July 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Durban 17 July 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Durban 17 July 2013 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf > For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times 13:00UTC<http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> http://tinyurl.com/k27b5c7 Coordinated Universal Time 13:00 UTC 06:00 Los Angeles; 09:00 Washington; 14:00 London; 15:00 Paris; 01:00 Wellington next day Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council Public Forum 15h00 - 16h00 (Durban) Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency Leaders * Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) - Elisa Cooper * Registries Stakeholder Group(RySG) - Keith Drazek * Registrars Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Michele Neylon * Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) - Tony Holmes * Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) - Kristina Rosette * Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) -Marie-Laure lemineur * Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) - Bill Drake 16h00 (Durban) Onwards Item 1: Administrative matters 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 13 July 2013<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-13jun13-en.htm> approved on 10 July 2013. Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics Include review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items>. Comments or questions arising. Item 3: Consent agenda TBC Item 4: MOTION - To adopt the charter for the Policy & Implementation Working Group The issue regarding the boundary between policy development and implementation work has been a discussion point for some time and it has been a central theme in the execution of the new gTLD programme. In addition, the Council has been asked to consider issues for policy guidance and may well need to look at the evolution of its own work and processes to accommodate this type of request in future. ICANN Staff has previously published a paper<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j…> intended to facilitate further community discussions on this topic. Further community discussion took place in Beijing and the Council agreed to form a drafting team to develop a charter for a Working Group to address the issues that have been raised in the context of the recent discussions on policy and implementation that affect the GNSO. This motion seeks to conclude the work of the Drafting Team by adopting the proposed charter for the Policy & Implementation Working Group. 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 4.2 Discussion of motion. 4.3 Vote (Threshold: simple majority in each house 50% i.e. 4 CPH 7 NCPH) Item 5: MOTION - On ICANN Bylaw recommendation The work undertaken to deal with the most recent Reconsideration Request (13-3) highlighted the point that there is no currently defined policy or process within ICANN that requires the Board of ICANN or the ICANN staff to consult with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the policy development process (PDP). This motion recognises this point and seeks to recommend to the ICANN Board, a change to the bylaws of ICANN to mandate such consultation in future. 5.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neumann) 5.2 Discussion of motion. 5.3 Vote (Threshold: simple majority in each house 50% i.e. 4 CPH 7 NCPH) Item 6: UPDATE AND DISCUSSION - Proposed GNSO Council Letter on IDN Variants During its meeting in Beijing, the ICANN Board requested that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/active-ux-21mar13-en.pdf>' (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm…) The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs examines potential challenges from a user experience perspective when variants of IDN TLDs are activated and offers recommendations to users to minimize risks and optimize the implementation. Ideally, input is requested on: a) Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not proceed until these recommendations are implemented), b) Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and c) Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work On 30 June 2013, a letter was sent to the ICANN Board confirming that this work was being undertaken within the JIG (Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Group) and that a response for consideration by the GNSO Council as well as the ccNSO Council would be tabled at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Accordingly, an extension of deadline to 19 July 2013 was requested. Here, we review the proposed response, in the form of a letter from the Chair of the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board and give consideration to approving such a letter. http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/40023 6.1 Discussion 6.2 Next steps Item 7: DRAFT MOTION - Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings - Draft Motion The "locking" of a domain name registration associated with UDRP proceedings is not something that is literally required by the UDRP as written, but is a practice that has developed around it. As a result, there is no uniform approach, which has resulted in confusion and misunderstandings. The GNSO Council initiated a PDP on this specific topic in December 2011 and tasked the WG to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. The PDP Working Group has now submitted its Final Report for GNSO Council consideration containing 17 full consensus recommendations (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-final-05jul13-en.pdf) 7.1 - Update as necessary 7.2 - Review draft motion 7.3 - Discussion 7.4 - Next steps Item 8: DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Groups The GNSO has previously drafted a set of Principles on Cross Community working groups and circulated these widely for comment and input. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345124 In response to the GNSO Council request to provide feed-back from the broader community, a paper was adopted at the ccNSO Council meeting on 11 June 2013. The ccNSO Council looks forward to further dialogue on this topic. 8.1 - Review CCNSO paper 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION - Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services has published its initial report. http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report… The EWG is seeking input prior to presenting a final report containing recommended design principles, features, and a suggested Model to ICANN's CEO and Board. Further, the EWG have stated their expectation that upon conclusion of the EWG's deliberations, the Final Report will serve as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. And; as specified by the Board, an issues report based on the Final Report will form the basis of a Board-initiated, tightly focused GNSO policy development process (PDP). Recognition of the need to work within the framework of established GNSO operating principles has been emphasised in correspondence between the GNSO Council and the EWG. All input received by August 12 will be carefully considered as the EWG finalise recommendations and bring their work to a conclusion. Therefore, the GNSO Council needs to decide what, if any, action is appropriate at this stage. 9.1 - Consider EWG Initial Report 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes) Item 11: Open Microphone ICANN Meetings are intended to maximise interaction within the broader community. An open microphone session provides the opportunity for input from contributors other than GNSO Councillors and all such input is welcome in the form of questions, comments or suggestions. Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 13:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 09:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 10:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 10:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 14:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 14:00 Durban South Africa (SAST) UTC+2+0DST 15:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 15:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 15:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 16:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 18:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 21:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 21:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+1DST 01:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/k27b5c7 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

FW: SCI Charter considerations
by Jonathan Robinson July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

