Note below discussion item 6 on GNSO Council Meeting agenda for tomorrow.  We need for the community and board to understand the harmful impact to the bottom-up community-led policy development model if the BGC recon request is adopted later this month.  NCSG is inviting the Board to speak with us about this BGC recommendation (and other concerned community members are invited also) via letter this week.   Should be a good discussion on the council tomorrow (audiocast link).   

Good luck NCSG GNSO Councilors in defending ICANN's bottom-up policy process in tomorrow's meeting!

Thanks,

Robin

Item 6: DISCUSSION – Reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse (30 mins)

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

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

2. More generally about the effectiveness of the reconsideration process.

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

---------------------------------

Revised Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting – 13 June 2013

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

http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16may13-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 Times 11:00 UTC
http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap

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

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 audio cast
http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u

Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)

1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 16 May 2013 posted as approved on 30 May 2013

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

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

Include brief review of Projects List and Action List

Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes)

TBC.

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

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

Link to motion
Motions 13 June 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.1 Reading of the motion (Ching Chiao)
Motions 13 June 2013
5.2 Discussion
5.3 Vote (Threshold: 33% of Both 3 CPH, 5 NCPH; OR 66% of ONE 5 CPH, 9 NCPH)

Item 6: DISCUSSION – Reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse (30 mins)

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

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

2. More generally about the effectiveness of the reconsideration process.

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

Item 7: DISCUSSION – Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council (10 mins)

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

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

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

During its meeting in Beijing, the ICANN Board requested that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs' (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm#2.a). The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs examines potential challenges from a user experience perspective when variants of IDN TLDs are activated and offers recommendations to users to minimize risks and optimize the implementation. 

Ideally, input is requested on:

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

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

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

Furthermore, it was suggested that the GNSO Council should send a letter to the Board highlighting the importance of IDN related issues. A first draft of such letter was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list on 11/4 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14489.html).

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

http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-variant-tlds-ux-16may13-en.pdf

8.1 Discussion

8.2 Next steps – Any additional action to be taken?

8.3 Update on letter to the Board (Ching Chiao)

Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Planning for Durban (10 minutes)

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

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

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

Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes)