October 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] Call for Volunteers: IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

This message is a bit unclear as to the intent. It is a call for WG members but then immediately talks about what the DT will do. My assumption is that the first task of the WG will be to act as the DT. Correct? Alan At 30/10/2012 09:48 AM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29oct12-en.htm>http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29oct12-en.htm > > >Call for Volunteers: IGN-INGO Protections Policy >Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members >Date: 29 October 2012 > > > > > >Introduction > > > >At its meeting on 17 October 2012, the GNSO >Council initiated a Policy Development Process >(PDP) on the Protection of Certain International >Organization Names in all GTLDs. (see ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-2>20121017-2). >The GNSO Council decided at this meeting that a >group of volunteers should now be convened to >draft the charter for the IGO-INGO PDP Working >Group, which is to be approved by the GNSO Council. > > >Task of the Drafting Team > > > >The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing >a charter for the PDP Working Group on the >Protection of Certain International Organization >Names in all GTLDs. The Charter should include, >at a minimum, the following elements as >specified in the ><http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf>GNSO >Working Group Guidelines: Working Group >identification; Mission, Purpose and >Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and >Organization, and; Rules of Engagement. The >proposed charter will be submitted to the GNSO >Council for its consideration. Upon completion >of the Charter by the Drafting Team, the Working >Group will then begin execution of the Charter. > > >Volunteers > > > >If you are interested to participate, please >send an email to the ><mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>GNSO >Secretariat. You will be required to complete a ><http://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>Statement >of Interest in order to participate. It is >proposed that the group meet each Wednesday at 18:00 UTC for two hours. > > >Background Information on the Issue > > > >The ICANN Board has requested policy advice from >the GNSO Council and the GAC on whether special >protections should be afforded for the names and >acronyms of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement >("RCRC"), the International Olympic Committee >("IOC") and/or International Government Organizations ("IGOs"). > >In September 2011, the GAC sent advice to the >GNSO with a proposal for granting second level >protections based upon the protections afforded >to IOC/RCRC at the first level during the >initial round of new gTLD applications, and that >such protections are permanent. As a result of >the GAC proposal submitted to the GNSO, the GNSO >IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was formed and created a >set of recommendations for protecting the >IOC/RCRC names at the second level of the >initial round new gTLDs, including the >initiation of an "expedited PDP" to determine >appropriate permanent protections for the RCRC and IOC names. > >The latest inquiry to examine the issue of >protecting IGO names emerged as a result of a >request from the ICANN Board in response to >letters received from the OECD and other IGOs in >December 2011. Specifically, IGOs are seeking >ICANN approval of protections at the top level >that, at a minimum, are similar to those >afforded to the RCRC and IOC in the Applicant >Guidebook. In addition, IGOs are seeking a >pre-emptive mechanism to protect their names at >the second level. On 11 March 2012, the ICANN >Board formally requested that the GNSO Council >and the GAC provide policy advice on the IGO's request. > >The Final Issue Report was submitted by ICANN >Staff on 1 October 2012 (see ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…) >and in this report a number of issues are >outlined that will need further consideration during the PDP. > >The GNSO Council approved the IGO-INGO PDP at its 17 October 2012 meeting. > > >Recommended Reading for Volunteers > > > > * > <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…>Final > Issue Report on the Protection of IGO Names > * > <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf>GNSO > Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines > > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org >

