Link to audiocast & GNSO Council Agenda 24 February 2011

Robin Gross robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG
Wed Feb 23 00:06:54 CET 2011 


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: February 22, 2011 2:59:32 PM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Updated GNSO Council Agenda 24 February 2011
> 
> Please remind the Stakeholder Group and Constituency members that the GNSO Council meeting is audiocast
> GNSO Council meeting audiocast
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
> 
>  
> Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 24 February 2011.
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-24feb11-en.htm
> 
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_24_february_2011
> 
> 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
> 
> Coordinated Universal Time:15:00 UTC - see below for local times
> (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 16:00 Brussels,
> 
> Friday 25 February
> 00:00 Tokyo; 02:00 Melbourne
> 
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 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:
> • GNSO Project Decision Making
> • GNSO Improvements
> • Registration Abuse Policies
> • DNS Security and Stability
> • Whois
> • Cross Community Working Groups
> • New gTLD Applicant Guidebook
> 
> 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:
> • 3 February 2011 Council minutes – Approved on 23 February 2011
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10675.html.
> 
> Item 2: Pending Projects – Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B PDP Working Group (IRTP Part B) (10 minutes)
> 
> Update on Working Group's progress. Working Group (WG) was started on April 16, 2009. WG is chaired by Michele Neylon.
> Refer to GNSO Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf.
> 2. 1 Update on WG – Marika Konings, ICANN Staff
> Presentation: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/irtp-b-pdp-wg-24feb11-en.pdf
> 
> 2. 2 Discussion
> 
> 2. 3 Next steps
> 
> Item 3: Operations Steering Committee (OSC) (15 Minutes)
> 
> 3.1 Approval of amended Council procedures - 5.10 statements of interest
> • Refer to motion
> 24 february motions (motion 1)
> • Discussion
> • Vote
> 
> 3.2 Approval of Global Outreach Recommendations for public comment
> refer to Global Outreach Recommendations
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf
> 
> • Refer to motion
> 24 february motions (motion 2)
> • Discussion
> • Vote
> 
> Item 4: Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines (10 minutes)
> 
> • Refer to: resolution 13 Jan meeting
> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201101
> • See public comments received (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-wg-guidelines/) as well as summary & analysis provided by staff
> 
> Update from PPSC Chair (Jeff Neuman)
> 
> Discuss next steps - in light of comments received, should GNSO Working Group Guidelines be adopted or are further modifications required? If further modifications are required, should these be made by the GNSO Council, or should the comments be referred back to the PPSC for consideration?
> 
> Item 5: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (10 minutes)
> 
> Refer to Board resolution:
> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6
> Rosemary Sinclair has volunteered to lead.
> 
> 5.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair
> 
> 5. 2 Discussion
> 
> 5. 3 Next steps?
> 
> Item 6: WHOIS studies (20 minutes)
> 
> A new WHOIS studies report has been posted
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11feb11-en.pdf.
> This includes the staff analysis on the last of the 4 WHOIS studies that the Council asked staff to scope for cost and feasibility (this is the study on "Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal").
> 
> The Council must now decide which of the remaining 3 studies (Registrant Identification, Proxy and Privacy "abuse" and this Relay and Reveal study) staff should initiate.
> (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-chart-11feb11-en.pdf)
> 
> 6.1 Update on WHOIS studies (Liz Gasster)
> 
> 6. 2 Discussion
> 
> 6.3 Next steps, how to decide which studies to do, a motion?
> 
> Item 7: Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group (DSSA-WG) (10 minutes)
> 
> At their meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting ALAC, the ccNSO, the GNSO, the GAC and the NRO acknowledged the need for a better understanding of the security and stability of the global DNS. To this end these SOs and ACs agreed to establish a joint DNS Security and Stability Working Group (DSSA-WG).
> 
> Refer to DSSA-WG draft charter
> http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf
> 
> Current GNSO volunteers:
> 
> • Zahid Jamil (CBUC)
> • Scott McCormick (CBUC)
> • Mikey O'Connor (CBUC)
> • Adam Palmer(CBUC Symantec)
> • George Asare-Sakyi (NCSG)
> • Rafik Dammak (NCSG)
> • Matt Serlin - (MarkMonitor, RrSG))
> • Rick Wilhelm (Networksolutions RrSG)
> • Greg Aaron (Afilias, RySG)
> • Keith Drazek (Verisign, RySG)
> • Don Blumenthal (PIR, RySG)
> • Mike Rodenbaufg (IPC)
> 
> 7.1 Update from WG (Julie Hedlund)
> 
> 7. 2 Discussion
> 
> 7. 3 Selection of GNSO co-chair for the WG.
> 
> Item 8: Discussion on Community Working Groups (15 minutes)
> 
> Several Community Working Groups (CWG) have been started recently. How should the GNSO approach such groups?
> Current CWG in which the GNSO is involved are:
> 
> ccNSO-GNSO IDN WG (JIG)
> SSAC/GNSO Internationalized Registration Data (IRD WG)
> Recommendation 6 Working Group
> Geographic Regions Drafting Team
> Joint SO/AC applicant support for new gTLDS working group (JAS)
> 8.1 Discussion.
> 
> Item 9: Follow-up on RAP recommendations (10 minutes)
> 
> Refer to motion passed during 3 February meeting
> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102
> 
> More specifically, Resolve clause 1:
> RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward the two issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource 
> requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANN
>  Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council with its feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in a timely manner.
> 
> 9.1 Feedback from ICANN Compliance Staff. (Marika Konings)
> 
> 9. 2 Discussion
> 
> RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the current state of the UDRP.
> 
> 9. 3 Staff update, expected delivery date for Issues Report (Liz Gasster).
> 
> RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names in accordance with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report.
> 
> 9. 4 Staff update, expected delivery date for Discussion Paper (Liz Gasster)
> 
> Item 10: Any Other Business (10 Minutes)
> 
> 10.1 Update from Staff on goals, expected outcomes and organization of GAC/Board February meeting in Brussels (Staff).
> 
> 10. 2 Status of San Francisco planning (Olga Cavalli).
> 
> 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 October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere
> 
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+0DST 07:00
> Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+0DST 09:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+0DST 10:00
> Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00
> Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00
> Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00
> Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00
> Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+0DST 18:00
> Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00
> Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00
> Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 next day
> Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 02:00 next day
> 
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
> 
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> 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: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110222/f039edc8/attachment.html>

More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list