June 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3
by Jonathan Robinson 19 Jun '13

19 Jun '13

All, In the flurry of emails running up to the deadline yesterday, two variants emerged in parallel with a similar message as follows: 1. Conveying concern of councillors but not necessarily the whole council. 2. Not prescribing a solution or seeking a specific outcome or change, but further consideration. In the end I opted to send the output that had emerged by combining various drafts on our list, rather than my own attempt to synthesise. For the avoidance of doubt, it is included below and you will have seen Bruce Tonkin's feedback. Thanks again to all who contributed to producing the output and/or engaging with this important topic. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 18 June 2013 21:03 To: Bruce Tonkin (Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au) Cc: Cherine Chalaby (cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org) council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO (council(a)gnso.icann.org) Subject: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council has had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat ion-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati on-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council meeting on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centre around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the publication of the rationale until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair

1 0

ICANN Durban - GNSO Council meeting with the Board
by Jonathan Robinson 19 Jun '13

19 Jun '13

All, As you know, Durban is approaching and we have the great opportunity of an hour and a half with the ICANN Board. Background In my time on the Council, our meetings with the board have mostly comprised an agenda made up from topics sent in both directions which the Council has then worked to develop our position on, typically on the Saturday of the weekend session. I feel that these have been characterised, in part, by both the Council and the Board "throwing topics over the fence" and, at times, these have been lacking in strategic thought and / or thorough preparation by the Council. Also, the tone of the meetings has felt in the past, to me at least, to be a little antagonistic and not in necessarily the spirit of moving a topic or topics forward. Prior to Beijing, I met with Steve Crocker and discussed with him some of the above and part of the outcome of that discussion was a suggestion that the Council come to the board with topics. We did this through a softer introduction by me and then got into the "meat in the sandwich" via an intervention by Jeff (I recall). We went on to have a good discussion on some critical issues. The discussion was firm but reasonable and the feedback I heard afterwards from both councillors and board members was largely if not universally positive. Towards Durban I intend to meet with Steve again before Durban if possible, at least through a telephone conversation. Before doing so, I would like to be sure we are heading in the right direction and so would appreciate your input. As chair, my feeling is that we should enter the discussion with an objective. What do we want to communicate and how do we want to achieve that? In this context, we may also think what we do not want to do / achieve and how to make sure of that. My sense of what we should try to communicate is the following: 1. A dynamic and forward looking GNSO Council that is actively seeking to undertake productive work in the interests of a successful multi-stakeholder model. 2. A vigilant and responsible GNSO Council with some specific and reasonable issues / concerns that will benefit from being aired and discussed. Assuming the above, what is the purpose and substance of 1 & 2. 1. Dynamic and forward looking GNSO Council - Direct communication of activity and taking feedback a. Key relationships i. Within the Council & GNSO ii. With ICANN staff iii. With others in the ICANN ecosystem (Actively reaching out to Board, GAC, ccNSO, other groups to participate in joint initiatives) b. Operational productivity and efficiency initiatives c. Critical new / forward looking initiatives (in addition to "regular" policy work) i. Development of a set of principles to guide (cross) community working groups ii. Initiation of a WG to examine and develop critical issues around policy and implementation iii. Awareness of forthcoming reviews (of GNSO & GNSO Council) and willingness to anticipate these 2. Vigilant and responsible GNSO Council - Able to coherently highlight critical issues, discuss these and move the agenda forward a. The MS model is critical to the "defence" of ICANN, the MS Model needs to be upheld b. BB c. CC Summary My belief is that we have an opportunity, and should seize it, to communicate positively and in a way which we are most likely to be engaged with productively. I think the issues raised and discussed in 2 above will benefit from the context of 1 and so a structure along the lines above will work and will welcome your feedback. Please note that 2 may contain one or more topics. I have suggested one so far since it links to our discussion, both in Beijing and subsequently, and could do with being moved on / developed. Look forward to your feedback and input on the above. Jonathan