4 3

Final GNSO WHOIS RT Summary Chart
by Margie Milam Oct. 30, 2012

Oct. 30, 2012

Dear All, Please find attached final summary chart, clean and redlined, to reflect all of the input received to date. Please note that the chart is missing any input from Registrars or the NCSG regarding whether they agree/disagree with each of the WHOIS RT recommendations. All the best, Margie _________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _________ From: Margie Milam Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 1:58 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: Updated WHOIS RT FInal Report Recommendations- REMINDER FOR FINAL COMMENTS Dear All, I just wanted to send a reminder on this, since I have only received comments from the IPC. Please let me know by COB today whether your SG/C has any additional comments to the chart. All the best, Margie From: Margie Milam Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:05 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Updated WHOIS RT FInal Report Recommendations Dear All, As discussed last week, I updated the draft WHOIS RT summary chart to include the clarifications requested by the ISP Constituency, and to include a column clarifying whether there was agreement with the substance of each recommendation, based upon the comments submitted in the Public Comment Forum (PCF) for the WHOIS Review Team Final Report. In reviewing the comments<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-whois-rt-final-…> filed in the PCF, I did not locate submissions from each constituency/SG, making it difficult to complete the chart. Notably missing were comments from Registrars, NCSG, or the IPC on the Final Report (although in some cases there were submissions on the draft report). In addition, from the comments actually submitted, it was not clear whether the commentators agreed/disagreed with the recommendation itself, since many of the comments appeared to address aspects of the recommendations, as opposed to evaluating the recommendation holistically. As a result, it is important that each constituency/stakeholder group review the information contained in the attached chart, and indicate whether they agree/disagree with each of the recommendations. Please provide this information by COB Monday, October 29, 2012, so that the chart can be finalized in advance of the Board's consideration of the WHOIS RT Final Report Recommendations. All the best, Margie _______ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _______

1 0

Call for Volunteers: IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 30, 2012

Oct. 30, 2012

http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29oct12-en.htm Call for Volunteers: IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members Date: 29 October 2012 Introduction At its meeting on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. (see 20121017-2<http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-2>). The GNSO Council decided at this meeting that a group of volunteers should now be convened to draft the charter for the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group, which is to be approved by the GNSO Council. Task of the Drafting Team The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing a charter for the PDP Working Group on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. The Charter should include, at a minimum, the following elements as specified in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf>: Working Group identification; Mission, Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization, and; Rules of Engagement. The proposed charter will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Upon completion of the Charter by the Drafting Team, the Working Group will then begin execution of the Charter. Volunteers If you are interested to participate, please send an email to the GNSO Secretariat<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>. You will be required to complete a Statement of Interest<http://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs> in order to participate. It is proposed that the group meet each Wednesday at 18:00 UTC for two hours. Background Information on the Issue The ICANN Board has requested policy advice from the GNSO Council and the GAC on whether special protections should be afforded for the names and acronyms of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement ("RCRC"), the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") and/or International Government Organizations ("IGOs"). In September 2011, the GAC sent advice to the GNSO with a proposal for granting second level protections based upon the protections afforded to IOC/RCRC at the first level during the initial round of new gTLD applications, and that such protections are permanent. As a result of the GAC proposal submitted to the GNSO, the GNSO IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was formed and created a set of recommendations for protecting the IOC/RCRC names at the second level of the initial round new gTLDs, including the initiation of an "expedited PDP" to determine appropriate permanent protections for the RCRC and IOC names. The latest inquiry to examine the issue of protecting IGO names emerged as a result of a request from the ICANN Board in response to letters received from the OECD and other IGOs in December 2011. Specifically, IGOs are seeking ICANN approval of protections at the top level that, at a minimum, are similar to those afforded to the RCRC and IOC in the Applicant Guidebook. In addition, IGOs are seeking a pre-emptive mechanism to protect their names at the second level. On 11 March 2012, the ICANN Board formally requested that the GNSO Council and the GAC provide policy advice on the IGO's request. The Final Issue Report was submitted by ICANN Staff on 1 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…) and in this report a number of issues are outlined that will need further consideration during the PDP. The GNSO Council approved the IGO-INGO PDP at its 17 October 2012 meeting. Recommended Reading for Volunteers * Final Issue Report on the Protection of IGO Names<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…> * GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Expert Recommended Improvements to ICANN's Accountability Structures
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 30, 2012

