November 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO weekend session Buenos Aires
by WUKnoben Nov. 13, 2013

Nov. 13, 2013

All, our “waking-up” on Saturday morning shall be a Q&A session with candidates applying for council chair which election is going to take place on Wednesday and performed by the new council. Following the nomination process Jonathan is the only candidate. His candidate statement is attached for reference. The session provides the best opportunity to question the candidate about his ideas related to the council work. So I’d like to encourage you – and in particular the incoming council members – to prepare accordingly to make this session exciting – and help us to overcome the jetlags. Save travels! Wolf-Ulrich From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:39 PM To: Avri Doria ; gabrielaszlak(a)gmail.com ; mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org ; mailto:dan-reed@uiowa.edu ; James M. Bladel ; Mike O'Connor Cc: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com ; 'WUKnoben' ; mailto:mcole@5x5com.com ; Marika Konings ; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council mailing list Dear Avri, Gabriela, Amr, Dan, James and Mikey, You have all been added to the Council mailing list ahead of being seated on the Council so that you may benefit from the discussions leading up to the Buenos Aires meetings. Please only contribute to the list once you are officially seated on the Council. The address is: council(a)gnso.icann.org Public archives are a http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/ Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

Meeting the ICANN CEO & Board in Buenos Aires
by Jonathan Robinson Nov. 13, 2013

Nov. 13, 2013

All, We have managed some successful meetings with the CEO and Board and the recent ICANN meetings, partly through being well prepared and giving them appropriate notice of subject matter. Bearing in mind that the CEO is part of the board, we need to be careful not to overlap the subjects too closely unless there is good reason. My sense is that the theme of the evolving landscape of internet governance is likely to be a "meta-theme" throughout the Buenos Aires meeting and it will get plenty of airtime. For that reason, we may not wish to focus on it? Please can you replay to this with any thoughts you have on topics we could effectively cover with Fadi and the Board. To kick things off, we could consider: CEO . Strategy Panels (although this is likely the subject of our meeting with Theresa Swineheart) . ? . ? Board . GNSO Review - Update on current thinking . ? . ? Look forward to any input as soon as possible. Thanks, Jonathan

2 2

New SSAC reports
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 12, 2013

Nov. 12, 2013

Hello All, SSAC has posted two new reports at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents [SAC062]: SSAC Advisory Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision Risk (07 November 2013) [SAC063]: SSAC Advisory on DNSSEC Key Rollover in the Root Zone (07 November 2013) See attached. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Draft GNSO Council Public Meeting Buenos Aires Agendas 20 November 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 12, 2013

