December 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Launched
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-14dec12-en.htm Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Launched 14 December 2012 13 December 2012... Fadi Chehadé, ICANN's President and CEO, is announcing the creation of an Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services. This first step in fulfilling the ICANN Board's directive<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm> to help redefine the purpose and provision of gTLD registration data will provide a foundation to help the ICANN community (through the Generic Names Supporting Organization, GNSO) create a new global policy for gTLD directory services. The working group will be chaired by Jean-Francois Baril<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14dec12-en.htm>, as the group's Lead Facilitator, and interested individuals with the requisite experience are invited to indicate their interest in serving as volunteer working group members (more information below). Board Chair, Steve Crocker, and Director, Chris Disspain, will serve as Board liaisons to the working group. The objectives of the working group are to 1) define the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and consider how to safeguard the data, and 2) provide a proposed model for managing gTLD directory services that addresses related data accuracy and access issues, while taking into account safeguards for protecting data. This output will feed into a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process to serve as a foundation for the GNSO's creation of new consensus policy, and requisite contract changes, as appropriate. The working group will be informed by the WHOIS Policy Working Group's report<http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.44 MB] and previous community input and GNSO work over the last decade, will address key questions set forth by the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) in their report, SAC055<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-055-en.pdf> 1<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-14dec12-en.htm#fo…> [PDF, 348 KB], and will take into consideration current and future Internet operations and services. The working group also will address concerns of the parties who provide, collect, maintain, publish or use this data as it relates to ICANN's remit. ICANN staff will publish an issues report that incorporates the working group's output, which will form the basis of a Board-initiated GNSO PDP. ICANN and its leadership will be focused on facilitation of the expedited policy work to enable the GNSO to recommend a consensus policy that, at a minimum, addresses the purpose of collecting, maintaining and making available gTLD registration data, and related data accuracy and access issues. Such a policy would be contractually binding on ICANN accredited gTLD registrars and gTLD registries upon adoption by the ICANN Board. Working Group Schedule and Operations The working group will conduct its activities from January through April 2013 and may be extended, if needed. Work will be conducted primarily online and through conference calls, and two face-to-face meetings are expected. The working group will periodically provide public updates on its progress, and output from the working group is expected to be presented for community discussion online and at the ICANN Beijing meeting in April 2013. ICANN Staff will support the working group. Working Group Volunteers Qualified individuals are being identified to participate in the working group. Individuals with the following characteristics are invited to indicate their interest in serving as volunteer working group members by sending an expression of interest and their resume/CV by email to experworkinggroup(a)icann.org<mailto:experworkinggroup@icann.org> by 31 December 2012. Volunteer working group members should: have significant operational knowledge and experience with WHOIS, registrant data, or directory services; be open to new ideas and willing to forge consensus; be able to think strategically and navigate conflicting views; have a record of fostering improvements and delivering results; have a desire to create a new model for gTLD directory services; and be able to volunteer approximately 12-20 hours a month during January - April 2013 to the working group. Individuals who have worked extensively in the areas of registration data collection, access, accuracy, use, privacy, security, law enforcement, and standards and protocols are also encouraged to consider working group membership. As the working group will be a collection of experts, it is not expected to be comprised solely of representatives of current ICANN community interests. Although members may not come directly from ICANN structures, the working group will have a deep understanding of, and concern for, the ICANN communities' interests.The working group's results will feed into the GNSO's bottom-up, policy development process where all community interests will be encouraged to participate in the decision-making efforts. ICANN will reimburse working group members for travel and other expenses associated with working group activities, per ICANN reimbursement rules. ________________________________ 1<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-14dec12-en.htm#no…> In SAC055, SSAC called for an expert working group to define the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data and address questions such as: Why are data collected? What purpose will the data serve? Who collects the data? Where is the data stored and how long is it stored? Where is the data escrowed and how long is it escrowed? Who needs the data and why? Who needs access to logs of access to the data and why? Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft reply to Fadi
by Mason Cole 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

Council colleagues -- I have taken the liberty of drafting a reply to Fadi's request for Council advice on the BC/IPC request for more RPMs. Jonathan and I have spoken about a process from here and I am happy to keep the pen for possible suggestions and edits. Speaking for myself, though I realize the holidays are fast approaching I would hope we can get a communication to Fadi expeditiously. Many thanks -- Mason

1 0

Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)
by Jonathan Robinson 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

All, A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week. I believe that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered and comprehensive a manner as possible. Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it raises and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so that you are in a position to discuss the Council’s response. Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20th most welcome. Noting: “I am seeking policy guidance from the GNSO Council on two items as part of the next steps for the implementation of the TMCH, namely, the Strawman Proposal and the IPC/BC proposal for limited defensive registrations” And “… a request from the New GTLD Program Committee’s April resolution where it requested “the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken”(2012.04.10.NG2)” Thank-you. Jonathan From: Fadi Chehade [mailto:fadi.chehade@icann.org] Sent: 04 December 2012 22:47 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Margie Milam; David Olive Subject: TMCH Dear Jonathan, As reported in my recent blog on the Trademark Clearinghouse (see: http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-me…), the recent implementation TMCH related discussions led to the development of a strawman model to address some of the proposed improvements requested by the BC/IPC. I am very pleased with the efforts shown by the participants in these discussions, as they reflect a willingness to explore improvements to the TMCH and the rights protection mechanisms available in new GTLDs. I am seeking policy guidance from the GNSO Council on two items as part of the next steps for the implementation of the TMCH, namely, the Strawman Proposal and the IPC/BC proposal for limited defensive registrations. Each of these documents are posted for public comment (see:http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm) to allow the ICANN community the opportunity to comment on these proposals. Specifically, policy guidance is sought on the portion that pertains to the expansion of the scope of the trademark claims, although comments on any aspect of the Strawman Model is welcome in the event the Council is interested in broadening its response. The specific proposal is that: Where there are domain labels that have been found to be the subject of previous abusive registrations (e.g., as a result of a UDRP or court proceeding), a limited number (up to 50) of these may be added to a Clearinghouse record (i.e., these names would be mapped to an existing record for which the trademark has already been verified by the Clearinghouse). Attempts to register these as domain names will generate the Claims notices as well as the notices to the rights holder. Not included in the Strawman Model is the IPC/BC proposal for a limited preventative registrations. In general, there was not support among non-IPC/BC participants for solutions to the issue of second level defensive registrations among the participants in the TMCH meetings. After hearing concerns regarding this issue, members of the IPC/BC provided a description of a preventative mechanism, the “Limited Preventative Registration,” which has also been published for public comment. As this issue is relevant to a request from the New GTLD Program Committee’s April resolution where it requested “the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken”(2012.04.10.NG2), I am seeking GNSO Council feedback on this IPC/BC proposal as well. It would be ideal if the GNSO Council could take up these issues at its December meeting. Finally, addressing some of the criticisms on the process used by Staff in convening these meetings, I hope that you can appreciate that Staff is not circumventing the GNSO processes. The Strawman Model and my blog posting always clarified that this request to the GNSO Council was coming. One of my goals as CEO is to enhance collaboration in the ICANN community as it tackles difficult issues. I truly believe that the development of strawman proposals on this and other issues can be a useful tool to inform policy and implementation discussions. I hope that you will consider this request in that light. We look forward to the Council’s reply to this request. Best Personal Regards, Fadi Chehade President and CEO ICANN

7 8

TR: Update on Trademark clearinghouse from ICANN CEO
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

Forwarded from David Olive Objet : [policy] Update on Trademark clearinghouse from ICANN CEO >From the ICANN blog at: http://blog.icann.org Concluding the Series of Trademark Clearinghouse Meetings by Fadi Chehadé on December 13, 2012 Today I convened the final informational call to close off the series of stakeholder meetings on implementing the Trademark Clearinghouse. I shared the following updates: 1. Trademark Clearinghouse Agreements a. I am pleased to announce that we have signed an agreement with Deloitte Enterprise Risk Services to be the first provider of validation services for the Trademark Clearinghouse. As promised, we will be posting that agreement shortly. The terms are in line with what I shared in my last blog entry: ■ ICANN retains all intellectual property rights in the Trademark Clearinghouse data. (Note this is as between ICANN and Deloitte. ICANN claims no intellectual property rights with respect to user data.) ■ Deloitte’s validation services are to be non-exclusive. ICANN may add additional validators after a threshold of minimum stability is met. ■ Trademark submission fees are capped at USD 150 per record per year. Discounts are available for bulk & multi-year submissions. ■ IBM will charge Deloitte for database access via an application processing interface (API). ■ ICANN may audit Deloitte’s performance (and revenues/costs) to confirm that the costs and fees for validation services are reasonable. b. I am also pleased to announce that we are making continued progress on negotiations with IBM for the provision of database services. This contract is structured around a master agreement, with separate statements of work to provide for the relevant services. We are now working on the first Statement of Work for the database, and expect to conclude this in the next weeks. We expect to negotiate and conclude the second Statement of Work, covering the Sunrise and Trademark Claims services, in January. Here are some highlights based on the current discussions: ■ IBM will maintain the Trademark Clearinghouse Database. ■ Data will be imported to the Database within three hours of receipt from a Validator. ■ IBM will be available 24 x 7 for high severity incidents impacting the operability of the database. ■ ICANN will receive all intellectual property rights necessary for transition to a new database provider. ■ IBM will charge registries and registrars for real-time access to the database during the sunrise and claims periods. The fee structure remains under consideration. 2. The “Strawman Solution” As noted in the last blog posting, the “strawman solution” developed during the stakeholder meetings has been posted for public comment, and also sent to the GNSO Council for their input. I understand that this request is on the Council’s agenda for its 20 December 2012 meeting. I noted that the public comment notice has been updated to include the full range of what, together with staff, I determined to be implementation vs. policy. (This included some modifications from the original posting which I entered last week.) We will be awaiting the GNSO’s response, as well as considering and analyzing the comments received on the strawman, to help us determine the appropriate next steps. 3. Additional Updates I shared a few additional updates on today’s call. On the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) implementation, the good news is that we have received multiple submissions in response to the RFI that are within the target price range, and we will shortly be publishing an announcement on this. As promised in Toronto, now that the Trademark Clearinghouse and URS are well on the way to successful implementation, I will focus next on the RAA negotiations. Regrettably, we could not gather enough people to hold the first discussion in December as intended, but we are scheduling this for early in January. Currently, I do not have plans to hold additional conference calls on this matter, as we are now on a good path and the implementation team will continue to work through the remaining milestones for getting the Trademark Clearinghouse up and running. I attempted with great care to maintain a delicate balance throughout this effort. I felt sandwiched between my deep respect (and growing understanding) of the GNSO processes, and the need to resolve some pressing matters that were standing in the way of a successful implementation — an implementation that we would all stand and defend with pride in the public eye. While no collaborative process is perfect, I have done my best to ensure that all voices have been heard and that we are working collectively to arrive at a balanced outcome for the public benefit. I learned a lot from the process that will serve me well in the months and years ahead. I would like to put on record my thanks to all those who engaged in these issues with me in that spirit, and the tremendous effort and good will that were demonstrated. Now, let’s move forward together. We have much to do as a community! Sincerely, Fadi -- David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 Washington, D.C. 20005 Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611

1 0

GNSO Council call - 20 Decmber 2012
by Jonathan Robinson 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

All, We have a full agenda for our call next week. In addition, some of the issues for discussion are substantial and Councillors will no doubt wish to make their and/or their respective Group/Constituency positions clear on the various points. Conscious of the above, I suggest we allow for contingency of additional time for the meeting. I have in mind a 30 minute extension to the currently planned time slot. I will be mindful of the initially allocated 2 hours and if we can complete in time, good. However, I suggest that you make best efforts to provide for up to 60 minutes extension. I will assume you can accommodate an extension for up to a maximum of 60 minutes unless you indicate to the contrary. If you do wish to indicate that you cannot accommodate up to 60 minutes, please indicate if you can accommodate 30 minutes or 0 minutes. Thank-you. Jonathan -----Original Appointment----- From: Gisella Gruber [mailto:Gisella.Gruber@icann.org] Sent: 01 November 2012 03:58 To: Gisella Gruber; Jeff Neuman; Ching Chiao; Jonathan Robinson; Mason Cole; Yoav Keren; Volker Greimann; Thomas Rickert; Zahid Jamil; John Berard; Brian Winterfeldt; Petter Rindforth; Osvaldo Novoa; Wolf-Ullrich Knoben; Maria Farrell; Wendy Seltzer; David Cake; Magaly Pazello; Joy Liddicoat; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; Lanre Ajayi; Jennifer Wolfe; Glen de Saint Géry; Julia Charvolen Subject: GNSO Council call When: 20 December 2012 15:00-17:00 (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London. Where: 1500 UTC - 0700 PST - 1600 CET When: Thursday, December 20, 2012 3:00 PM-5:00 PM. GMT Standard Time Where: 1500 UTC - 0700 PST - 1600 CET *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Call details and agenda will be sent prior to the call

1 0

Update on Trademark clearinghouse from ICANN CEO
by Bruce Tonkin 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

>From the ICANN blog at: http://blog.icann.org Concluding the Series of Trademark Clearinghouse Meetings by Fadi Chehadé on December 13, 2012 Today I convened the final informational call to close off the series of stakeholder meetings on implementing the Trademark Clearinghouse. I shared the following updates: 1. Trademark Clearinghouse Agreements a. I am pleased to announce that we have signed an agreement with Deloitte Enterprise Risk Services to be the first provider of validation services for the Trademark Clearinghouse. As promised, we will be posting that agreement shortly. The terms are in line with what I shared in my last blog entry: ■ ICANN retains all intellectual property rights in the Trademark Clearinghouse data. (Note this is as between ICANN and Deloitte. ICANN claims no intellectual property rights with respect to user data.) ■ Deloitte’s validation services are to be non-exclusive. ICANN may add additional validators after a threshold of minimum stability is met. ■ Trademark submission fees are capped at USD 150 per record per year. Discounts are available for bulk & multi-year submissions. ■ IBM will charge Deloitte for database access via an application processing interface (API). ■ ICANN may audit Deloitte’s performance (and revenues/costs) to confirm that the costs and fees for validation services are reasonable. b. I am also pleased to announce that we are making continued progress on negotiations with IBM for the provision of database services. This contract is structured around a master agreement, with separate statements of work to provide for the relevant services. We are now working on the first Statement of Work for the database, and expect to conclude this in the next weeks. We expect to negotiate and conclude the second Statement of Work, covering the Sunrise and Trademark Claims services, in January. Here are some highlights based on the current discussions: ■ IBM will maintain the Trademark Clearinghouse Database. ■ Data will be imported to the Database within three hours of receipt from a Validator. ■ IBM will be available 24 x 7 for high severity incidents impacting the operability of the database. ■ ICANN will receive all intellectual property rights necessary for transition to a new database provider. ■ IBM will charge registries and registrars for real-time access to the database during the sunrise and claims periods. The fee structure remains under consideration. 2. The “Strawman Solution” As noted in the last blog posting, the “strawman solution” developed during the stakeholder meetings has been posted for public comment, and also sent to the GNSO Council for their input. I understand that this request is on the Council’s agenda for its 20 December 2012 meeting. I noted that the public comment notice has been updated to include the full range of what, together with staff, I determined to be implementation vs. policy. (This included some modifications from the original posting which I entered last week.) We will be awaiting the GNSO’s response, as well as considering and analyzing the comments received on the strawman, to help us determine the appropriate next steps. 3. Additional Updates I shared a few additional updates on today’s call. On the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) implementation, the good news is that we have received multiple submissions in response to the RFI that are within the target price range, and we will shortly be publishing an announcement on this. As promised in Toronto, now that the Trademark Clearinghouse and URS are well on the way to successful implementation, I will focus next on the RAA negotiations. Regrettably, we could not gather enough people to hold the first discussion in December as intended, but we are scheduling this for early in January. Currently, I do not have plans to hold additional conference calls on this matter, as we are now on a good path and the implementation team will continue to work through the remaining milestones for getting the Trademark Clearinghouse up and running. I attempted with great care to maintain a delicate balance throughout this effort. I felt sandwiched between my deep respect (and growing understanding) of the GNSO processes, and the need to resolve some pressing matters that were standing in the way of a successful implementation ― an implementation that we would all stand and defend with pride in the public eye. While no collaborative process is perfect, I have done my best to ensure that all voices have been heard and that we are working collectively to arrive at a balanced outcome for the public benefit. I learned a lot from the process that will serve me well in the months and years ahead. I would like to put on record my thanks to all those who engaged in these issues with me in that spirit, and the tremendous effort and good will that were demonstrated. Now, let’s move forward together. We have much to do as a community! Sincerely, Fadi

