November 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Call for Volunteers GNSO Policy Translation and Transliteration PDP Working Group
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 27, 2013

Nov. 27, 2013

Dear Councillors, Please find below the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Policy Translation and Transliteration PDP Working Group Thank you very much. Kind regards, Nathalie Call for Volunteers GNSO Policy Translation and Transliteration PDP Working Group In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council is seeking volunteers to serve on the PDP Working Group (WG) on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information. This WG is expected to make recommendations to the GNSO Council on whether it is desirable to translate or transliterate contact information. In this context, translation is the process of conveying the meaning of text from on language into another; transliteration is the process of representing the characters of one alphabetical or syllabic system of writing by the characters of another, conversion alphabet. Introductory Webinar To provide potential volunteers with an idea of the PDP Process including Working Group procedures and also some background information on the WG's substantive issues, an Introductory Webinar will be held at the following times: Tuesday 10 December 2013, 12.00-13.00UTC - local times: http://tinyurl.com/m2suev5 Wednesday 11 December 2013, 18.00-19.00UTC - local times http://tinyurl.com/kyk5lej To join the webinar please RVSP to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> First meeting If you are interested in joining the Working Group, please contact gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. The first meeting of the Working Group is currently foreseen to take place in the week of 16 December - a doodle poll will be send out the week prior to determine a convenient meeting time. Background * Following the Recommendations of the Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf> of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group, a Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13…> on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 * GNSO Council's initiated<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013> a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the translation and transliteration of contact information on 13 June 2013; Drafting Team was formed and Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/transliteration-contact-charter-06nov13-en.…> submitted to GNSO Council and approved<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> on 20 November 2013. * As part of its deliberations on this issue, Charter stipulates several questions for the PDP WG to consider, including (but not limited to): - Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script. - Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script. * For more detailed, consult the WG's Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/transliteration-contact-charter-06nov13-en.…> and the GNSO Policy Development Process<http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/31379/> * Note GNSO Council also requested ICANN to commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to be completed in time to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations. Relevant Documents * Charter Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group (WG) Charter - http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/transliteration-contact-charter-06nov13-en.… * Final Issue Report on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13…) * Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf) * GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines (http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf)

1 0

GNSO Council Induction & Development Workshop
by Jonathan Robinson Nov. 24, 2013

Nov. 24, 2013

All, Please see attached a detailed and updated agenda for tomorrow's GNSO Council induction and development workshop. The schedule is: 1. 09h00 - Breakfast focussed on "new" GNSO Council members 2. 10h00 - Main workshop commences to include participation from SG & Constituency leaders 3. 17h30 - End of workshop We will leave for dinner at 20h15 and expect to gather in the lobby of the Sheraton from 20h00. Look forward to seeing you on 24th floor of Sheraton Hotel (NOT Park Tower) no later than 10h00 tomorrow. Thanks, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r

2 2

FW: [soac-discussion] Internet Governance CWG
by Jonathan Robinson Nov. 24, 2013

Nov. 24, 2013

FYI. Jonathan From: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Olive Sent: 23 November 2013 20:32 To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: Sally Costerton; Theresa Swinehart; Duncan Burns Subject: [soac-discussion] Internet Governance CWG Dear SO-AC Leaders: As announced during the ICANN 48 Meeting in Buenos Aires, an Internet Governance CWG has been established that will be the source of the ICANN Communitys preparation for 1Net initiative the Multistakeholder Meeting in Brazil in 2014 as well as the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation. In order to move the activities of the Internet Governance CWG forward, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chair, and Rafik Dammak, NCSG Chair, have offered to serve as co-facilitators. As co-facilitators of this group, they will shortly contact you to begin recruiting a balanced group of contributors from across the ICANN Community. ICANNs GSE and Strategy Teams will provide support for the work of this new CWG. Best regards, Theresa Swinehart <http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/swinehart.htm> - Sr. Advisor to the President on Strategy Sally Costerton <http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/costerton.htm> - Senior Advisor to the President Global Stakeholder Engagement David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters Istanbul

1 0

CENTR Report on ICANN48
by Patrick Myles Nov. 24, 2013

Nov. 24, 2013

Hi All - For your interest, at CENTR we produce pre and post reports to each ICANN meeting summarising ccNSO, GAC and GNSO sessions. A link to our ICANN48 report is below and I welcome any comments/suggestions particularly on if I can better represent the GNSO. http://centr.org/CENTR-Report-ICANN48 Regards Patrick Myles cid:image001.jpg@01CC7227.E27EBEF0 Patrick Myles Information Manager | CENTR Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 5550 - fax +32 2 627 5559 <http://www.centr.org/> www.centr.org - twitter: centrnews

