June 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council Session with ICANN CEO - Sunday 14 july 2013
by Jonathan Robinson July 4, 2013

July 4, 2013

All, We are scheduled to have a ½ hour session with Fadi Chehade on Sunday 14 July from 09h30 10h00. This is separate from and in addition to our session with the ICANN board so is an opportunity for the Council to focus on issues relevant to our work and specific to Fadi in his capacity as CEO. I talked with Fadi yesterday and we talked about a couple of significant initiatives underway, both typically led by a CEO. The first is his on-going design and reorganisation of ICANN and the second is his leadership of the ICANN strategic plan. My opinion is that these are two significant initiatives that it would be helpful to understand, know more about and have the opportunity to question Fadi directly on. He is likely to bring Akram Atalla with him to the meeting. Therefore two questions: 1. Do you agree that the Council could usefully engage with Fadi on: a. Organisation of ICANN ? (How does this impact and affect the GNSO?) b. Strategic planning for ICANN? (How does this impact and affect the GNSO and how should we be involved?) 2. Within the constraints of a short time, are there other topics we could usefully discuss with Fadi? (other than what we will discuss with the board as a whole) Thank-you in advance for your input. Jonathan

3 3

Motion & Document dealine for Council meeting on 17 July 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry June 30, 2013

June 30, 2013

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. SUNDAY, 7 July 2013 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 July 2013 at 13:00 UTC Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+July+2013 Please let me know if 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

1 0

Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs
by Jonathan Robinson June 30, 2013

June 30, 2013

All, Please see attached correspondence regarding Recommendations from the <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/active-ux-21mar13-en.pdf > Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs. Thank-you. Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r

1 0

Regarding the community evaluation process for new gTLD applicants
by Bruce Tonkin June 30, 2013

June 30, 2013

For info: Correspondence: Letter from Christine Willett to Craig Schwartz Subject: Community Priority Evaluation Affiliation: ICANN Date: 27 June 2013 http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/willett-to-schwa…

1 0

Revised Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recoomendation
by Neuman, Jeff June 28, 2013

June 28, 2013

All, Overnight I got some fantastic comments from several people about the motion, so I have made a couple of changes. Here is the new motion, with the changed parts in red. Basically I added a second sentence to the definition of the GNSO recognizing the role that the GNSO has with respect to providing advice on implementation of policies relating to generic TLDs. What that process is and how to delineate whether something is policy or implementation is being worked on by the Policy v. implementation Working Group we have set up, but as the BGC recognizes, the Board should be coming to the GNSO community for advice on implementation issues as well as policy issues. Again, to be clear, all this is saying is that IF the GNSO issues advice AND the Board acts inconsistent with that advice, the only thing the Board should do is meet with the GNSO in good faith, offer its reasons, and attempt to work out a solution. That's it. Seems like a no-brainer to me. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WHEREAS, the ICANN Bylaws currently state: There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains; WHEREAS, the Board Governance Committee has recognized in Reconsideration Request 13-3 that "As of now, there is no defined policy or process within ICANN that requires Board or staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the PDP"; and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council believes that such a defined policy or process is now needed. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Bylaws be amended to: a) add a second sentence to Article X, Section 1 such that Section 1 would now read: "There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. The GNSO is also responsible for providing advice to the ICANN Board on the implementation of policies relating to generic top-level domains." b) include language requiring a formal consultation process in the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with GNSO advice. Such process shall require the ICANN Board to state the reasons why it decided not to follow GNSO advice, and be followed in a timely manner, with a consultation in which the GNSO and the ICANN Board attempt in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the GNSO advice was not followed. FURTHER RESOLVED that the GNSO recommends the above to apply whether or not the policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:44 PM To: GNSO Council (council(a)gnso.icann.org) Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' Subject: [council] Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting Although I am sure that some on the Council will still disagree with the new rationale posted at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat…, I believe the rationale is much more consistent with, and recognizes, the value of the multi-stakeholder model. The tone has been softened considerably and is much more respectful, in my opinion. In addition, the rationale upon my quick read seems to be technically correct. I am grateful to the Board Governance Committee for having taken some of our comments very seriously and for making the appropriate changes to the rationale. The one item I would still like to see addressed by the Council (other than the Policy v. Implementation discussions within the GNSO Working Group process) is formalizing the requirement through a proposed Bylaws Amendment requiring consultation of the GNSO if the Board proposes to take an action that is inconsistent with a policy or statement of the GNSO. I intend to draft that motion for the Council's consideration in Durban. To give all of the constituencies ample time to review the motion prior to Durban, although I am sure some will seek to defer the motion, claiming insufficient time to review, I am attaching this proposed resolution for consideration in Durban. I am happy to take comments, edits or suggestions: WHEREAS, the ICANN Bylaws currently state: There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains; WHEREAS, the Board Governance Committee has recognized in Reconsideration Request 13-3 that "As of now, there is no defined policy or process within ICANN that requires Board or staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the PDP"; and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council believes that such a defined policy or process is now needed. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Bylaws be amended to include language requiring a formal consultation process in the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with GNSO policies or recommendations. Such process shall require the ICANN Board to state the reasons why it decided not to follow GNSO recommendations or policies, and be followed in a timely manner, with a consultation in which the GNSO and the ICANN Board attempt in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the GNSO recommendations or policies were not followed. FURTHER RESOLVED that the GNSO recommends the above to apply whether or not the policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

