Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]> > Date: September 30, 2010 3:12:53 PM PDT > To: liaison6c <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council agenda Thursday, 7 October 2010 > > > Please notify your constituencies and stakeholder groups that the > GNSO Council meeting will be audio cast. > > GNSO Council meeting audiocast link: > > http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u > > Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 7 October 2010. > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-07oct10-en.htm > > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? > proposed_agenda_7_october_2010 > > This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating > Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. > http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf > > 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. > > Meeting Time 15:00 UTC > > See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: > 08:00 PDT; 10:00 CDT; 11:00 EST; 12:00 Buenos Aires; 12:00 Brazil; > 17:00 CET; 19:00 Moscow, 20:00 Karachi, 23:00 Hong Kong, > > Friday, 8 October > 00:00 Tokyo, 01:00 Melbourne > > Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial > out call is needed. > > GNSO Council meeting audiocast > > http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u > > Item 1: Administrative matters (15 minutes) > > 1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of > Interest > > • Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required > to poll Councilors regarding “any direct or indirect interests that > may affect a Relevant Party’s judgment on an issue that is under > review, consideration, or discussion” in this meeting. > Here is the definition provided in the procedures: > > “Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific > time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and > indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) > or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, > political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived > to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue.” > > The main issues for this meeting are: > New gTLDs > Recommendation 6 Community WG Report to the Board > Excerpt from Draft Final Report - New gTLD Applicant Support > GNSO Comments regarding both of the above > GNSO Prioritization > > 1.2 Update any statements of interest > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting > per the GNSO Operating Procedures: > • 8 September 2010 meeting – Scheduled for Approval on 30 September > 2010. > > Item 2: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat (15 Minutes) > > 2.1 Refer to Board Resolutions: > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm > > 2.2 Comments from Staff (Kurt Pritz) > > • Questions? > > > 2.3 Action items > > • Response regarding VI PDP WG due 8 October > > > o Refer to letter from VI PDP WG: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09677.html > o Refer to motion: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?7_october_motions > o Discussion > o Vote (Note that absentee voting is not allowed.) > > • Request from the ALAC > > o Refer to message from Cheryl Langdon-Orr at > http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/langdon-orr-board- > resolutions-28sep10-en.pdf > o How should Chuck respond? > o What actions being taken by the At-Large are ones that the GNSO > would like to jointly support? > > > • Other? > > > Item 3: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community WG (25 minutes) > > 3.1 Summary of Report (Margie Milam) > > 3.2 Discussion > > 3.3 GNSO Comments > > • Summary of comments on Council list to date (Margie Milam) > • Additional comments > • Should we submit comments from the Council or from individual SGs/ > Constituencies? > • Next steps? > > > o Possible Council action on 28 October (if needed)? > > > 3.4 Special thanks to the Rec6 CWG and to Margie & Marika for their > incredible support. > > Item 4: Excerpt from Draft Final Report - New gTLD Applicant > Support (JAS) WG (15 minutes) > > 4.1 Refer to the following: > > > • Excerpt from Draft Final Report - New gTLD Applicant Support > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/jas/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft- > recommendations-summary-report-23sep10-en.pdf > > • New gTLD Applicant Support Draft Recommendations Summary > presentation > http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtld-applicant-support- > draft-recommendations-summary-07oct10-en.pdf > > 4.2 Brief Summary of Report (Rafik Dammak) > > 4.3 Discussion > > 4.4 GNSO Comments > > • Should we submit comments from the Council or from individual SGs/ > Constituencies? > • Next steps? > > o Possible Council action on 28 October (if needed)? > > > 4.4 Special thanks to the JAS WG members > > Item 5: GNSO Project Prioritization (20 minutes) > > 5.1 Refer to posted project ratings: > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-work-prioritization-project-list- > value-ratings-23jun10-en.pdf > > 5.2 Key points made in the 15 July Council meeting (from meeting > minutes): > > > • “. . . not a useful exercise, not much was learnt, should not > proceed further with the prioritization exercise.” > • “. . . spending more time on the exercise will not accomplish > useful results.” > • “It was a difficult exercise, policy matters were not prioritized > and the core issue, management of the workload, still has not been > resolved.” > • “The exercise was intended as a first step and not intended to > solve the workload management; other steps are needed. The exercise > contributed an important degree of common awareness and dissent to > the group.” > • “The prioritization process could be improved with further input > from the Councilors and stakeholder groups.” > • “The exercise is important and informative from a staff > perspective and the Council needs to look at a two-step process > going forward: step one - form a small team to improve the process > used to date drawing on input received; step two - develop a > process to manage the workload with input from staff of the > resources being used to support each of the working groups, which > will reflect both staff and community efforts.” > • “Support was expressed for continuing the prioritization work, > but linking it to the overall ICANN Staff and Community workload > and to the