Nov. 12, 2013

Dear Councillors, Please find the draft agendas for the GNSO Council Public meetings in Buenos Aires. The Public meeting will be in two parts, part one in Libertador AB at 13:00ART, (16:00UTC) and the second Administrative part in Retiro B at 15:00ART (18:00UTC) http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+20+November+… Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Buenos Aires, 20 November 2013 Part 1 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf > For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times 16:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/oby4lzl Coordinated Universal Time 16:00 UTC 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 13:00 Buenos Aires; 16:00 London; 17:00 Paris; 05:00 Wellington next day Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 mins) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 31 October 2013 will be posted as approved on 21 November 2013 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins) Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics Include review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items>. Comments or questions arising. Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins) Item 4: MOTION - To approve a charter for the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group (10 mins) 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. Following a call for volunteers, a Drafting Team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council. The drafting team has submitted the charter, reviewed and revised it on the request of the Council and then re-submitted it and so the GNSO Council, having reviewed the charter, will vote on whether to approve it as submitted by the Drafting Team. 4.1 - Review Motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+20+November… 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Next steps Item 5: MOTION - To approve the Recommendations for IGO-INGO Protections (20 mins) On 20 September 2013 the WG published its Draft Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.pdf> which includes policy recommendations for the protection of IGO and INGO (including the RCRC and IOC) identifiers in all gTLDs. Each recommendation or proposal also contains the WG's Chair assessment of consensus. The objective of the Draft Final Report was to solicit feedback from the community on the proposed consensus policy recommendations. The comment period closed 1 November 2013. The WG has reviewed the public comments and modified the Final Report. The GNSO Council will consider this Final Report and vote on whether to approve the recommendations contained therein. 5.1 - Review Motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+20+November… 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Next steps Item 6: INPUT & DISCUSSION - Prospective improvements to the Policy Development Process (15 mins) The Council is committed to on-going enhancements to the methods of working of the Council and the work initiated and managed by the Council. The PDP process is a cornerstone of policy making within the GNSO and, as such, the work of the Council. The PDP outcomes and associated processes are the subject of focus and attention both within the GNSO and the broader ICANN Community. The Council has previously discussed a paper prepared by ICANN staff<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-22aug13-en.pdf> on potential improvements to the PDP process. The discussion is now encapsulated in a table form and now includes reference to the related recommendations of the ATRT2. Further work needs to be done on reviewing the table and agreeing concrete next steps. 6.1 - Review of table of prospective PDP Improvements<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-table-23sep13-en.pdf> (Marika Konings) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Next steps Item 7: DISCUSSION - Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council (15mins) As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, board initiated reviews of the GNSO and the GNSO Council as an integral part of the GNSO are expected. In order to be effectively prepared for these reviews, it was originally proposed in Beijing that a group be formed to understand the issues and begin to take appropriate next steps. One key suggestion from Beijing was that any group (such as the Council) being reviewed undertakes a form of self-review. The intended course of action was impacted by the board deliberations on whether or not to proceed with the review and, more recently, what format the review might follow. The Council will receive an update during its meeting with the board in Buenos Aires and this item provides an opportunity to discuss and agree the intended course of action. 7.1 - Current status 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: Thanks to outgoing councillors (5 mins) * Lanre Ajayi (NCA) * Mason Cole (RySG & Vice Chair) * Zahid Jamil (CSG / BC) * Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (CSG / ISPC & Vice Chair) * Joy Liddicoat (NCSG) * Wendy Seltzer (NCSG) Item 9: Any Other Business (5 mins) Item 10: Open microphone Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 11:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 14:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-2+1DST 14:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 13:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 16:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 00:00 (next day) Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 00:00 (next day) Wellington, New Zealand UTC+12+1DST 05:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2014, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com - http://tinyurl.com/oby4lzl http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council-admin https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Aministrative+Agend… Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Buenos Aires, 20 November 2013 Part 2 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf > For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times 18:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/posr6mw Coordinated Universal Time 18:00 UTC 10:00 Los Angeles; 13:00 Washington; 15:00 Buenos Aires; 18:00 London; 19:00 Paris; Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Item 1: Seating of the 2013 / 2014 Council (10 mins) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statements of interest · James Bladel - SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/James+M.+Bladel+SOI> Registrars Stakeholder Group · Gabriela Szlak - SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Gabriela+Szlak+SOI> Commercial and Business Users Constituency · Mikey O'Connor - SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Mikey+O%27Connor+SOI> Internet Service Providers & Connectivity Providers · Amr Elsadr - SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Amr+Elsadr+SOI> Non Commercial Stakeholder Group · Avri Doria - SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Avri+Doria+SOI> Stakeholder Group · Daniel Reed - SOI Nominating Committee Appointee 1.3 Review/amend agenda Item 2: Election of the Chair (10 mins) One nomination was received for this position, Jonathan Robinson. The GNSO Council held a question & answer session over the weekend with Jonathan Robinson. The Council to proceed to elect the chair according to the GNSO Operating Procedures. GNSO Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf Note: Section 2.2 Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs (see Appendix 1 below) Item 3: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Meeting with the ATRT2 (40 mins) 3.1 - Update 3.2 - Discussion 3.3 - Next steps Item 4: Any Other Business (5 mins) Reminder: Council development meeting. Friday 22 November 2013, 10h00 Buenos Aires. Appendix 3: Excerpt from GNSO Operating Procedures (Section2.2) http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf 2.2 Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair and two Vice-Chairs as follows: a. The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of each house. b. Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of a house, but must be a member of the GNSO Council. Should a Chair be elected from outside of the houses that Chair will be a non-voting Chair. i. All ballots will include the "none of the above" option. In the event that a 60 percent vote of each house selects the "none of the above" option, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be scheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote. ii. In the case of a tie for the most votes between the two candidates, or between a candidate and "none of above," a second election will be held no sooner than 30 days. The candidates shall remain the same for this second election. In the case this second election also results in a tie, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote. iii. The leading candidate will be defined as the one with the highest score. The score is calculated by adding together the voting percentages attained from each house. The highest percentage attainable in each house is 100. Thus, the maximum score a candidate can achieve is 200 as a result of attaining 100 percent of the votes from the contracted party house and 100 percent from the non-contracted party house (100 percent + 100 percent = score of 200). In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold, a second ballot will be held between the leading candidate and "none of the above." iv. In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold and the candidates do not tie, a second runoff ballot will be held between the leading candidate and "none of the above." v. If the single candidate does not reach the 60 percent of each house threshold in the runoff ballot, then each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful runoff ballot. c. Each house shall select a Council Vice-Chair from within its respective house. d. A Chair may not be a member of the same Stakeholder Group of either of the Vice-Chairs. e. The Chair and Vice-Chairs shall retain their votes (if any) in their respective houses (if any). f. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held. g. The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following each election and runoff ballot, whether successful or unsuccessful. Appendix 2: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 3: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 18:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 10:00 Iowa City, USA (CST<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+1DST 12:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 13:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 16:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-2+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 15:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 18:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 19:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 19:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 (next day) Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2014, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com - http://tinyurl.com/posr6mw 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

Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 31 October 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 12, 2013

Nov. 12, 2013

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 31 October 2013 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf%20> > section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 21 November 2013. Thank you very much. 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

Agenda for Council Public Meeting on 20 November 2013
by Jonathan Robinson Nov. 12, 2013

Nov. 12, 2013

All, You will shortly receive a draft of the agenda for our primary meeting on 20 November 2013. The meeting is currently scheduled to deal with four main items: . Motion 1 - Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information . Motion 2 - IGO-INGO Protections . PDP Improvements . GNSO Review If you feel that there is anything that could be usefully and effectively covered in the meeting, please propose the item. Thanks, Jonathan

1 0

Some observations re ATRT2 from the Interconnect report on the GNSO PP
by Maria Farrell Nov. 12, 2013

Nov. 12, 2013

Hi all, I'm still creeping through this report and thought to send you what I've got, about 3/4 way through the Interconnect report on the GNSO PDP. IMHO, the report itself is absolutely essential reading, as some of the data in it is quite concerning. Anyway, here are what you might call the 'greatest hits', with some not entirely rhetorical questions of mine peppered through. I will send more anon, but thought I should circulate what I have as time is marching on toward BA. All the best, Maria *Interconnect Report on the GNSO PDP* The “ATRT2 was convened to review the GNSO PDP with a view toward identifying its strengths and weaknesses, differences between defined process and actual practice, and the extent to which it incorporates the views, advice and needs of all stakeholders, both those active in ICANN and those not typically present for ICANN deliberations.” 30 interviews done. *EXECUTIVE SUMMARY* First off, though the Interconnect report necessarily concentrates on what can be done better, it loudly applauds the work of volunteers who put in hours per week in multi-year processes. It also points out that compared with other multi-stakeholder, bottom-up processes, the GNSO PDP copes with a greater diversity of stakeholder types and more varied subject matter expertise. It is also not just open to anyone who wants to take part, but those who do say everyone’s input in welcomed and valued. So I think we should just pause a moment and remind ourselves of what the GNSO PDP has achieved and continues to achieve, and also the significant organisation support underpinning it. Now... *Participation in WG’s* Vast majority taking part in WGs do so only once. “100 Working Group participants have belonged to only one Working Group while less than 20 people have belonged to two Working Groups.” (this is shocking! We are scaring motivated people away...) · Attendance in WGs is dominated by those for whom it’s part of their job · English language is a barrier to many · Very Western culture of interaction (As a European, I would observe it’s a peculiarly American legal mode of adversarial interaction) · Constituencies match developed country needs but not necessarily developing country ones – some people struggle to find one in the existing structure that really fits them · WGs have 75% men and 25% women, but the percentage of women is growing North Americans are 70% of WG members, Europeans are just under 20%, and *everyone else* a bit over 10%. This is “a potential problem for global legitimacy”. That is putting it mildly, in the current geopolitical context. Small pool of participants creates accountability, credibility and resource risk, and means we cultivate few potential leaders. It’s too hard to get agreement on group positions in time for comment periods. So, we need other ways to participate, recruit people from other regions directly to WGs and “reconsider the underlying collaboration and discourse model of the PDP” see how to make changes for people it doesn’t suit. *Commitment to the Process* “Significant” number of responses saying policy is changed after the fact by the Board and GAC, often because of lobbying by some parts of the community. Specific to GNSO, people are lobbying us for “changes in substance or implementation after a Working Group’s Final Report has been completed”. “*in one very recent Working Group, participants challenged others in the Working Group on the issue of whether they were truly committed to the process or if they simply intended to wait the process out then “lobby” for the results they wanted in other parts of the organization. Some of the people interviewed for this report indicated that cynicism about other participants’ commitment to the PDP was a barrier to their own participation*.” This is rather horrifying stuff and must be part of what is giving the GNSO a bad name. The report says “there needs to be process and procedure applied to ensure that other parts of the organization do not inadvertently subvert the accountability and transparency of the PDP.” *As Councilors, should we consider making a positive commitment or ‘re-commitment’ to the PDP’s primacy as the policy development tool for gTLDs?