4 4

NGPC Progress on Addressing GAC Beijing Advice on New gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry June 28, 2013

June 28, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27jun13-en.htm NGPC Progress on Addressing GAC Beijing Advice on New gTLDs 27 June 2013 On 25 June 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) had its sixth meeting to discuss the GAC Beijing advice on New gTLDs. The Committee adopted two resolutions concerning portions of the GAC's Safeguard Advice. It also adopted a resolution regarding the GAC's advice on singular and plural versions of the same string. These resolutions are posted at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13…<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun1…>. The NGPC will meet again on 2 July 2013. The agenda is available at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-02jul13-en.h…<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-02jul13-en.…>. Among other things, the NGPC is expected to consider resolutions regarding the proposed registry agreement and IGO names and acronyms. The New gTLD evaluation and objection processes remain on track. ICANN has posted initial evaluation results on approximately one half of the applications received. The remaining evaluations are expected to be completed on time. The NGPC continues to prioritize its work in order to allow the greatest number of applications to move forward as soon as possible. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Pre-Durban Policy Update Webinar links
by Glen de Saint Géry June 28, 2013

June 28, 2013

Dear All, The Pre-Durban Policy webinar presentations, MP3 recordings, Adobe Connect recordings and Transcripts are all posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jun They may be directly viewed at the links below : 12 :00 UTC session MP3 http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-update-webinar-1200-20130627-en.mp3 Transcription http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-policy-update-webinar-1200-27j… Presentation http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/presentation-policy-update-webinar-27jun1… Adobe Connect recording 12 :00 UTC http://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2jhy3od769/ 19 :00 UTC session MP3 http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-update-webinar-1900-20130627-en.mp3 Transcription http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-policy-update-webinar-1900-27j… Presentation: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/presentation-policy-update-webinar-1900-2… Adobe Connect recording 19 :00 UTC http://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7xe6fvetl6/ 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

1 0

2013 RAA Approved by ICANN Board of Directors
by Bruce Tonkin June 28, 2013

June 28, 2013

http://blog.icann.org/2013/06/board-approves-raa/ Sent from my iPad

1 0

Resolutions from new gTLD Program Committee meeting - 25 June 2013
by Bruce Tonkin June 28, 2013