Budget process.” > • “The question of available resources should be looked at in > context. The Vertical Integration working group as an example of > one that would not normally have commenced with all the work before > Council, yet it did and the community resources were available.” > • “Some believe that work should be prioritized but the methodology > chosen is not the most appropriate or efficient.” > > > 5.3 Next Steps > > • Staff Utilization Analysis (Liz Gasster) > Refer to: > > http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-resource- > management-policy-staff-utilization-28sep10-en.pdf > > • Results of Adobe Connect Poll regarding possible next steps: > > > o Option 1: Spend no more time on prioritization - 5 votes (33%) > o Option 2: Develop a plan for using the results to manage the > workload in the near term - 2 votes (13%) > o Option 3: Form a drafting team with the task of developing a new > process - 0 votes (0%) > o Option 4: Form a drafting team with the task of improving the > process - 1 vote (7%) > o Option 5: Other? (including combinations of options 2, 3, and or > 4) - 7 votes (47%) > > • Discussion? > • Action Items > > Item 6: Selections for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs (10 minutes) > > 6.1 Refer to: > > • GNSO AoC Reviews site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ > • GNSO SSR RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/dns-ssr-en.htm > • GNSO Whois RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/whois- > policies-en.htm > > > 6.2 Selections by Rod Beckstrom & Heather Dryden > > > CSG > NCSG > RrSG > RySG > SSR Primary > Jeff Brueggeman > David Cake (Australia) > > Ken Silva > Whois Primary > Susan Kawaguchi > Kim G. Von Arx > James Bladel > Kathy Kleiman > (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep10-en.htm) > > 6.3 Discussion? > > Item 7: Suggested Improvements for GNSO Public Council meetings (10 > minutes) > > 7.1 Proposed recommendations (Wendy Seltzer) > > 7 .2 Discussion > > > Item 8: Status of Continued Action Items (10 Minutes) > > 8.1 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (Chuck Gomes) > > 8.2 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation > (Glen de Saint Géry) > > • Volunteers to date: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISCPC), Tatyana > Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi > Vansnick (NCSG), Philip Sheppard (CBUC) > • Feedback from Steering Committees (Rob Hoggarth) > • Question raised regarding GNSO Operating Procedures: Should the > concerns about the newly approved disclosure of interest > requirements be dealt with by the OSC & GCOT or by the standing > committee? > > Next Steps? Charter? > > > 8.3 High Level Progress of House/Stakeholder Group Elections > > • Councilors > • Chair & Vice Chair Nominations > • NCA Assignments > > > 8.4 Whois Studies > > • Status report for Whois Studies 3 & 4 (Liz Gasster) > • Refer to redline version of Proxy/Privacy Reveal study (Study 4) > RFP at > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29sep10-en.htm > > Item 9: Other Business (5 minutes) > > > 9.1 Status update on efforts to hire a new Director of Compliance > and additional Compliance personnel necessary to bring current > staff levels back up to 100% (David Olive) > > Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article > X, Section 3) > > 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, > or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a > GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple > majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below > shall apply to the following GNSO actions: > 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more > than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; > 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as > described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than > 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; > 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of > more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO > Supermajority”); > 4. 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; > 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires > an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and > 6. 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 with respect to any contracting party affected > by such contract provision. > > Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating > Procedures 4.4) > > Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the > following items may vote by absentee ballot: > 1. Initiate a policy development process; > 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; > 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; > 4. Fill a position open for election. > > The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting > and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by > telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must > be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in > which a vote is initiated, except that, 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 days. There > must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. > ________________________________________ > Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN > hemisphere > ________________________________________ > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 15:00UTC > ________________________________________ > California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 > Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00 > New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 > Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 > Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 > Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 16:00 > Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 > Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 19:00 > Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 > Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 > Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 > Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 (Friday) > ________________________________________ > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 > local time (with exceptions) > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > [log in to unmask] > http://gnso.icann.org > > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]