December 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] ccNSO Council meeting report
by John Berard 12 Dec '13

12 Dec '13

1 0

ccNSO Council meeting report
by john＠crediblecontext.com 12 Dec '13

12 Dec '13

All, The ccNSO Council meeting today (4 a.m. Pacific!) covered issues related to Internet Governance and cross-community working groups as well as an operational discussion that bears on the GNSO Council. Here is a recap; 1. As you might imagine, the members of the ccNSO are quite focused on the global debate over Internet governance. In order to keep the cc's involved and up-to-date, the Council has appointed four liaisons to the four on-going Internet governance initiatives. + Byron Holland (.ca and chair of the ccNSO Council) is the liaison to the Strategy Panel on Internet Governance. He noted that there will be three meetings of the Panel prior to the Brazil chatauqua. He described it as "loosely organized" and not yet fully formed in advance of the first meeting next week in London. + Carolina Aguerre, general manager of LACTLD is the liaison to the group focused on supportinbg ICANN's role in that Brazil meeting. + Keith Davidson of .nz is the liaison to cross-community working group that sprang up as a surprise in Buenos Aires. + Mathieu Credou of Afnic is the link to /1net. Note that the ccNSO has created an Internet governance mailing list. 2. The ccNSO Council work on the use of country names as TLDs presents the possibility of a cross-community working group. It is the Council's intention to distribute to other ASs and SOs a strawman of the work such a ccwg would undertake. The goal is to empanel the working group by the time of the ICANN meeting in Singapore. 3. The Council is considering a change in its quorum and voting rules. They live in a much more homogenous world than do we and so are looking at making a successful vote a majority of those who cast them, without regard to why someone would abstain. 4. As the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council, I have already suggested, because we meet at the same times during the three international meetings, that someone just off the Council be asked to fill the role. This brings up a question of funding. I think the position should be funded and a specific set of responsibilities attached. I am just making this up as I go along. That is it for this report. Cheers, Berard

7 6

Possible absence or late arrival
by Ching Chiao [Registry.Asia] 12 Dec '13

12 Dec '13

Dear all, Due to flight schedule I might be late or unable to join the meeting today / tonight. The Chair of RySG has sent a conditional proxy form and Chuck Gomes will be my proxy. I'd rely Chuck on reading the motion on the JIG final report if I can't make it to the meeting timely (thank you Chuck!). Jonathan / Glen -- please note that Chuck also seconded the motion as well. Best regards, Ching

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#139]
by Glen de Saint Géry 12 Dec '13

12 Dec '13

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : jeudi 12 décembre 2013 05:02 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#139] Name of Officer: * rafik dammak Officer Email Address: * rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Thursday, December 12, 2013 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Magaly won't be able to attend to the GNSO council call for personal reasons Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * David cake will submit Magaly's vote by proxy for the motions to be approved, and any other matters needing a vote. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, December 13, 2013 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * david cake

1 0

For your review - GNSO Project List
by Glen de Saint Géry 11 Dec '13

11 Dec '13

Dear Councillors, Please find attached for your review the revised project list, both in redline and clean format. Please note that following some of the comments in Buenos Aires, we have added some metrics to the index page. If you have any suggestions for other improvements / additions, please let us know. For reference, the updated project list is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf on page : http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project under the heading Council activities Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Draft ATRT2 Comments
by Maria Farrell 11 Dec '13

11 Dec '13

Dear all, Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO. Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look? Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them? This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP. All the best, Maria Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2), The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting. The Council’s input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues. *New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations* *10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups* While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2’s recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators’ roles. *10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs* We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members. *10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective* As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process. We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that ‘time-effective’ encompasses efficient use of participants’ time – including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. – rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities. *10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups* We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it. *10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs* We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff’s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely. Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do ‘in reach’ to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion. *10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO ‘cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame’.* We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO – the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making – is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN’s *raison d’etre. *While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it’s not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC. This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a ‘sweet spot’ to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot – which will change from one issue to the next and is not a ‘one size fits all’ amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist. Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation. Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an ‘if/then’ basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term ‘improperly’ with ‘incorrectly’ or ‘wrongly’, as the word ‘improper’ has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don’t seem relevant here. *Summary of work the GNSO is already doing* *…* 4. Summarise if appropriate Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13…

