#ICANN49 Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) Activities Update to the GNSO Council ICANN Singapore Meeting 22 March 2014

Recommendations for Council consideration in Singapore New procedures to address resubmission of motion: –Following criteria need to be met: explanation for the resubmission; timely publication of the resubmitted motion; seconding of the resubmitted motion by a Councilor from each of the two GNSO Houses –Limitations and exceptions –Disallowing any material changes to the original motion, and –Clarifying that a previously-submitted motion not voted upon by the GNSO Council is considered a new motion (and not resubmitted) Working Group self-assessment –Recommended procedures for administering the self-assessment be added as a new Section 7.0 to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines 2 #ICANN49

Update of Current Activities Voting by –Considering whether to create a procedure for the GNSO Council to hold a vote without meeting. Possible inclusion of a Waiver or Exception in the GNSO Operating Procedures –Considering whether there should be a procedure for the GNSO Council to waive or invoke an exception to its Operating Procedures, particularly with respect to the motion submission deadline. Review of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels –Review perceived limitation in the currently defined Consensus Levels when assigning “Divergence” #ICANN49

Annex: Background on the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI)

Background on the SCI Revised Charter approved 31 October 2013 by the GNSO Council Responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of the GNSO Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. –On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems –On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) Responsible for considering requests concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion. 5 #ICANN49

Revised GNSO Operating Procedures: Resubmission of a Motion In 2013 the GNSO Council: Determined that the GNSO Operating Procedures do not address the resubmission of a motion and directed the SCI to consider the issue. The SCI: Developed procedures that provide for the resubmission of a motion to the GNSO Council for consideration at a subsequent meeting of the Council, if three criteria are followed: 1.Providing of an explanation for the resubmission; 2.Timely publication of the resubmitted motion; and 3.Seconding of the resubmitted motion by a Councilor from each of the two GNSO Houses. 6 #ICANN49

Revised GNSO Operating Procedures: Working Group Self Assessment In 2013 the GNSO Council: Determined that the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures, do not contain a mechanism for Working Groups (WGs) to self- assess their work. The SCI: Developed and tested a WG self-assessment questionnaire, and Recommended procedures for administering the self- assessment be added as a new Section 7.0 to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. 7 #ICANN49

Revised GNSO Operating Procedures: Working Group Self Assessment 8 #ICANN49

Revised GNSO Operating Procedures: Next Steps Revised GNSO Operating Procedures was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 10 February 2014 ending on 03 March No comments were received so the SCI determined no changes to the revisions were necessary. The SCI submitted to the GNSO Council a motion to approve the revised Operating Procedures. The Council will consider the motion at its meeting on 26 March. 9 #ICANN49

Review of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels Review of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels: –Raised by the IGO-INGO in its final report: Possible limitation in the currently defined Consensus Levels when assigning “Divergence” to recommendations regarding acronym protections. Use of “Divergence” did not adequately represent the lack of support for the proposed recommendation when said recommendation was stated in the affirmative, for example “Do you support...?” Concern that not adhering to current Working Group Guidelines could introduce risk to the process, because “Consensus Against” is not formally defined. #ICANN49

Review of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels The SCI is considering potential actions: Adding a new Consensus Level defining “Consensus Against” to the GNSO WG Guidelines;GNSO WG Guidelines Without adding a new Consensus Level, clarifying that the existing definition/description of “Consensus” includes situations appropriately determined to be “Consensus Against”; In either case, determining if the current “Divergence” level needs to be amended. #ICANN49

Thank You and Questions