proceedings. The WG has
> determined consensus on a set of options for this final recommendation, as
> well as for all other recommendations. The WG Chair proposed his
> determination of consensus levels for all recommendations, which the WG
> affirmed. On 27 June 2018, the GNSO Council passed a resolution
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201806>, thanking the PDP
> WG for its efforts and requesting that it submit its Final Report in time
> for the 19 July 2018 Council meeting.
>
> After having agreed on consensus levels for its final recommendations, the
> WG considered the text of its Final Report. On 9 July 2018, the PDP WG
> submitted its Final Report
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-17jul18-en.pdf>
> to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus
> recommendations and three minority statements, documenting their
> disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other
> parts of the Final Report.
>
> There remain several inconsistencies between GAC advice and consensus
> recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP WG, which have yet to be reconciled,
> including on the topic of appropriate protections for IGO acronyms (both
> preventative and curative). During its 19 July Council meeting, the Council
> resolved <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201807> to accept
> the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP
> Working Group and has begun considering the topic of curative rights
> protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall scope of
> protection for all IGO identifiers.
>
> On 9 October 2018, the Council held a question and answer webinar to
> review the recommendations and to ask itself a series of questions, 1) Does
> the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was
> chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group
> chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and
> did it do so in a legitimate way)?; 2) Has the PDP followed due process?;
> and 3) Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?
>
> Here, the Council will vote on to accept to recommendation and Final
> Report of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP
> WG.
>
> 7.1 – Presentation of motion <https://community.icann.org/x/yBVpBQ> (TBD)
>
> 7.2 – Council discussion
>
> 7.2.1: Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that
> it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working
> Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter
> topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?
>
> 7.2.2: Has the PDP followed due process?
>
> 7.2.3: Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?
>
>
> 7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: approval of PDP recommendations
> imposing contractual obligations on Contracted Parties: Supermajority;
> approval of other PDP recommendations: 50% of each House plus 1 Councilor
> from 3 out of 4 Stakeholder Groups in favor)
>
> *Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as indicated in section
> 11.1 of the ICANN Bylaws, where it states that the GNSO is “responsible for
> developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to
> generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set
> forth in these Bylaws.”*
>
>
> *Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE – Temporary Specification for Registration Data
> Expedited Policy Development Process - Recurring Update (15 minutes)*
>
> On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council resolved
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20180719-2> to initiate
> the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary
> Specification for gTLD Registration Data and adopt the EPDP Team Charter
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf>.
> Given the challenging timeline for the EPDP and the GNSO Council’s role in
> managing the PDP process, the Council has agreed that including a recurring
> update on the EPDP for each Council meeting is prudent.
>
> Here, the Council will receive an update from the GNSO Council liaison to
> the EPDP.
>
> 8.1 – Update (Rafik Dammak, GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP and EPDP
> vice-chair)
>
> 8.2 – Council discussion
>
> 8.3 – Next steps
>
>
>
>
> *Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)*
>
>
> 9.1 - Open Microphone
>
>
> ________________________________
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11,
> Section 11.3(i))
> See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11.
> Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating
> Procedures, Section 4.4)
> See
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf
>
>
> References for Coordinated Universal Time of 11:00 UTC
> Local time between March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 04:00
> San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6 05:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 07:00
> Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 08:00
> Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3 08:00
> London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+1 12:00
> Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 12:00
> Paris, France (CEST) UTC+2 13:00
> Islamabad, Pakistan (PKT) UTC+5 16:00
> Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 19:00
> Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9 20:00
> Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEST) UTC+10 22:00
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DST starts/ends on Sunday 28 of October 2018, 2:00 or 3:00 local time
> (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 4 of November 2018 for the
> US.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com and
> https://tinyurl.com/y82s88vu <https://tinyurl.com/y9663p2o>
> Final GNSO Council Agenda 24 October 2018 - Part II (Admin)
> Please note that *all documents *referenced *in the agenda have been
> gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: *
> *https://community.icann.org/x/1iIhB*
> <https://community.icann.org/x/1iIhB>
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf> v3.3,
> updated on 30 January 2018
>
>
>
> 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 agenda.
>
> Coordinated Universal Time: 13:15 UTC: *https://tinyurl.com/ycvf33wr*
> <https://tinyurl.com/ycvf33wr>
>
> *GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast*
> GNSO Council Meeting remote participation details:
> https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901655
>
> 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. Seating of the 2018 / 2019 Council (20 mins)*
>
> 1.1 - Roll Call
>
> 1.2 - Statements of Interest
>
> Maxim Alzoba - SOI
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Maxim+Alzoba+SOI> Registries
> Stakeholder Group
>
> Elsa Saade - SOI
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Elsa+Saade+SOI>
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
>
> Flip Petillion: SOI
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Flip+Petillion+SOI>
> Intellectual Property Constituency
>
> Scott McCormick: SOI <https://community.icann.org/x/fA28BQ> Commercial
> and Business Users Constituency
>
> 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
>
> *Item 2. Election of the Chair (30 mins)*
>
> Two nomination were received for this position, Rafik Dammak from the
> Non-Contracted Parties House and Keith Drazek from the Contract Parties
> House. The GNSO reviewed the candidate statements
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections> and held a question &
> answer session with both candidates on 21 October 2018. Here the GNSO
> Council will proceed to hold the election for its Chair for 2019-2020,
> according to the GNSO Operating Procedures (note Section 2.2 of the GNSO
> Operating Procedures on Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs (see
> Appendix 1 below)).