1 0

Vint Cerf & privacy
by John Berard Nov. 22, 2013

Nov. 22, 2013

https://www.privacyassociation.org/privacy_perspectives/post/privacy_is_not…

1 0

GNSO Wrap-Up meeting presentation Thursday 21 November 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 21, 2013

Nov. 21, 2013

Dear All, The GNSO Wrap-Up meeting presentation can be viewed at: http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-gnso-wrap-up/presentation-gn… on page: http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-gnso-wrap-up Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Bye
by WUKnoben Nov. 20, 2013

Nov. 20, 2013

Dear colleagues, before I get removed from this list I’d like to express my sincere thanks for the time I could spend with all of you during my term on council. It was just great to meet with folks of such a variety in background and history coming together and trying hard to find common grounds in policy development. Not to forget the fun in all these barrooms... A great thank to the policy staff in particular to its outstanding ladies and more specifically to Glen. As a vice chair I felt everytime supported very well. I wish you best success in your future council work. Since there is just a pre-ICANN as well as an ICANN life – but no post-ICANN life – I’ll be around in future through my constituency and in working groups and look forward to meet you again. Wolf-Ulrich wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de

1 0

Thanks
by joy Nov. 20, 2013

Nov. 20, 2013

Dear Jonathan and colleagues I want to write a formal note of farewell to you all and express my heartfelt thanks to those who have supported me during my time on Council. It's been a privilege to serve for the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (thanks especially to Robin Gross and all of my fellow NCSG Councillors). Also thanks to the ICANN staff, in particular Glen - there is a special place in heaven for you! Go well and will look forward to continuing to work with you in the future Kind regards Joy Liddicoat www.apc.org

2 1

GNSO Council meeting 20 November 2013 - Resolutions adpoted
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 20, 2013