Oct. 30, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/asep-recommendations-26oct12-e… Expert Recommended Improvements to ICANN's Accountability Structures Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 26 October 2012 Comment Close: 16 November 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-26oct12-en.htm> Reply Open: 17 November 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:asep-recommendations@icann.org> Reply Close: 8 December 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/asep-recommendations/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Board Categories/Tags: Transparency/Accountability Purpose (Brief): To receive comments on the recommended enhancements to ICANN's Reconsideration Process and Independent Review Process provided by the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP). The ASEP, that was formed in fulfillment of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team Recommendations 23 and 25, developed these recommendations after a series of work sessions and discussions at ICANN's public meeting in Toronto. ICANN is also providing draft Bylaws revisions that would give effect to the ASEP's recommendations. Current Status: The ASEP Recommendations and corresponding proposed Bylaws revisions are ready for community consideration and input. Next Steps: The community input will be provided to the ASEP to consider if refinement is needed. The ASEP's recommendations and the community input will be provided to the Board for consideration. Staff Contact: Samantha Eisner, Senior Counsel Email: Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org<mailto:samantha.eisner@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Expert%20Recommended%20Improvements%20to%20ICANN%27s%20Accountability%20Structures%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose Recommendations 23 and 25 of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team called for ICANN to convene a group of experts to review ICANN's accountability structures, including the Reconsideration Process and the Independent Review Process. In response, ICANN convened the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP). The ASEP is comprised of three international experts in the fields of corporate governance, accountability, judicial review and international dispute resolution. The ASEP has produced a report containing recommended enhancements and refinements to ICANN's Reconsideration Process and Independent Review Panel, with a focus on effectiveness, efficiency, ease of access and expeditious resolution, as well as maintaining and enhancing ICANN's accountability to the community and the global public interest. Prior to issuing the report, the ASEP has maintained an open comment period and interacted with the community at ICANN's public meeting in Toronto. In the event that the ASEP's recommendations are accepted by the Board, the ICANN Bylaws will have to be amended to give effect to the recommendations. To that end, proposed Bylaws amendments are also provide for community review and comment. Section II: Background ICANN's Reconsideration and Independent Review Processes have been in place for a number of years. Information on the current Reconsideration Process is available at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration>, and documentation of the two Independent Review Processes to date is available at http://www.icann.org/en/news/irp<https://www.icann.org/en/news/irp>. Section III: Document and Resource Links ICANN is seeking comment on the following documents: * ASEP Report<https://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep/report-26oct12-e…> [PDF, 1.39 MB]; * Proposed Bylaws Revisions for the Reconsideration Process<https://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws/proposed-bylaw-revision-re…> [PDF, 113 KB]; and * Proposed Bylaws Revisions for the Independent Review Process<https://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws/proposed-bylaw-revision-ir…> [PDF, 93 KB] and corresponding Cooperative Engagement Process for Independent Review<https://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/proposed-cep-26oct12-en.pdf> [PDF, 36 KB]. Section IV: Additional Information None (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey Available Until 31 OCT 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 30, 2012

Oct. 30, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-25oct12-en.htm REMINDER: WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey Available Until 31 OCT 2012 25 October 2012 Mid-September 2012 ICANN invited the community to participate in a survey about possible Technical WHOIS Requirements. If you have not reviewed the survey, or you have a saved response, the WSWG team asks that you complete the survey on or before 31 October 2012, 23:59 UTC. After which, the Working Group will close the survey and begin to analyze the submitted responses. For more details about the survey and link to the survey, please see the original announcement: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-17sep12-en.htm<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-17sep12-en.htm> We look forward to your participation and thank you for sharing your views with the team. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: Updated WHOIS RT FInal Report Recommendations- REMINDER FOR FINAL COMMENTS
by Margie Milam Oct. 30, 2012