>
> *Item 3: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Empowered Community Roles and
> Responsibilities – GNSO Operating Procedures Templates and Guideline
> Development*
>
> Following the adoption by the GNSO Council of the revised GNSO Operating
> Procedures, as well as the proposed modifications to the ICANN Bylaws
> adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors on 13 May 2018, staff has outlined
> in a table the additional proposed steps to be taken to ensure preparedness
> as well as facilitate the ability for the GNSO Council to act in relation
> to the new roles and responsibilities outlined in the post-transition
> Bylaws. The GNSO Council is requested to review the proposed next steps and
> to provide feedback whether it is supportive of these proposed next steps
> or whether modifications should be considered. In regards to the proposed
> next steps in the table, staff has developed first drafts of templates and
> possible guidelines for the Council’s consideration, but the Council could
> also consider setting up a dedicated committee / drafting team to take on
> this task and/or collaborate with staff, noting that any proposed templates
> and/or guidelines would still need to come back to the GNSO Council for
> approval.
>
> Here, the Council will discuss next steps and an action plan.
>
> 3.1 – Update (TBD)
>
> 3.2 – Council discussion
>
> 3.3 – Next steps
>
>
>
> *Item 43. Any Other Business (010 min)*
>
> None
>
> *Appendix 1: Excerpt from GNSO Operating Procedures (Section 2.2)*
> 2.2 https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf Officer
> Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs
>
> The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair and two Vice-Chairs as
> follows:
>
> 1. The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of each house.
> 2. Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO
> Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate
> its candidate. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a
> member of a house, but must be a current or incoming member of the GNSO
> Council. Should a Chair be elected from outside of the houses that Chair
> will be a non-voting Chair.
>
> a. All ballots will include the “none of the above”
> option. In the event that a 60 percent vote of each house selects the
> “none of the above” option, each house will commence a new nomination
> period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be
> scheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote.
>
> b. In the case of a tie for the most votes between the
> two candidates, or between a candidate and “none of above,” a second
> election will be held no sooner than 30 days. The candidates shall remain
> the same for this second election. In the case this second election also
> results in a tie, each house will commence a new nomination period of not
> longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled
> for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote.
>
> c. The leading candidate will be defined as the one
> with the highest score. The score is calculated by adding together the
> voting percentages attained from each house. The highest percentage
> attainable in each house is 100. Thus, the maximum score a candidate can
> achieve is 200 as a result of attaining 100 percent of the votes from the
> contracted party house and 100 percent from the non-contracted party house
> (100 percent + 100 percent = score of 200). In case neither candidate
> reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold, a second ballot will be
> held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.”
>
> d. In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of
> each house threshold and the candidates do not tie, a second runoff ballot
> will be held between the leading candidate and “none of the above.”
>
> e. If the single candidate does not reach the 60
> percent of each house threshold in the runoff ballot, then each house will
> commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election
> for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after
> the unsuccessful runoff ballot.
>
> 1. Each house shall select a Council Vice-Chair from within its
> respective house.
> 2. A Chair may not be a member of the same Stakeholder Group of either
> of the Vice-Chairs.
> 3. The Chair and Vice-Chairs shall retain their votes (if any) in
> their respective houses (if any).
> 4. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council
> Chair by the end of the previous Chair’s term, the Vice-Chairs will serve
> as Interim GNSO Co- Chairs to jointly oversee the new Chair election and
> conduct Council business until a successful election can be held. In the
> event that one or both Vice-Chairs’ terms ends concurrently with the term
> of the previous Chair, the procedures described in Section 2.2.1 below
> shall apply.
> 5. The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately
> and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days
> following each election and runoff ballot, whether successful or
> unsuccessful.
>
> *Appendix 2: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (**ICANN Bylaws,*
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11>*
> Article 11, Section 3)*
>
> (i) Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, * Annex A*, *Annex A-1*
> or *Annex A-2* 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:
>
> (i) Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than
> one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
>
> (ii) 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.
>
> (iii) Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of
> GNSO Supermajority (as defined in *Section 11.3(i)(xix)*).
>
> (iv) 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.
>
> (v) Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>
> (vi) Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter
> approved under (iv) or (v) above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment
> to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
>
> (vii) 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.
>
> (viii) 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.
>
> (ix) Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
>
> (x) 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.
>
> (xi) Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval
> by the Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by
> the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>
> (xii) Initiation of an Expedited Policy Development Process ("*EPDP*"):
> requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>
> (xiii) Approve an EPDP Team Charter: requires an affirmative vote of a
> GNSO Supermajority.
>
> (xiv) Approval of EPDP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a
> GNSO Supermajority.
>
> (xv) Approve an EPDP 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.
>
> (xvi) Initiation of a GNSO Guidance Process ("*GGP*"): requires an
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than
> two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>
> (xvii) Rejection of Initiation of a GGP Requested by the Board: requires
> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>
> (xviii) Approval of GGP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a
> GNSO Supermajority.
>
> (xix) A "*GNSO Supermajority*" shall mean: (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the
> Council members of each House, or (B) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council
> members of one House and a majority of the Council members of the other
> House.
>
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf
>
> Appendix 1 GNSO Council Voting Results table
>
> *Absentee Voting Procedures *
> *https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf*
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf>
>
> *4.4 Absentee Voting*
>
> 4.1.1 *Applicability*
>
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council
> motions or measures.
>
> 1. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> 2. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> 3. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or
> ICANN Bylaws;
> 4. Fill a Council position open for election.
>
> 4.1.2 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.
>
> 4.1.3 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.
>
> 4.1.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
End of NCSG-DISCUSS Digest - 22 Oct 2018 to 23 Oct 2018 - Special issue (#2018-325)
***********************************************************************************
|