Nov. 20, 2013

Dear All, Ahead of the official minutes, the following resolutions were adopted at the GNSO Council meeting in Buenos Aires on 20 November 2013. 1. Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) WHEREAS 1. On 13 June 2013 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP; 2. Following a call for volunteers, a Drafting Team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council; 3. The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the Drafting Team. RESOLVED, 1. The GSNO Council approves the charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/transliteration-contact-charter-06nov13-en.… and appoints Ching Chiao as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group. 2. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG be initiated no later than 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair. 3. The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf 2. Motion on recommendations for IGO-INGO Protections WHEREAS: 1. At the ICANN meeting in Singapore on 28 June 2011, the ICANN Board passed a Resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm> authorizing the President and CEO to implement the New gTLD program and directing that the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) be amended to incorporate text concerning protection of specific names requested by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the American Red Cross (collectively, the RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for the top level only during the initial application round, until the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) develop policy advice based on the global public interest; 2. On 14 September 2011 the GAC sent a Proposal<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-red-cross-14sep11…> to the GNSO Council recommending that certain RCRC and IOC names also be protected at the second level in a number of specific languages, which proposal was intended to complement the ICANN Board's June 2011 resolution, and which acknowledged the need for further work by the GAC and the GNSO to develop permanent protections for these organizations at the top level; 3. At the ICANN meeting in Dakar in October 2011, the GNSO Council formed a Drafting Team<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/ioc-rcrc> to develop recommendations relating to both top and second level protections for RCRC and IOC names; 4. On 11 January 2012 ICANN staff published an updated AGB<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-11jan12-en.pdf> that prohibited the delegation of certain RCRC and IOC names at the top level during the first round of the New gTLD program; 5. On 26 March 2012 the GNSO Council adopted<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20120326-1> three of the Drafting Team's recommendations pertaining to protection of certain RCRC and IOC names at the top level; 6. On 12 April 2012 the ICANN Board, acting through its New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), acknowledged<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12…> receipt of the GNSO's recommendations but decided not to change the AGB then, giving the Rationale<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr…> that the public interest would be better served at that time by maintaining the status quo of a temporary moratorium; 7. At the ICANN meeting in Prague in June 2012, the GAC Communique<https://gacweb.icann.org/.../FINAL_GAC_Communique_20120628.pdf> requested that the ICANN Board provide the GAC with "further clarification as to the status of its pending request for enhanced protections [for RCRC and IOC names] at the top and second levels"; 8. On 13 September 2012 the NGPC passed a Resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12…> requesting that the GNSO continue its work on second level protections of RCRC and IOC names and, if this were not concluded by 31 January 2013, that the GNSO advise the ICANN Board if there was any reason not to provide second level protections for those RCRC and IOC names already protected in the AGB at the top level, in light of all gTLDs approved in this first round of the New gTLD program; 9. On 13 December 2011 legal counsel from twenty-eight International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) sent a letter<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-et-al…> to the ICANN CEO and Board Chair, requesting that their organizations' names and acronyms be excluded from third-party registration at both the top and second levels in the first round of the New gTLD program and until further policy could be developed for future rounds; in May 2012, these organizations published a Common Position Paper<http://www.gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/IGO_common_pos…> outlining the possible bases for their requested protections; 10. On 11 March 2012 the ICANN Board requested<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-beckstrom-to-dryden-van…> that the GAC and the GNSO provide it with "policy advice on the IGOs' request ... [to] inform ICANN in providing a meaningful response to the IGOs"; 11. On 12 April 2012 the GNSO Council requested<http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#201204> an Issue Report as a preceding step to a possible Policy Development Process (PDP) to determine the type of international organization that should receive special protection at the top and second levels (if any), as well as the policies that should govern such protections; 12. On 1 October 2012 the Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…> recommended that the GNSO initiate a PDP to determine, first, whether additional special protections were needed at the top and second levels for the names and/or acronyms of certain international organizations, namely IGOs and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) - including consideration of further protections of RCRC and IOC names - and if so, to develop policy proposals for such protections; and secondly, to include within the PDP an evaluation of whether such policies should also extend to existing gTLDs; 13. On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council passed a Resolution<http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#201210> launching an expedited PDP (which would become the IGO-INGO PDP) to address the issues described in the Final Issue Report; 14. On 26 November 2012 the NGPC passed a Resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-26nov12-en.…> requesting that the GNSO continue its work on top and second level protections for IGOs and INGOs and, if this work were not concluded by 28 February 2013, that the GNSO advise the Board of any reason it should consider in including IGO names and acronyms that satisfy certain specific criteria on a Reserved Names List applicable to all new gTLD registries approved in the first round of the New gTLD program; 15. On 20 December 2012 the GNSO Council adopted<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20121220-1> a further set of three of the Drafting Team's recommendations pertaining to protection of certain RCRC and IOC names at the second level, pending the outcome of the recently-launched PDP, and communicated<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-dryden-23dec12-en.pdf> these decisions to the GAC; 16. On 28 February 2013 the GNSO Council Chair sent a letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-crocker-chalaby-28feb13…> to the NGPC Chair in response to the NGPC's November Resolution, indicating that the GNSO's PDP was addressing the issues raised by the NGPC; 17. On 22 March 2013 the GAC requested<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/dryden-to-crocker-chalaby-22mar…> that the ICANN Board provide second level protections of names and acronyms of certain IGOs according to specific criteria; 18. On 14 June 2013 the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group published its draft Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-initial-14jun13-en.pdf> for public comment; 19. At the ICANN meeting in Durban in July 2013 the GAC through its Communique<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Final_GAC_Communique…> further refined its 22 March 2013 request concerning second level protection for IGO acronyms 20. On 20 September 2013 the Working Group published its draft Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.pdf> for public comment, incorporating feedback received in response to its draft Initial Report; 21. On 10 November 2013 the Working Group published its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf> and sent it to the GNSO Council, incorporating feedback received in response to its draft Final Report; 22. The Working Group's Final Report includes supplemental documentation in the form of Minority Statements from various Working Group members and their respective constituencies, including IGOs and INGOs who may be affected by the recommendations under consideration (http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo) RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council thanks the Working Group for its hard work and for its thorough report, which includes multiple recommendations pertaining to the RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs, and notes the inclusion of the supplemental documentation in the form of the various Minority Statements submitted; 2. The GNSO Council adopts in full the following Consensus recommendations made by the Working Group (including the definitions of Scope 1 and Scope 2 identifiers for all the various types of organizations considered) and recommends their adoption by the ICANN Board: A. In relation to the RCRC: · Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the RCRC (as defined in the Final Report to refer to designations of the RCRC emblems protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols) are to be considered "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure shall be designed which will allow an RCRC organization with a name protected as a "String Ineligible for Delegation" to apply for its protected string at the top level; · Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the RCRC (as defined in the Final Report to refer to designations of the RCRC emblems protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols) are to be withheld from registration, and an exception procedure designed that will allow an RCRC organization with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level. For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Agreement, replacing any names currently listed in Specification 5. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement. · Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name and Acronym Scope 2 identifiers of the RCRC (as defined in the Final Report) are to be subject to any notification services afforded to rights holders during the launch of a new gTLD. For the current round, the names and acronyms subject to this recommendation are to be added to the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), and the related organizations permitted to participate in the 90-day claims notification process developed for the New gTLD Program. B. In relation to the IOC: · Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the IOC (as defined in the Final Report) are to be considered "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure shall be designed which will allow an IOC organization with a name protected as a "String Ineligible for Delegation" to apply for its protected string at the top level; · Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the IOC (as defined in the Final Report) are to be withheld from registration, and an exception procedure designed that will allow an IOC organization with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level. For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement, replacing any names currently listed in Specification 5. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement. C. In relation to IGOs: · Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified IGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be considered "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure shall be designed that will allow the specified IGO with a name protected as a "String Ineligible for Delegation" to apply for its protected string at the top level; · Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified IGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be withheld from registration, and an exception procedure designed that will allow a specified IGO with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level. For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement. · To the extent that in the current round Second Level, Exact Match Scope 2 identifiers for the Acronyms of the specified IGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be added to the TMCH, and the related organizations permitted to participate in the 90-day claims notification process developed for the New gTLD Program, these identifiers will similarly be subject to any notification services afforded to rights holders during the launch of a new gTLD in future rounds. D. In relation to INGOs: · Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified INGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be considered "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure designed that will allow an INGO with a name protected as a "String Ineligible for Delegation" to apply for its protected name at the top level; · To the extent that Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified INGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be withheld from registration, an exception procedure shall be designed that will allow a specified INGO with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level. For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation, if approved, will be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Agreement. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement. · Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers (unless otherwise protected) of protected INGOs and Scope 2 identifiers of protected INGOs (all as defined in the Final Report) are to be subject to any notification services afforded to rights holders during the launch of a new gTLD. For the current round, the names subject to this recommendation are to be added to the TMCH, and the protected organizations permitted to participate in the 90-day claims notification process developed for the New gTLD program. 3. The GNSO Council adopts the following Consensus recommendations made by the Working Group that apply to all four categories of identifiers and recommends their adoption by the ICANN Board: · At the Top Level, Acronyms of the RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs under consideration in this PDP shall not be considered as "Strings Ineligible for Delegation"; and · At the Second level, Acronyms of the RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGO under consideration in this PDP shall not be withheld from registration. For the current round of New gTLDs, the temporary protections extended to the acronyms subject to this recommendation shall be removed from the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. 4. The GNSO Council notes that the Working Group recommends that the following Consensus recommendations also apply to existing gTLD registries, and accordingly the GNSO Council recommends their adoption by the ICANN Board: · Existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommended protections adopted for Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the RCRC at the Second Level (Section 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 of the Working Group's Final Report); · Existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommended protections adopted for Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the IOC at the Second Level (Section 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 of the Working Group's Final Report); · Existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommended protections adopted for Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of IGOs at the Second Level (Section 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 of the Working Group's Final Report); and · To the extent that Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of INGOs are withheld from registration at the Second Level (meaning that in the current round they are placed in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement), existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommendations adopted for an exception procedure (Section 3.4.3 of the Working Group's Final Report) that will allow an INGO with a name withheld from registration to apply for its protected name at the second level. 5. The GNSO Council requests an Issue Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/issue-template-request-form-18nov13-en.pdf) on the Working Group's Consensus recommendation 3.5.3, which states: "The [Working Group] recommends that the respective policies are amended so that curative rights of the UDRP and URS can be used by those organizations that are granted protections based on their identified designations." This Issue Report is anticipated as a preceding step toward the possibility of initiating a PDP on this issue, and the Issue Report shall also address how these matters can or cannot be incorporated into the forthcoming review of the UDRP; The GNSO Council shall convene an IGO-INGO Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN staff in developing the implementation details relating to the recommendations adopted herein should they be approved by the ICANN Board, including the Principles of Implementation highlighted by the Working Group in Section 3.7 of its Final Report and any Exception Procedures to be developed. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the ICANN Board and is expected to work with ICANN staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy recommendations. If the Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy recommendations or any need for new policy recommendations, the Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for an IGO-INGO Implementation Review Team to the members of the IGO-INGO Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Adobe Connect for Council meeting
by Marika Konings Nov. 20, 2013

Nov. 20, 2013

https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnsocouncil

1 1