June 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Webinar: Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant TLD Program Update
by Glen de Saint Géry 16 Jun '13

16 Jun '13

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-13jun13-en.htm Webinar: Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant TLD Program Update 13 June 2013 Date: 27 June 2013 Time: 23:00 - 00:00 UTC (4:00pm - 5:00pm PDT) Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/idnvarianttld/ Teleconference Dial-in Information: coming soon... You are invited to join the IDN Variant TLD Program webinar indented to provide a status update of the Program and current IDN Variant TLD Projects, as well as to address questions around the prerequisites for implementation of IDN Variant TLDs and upcoming community involvement. Following a general overview of the IDN Variant TLD Program, the webinar will focus on describing Program's current projects and timeline, explaining why implementation of the IDN Root Label Generation Rules Procedure must be completed before the applied for IDN Variant TLDs can be considered and the role that writing system communities will play in this implementation phase. The IDN Variant TLD Program team is looking forward to your participation. Please join this webinar on Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 23:00 UTC (duration 1 hour). The meeting will be available through Adobe Connect and dial-in call. Participants will have the opportunity to offer comments and ask questions over the phone during the Q&A section. During the course of the webinar, these may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you cannot join the live session, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting at: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/presentations 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 18 June 2013 - new gTLD Program Committee
by Bruce Tonkin 15 Jun '13

15 Jun '13

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-18jun13-en.h… 18 June 2013 Consent Agenda: * Approval of Minutes Main Agenda: * Discussion of safeguard advice items applying to all strings * Category 2 advice (restricted and exclusive registries) * ALAC Statement on TMCH * Any Other Business

3 2

Presentation from 13 June 2013 webinar on new gTLD contract process
by Bruce Tonkin 15 Jun '13

15 Jun '13

Hello All, Attached is the presentation from the webinar on the new gTLD contracting process. Taken from: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Letter to the EWG
by Jonathan Robinson 13 Jun '13

13 Jun '13

All, Please see attached and included the draft of my letter to the EWG. I think it is timely and important to get this letter done now. It does reflect that changes have taken place since Beijing but the principal point (and point of principle) remains regarding the risk of GNSO policy work taking place outside of the purview of the Council I have not been able to locate John Berard's original suggestion for some reason and, in any event, would appreciate rapid support of this text or suggested improvements. I can fix minor grammar. Really what I am after is support that I have effectively captured and communicated the essence of our concerns. Thanks. Jonathan 12 June 2013 Mr Jean-Francois Baril, Advisor to the President & CEO, ICANN Mr. Fadi Chehade, President & CEO, ICANN Dear Jean-Francois, I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair and or Lead Facilitator of the Expert Working Group (EWG) on Directory Services and as requested of me by the GNSO Council. Specifically, the Council has raised and discussed the relationship of the work of the EWG to any related policy work within the GNSO, as directed and managed by the GNSO Council. When the Council met in Beijing, consideration was given to a staff recommendation to delay the work of a Policy Development Process (PDP) pending the outcome of the EWG. This recommendation has subsequently changed and it is likely that the PDP work (on Transliteration and Translation of Contact Information) will now go ahead in parallel with that of the EWG. Nevertheless, the concern remains that the potentially substantive work being undertaken (by the EWG) is outside of the purview of the Council and yet may have a significant impact on GNSO participants. Therefore, the specific point is that I am seeking to make on behalf of the Council is to ascertain your intention and ensure your commitment that the work of the EWG will ultimately be referred back to the GNSO for input and ultimately integration into established PDP processes. Whilst the primary objective of writing to you is to clarify the role of the EWG in relation to the GNSO's policy work, it will also be very helpful to understand your latest perspectives on the milestones and timing of the work of the EWG. Yours Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson Chair, GNSO Council

3 2

MP3 recording and Adobe chat transcript GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 13 June 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 13 Jun '13

13 Jun '13

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 13 June 2013 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20130613-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jun The Adobe Connect chat transcript may be viewed on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jun http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-13jun13-en.pdf 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

GNSO Council resolutions 13 June 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 13 Jun '13

13 Jun '13

Dear All, Ahead of the official minutes please find the two resolution passed by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 13 June 2013. Council resolved to Adopt Proposed Modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions WHEREAS: The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating Procedures lacks clarity; The GNSO Council proposes a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting; The revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the clarification of the deadline for the submission of reports and motions, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 02 May 2013 ending on 23 May 2013 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-op-procedures-02may13-en.h…) as required by the ICANN Bylaws; As a result of the public comment period, the GNSO Council determined that no further changes were necessary; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The GNSO Council adopts the revised GNSO Operating Procedures including the clarification of the deadline for the submission of reports and / or motions (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/op-procedures-04jun13-en.pdf). The GNSO Council instructs staff to update any other sections in the GNSO Operating Procedures that are related to the submission of reports and / or motions to ensure that these are consistent with the new provision that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting. Council resolved to Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Whereas The translation and transliteration of contact information were two of several issues addressed by a cross-community working group - Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) - in its Final Report; As a result, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information at its meeting on 17 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-4<http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions%2320121017-4>); A Preliminary Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information was published on 08 January 2013 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/transliteration-contact-08jan13… ); A Final Issue Report translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13…). The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council should initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues discussed in this report; As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final Issue Report also recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations; ICANN's General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO; RESOLVED: The GNSO initiates a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13…) on the translation and transliteration of contact information; A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. The GNSO requests staff to commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [gnso-chairs] GNSO Review
by Jonathan Robinson 13 Jun '13