4 4

RE: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3
by Bruce Tonkin 19 Jun '13

19 Jun '13

Just confirming that this has been posted to the Board Governance Committee and considered in its meeting today. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2013 6:03 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Cherine Chalaby; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council has had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat… (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council meeting on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centre around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the publication of the rationale until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair

2 3

Draft Letter to BGC
by Neuman, Jeff 18 Jun '13

18 Jun '13

Bruce, Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat… (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair 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 Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Bruce, Thank-you for flagging this. We will endeavour to provide you with this. Jonathan From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Hello Jonathan, For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time. A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful. I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

11 17

RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
by Alan Greenberg 18 Jun '13

18 Jun '13

Jeff, isn't the rationale already published? I thought that what was at issue here was the Board's (ie the new GTLD Comm) ratification of it. Alan At 18/06/2013 11:27 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >I do not think this new wording characterizes the discussion that we >had last week. Adding a footnote to the rationale would not solve >any of the issues that were raised, and in fact would only introduce >new (even worse) wrinkles. > >I believe a rewording to make it more in line with what Alan had >suggested is more preferable (Changes in last paragraph): > >Dear Board Governance Committee, > > As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the > opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration > Request 13-3, which can be found at > <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat…>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat… > (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. > >Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of >Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with >the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the >Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council >call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the >perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and >more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. > > We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to defer the > publication of the rationale of the Reconsideration Request until > such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take > place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. > >Sincerely, > >Jonathan Robinson >GNSO Council Chair > > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > >From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com] >Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:23 AM >To: Winterfeldt, Brian; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org >Cc: John Berard; Neuman, Jeff; bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au >Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC > >Fully support this rewording. > >Zahid Jamil >Barrister-at-law >Jamil & Jamil >Barristers-at-law >219-221 Central Hotel Annexe >Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan >Cell: +923008238230 >Tel: +92 213 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 >Fax: +92 213 5655026 ><http://www.jamilandjamil.com>www.jamilandjamil.com > >Notice / Disclaimer >This message contains confidential information and its contents are >being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not >the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or >copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if >you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your >system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property >of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged >information protected by attorney client privilege. The >reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind >whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing >it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or >incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior >written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. > > >*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service >from Mobilink *** > >---------- >From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" ><<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com> >Sender: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:17:51 +0000 >To: ><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org%3ccouncil@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org<council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Cc: ><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com%3cjohn@crediblecontext.com>john(a)crediblecontext.com<john(a)crediblecontext.com>; ><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us%3cJeff.Neuman@neustar.us>Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>; ><mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au%3cbruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC > >Dear all: > >The IPC does not agree that the BGC's rationale need be thrown >out. As an alternative, you might consider the following language >in a footnote to the rationale, which we would have vetted with the >full Council in due course, but for the intense pace at which this >conversation is unfolding: > >"This analysis is limited to consideration of whether the Board >violated ICANN policy, and specifically the policies set forth in >Annex A, Section 9 of the ICANN Bylaws, which require consultation >with the GNSO Council where a PDP-developed recommendation is not >approved by the Board. It is beyond the scope of this >Recommendation to consider whether, how and when the Board engages >the GNSO Council in discussions following GNSO council statements or >other actions outside the PDP process, and this Recommendation >expresses no opinion on such matters." > >Thank you, > >Brian > >Brian J. Winterfeldt >Partner ><mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com >Steptoe > >---------- >From: ><mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn>owner-council(a)gnso.icann.orgOn > Behalf OfJonathan Robinson >Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:42:15 AM >To: <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>john(a)crediblecontext.com; >'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; ><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC >John, > >Good that the short version makes sense. It's often the case as you >well know! > >I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I >understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of >the Council and that this was what we were discussing. >I haven't cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did >cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes >and didn't receive any objections. >Of course, it doesn't necessarily require a vote for us to take action. > >We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today >at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least >before the BGC meets. >If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast. > >Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially >similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support >from the Council if I am to do so. >Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you >could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline? > >Thanks, > > >Jonathan > >From: <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>john(a)crediblecontext.com >[mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] >Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 >To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson(a)afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; ><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC > >Jeff, et. al., > >Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I >heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from >all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or >sense of the Council. > >And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of >decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution. > >It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of >a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there >is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw >its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the >community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint >meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too. > >I guess that rolls up to being an objection. > >Cheers, > >Berard > >--------- Original Message --------- >Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm >To: "'jrobinson(a)afilias.info'" ><<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, "'Bruce >Tonkin'" ><<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, >"<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org" ><<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Bruce, > >Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing >sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note >like the one below. Any objections? > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Dear Board Governance Committee, > > As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the > opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration > Request 13-3, which can be found at > <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat…>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat… > (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. > >Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of >Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with >the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the >Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council >call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the >perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and >more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. > > We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw > the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the > Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something > more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined > in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the > dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. >Sincerely, > >Jonathan Robinson >GNSO Council Chair > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > >From: ><mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson >Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM >To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - >Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) > >Bruce, > >Thank-you for flagging this. > >We will endeavour to provide you with this. > >Jonathan > >From: Bruce Tonkin >[<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] > >Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 >To: <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - >Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) > >Hello Jonathan, > >For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on >Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time. > >A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the >agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful. > >I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then >consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin >

2 1

RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
by Winterfeldt, Brian 18 Jun '13

18 Jun '13

Dear all: The IPC does not agree that the BGC's rationale need be thrown out. As an alternative, you might consider the following language in a footnote to the rationale, which we would have vetted with the full Council in due course, but for the intense pace at which this conversation is unfolding: "This analysis is limited to consideration of whether the Board violated ICANN policy, and specifically the policies set forth in Annex A, Section 9 of the ICANN Bylaws, which require consultation with the GNSO Council where a PDP-developed recommendation is not approved by the Board. It is beyond the scope of this Recommendation to consider whether, how and when the Board engages the GNSO Council in discussions following GNSO council statements or other actions outside the PDP process, and this Recommendation expresses no opinion on such matters." Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.orgOn<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn> Behalf OfJonathan Robinson Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:42:15 AM To: john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>; 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC John, Good that the short version makes sense. It's often the case as you well know! I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven't cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn't receive any objections. Of course, it doesn't necessarily require a vote for us to take action. We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast. Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline? Thanks, Jonathan From: john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson(a)afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC Jeff, et. al., Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council. And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution. It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too. I guess that rolls up to being an objection. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson(a)afilias.info'" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Bruce, Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat… (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Bruce, Thank-you for flagging this. We will endeavour to provide you with this. Jonathan From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Hello Jonathan, For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time. A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful. I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 3

Durban meeting
by WUKnoben 17 Jun '13

17 Jun '13

All, following our discussions last week I’d like to start drafting a list of topics for the various weekend meetings in Durban and would appreciate your input. 1.. GNSO/Board a.. Reconsideration request and the multistakeholder model b.. FY14 budget plan c.. GAC advice om New gTLD d.. GNSO review 2.. GNSO/Fadi a.. Internalization of ICANN b.. Multistakeholder model 3.. GNSO/GAC a.. GAC engagement in PDP b.. GAC advice on New gTLD During this week I’d like to forward the topics the council suggests. Please feel free to comment/add/remove/prioritize. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
by Jonathan Robinson 17 Jun '13