Oct. 30, 2012

Dear All, I just wanted to send a reminder on this, since I have only received comments from the IPC. Please let me know by COB today whether your SG/C has any additional comments to the chart. All the best, Margie From: Margie Milam Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:05 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Updated WHOIS RT FInal Report Recommendations Dear All, As discussed last week, I updated the draft WHOIS RT summary chart to include the clarifications requested by the ISP Constituency, and to include a column clarifying whether there was agreement with the substance of each recommendation, based upon the comments submitted in the Public Comment Forum (PCF) for the WHOIS Review Team Final Report. In reviewing the comments<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-whois-rt-final-…> filed in the PCF, I did not locate submissions from each constituency/SG, making it difficult to complete the chart. Notably missing were comments from Registrars, NCSG, or the IPC on the Final Report (although in some cases there were submissions on the draft report). In addition, from the comments actually submitted, it was not clear whether the commentators agreed/disagreed with the recommendation itself, since many of the comments appeared to address aspects of the recommendations, as opposed to evaluating the recommendation holistically. As a result, it is important that each constituency/stakeholder group review the information contained in the attached chart, and indicate whether they agree/disagree with each of the recommendations. Please provide this information by COB Monday, October 29, 2012, so that the chart can be finalized in advance of the Board's consideration of the WHOIS RT Final Report Recommendations. All the best, Margie _______ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _______

2 1

RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 29, 2012

Oct. 29, 2012

I have been silent for a week to see how this pans out, but I have to say that I agree with Chuck and Alan. The way I see it, now that a PDP has been initiated, there is only 1 recommendation for the council to consider as a result of the DT work, and that is whether or not to recommend the "moratorium" on the IOC and RCRC marks. As this is new gTLD implementation, I do not believe that PDP is necessary for the DT to make this recommendation (or not) to the Council. Nor is a PDP needed for the Council to recommend this (or not) to the Board. So, unless anyone disagrees, once the comment period ends, we will convene one last meeting to see whether the comments change anyone's views on the moratorium. Please let me know if you think I am missing something here. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 7:59 PM To: Margie Milam; Alan Greenberg; Brian Peck; council(a)gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Cc: Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP Margie, I had two concerns: 1) timing & 2) ability of the new WG to respond quickly in responding to the public comment period. Regarding timing, if the new WG is formed and ready to go by the end of the reply period, that would likely resolve most of my concerns in that regard. But even if that is the case, if there are lots of new participants in the new WG, they will need to be brought up to speed so it might take longer to respond to the public comments; maybe that would be okay but I am not sure. In my opinion, whatever works best for minimizing the total time needed to get the PDP work done as quick as possible is the best way to go. Chuck From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:18 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; Brian Peck; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>; gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP Dear Chuck & Alan, I am not sure why the PDP and the DT couldn't be blended at this point. There has been criticism of the work of the drafting team because it was viewed by some as not following the proper process. Under the flexibility of the new PDP rules, this PDP could certainly do the work of analyzing the public comment, and developing the response to the Board request for the Council to consider by the deadline. The issues are the same, so it would seem redundant to have two groups working on this topic simultaneously. We envision that the two sub-teams work in parallel, and would not be mutually exclusive. Does this address your & Alan's concerns? All the best, Margie From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 3:13 PM To: Alan Greenberg; Brian Peck; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>; gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Cc: Margie Milam; Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP I think I agree with Alan because the DT could more readily analyze the public comments and suggest modifications to the DT recommendations. Moreover, the DT work could be done concurrently with the formation of the PDP WG. I am open to further discussion on this. Chuck From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:20 PM To: Brian Peck; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>; gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Cc: Margie Milam; Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP My inclination is to disagree on the last point. Sub-group A is likely to be superset of the DT (perhaps a large one) and I think the original DT should do the analysis and comments of the PC input (along with any changes to the recommendations of needed). Alan At 26/10/2012 06:13 PM, Brian Peck wrote: Because the IOC/RCRC DT members will likely participate in the IGO-INGO PDP, Staff suggests that the current IOC/RCRC DT be suspended. It is expected that the remaining IOC/RCRC DT efforts, after the close of the public comment period, will be addressed by sub-group A of the PDP WG mentioned above.