* *The GAC* · Rarely takes advantage of points in the process to contribute, and, as we know quite well; · Raises its concerns when the process is almost complete Report says no structural or bylaw changes needed but that the GAC basically needs to step up and engage with GNSO WGs the way it does on ccNSO WGs and did on the AOC reviews. *The Future* Most people think the new gTLDs and also changes in Internet Governance will bring more players into the process. Should the GNSO be *pro-actively sponsoring and facilitating* open discussion on what forms this might take, and how/if it may change the constituency structure? *The GNSO PDP* Current PDP started being used in December 2011. *FWIW, in Section 3 the report gives a very handy high-level primer on the stages of the PDP – especially how they differ to the previous version – that may be of use to new or returning councillors. *Though the 42 Stages of the PDP could be a bit daunting to anyone! I found this observation quite interesting: “Note that implementation is not included as one of the essential elements of the PDP. Implementation is, however, included as Section 10 of Annex A. The Bylaws, therefore, appear to suggest that implementation can be an element of a PDP, but that implementation is not essential to a PDP.” Page 8 *Section 4,* on ICANN’s historical context and environment is a great refresher on why we’re all here and how important it is to make this thing work... It also notes that ‘volunteer fatigue’ is due not just to ICANN’s own work but part of the acceleration of the whole Internet governance calendar of activities. And bear in mind, this was written before the last 8 or so weeks of I* seismic shift, IGF Bali and an entirely new meeting proposed by Brazil. Figure 3, a diagram of just the 2013 calendar of major global Internet Governance is quite exhausting! I also want to draw your attention to Fig. 4 on page 21 of the report (p. 102 of the overall document) which is a Calendar of ICANN Public Comments. It is astonishingly dense and illustrates perfectly in one graphic the massive workload of reading, consulting and response demanded of ICANN’s stakeholders. The report includes some insightful academic research about whether and how people participate in policy processes that is expressed in wonderfully plain language: · People participate if they feel strongly about something · If they think they can make a difference · Different forms of participation (f2f, online, written) must be acknowledged and valued so people can participate in ways that suit them · You have to enable and support participation – i.e. timings of calls, support to attend physical meetings, etc. Otherwise it just won’t happen. · “Structures and processes must not be alienating (for example, real-time meetings favor those who think quickly and are native speakers of the language of the meeting.” We all know this one is true! Other academics have analysed and even isolated the mythical ‘sweet spot’ between participation and the legitimacy and speed of the process. We know it exists because they have even drawn a graph of it. (p. 25) So, fear not, we may yet find this earthly paradise... Which is not meant to be at all facetious or critical. This is a useful report that reminds us that although we often think of ICANN as being *sui *generis, we’re not the first people in humanity to struggle with this. In the over-used ICANN Bingo phrase, ‘we don’t have to re-invent the wheel.’ Here is some interesting quantitative data they gathered on recent PDPs. A couple have been almost unbelievably long: PDP PDP Initiation Date Completed? Implemented? Total length of PDP Fast Flux 2008-05-08 YES N/A 546 IRTP Part A 2008-06-25 YES N/A 343 PEDNR 2009-05-07 YES YES 1745 IRTP Part B 2009-06-24 YES YES 1142 UDRP Lock 2011-12-15 NO NO N/A IRTP Part C 2011-09-22 YES NO 547 Thick WHOIS 2012-03-14 NO NO N/A IGO-INGO 2012-10-17 NO NO N/A IRTP Part D 2012-01-17 NO NO How do people find out about and then get involved in PDPs? Not from the GNSO website, unfortunately, but mostly it seems from being on mailing lists or being contacted (and also through the overall ICANN website): “The questionnaire found that ICANN meetings and mailing lists were the most popular sources of information about PDPs (Figure 11), with 90 percent and 80 percent, respectively, of respondents saying they were their sources of information about PDPs. *In contrast, other ICANN websites (for example, the GNSO, and other SO and AC websites) and external websites were the least popular sources of information about PDPs*.” (my underlining) This means we’re only getting new participants from among the small pool of people we – as individuals and constituencies – are already in touch with. *Can we do better on informing people and drumming up participation via the GNSO website or in other ways?* *Public comments* – fewer from individuals than a few years ago, and more from groups already in the process (constituencies, etc.) and also from outside organisations, typically companies or trade associations. So, on the face of it, some improvement in the numbers of organisations getting involved in commenting. Is it a problem that we have fewer individuals commenting? Maybe it’s a sign of a maturing model, but are we at risk of losing enthusiasm and expertise? Fig. 19 on page 40 of the report is *horrifying*. It shows that on our most recent PDPs – Fast flux, IRTP Part C, PEDNR, Thick Whois, IGO-INGO, IRTP Part B and UDRP Lock – we had ZERO input from the entirety of Asia Pacific, Latin America / Caribbean and the continent of Africa. (Jonathan mentioned on the last Council call that the GNSO should, in part, look at doing important, valuable and compelling work – should we look harder at prioritizing and working on issues of importance to non-North America / European players?) On the plus side, 60% of interviewees thought the public comments part of the PDP is accountable and transparent. Though about half of people thought this part of the process was effective – can we as a Council do more to discuss the substantive issues raised in public comments?? Also worrying, in terms of our relevance and mandate: half of the interviewees thought PDP outcomes reflected the public interest and ICANN’s mandate. Half emphatically did not. On the whole ‘PDP takes too long’ side of things, the data uncovered are interesting: there is a wide variance in time taken.