17 Jun '13

All, Following on from Item 6 at our June 13 meeting, Jeff has already circulated and e-mail together with an attachment containing his notes for leading the discussion. My understanding is that, through a combination of what was proposed to the meeting and what was discussed in the meeting, the following course of action is agreed: 1. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the Board Governance Committee (copying the New gTLD Programme Committee). 2. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ATRT2. 3. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ICANN Board. The objective of each of the above 3 can be summarised as follows: 1. The Board Governance Committee - Drafted by [Jeff]. a. To highlight and describe the key concerns with output of the committee i.e. with the rationalisation for the reconsideration decision. b. To make it clear that the desired outcome is to remove the current rationalisation from the record (and not to overturn the outcome of the reconsideration). c. To recognise that the Council's intervention in these processes is for very specific reasons and because of the perceived potential impact on the GNSO and indeed the MS Model. 2. The ATRT2 - Drafted by [Volunteer]. a. To highlight concerns with the reconsideration process as a mechanism for ensuring accountability and transparency. b. To not propose a specific remedy but rather to leave that to the ATRT. 3. The ICANN Board - Drafted by [Jonathan]. a. To summarise and refer to both 1 & 2 above b. To highlight on-going concerns about the issue of accountability for actions (implementation or policy) which are not in agreement with GNSO policy or policy advice. c. To propose solutions such as: i. Agreement to effectively communicate with the GNSO in the event that a decision goes against such policy or policy advice (something we have already agreed to on the back of our Beijing / recent discussions) ii. Possible change/s to the ICANN bylaws That summarises my understanding. I look forward to receiving your comments; supporting, not supporting or refining the above points. N.B. I have suggested Jeff drafts 1, someone volunteers to draft 2 and I draft 3. Thanks, Jonathan

2 2

Request for Comments: Initial Report on Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Jun '13

16 Jun '13

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-initial-14jun13-en.htm Initial Report on Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 14 June 2013 Comment Close Date: 17 July 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 18 July 2013 Reply Close Date: 7 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-14jun13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-igo-ingo-initial-14jun13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-initial-14jun13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") Policy Development Process Working Group tasked with addressing the issue of Protecting the identifiers of certain International Government Organizations ("IGOs") and International Non-Governmental Organizations ("INGOs") in all gTLDs has published its Initial Report for public comment. Current Status: The GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group ("PDP WG") on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs has published this Initial Report and is soliciting community input on the proposed policy recommendation options currently under consideration by the PDP WG. This Initial Report has also been submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2013. Next Steps: Following the review of and taking into account the public comments received during this Public Forum, the PDP WG will continue its deliberations on the proposed policy recommendation options in view of reaching consensus on a set of policy recommendations, which if reached, will be included in a draft Final Report. The draft Final Report with the final policy recommendations will be published for public comment. The PDP WG will take into account any input received and submit a Final Report to the GNSO Council for further action. Staff Contact: Brian Peck Email Staff Contact<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Initial%20Report%20on%20Protection%20of%20IGO%20and%20INGO%20Identifiers%20in%20All%20gTLDs%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: In its Initial Report the PDP WG provides background information on the issues related to the protection for certain IGO and INGO (including the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement ("RCRC") and International Olympic Committee ("IOC")) identifiers. The report also includes a summary of the Working Group's deliberations with respect to the issues defined in the WG's Charter. Most importantly, sections 4.3 through 4.7 of this Initial Report present a list of proposed policy recommendation options currently being considered by the PDP WG, for the protection of certain IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs. The proposed policy recommendation options for the protection of certain IGO and INGO identifiers presented in this Report (including the option to provide no special protections) are delineated between top and second level domains. The proposed policy recommendation options for the protection of the organization's identifiers in all gTLDs presented in this report do not represent a consensus position by the Working Group members; but rather, are options which the Working Group is considering. The objective of this Initial Report is to present the proposed policy recommendation options currently under consideration to solicit feedback from the community on these recommendations. Specifically, the Working Group would welcome comments from community members on the following questions: 1. Which recommendation option(s) for the protection of certain IGO and INGO (including RCRC and IOC) identifiers at the top and/or second levels as listed in Sections 4.3 to 4.7 would you support? Please provide a rationale. 2. If you do not support any of the recommendation options, please suggest any reasonable alternatives as delineated between top and second-level protections you may have. Please also provide a rationale. Section II: Background: For a detailed background and history of the issue on whether to protect certain IGO and INGO identifiers including the RCRC and IOC prior to the initiation of this PDP, please see the Final GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…> [PDF, 675 KB]. The Issue Report was initiated as a result of a recommendation by the GNSO Drafting Team formed to provide a GNSO Council response to the Board and GAC on the protection of IOC and RCRC names in new gTLDs. After community review, the scope of the Final GNSO Issue Report included an evaluation of whether to protect the names of both international government and non-government organizations at the top level and second level in all gTLDs. At its October meeting last year, the GNSO Council considered the Final GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs, and approved a motion to initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") for the protection of certain international organization names and acronyms in all gTLDs. The Working Group ("WG") was formed on 31 October 2012 and the WG Charter was approved by the GNSO Council on 15 November 2012. The decision was taken in this context to subsume the issues of the IOC and Red Cross Red Crescent designations and names under the new PDP WG process. As part of its deliberations, the PDP WG was required under the WG Charter to consider the following questions: 1. Whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all existing and new gTLDs for the names and acronyms of the following types of international organizations: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) protected by international law and multiple domestic statutes, International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions, specifically including the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC), and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). In deliberating this issue, the WG should consider the following elements: * Quantifying the Entities to be Considered for Special Protection * Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under International Treaties/National Laws for IGO, RCRC and IOC Names * Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of International Organization Names * Distinguishing Any Substantive Differences Between the RCRC and IOC From Other International Organizations 2. If there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all existing and new gTLDs for certain international organization names and acronyms, the PDP WG is expected to develop policy recommendations for such protections. Specifically, the PDP WG should: * Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs and if not, develop specific recommendations for the appropriate special protections for these names. * Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections for the names and acronyms of all other qualifying international organizations. Section III: Document and Resource Links: Initial Report on Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-initial-14jun13-en.pdf> [PDF, 609 KB] Section IV: Additional Information: * Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Page<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo> * Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Wiki<http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/> * Protection of International Olympic Committee / Red Cross Names Page<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/ioc-rcrc> ________________________________ (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. 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