8 23

Table of prospective PDP improvements
by Maria Farrell 10 Dec '13

10 Dec '13

Hi all, Is it possible - Marika - to get a redline version of the updated table on PDP improvements? I'm just reviewing documents ahead of Thursday's meeting and am a bit hazy on what the most recent evolution of the document has been. Or a quick summary of any changes would be really helpful, as an alternative. It's item 6.1 6.1 – Review of table of prospective PDP Improvements<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-table-14nov13-en.pdf>(Marika Konings) Many thanks, Maria

2 2

Reminder: ICANN WHOIS MISUSE STUDY FINDINGS WEBINAR INVITATION
by Glen de Saint Géry 10 Dec '13

10 Dec '13

ICANN WHOIS MISUSE STUDY FINDINGS WEBINAR INVITATION  In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. You are invited to participate in a webinar about the recently released Whois Misuse Study, conducted for ICANN by Carnegie Mellon University’s Cylab. This study has now been published for public comment, and community feedback is being invited in order to assist ICANN with evaluating potential changes to Whois policy. The study was commissioned by the GNSO to obtain objective and quantifiable information about the extent, nature, and impact of WHOIS public data misuse – that is, harmful actions taken using contact information obtained from WHOIS – through (1) analyzing reported misuse incidents and (2) conducting experiments to measure misuse and the effectiveness of anti-harvesting measures. CMU was engaged to perform the study using two complementary approaches: (1) a descriptive study to document and analyze WHOIS misuse incidents that have already occurred and (2) an experimental study to stimulate and record misuse in order to measure more reliably the impact of making WHOIS data public and WHOIS query filters applied to deter data harvesting. CMU’s chief researchers on the study, Dr. Nicolas Christin and Mr. Nektarios Leontiadis, and ICANN staff will provide a briefing on Tuesday 17 December at 12.00 UTC and 19.00 UTC, summarizing their findings and conclusions based on the studies they performed and data they analyzed. Amongst other topics, Dr. Christin and Mr. Nektarios will discuss: · CMU’s methodology for the study and the hypothesis tested; · The different project activities that were undertaken for the study; · CMU’s analysis of the data reported and sampled for the study; and · CMU’s conclusions based on the results of its analysis. The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for sixty (60) minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may also be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join on Tuesday 17 December - at 12.00 UTC or at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html). We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff member’s e-mail address.

1 0

FYI - Save the Date - ICANN Brussels Briefing, 18 Dec 2013 at Renaissance hotel
by Marika Konings 10 Dec '13

10 Dec '13

For your information BRUSSELS BRIEFING; 18TH DECEMBER 2013 As 2013 comes to an end we would like you to save the date for the second (and last of year) ICANN Brussels briefing, on December 18 at 09.30hrs at the Renaissance Hotel <https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&q=Renaissance+Brussels+Hotel&fb=1&hq= renaissance+hotel&hnear=0x47c3a4ed73c76867:0xc18b3a66787302a7,Brussels,+Belg ium&cid=10687355292024950971&ei=Is2lUqnxEIeqhQf20YGABw&ved=0CPYBEPwSMAs> , the event will finish with a buffet lunch. It will be an occasion to meet and update you on the ICANN developments including the new gTLD program, outcomes from the ICANN 48 Buenos Aires and larger IG topics such as the preparation of the San Paulo meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance, the 1NET movement and the WSIS+10 review process. We will also to take stock from the first public session on the ICANN Engagement Strategy for Europe <https://community.icann.org/display/gseeuropewkspc/ICANN+Engagement+Strateg y+for+Europe> (IESE) held at ICANN 48, and design toghether the roadmap to build a solid regional strategy. 2014 is set to be a key year in the global IG ecosystem, would be very good too see you and exchange greetings before we start the Christmas break and a very intense year ahead. Please "spread the news" and let us know if you can come (Register sending your details to petya.minkova(a)icann.org) Best regards, Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson(a)icann.org <mailto:nigel.hickson@icann.org> Andrea Beccalli andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org <mailto:andrea.beccalli@icann.org>

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#138]
by Glen de Saint Géry 09 Dec '13

09 Dec '13

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : lundi 9 décembre 2013 19:50 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#138] Name of Officer: * Keith Drazek Officer Email Address: * kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Date Prepared: * Monday, December 9, 2013 GNSO Organization: * Registries Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Possible absence or late arrival of Ching Chiao due to flight. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * If Ching Chiao is unable to attend (or late in joining) the 12 December 2013 Council meeting, Chuck Gomes will submit Ching's vote by proxy. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, December 13, 2013 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Chuck Gomes

1 0