2 1

FW: Submission Final Report DSSA WG and letter of co-chairs
by Jonathan Robinson Nov. 12, 2013

Nov. 12, 2013

All, Please see below and attached. Jonathan From: Bart Boswinkel [mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org] Sent: 11 November 2013 10:32 To: Byron Holland; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Jonathan Robinson; John Curran Cc: KnobenW(a)telekom.de Knoben; "Fältström, Patrik"; Mason Cole; Mark Kosters; James M. Galvin; Mike O'Connor; Jörg Schweiger Subject: Submission Final Report DSSA WG and letter of co-chairs Dear Olivier, Byron, Jonathan and John, As you may recall, the ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and NRO, acting as ASO in this particular case, have all endorsed the charter of the joint DNS Security and Stability and Analysis working group (DSSA) according to each own rules and procedures, in December 2010 and as a result are the participating SO's and AC's in the DSSA. On behalf of the co-chairs of the DSSA, I am writing you in your capacity as chairs of each supporting organizations/advisory committee's, to submit the Final Report of the DSSA and the related cover letter from the co-chairs DSSA to you. As the Final Report contains a lot of graphical elements therefore I have included a link to the report: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-final-08nov13-en.pdf. The letter to you from the co-chairs is included. Kind regards, Bart Boswinkel

1 0

FW: GNSO Council - Induction & Training - Friday 22 November 2013
by Jonathan Robinson Nov. 12, 2013