13 Jun '13

All, as discussed in today's meeting. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-chairs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: 12 June 2013 00:26 To: gnso-chairs(a)icann.org Cc: Marika Konings; Robert Hoggarth Subject: [gnso-chairs] GNSO Review Dear GNSO chairs, The Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is considering postponing the GNSO Review (potentially for a year) while it evaluates options for streamlining the organizational review process and considers relevant discussions involving development of a new ICANN Strategic Plan. The SIC expects to make a recommendation to the Board in Durban and staff will keep you apprised of these developments. Best regards, Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org 310 383-8995

1 0

RE: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee
by Neuman, Jeff 13 Jun '13

13 Jun '13

Cherine, An extensive discuss was held today during the GNSO Council meeting on the rationale used by the BGC in its recommendation to deny the reconsideration request. Jonathan will be reaching out to you with some more details, but I would strongly encourage the BGC (and the Board) to review the transcript of that discussion. I have also attached my notes that I sent to the Council after my presentation. The document is written in outline form as the basis for my presentation (so please ignore the sentence fragments :)). In the document, you will see the three asks that I have as a result of the discussion which the GNSO (more detail in the document): 1. To the ICANN Board (or here the New gTLD Program Committee): Even if you adopt the ultimate outcome to reject the reconsideration request, throw out the rationale. 2. To the GNSO Council: Move forward with making our views known to the Board and to formally recommend changing the Bylaws to respect the GNSO's role within the ICANN structure and the Multi-Stakeholder model. 3. To the ATRT: Review the accountability measures, including the reconsideration process, which to date has demonstrated that it is a meaningless accountability mechanism. Thanks for your attention to this matter. The GNSO Council would certainly like to address these topics with the Board in Durban (if not earlier) Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs -----Original Message----- From: Cherine Chalaby [mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 5:07 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Steve Crocker; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'council(a)gnso.icann.org'; Cyrus Namazi; Fadi Chehade; Michelle Bright; Megan Bishop; Amy Stathos; John Jeffrey Subject: Re: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee Jeff and Jonathan, Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and for clearly stating that the main issue for the GNSO Council is not so much about whether the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) upholds the decision relating to the BGC's recommendation on the reconsideration request 13-3, but there is a concern about the documented rationale supporting the recommendation. Let me assure you that on the Board and the NGPC we always thrive at improving the rationale supporting our decisions. We will therefore remove the reconsideration request 13-3 from the agenda of the NGPC meeting scheduled for 11th June. We are currently holding weekly NGPC meetings and the next two meetings are on 18th and 25th June. We will put reconsideration request 13-3 on the agenda for the 25th June meeting in order to give the GNSO Council sufficient time to discuss with its community and to write to the NGPC. All the best, Cherine On 05/06/2013 22:28, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> wrote: >Steve, > >Yes, thanks for the correction that it will be the new gTLD Program >Committee that will be considering the BGC recommendation on the 11th >(2 days before the GNSO Council Meeting). I was planning on doing a >presentation to the council on the 13th about the recommendation. > >In short, the BGC's recommendation basically (1) Assumes that if an >issue involves "implementation", then there is no reason to look to the >bottom-up process to get advice on that issue (and if they do get >advice (even consensus advice), they can ignore it and go with whatever >ICANN staff recommends; (2) the ICANN Staff/Board is the sole arbiter >in deciding whether something is Policy or Implementation regardless of >whether the group charged under the bylaws with developing policies >(here, the GNSO) believe that the issue does involve policy; and (3) >there is no meaningful review process or accountability if the >community believes that ICANN Staff's determination on whether >something is policy or not is plain wrong. The fact that >Reconsideration never looks at the substance of the issue at hand, but >only looks to whether a process was followed is incredibly problematic. > >In this recommendation, although the GNSO strongly stated the Trademark >plus 50 decision was in fact policy (with one group issuing a minority >opinion) and the ICANN staff initially agreed it could be considered >policy, ICANN staff later decided on its own that it was implementation. >Because ICANN Staff is not bound to accept the finding of the GNSO that >it was policy, and ICANN staff labeled it implementation, ICANN staff was >free to make the changes as it saw fit (again with no review). So >essentially the recommendation states: (1) ICANN staff determined that >it was implementation, (2) there is and can be no review of that >decision through the reconsideration process, and (3) there is no >requirement that ICANN staff get input from the community or even >listen to the community if the ICANN staff determines that something is implementation. > >To add insult to injury, the outside law firm that wrote the >recommendation wrote it in the style of a litigation brief making such >ludicrous arguments (which cannot be reviewed), like [and I am >paraphrasing]: "Yes, the ICANN CEO said previously that this issue CAN >be considered policy." It goes on to state that the CEO carefully >chose this word because in saying that it "CAN" be policy, that also >equally means that it might not be policy and therefore