1 0

ICANN Board agenda for Thursday 20 December 2012
by Bruce Tonkin 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-20dec12-en.htm Agenda for Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 20 December 2012 1. Consent Agenda a. Minutes: ■ 13 October 2012 Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board ■ 18 October 2012 Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board ■ 18 October 2012 Organizational Meeting of the ICANN Board ■ 8 November 2012 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board b. SSAC Thank You to Departing Member c. SSAC Member Reappointments d. GNSO Council Recommendations - IRTP Part C e. Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Bylaws Revisions for Public Comment f. Review of the ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) g. ICANN New gTLD Funds Investment Policy h. Location of November 2013 ICANN Meeting 48 2. Main Agenda a. Board Term Alignment b. Accountability Structures Expert Panel Recommendation c. Location of ICANN Meetings in 2014 and the Establishment of a Multi-stakeholder Meeting Strategy Working Group d. Any Other Business

1 0

AW: Draft motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de 13 Dec '12

13 Dec '12

All, the excerpt of the PDP manual modified to address suspension of a PDP is attached. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____________________________________________ Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 23:13 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Betreff: Draft motion All, I herewith submit the following << Motion to Adopt Revised PDP Manual Incorporating Modifications to Include the Suspension of a PDP Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Seconded by: WHEREAS: Having encountered the need to suspend a Policy Development Process (PDP) for a limited amount of time, the GNSO Council realized that currently the PDP Manual does not contain a specific provision on how to deal with such a situation; The GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) in April 2012 to review whether there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation; The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures; The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 22 October 2012 and a 21-day reply comment period ending on 03 December (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-pdp-manual-22oct12-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws; The SCI determined that the result of the public comment period required no further changes , but in order to clarify the definition of a suspension the SCI amended the footnote to include the word "stated" and to delete the words "until further notice" as illustrated in the redlined section at INSERT LINK; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The GNSO Council adopts the revised PDP Manual including the providing for the suspension of a PDP (see INSERT LINK TO REVISED GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES). The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the PDP Manual and to include it as a revised Annex 2 in the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption. >> An excerpt of the PDP manual modified to address suspension of a PDP is attached. The SCI agreed to submit this motion although an issue which came up after the reply comment period is still being discussed but nevertheless expected to be solved in advance to the council meeting. Still under discussion is the footnote 1 in para 15 of the modified PDP manual. In the less likely case of no consensus the motion and agenda item shall be withdrawn. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Draft motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de 12 Dec '12

12 Dec '12

All, I herewith submit the following << Motion to Adopt Revised PDP Manual Incorporating Modifications to Include the Suspension of a PDP Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Seconded by: WHEREAS: Having encountered the need to suspend a Policy Development Process (PDP) for a limited amount of time, the GNSO Council realized that currently the PDP Manual does not contain a specific provision on how to deal with such a situation; The GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) in April 2012 to review whether there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation; The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures; The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 22 October 2012 and a 21-day reply comment period ending on 03 December (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-pdp-manual-22oct12-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws; The SCI determined that the result of the public comment period required no further changes , but in order to clarify the definition of a suspension the SCI amended the footnote to include the word "stated" and to delete the words "until further notice" as illustrated in the redlined section at INSERT LINK; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The GNSO Council adopts the revised PDP Manual including the providing for the suspension of a PDP (see INSERT LINK TO REVISED GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES). The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the PDP Manual and to include it as a revised Annex 2 in the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption. >> An excerpt of the PDP manual modified to address suspension of a PDP is attached. The SCI agreed to submit this motion although an issue which came up after the reply comment period is still being discussed but nevertheless expected to be solved in advance to the council meeting. Still under discussion is the footnote 1 in para 15 of the modified PDP manual. In the less likely case of no consensus the motion and agenda item shall be withdrawn. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Report on SCI achievements
by KnobenW＠telekom.de 12 Dec '12

12 Dec '12

All, on behalf of the Standing Committee of Improvements Implementation (SCI) I herewith like to provide the GNSO council with the following achievements. It is at the discretion of the council to deal with it accordingly. Deferral of Motions: The SCI was asked by the council to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. Raising an Issue: The SCI was asked to consider who can raise an issue for SCI consideration. After deliberating on this matter, the SCI agreed to maintain the status quo according to the Charter of the SCI. This means only the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by the SCI. However, the GNSO Council could possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, that if there are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI they will need to channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben SCI Chair

1 0