Nov. 12, 2013

All, Please see below for communication with the chairs of GNSO SGs & constituencies regarding Friday 22nd November. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 12 November 2013 10:46 To: 'kdrazek(a)Verisign.com'; Michele Neylon :: Blacknight (michele(a)blacknight.com) (michele(a)blacknight.com) 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Kristina Rosette'; 'tony holmes'; 'Robin Gross'; 'William Drake'; 'Marie-Laure Lemineur' Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'; 'gnso-secs(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: GNSO Council - Induction & Training - Friday 22 November 2013 Dear All, You are due an update on this session. If you are not the person who will be participating, please pass this message on to the relevant person from your group who will be attending on Friday 22nd November. The objective of orienting and preparing the GNSO Councillors and the Council as a whole for a productive year ahead remains the same. To this end, we have already held an introduction webinar and invited all new councillors (as well as any existing councillors who wish to) to attend. A copy of the presentation used is available here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/42593 Each of the 2013/2014 councillor has been sent a copy of the agenda for the 22nd November session and I have attached it for your information. It includes some detail on the session which you (or a designated colleague from your group) will attend from 10h00 to 11h30 on Friday 22nd. The relevant exert is copied below. Opening the session by Council Chair and GNSO leadership to orient the Council within the GNSO: 1. The role of GNSO council and related processes and procedures for 2013-2014 2. GNSO leadership provide their expectations as to what they would like to see from the Council in the coming year 3. Councillors can share what they would like to achieve The thinking here is that the Council is very firmly rooted in the GNSO and so any development work should be based on and a clear perspective from the various groups and constituencies that comprise the GNSO. Primarily, it will be good to get some input as to how your group (SG or constituency) views the Council and the work of the Council and how you interact with the Council via your councillors. Non-exhaustive examples of points you may wish to provide input on are as follows: A. Does your group instruct your councillors how to vote on any given issue or do they have latitude / discretion? B. Does the work cycle of the Council work for your group? (Do you get agendas on time, do you have enough time to consider motions) C. Are you aware of council driven attempts to improve working methods, productivity and effectiveness? If so, does your group think good progress is being made? Could anything else be done? D. Are there any areas of policy development work that your group thinks the Council should be tackling which it currently is not? E. Is your group particularly positive / negative about any work which the Council has initiated and managed over the past year? Coming in as council chair in Toronto, it struck me that we needed to do a better job of orienting and engaging councillors from the outset of their terms. Clearly, it is desirable that they get some of this through their prior work and experience in the group that selects them as councillors. But, effective induction initiated by the Council seems to me to be necessary. This format and content is a first and so it may need work to get it right. Any other input on the initiative overall will also be welcome. I look forward to seeing and working with you in Buenos Aires. Safe travels and see you there. Best wishes, Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 20 September 2013 14:14 To: 'kdrazek(a)Verisign.com'; Michele Neylon :: Blacknight (michele(a)blacknight.com) (michele(a)blacknight.com) 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Kristina Rosette'; 'tony holmes'; 'Robin Gross'; 'William Drake'; 'Marie-Laure Lemineur' Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'; 'gnso-secs(a)icann.org' Subject: GNSO Council - Induction & Training - Friday 22 November 2013 Importance: High Dear Colleagues, I am writing, I trust, to remind you of an event we are planning to run in Buenos Aires. On Friday 22 November, the plan is to run an induction and training session for the new GNSO Council i.e. the Council to be seated and in place from the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting onwards. The background to this is that, when I started in as GNSO Council chair in October 2012, it struck me that the preparation or induction was in place for incoming councillors was limited and necessarily remote i.e. by email and telephone. Significantly, the first time the then new council got together in person was many months later in Beijing. There are many good reasons to orient and prepare councillors for their work on the Council in the year ahead and so this is one initiative that we agreed to pursue at our council leadership / staff session back in Amsterdam in January 2013. We subsequently applied to ICANN for funding for an event and this funding was agreed. The support will finance the event and an overnight stay, but not travel, so it must necessarily occur simultaneous with, or adjacent to, an ICANN meeting. Hence the reason we arrived at Friday 22 November 2013. The event will run from approximately 10h00 and will be completed with a dinner in the evening. The intended attendees at the meeting are the full GNSO Council which will be in place subsequent to the council meeting on Wednesday 20 November i.e. the then new council. The agenda hasnt yet been fully developed but the objective is clear; ensure that incoming and existing councillors are as well trained and oriented as possible and moreover, that the whole council is as well-prepared as possible to function effectively together in the year ahead. By function effectively together, I mean that they can work effectively together as a council and be clear on the one anothers relationships with, and responsibilities to, their respective constituencies and/or groups. Therefore, the reason I am writing to you is twofold as follows: 1. To ensure you are aware of this event and well placed to ensure that your incoming councillors are too. 2. To ask whether you could offer yourselves, or if you are not available, an alternate member of your leadership group, to participate in the first session (Friday 22 November 10h00-11h30) in addition to your councillors who we expect will be there for the full day and evening. The purpose of 2 above is to make sure that, from the outset, the Council as a whole is as well aware as possible of the relationship with and connection to the broader GNSO and the groups constituting the GNSO. If you have any questions or suggestions relating to this event, or indeed any aspect of the chairing of the Council, please do get in touch with me. I am personally committed to a well-managed and effective GNSO Council and am open to any feedback in how best to achieve that. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r