the written >statement by the CEO was not an admission that it was in fact policy. I >find this argument insulting. Is this really what we expect of ICANN as >an multi-stakeholder organization? Namely, to consistently use weasel >words (reviewed by legal counsel) so that one day if ever questioned on >a statement he or she made, the legal team can find a loophole and get >out of a commitment that ICANN makes. Shouldn't we expect more from an >organization that is supposed to look out for the public interest? > >Steve - In the end I could care less about the substantive decision to >allow the Trademark plus 50 (although a number of people do care about >this). The decision was made and my registry will implement that >decision because we have to. However, there were probably 50 other >ways that ICANN's BGC could have justified the decision it made. I >would rather have ICANN apologize for the way it handled the situation, >promise that it won't happen again that way, and then move on to the >real work of implementing the new gTLDs. Instead, we got an overly >legalistic brief which is an after-the-fact justification for what they >did using a rationale that destroys the multi-stakeholder model. > >I intend to provide more information during the Council meeting and >would encourage attendance from the BGC. However, I would ask that the >New gTLD Program Committee not proceed on making a decision on this >recommendation until it could be adequately discussed by the community. > >Sorry for the long note and I would be happy to give more concrete >examples from the recommendation. I just ask for more time. > >Thanks. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@shinkuro.com] >Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 3:47 PM >To: Neuman, Jeff >Cc: Steve Crocker; Bruce Tonkin; council(a)gnso.icann.org; Cyrus Namazi; >Fadi Chehadé; Cherine Chalaby (cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org) >Subject: Re: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee > >Jeff, > >I think you're asking the New gTLD Program Committee to defer voting on >the BGC's recommendation. This matter is not in front of the full >Board, and the full Board isn't meeting until June 27. > >That said, I'm curious as to the substance of your objection. Have you >written anything about it? > >Thanks, > >Steve > >On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:16 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >wrote: > >> Bruce, >> >> Am I correct that the Board will be discussing and adopting the BGC's >>recommendation on the NCSG Reconsideration Request? >> >> As you know, the GNSO has scheduled this item to discuss on our next >>Council call on the 13th (2 days after the scheduled ICANN Board >>meeting). A number of us on the GNSO completely disagree with the >>rationale that was used to justify the outcome (even if we do not >>dispute the outcome). We believe that the BGC's rationale will >>undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder model (as in my >>previous e-mail to the council which I have attached). >> >> We therefore respectfully ask that the ICANN Board delay any decision >>on this reconsideration request until it has had time to listen to the >>GNSO Council and its members on our thoughts about this decision. I >>personally believe if the Board adopts this recommendation (more >>particularly the rationale for the recommendation), the Board will >>have not officially put the nail in the coffin for the Reconsideration >>process as an accountability measure, but will have also the >>multi-stakeholder bottom up model as we know it. >> >> I have included Fadi and Steve (which I have rarely if ever done >>before) on this e-mail to stress the importance of this issue and plea >>for the Board to forgo any definitive action on this request until >>such time that we can be heard. We also ask whether anyone from the >>BGC could be available to discuss this issue with us on the GNSO >>Council call. >> >> P.S.....I do want to stress that Neustar takes no position as to >>whether the Trademark Claims plus 50 should or should not be in place >>as an RPM. Rather, we strongly disagree with the assumptions and >>fundamentally-flawed rationale in the BGC's recommendation. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> 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 / www.neustar.biz >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin >> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 4:14 AM >> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Subject: [council] Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee >> >> >> From: >>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-11jun13 >>-en >>.htm >> >> >> 11 June 2013 >> >> >> Consent Agenda: >> >> * Approval of Minutes >> >> Main Agenda: >> >> * BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 >> >> * Info Discussion on ALAC Statement on IDN Variants >> >> * Plural vs. Singular >> >> * Any Other Business >> >> <Mail Attachment.eml> >

1 1

Statement made during the GNSO Council Meeting
by Neuman, Jeff 13 Jun '13

13 Jun '13

All, Here is the outline of the statements I made during the council meeting today. It is my hope that this gets forwarded to the Board Governance Committee and the Board. This is written in outline form and should be provided with the transcript of the meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. 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/>

1 0

Draft Durban agenga for GNSO Working sessions over the weekend
by Glen de Saint Géry 13 Jun '13

13 Jun '13

Dear All, Attached please find the draft agenda with regard to Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Planning for Durban (10 minutes) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Durban will take planning. GNSO Council VC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is working with staff to lead this effort. The Council has had the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience, including most recently in Beijing. Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the topics and substance of the Council's proposed meetings with other groups in Durban such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0