June 28, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13… 25 June 2013 Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee (note I have removed the rationales to make it easier to see the decisions - but refer to the link above for the full explanation of why the Board has chosen a particular outcome) 1. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of NGPC Meeting Minutes Resolved (2013.06.25.NG01), the Board approves the minutes of the 4 June 2013 New gTLD Program Committee Meeting. 2. Main Agenda: a. ALAC Statement on TMCH/Variants No resolution taken. b. Safeguards Applicable to all New gTLDs Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué included six (6) elements of safeguard advice applicable to all new gTLDs, which are identified in the GAC Register of Advice as: (a) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-1, (b) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-2, (c) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-3, (d) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-4, (e) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-5, and (f) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-6 (collectively, the "Safeguards Applicable to All Strings"); Whereas, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit the community's input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en… ; Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4, 11 and 18 June 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the GAC's advice on the New gTLD Program, including the Safeguards Applicable to All Strings; Whereas, the NGPC met on 25 June 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué on the New gTLD Program; Whereas, the NGPC has considered the public comments submitted during the public comment forum, and has determined that its position, as presented in Annex I attached to this Resolution, is consistent with the GAC's advice regarding Safeguards Applicable to All Strings; Whereas, the NGPC proposes revisions to the final draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm as presented in Annex II attached to this Resolution to implement certain elements of the GAC advice regarding Safeguards Applicable to All Strings; and Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.06.25.NG02), the NGPC adopts the "NGPC Proposal for Implementation of GAC Safeguards Applicable to All New gTLDs" (19 June 2013), attached as Annex I to this Resolution, to accept the GAC's advice regarding Safeguards Applicable to All Strings. Resolved (2013.06.25.NG03), the NGPC directs staff to make appropriate changes to the final draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement, as presented in Annex II attached to this Resolution, to implement certain elements of the GAC advice regarding Safeguards Applicable to All Strings. c. Category 2 Safeguard Advice re Restricted and Exclusive Registry Access Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué included Category 2 safeguard advice, which is identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-04-11-Safeguards-Categories-2 (the "Category 2 Safeguard Advice"); Whereas, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit the community's input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD strings < http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en… >; Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4, 11 and 18 June 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the GAC's advice on the New gTLD Program, including the Category 2 Safeguard Advice; Whereas, the NGPC met on 25 June 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué on the New gTLD Program; Whereas, the NGPC has considered the public comments submitted during the public comment forum, and proposes revisions to the final draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm> as presented in Annex I attached to this Resolution to implement the Category 2 Safeguard Advice for applicants not seeking to impose exclusive registry access; and Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.06.25.NG04), the NGPC adopts the "Proposed PIC Spec Implementation of GAC Category 2 Safeguards" (20 June 2013), attached as Annex I to this Resolution, to accept and implement the GAC's Category 2 Safeguard Advice for applicants not seeking to impose exclusive registry access. Resolved (2013.06.25.NG05), the NGPC directs staff to make appropriate changes to the final draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement, as presented in Annex I attached to this Resolution, to implement the GAC's Category 2 Safeguard Advice for applicants not seeking to impose exclusive registry access. Resolved (2013.06.25.NG06), the NGPC directs staff to defer moving forward with the contracting process for applicants seeking to impose exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement), pending a dialogue with the GAC. d. Singular & Plural Versions of the Same String as a TLD Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4 and 11 June 2013, to consider a plan for responding to the GAC's advice on the New gTLD Program, transmitted to the Board through its Beijing Communiqué; Whereas, on 4 June 2013, the NGPC took action accepting GAC advice identified in the GAC Register of Advice as "2013-04-11-PluralStrings" and agreed to consider whether to allow singular and plural versions of the same string; Whereas, the NGPC met on 11 June 2013 to consider the GAC Beijing advice regarding singular and plural versions of the same string; and Whereas, after careful consideration of the issues, review of the comments raised by the community, the process documents of the expert review panels, and deliberations by the NGPC, the NGPC has determined that no changes to the ABG are needed to address potential consumer confusion specifically resulting from allowing singular and plural versions of the same strings; Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.06.25.NG07), the NGPC has determined that no changes are needed to the existing mechanisms in the Applicant Guidebook to address potential consumer confusion resulting from allowing singular and plural versions of the same string. e. IGO Protection No resolution taken. f. AOB No resolution taken.

1 0

Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting
by Neuman, Jeff June 28, 2013

June 28, 2013

Although I am sure that some on the Council will still disagree with the new rationale posted at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat…, I believe the rationale is much more consistent with, and recognizes, the value of the multi-stakeholder model. The tone has been softened considerably and is much more respectful, in my opinion. In addition, the rationale upon my quick read seems to be technically correct. I am grateful to the Board Governance Committee for having taken some of our comments very seriously and for making the appropriate changes to the rationale. The one item I would still like to see addressed by the Council (other than the Policy v. Implementation discussions within the GNSO Working Group process) is formalizing the requirement through a proposed Bylaws Amendment requiring consultation of the GNSO if the Board proposes to take an action that is inconsistent with a policy or statement of the GNSO. I intend to draft that motion for the Council's consideration in Durban. To give all of the constituencies ample time to review the motion prior to Durban, although I am sure some will seek to defer the motion, claiming insufficient time to review, I am attaching this proposed resolution for consideration in Durban. I am happy to take comments, edits or suggestions: WHEREAS, the ICANN Bylaws currently state: There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains; WHEREAS, the Board Governance Committee has recognized in Reconsideration Request 13-3 that "As of now, there is no defined policy or process within ICANN that requires Board or staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the PDP"; and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council believes that such a defined policy or process is now needed. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Bylaws be amended to include language requiring a formal consultation process in the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with GNSO policies or recommendations. Such process shall require the ICANN Board to state the reasons why it decided not to follow GNSO recommendations or policies, and be followed in a timely manner, with a consultation in which the GNSO and the ICANN Board attempt in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the GNSO recommendations or policies were not followed. FURTHER RESOLVED that the GNSO recommends the above to apply whether or not the policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

2 1