NGPC Progress on Addressing GAC Beijing Advice on New gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Jun '13

16 Jun '13

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14jun13-en.htm NGPC Progress on Addressing GAC Beijing Advice on New gTLDs 14 June 2013 The ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) met on 11 June 2013 to discuss the GAC Beijing advice regarding singular and plural versions of the same string as a New gTLD. The discussion followed the NGPC's decision on 4 June 2013 to accept the GAC's advice to consider this issue. The NGPC made considerable progress toward reaching consensus on a way forward and expects to reach a conclusion at its 25 June 2013 meeting. The NGPC also considered how it might respond to the ALAC Statement on IDN Variants. Finally, it began in-depth discussion of the GAC's Safeguard Advice applicable to all strings. The next two meetings of the NGPC on 18 and 25 June 2013 will focus on items within the GAC's Annex 1 Safeguard advice. Below please find an updated NGPC work plan: Item Resp. Start Date Compl. Date Status 1. Publish GAC Communiqué to solicit input on how the New gTLD Board Committee should address GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD strings Staff 23 April Complete 2. Public comment period on how NGPC should address GAC Advice re: Safeguards Public 23 April Comment 14 May; Reply 4 June Complete 3. Summarize and analyze public comments on GAC Advice re: Safeguards Staff 5 June 12 June Complete 4. Meeting to review and consider staff proposals for addressing overarching Safeguard advice (Annex 1, 1-6) and Restricted & Exclusive Registry policies (Category 2) NGPC 18 June Not Started 5. Meeting to review and consider staff proposals on Category 1, Items 1-5, and Singular vs. Plural NGPC 25 June Not Started The New gTLD evaluation and objection processes remains on track while the NGPC continues its deliberations. The NGPC is prioritizing its work in order to allow the greatest number of applications to move forward as soon as possible. We will continue to provide updates on the NGPC's progress in responding to the GAC Beijing Advice. 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