1 0

ATRT2 Security and Stability Review Team input
by Maria Farrell Nov. 11, 2013

Nov. 11, 2013

Hi all, I undertook on our last call to pull together some initial thoughts to guide us on our session with the ATRT2 next week in BA. I hadn't quite anticipated how long the whole report is... Now focusing on the GNSO PDP side of it, but in the meantime here are some possible pointers on the SSR RT draft report - pasted below. You'll find the reports proper here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-21oct13-e… All the best, Maria ATRT2 Report(s) *Appendix C – SSR Review Implementation* Recommendations 1 - 9 largely on definition of terms, role, responsibilities, priorities of SSR in the ICANN context, possibilities for external certification of functions including IANA, SSAC key management and IT, and also about adequately resourcing the SSR function within the organisation. They all sound supportable and worthwhile, especially on external and community-wide coordination and continuing the now established annual reporting requirements for the function. One question, though, why was budget information on support for SSAC and RSSAC apparently redacted? (Maybe it’s available elsewhere in the annual budget – I just haven’t checked and didn’t immediately see why it wasn’t here. Shouldn't that info be available, and if not, why not?) *Rec. 10* “ICANN should continue its efforts to step up contract compliance enforcement and provide adequate resources for this function. ICANN should also develop and implement a more structured process for monitoring compliance issues and investigations.” Reporting and recommendations on Rec. 10 on compliance seems weak, possibly because the recommendation is somewhat vague(it just says to ‘increase enforcement efforts’, so any increase, however small, is implementation). ATRT2 states several times that the level of compliance or its allocated resources are adequate are *subjective evaluations*. It also notes community concerns that resources may not be sufficient for future compliance demands of new RAA and RA. Essentially ATRT2 says improvements have been made but doesn’t attempt to say if they are enough, as that would be subjective. Given contract compliance and enforcement are at least partly empirically measurable, and we have metrics to show and track progress, is the ATRT2 response itself adequate? If we have no current way of measuring whether compliance work is sufficient and sufficiently resourced, shouldn’t we look at developing some? *Rec. 11* “ICANN should finalize and implement measures f success for new gTLDs and IDN Fast Track that expressly relate to its SSR-related program objectives, including measurements for the effectiveness of mechanisms to mitigate domain name abuse.” ATRT2 reports that nothing’s yet been done on this and it’s a community-staff collaboration. Is this priority being fed into any existing policy or implementation processes, and, if not, does or should the GNSO have a role in moving it forward? *Rec. 12* “ICANN should work with the community to identify SSR-related best practices for the community and encouragement for putting those best practices into contracts, agreements, MOUs and other mechanisms.” This was supposed to trigger a staff community dialogue on which SSR-related best practices might be relevant and how they should be incorporated. Registry input questioned whether contracts were the best way to do this. No dialogue explicit to the recommendation has happened, though the ATRT2 report includes law enforcement input to the RAA as part of it. As the RAA and RA negotiations are not subject to full community dialogue, should the ATRT2 seem to be accepting that even some indirect progress has been made on this item? Is there going to be any process to identify best practices, analyse whether they should be linked to contracts and subjected to full community dialogue? If not, then perhaps the ATRT2 report should red flag this one as not begun, not implemented and not having any way forward currently foreseen. *Rec. 13* “ICANN should encourage all SOs to develop and publish SSR-related best practices for their members.” The ccNSO is already doing this and the report on actions taken says staff is ‘reaching out’ to the GNSO. While this all sounds good and worthwhile, how relevant is the recommendation to the very heterogeneous GNSO? (I may well be missing the connection here and would be happy to be corrected.) It may be that this recommendation isn’t ever going to be implemented fully. Which raises a larger question; is there a means for ATRT reviews to suggest previous recommendations for retirement, in a way that includes public consultation? (I don’t imply that there isn’t such a mechanism – just asking the question.) *Rec. 14* Ensure SSR-related outreach evolves to stay relevant and useful, with feedback from the community. >From the report, this seems to be happening and being done increasingly and well, though I’m not sure what if any the transparent feedback mechanisms are (or if they are further needed – just raising an open question). *Rec. 15* “ICANN should act as facilitator in the responsible disclosure and dissemination of DNS security threats and mitigation techniques.” Implementation seems to be going fine, though some concerns expressed about escalating reports. Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure guidelines published to help. Unclear whether ICANN really is a needed locus for this. *Rec. 16* Get more community and ecosystem input into SSR Framework development process. No process for ecosystem input. Very few public comments to SSR Framework – despite a lot of effort from staff to elicit it that I’ve personally noticed. Better explaining ICANN’s SSR role to outside organisations has helped encourage feedback from them. Should ICANN have a less informal process for getting input from other organisations? *Rec. 17* More structured internal process to show how SSR work done relates to priorities in SSR framework, with metrics and milestones. Implementation underway and slotting into Strategic Plan and project management organisation-wide. This is something of a no-brainer for us to encourage, I think, and look forward to next ATRT reviewing and finding it pretty much embedded. *Rec. 18* Do an annual SSR operational review in the annual SSR Framework. Done & embedded. Great! *Rec. 19* Establish something like a dashboard to let community track implementation of SSR framework. This will be done through the ‘At Task’ management system. Not yet implemented, but something we would probably welcome. *Rec. 20* More transparent info on organisation and budget of SSR work. ccNSO and others said to previous ATRT there needs to be more info on this. It’s apparently coming in the FY14 budget and plan and related ‘At Task’ tracking. Registries strongly support more transparency on this. I expect most of GNSO probably does, too, and we might say so when we meet ATRT2. *Rec. 21* More structured internal process to show how organisation and budget decisions related to SSR Framework, ‘including the underlying cost-benefit analysis’. Happening through FY14 op plan and budget, and ‘At Task’ but not yet done. It’s too early for community feedback on ‘how’ it’s being done, but we may want to support it being done, and soon. *Rec. 22* Publish, monitor and update documentation on organisational and budget resources to manage SSR issues re. New gTLDs. Implementation underway as above, too early to see if it’s effective. Again, perhaps a simple recommendation that this is important and should get done sooner rather than later, especially if we think that increased resources may be needed wrt new gTLDs. *Rec. 23* Provide enough resources for SSR related working groups and advisory committees, and ensure they make decisions “in an objective manner that is free from external or internal pressure.” Security related work is done across all of ICANN SOs and ACs as well as SSAC and RSSAC. Previous ATRT report said RSSAC probably had enough support but SSAC was under resource pressure. Work is being done to inventories SSR work across SOs and ACs. Results still TBA. RSSAC and SSAC chairs say requests for funds not turned down but staff support a little thin. Budget for SSAC and RSSAC redacted – not sure why. “WRT to ensuring decisions reached objectively and are free from pressure, this component of the recommendation has yet to be implemented.” This seems a little dismissive – is / can analysis be done to ensure this? If not, why not and should it be attempted? *Rec. 24* Define role of Chief Security Officer Team. Implemented in FY13 SSR Framework though with infographics rather than text. ATRT2 says its happy with the security team taking a ‘somewhat dynamic’ approach so they can respond to emerging issues. Does this sound fair? (It does to me – but others may differ.) *Rec. 25* Put in place mechanisms to identify near and longer term risks and strategic factors, informed by research, business partnerships SOs and others. Publish this, recognising some may be too sensitive. ICANN hired Westlake Governance to develop a DNS Risk Managmenet Framework. Draft was presented in Beijing and upfor comment in Durban – staff now working on implementing along with work of DSSA Working Group. Public comments supported a stronger risk management function at ICANN. In public comments on Westlake report there was “significant disappointment that the work of the DSSA WG wasn’t incorporated more fully into the DNS Risks Framework” and that “the choice of framework architecture (ISO31000 over NIST 800-30) may have been sub-optimal.” And that DNS Risks Framework too limited in terms of ICANN’s overarching SSR-related responsibilities. Staff says the DSSA WG work will be incorporated. ATRT concludes that efforts are underway to meet overall recommendation 25 but that the Westlake controversy hampered it so it’s not yet able to assess the effectiveness of implementation. This seems a shame, but I know absolutely nothing about it! If others think the GNSO has anything useful to say on this one that the SSR RT hasn’t covered, then please have at it. *Rec. 26* Quickly finish the Risk Management Framework with lots of participation and transparency. There have been sessions on this in Costa Rica, Prague, Toronto and Beijing and public comments on the Westlake framework. SSR RT says work to date has been ‘open and inclusive, and participation has been welcomed’. As in 25, some unhappiness re. Westlake v the DSSA WG. SSR RT says it looks like ICANN has prioritised this as recommended, but has been hampered by a lack of clarity on respective roles of Westlake and DSSA WG. Is standard of participation sufficiently high? *Rec. 27* Risk Management Framework should be comprehensive within scope of SSR remit and ICANN’s limited missions. The idea was to be constrained within ICANN’s limited mission but to be comprehensive within that – but there aren’t any objective criteria on ‘comprehensiveness’. Public comments from Verisign and ALAC on Westlake’s approach to the Risk Management Framework were that it wasn’t comprehensive enough, within the remit. ATRT2 seems to agree with that view though acknowledges that comprehensiveness is a matter of opinion. Anyone have anything to add on this? *Rec. 28* ICANN should actively do threat detection and mitigation and participate in efforts to distribute threat and incident information. An ongoing task with engagement with security conferences and CERTs. Anecdotal feedback says ICANN work on this is helpful. An important role, that ICANN needs to go on doing. Agreed? Has SSR RT missed anything here? (I don’t expect so, just raising the question.)

1 0