1 0

RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 29, 2012

Oct. 29, 2012

Hi Margie, I can't speak for Chuck, but here are my thoughts. At 29/10/2012 03:17 PM, Margie Milam wrote: >Dear Chuck & Alan, > >I am not sure why the PDP and the DT couldn't be blended at this >point. There has been criticism of the work of the drafting team >because it was viewed by some as not following the proper >process. Under the flexibility of the new PDP rules, this PDP >could certainly do the work of analyzing the public comment, and >developing the response to the Board request for the Council to >consider by the deadline. The issues are the same, so it would >seem redundant to have two groups working on this topic simultaneously. I'm sure any group can do the work, but Council is working under a rather tight demand from the Board on what action to take pending the completion of a PDP. Putting a new group (which might be a superset, subset or some other relation to the DT that requested comments) seems rather bizarre - all to save a teleconference or two. I am sure there are people who believe that the Council and the DT have not followed proper process, but short of a full-fledged PDP nothing is going to satisfy them, and having a subset of the PDP WG do the work is no more "proper" than the DT in my opinion. All of that is rather moot, since I would think it is a Council decision whether to keep the DT and it's task, or meld it into the PDP. The PC ends on 09 Nov, and there is a 15 Nov, so perhaps that is the place to hold this discussion. Regardless, Council needs to act on SOME recommendatiom at either its December or January meeting if it is to meet the Board's deadline. > > >We envision that the two sub-teams work in parallel, and would not >be mutually exclusive. As I presumed, but it wasn't clear from the original note. Alan > Does this address your & Alan's concerns? > >All the best, >Margie

1 0

RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP
by Margie Milam Oct. 29, 2012

Oct. 29, 2012

Dear Chuck & Alan, I am not sure why the PDP and the DT couldn't be blended at this point. There has been criticism of the work of the drafting team because it was viewed by some as not following the proper process. Under the flexibility of the new PDP rules, this PDP could certainly do the work of analyzing the public comment, and developing the response to the Board request for the Council to consider by the deadline. The issues are the same, so it would seem redundant to have two groups working on this topic simultaneously. We envision that the two sub-teams work in parallel, and would not be mutually exclusive. Does this address your & Alan's concerns? All the best, Margie From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 3:13 PM To: Alan Greenberg; Brian Peck; council(a)gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Cc: Margie Milam; Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP I think I agree with Alan because the DT could more readily analyze the public comments and suggest modifications to the DT recommendations. Moreover, the DT work could be done concurrently with the formation of the PDP WG. I am open to further discussion on this. Chuck From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:20 PM To: Brian Peck; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>; gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Cc: Margie Milam; Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP My inclination is to disagree on the last point. Sub-group A is likely to be superset of the DT (perhaps a large one) and I think the original DT should do the analysis and comments of the PC input (along with any changes to the recommendations of needed). Alan At 26/10/2012 06:13 PM, Brian Peck wrote: Because the IOC/RCRC DT members will likely participate in the IGO-INGO PDP, Staff suggests that the current IOC/RCRC DT be suspended. It is expected that the remaining IOC/RCRC DT efforts, after the close of the public comment period, will be addressed by sub-group A of the PDP WG mentioned above.

1 0

Looking ahead from ICANN 45 - GNSO Web Site Resources
by Robert Hoggarth Oct. 28, 2012

Oct. 28, 2012

Dear Jonathan, Maria and Wolf-Ulrich; In view of your recent dialogue about Councilor learning curves and induction materials, I wanted to advise the Council that as part of "Phase 2" of the updated GNSO.icann.org website, staff is currently developing introductory materials to use as a standing resource for councilors and community members on a variety of introductory "basic" topics such as GNSO Working Group formation and operations, PDP procedures, communications tools and guides for new councilors and working group chairs. We are working to leverage existing materials including some that Glen currently gathers and shares when new Councilors come on board. The materials will ultimately find a home on the "Basics" tab of the GNSO web site - http://newgnso.icann.org/en/basics/getting-started. We will alert you all as those materials are added to the site. On the horizon we envision developing other materials for the page on particular topics like a "DNS 101 Guide". We would welcome suggestions about additional topics and subjects that any of you thinkmight be of value as a future addition to the Basics Tab as either a refresher or introduction to a particular matter for interested community members. In the meantime, I hope the currently structured Active Projects/Groups/Teams page (http://newgnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm) and the document linked to the Pending Projects List page (http://newgnso.icann.org/en/ongoing-work/pending-projects-list.htm ) of the GNSO web site will provide some useful status, background and context information regarding the full range of current GNSO Council matters, issues and topics of interest. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth

2 1