All, Please note the update from the SCI below and particularly the issues and questions raised therein. Thanks, Jonathan From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: 09 July 2013 00:19 To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: SCI Charter considerations Importance: High Dear Jonathan, As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July. One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have reported previously. This began as an effort to update the Charter to include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary. SCI members have realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council as to whether the scope of the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the SCI should also address other procedural issues not related to the improvements process. The current Charter states: "The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council: . On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems . On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)" The SCI also seeks guidance from the Council with respect to the duration of the SCI work. Should the SCI be considered the last in the series of committees that arose from the Board review and thus cease to exist when it has completed its review of that work? Or should the SCI continue indefinitely, as an ongoing body that considers procedural questions as raised by the GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council? The SCI requests that these fundamental questions be addressed before the SCI considers revisions to the Charter. The SCI members look forward to discussing these questions with the Council in Durban. Sincerely, Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI

1 0

QUESTIONS in preparation for - GNSO><ATRT2 - Sun, 14 July 12:00-13:00
by Glen de Saint Géry July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

Dear All, Please find a set of questions the ATRT2 prepared in anticipation of their Durban interactions. Please note that the ATRT 2 welcomes any input the GNSO may have. The questions were prepared to help focus attention on particular areas of interest. The ATRT2 looks forward to their session with the GNSO scheduled for Sunday, 14 July - 12:00-13:00. 1. The ATRT2 is seeking to engage an Independent Expert to assess whether the GNSO PDP process is effective for developing gTLD policy within ICANN's multi-stakeholder environment. In your view, is the GNSO PDP working well, and if not, what needs to be done? Comments are welcome during the ATRT2 face-to-face meeting in Durban, and we are also seeking to identify people or groups that are interested in providing input to the Independent Expert. 2. The multi-stakeholder model presumes we can get substantive involvement from all stakeholders, including those who do not have financial interests at stake. Is that being achieved effectively, and if not, what does ICANN need to change to be able to do it effectively? 3. There has been a lot of discussion, and some ATRT1 recommendations, related to the Public Comment process. Do you think the process to receive comments is working well, and if not, what needs to be done to fix or change it? For the comments that are received, do you feel that those requested by PDP Working Groups, Staff and the Board are effectively taken into account in ultimate decisions? 4. Do you believe that ICANN's organization of Advisory Committees and Support Organizations and their respective internal organizations are effective in achieving ICANN's multi-stakeholder goals, and if not, how should things be changed? 5. Do you have any comments with regard to ICANN's implementation of the recommendations of the three earlier AoC Review Teams - Accountability & Transparency, WHOIS, and Security, Stability & Resiliency? 6. Do you have concerns about ICANN's overall transparency and accountability, or related issues that are specific to your group? For more information on ATRT 2 activities: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40176025 Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Agenda for ICANN Board meeting on Thursday 18 July 2013 in Durban
by Bruce Tonkin July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-18jul13-en.htm 18 July 2013 Consent Agenda Redelegation of .ID Redelegation of .EE Delegation of .мон Appointment of Jonne Soininen to ICANN Board Committees Competition, Consumer Trust and Choice Metrics for the New gTLD Program per the AoC Review Singapore Office Lease Approval of RSSAC Membership Main Agenda Thank you to Thomas Narten for his service to the ICANN Board

1 0

Agenda for new gTLD Committeee meeting on Wednesday 17 July in Durban
by Bruce Tonkin July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-17jul13-en.h… 17 July 2013 Consent Agenda: * Approval of Minutes Main Agenda: * Follow up items from Tuesday's NGPC-GAC dialogue * AOB

1 0

Agenda for new gTLD committee meeting on Saturday 13 July 2013 in Durban
by Bruce Tonkin July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-13jul13-en.h… 13 July 2013 Main Agenda: * Funding Objections * CRM system * Ombudsman letters * IGO protections and Category 1 advice

1 0

Durban hotel notification
by john＠crediblecontext.com July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013

Has anyone yet gotten confirmation of a hotel room in Durban? Berard

3 3

Discussion of Consumer and Public Interest impacts of new gTLDs.
by Alan Greenberg July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013

The following session may be of interest. Alan ======================= AT-LARGE MULTISTAKEHOLDER POLICY ROUNDTABLE ICANN 47 [Durban, South Africa] Date: 15 July 2013 (Monday) Time: 14:00-16:00 Meeting Room: Hall 2AB http://durban47.icann.org/node/39645 New gTLDs: Addressing Consumer and Public Interest Concerns ICANNs new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Program will dramatically expand the Top Level Domain Space. The program carries benefits for end users and registrants in terms of increasing choice and competition, but it also raises a range of consumer and public interest concerns. These concerns include consumer safety and trust, multilingual access to gTLDs via internationalized scripts, rights issues related to the protection of trademarks, non-registered marks and geographic names, as well as barriers to program participation for stakeholders in the developing world. The At-Large Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable will highlight these issues and explore the adequacy of policies and mechanisms meant to address them. Discussion Questions: 1. What are the consumer and public interest concerns in relation to the new gTLD program? 2. Are the policies and mechanisms that have been developed to address these concerns adequate? 3. What more needs to be done to address these concerns effectively? Co-Chair: - Olivier Crepin-Leblond (Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee) - Rinalia Abdul Rahim (Executive Committee Member, At-Large Advisory Committee & Convenor, At-Large Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable) Lead Discussants Consumer Perspective Holly Raiche (Chair, At-Large Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Working Group & Board Member, Australian Communications Consumers Action Network) Public Interest and Government Perspective Peter Nettlefold (Vice Chair, ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee & GAC Lead on New gTLDs) Business Users Perspective Zahid Jamil (Executive Committee Member, ICANN Business Constituency & Member, GNSO Council) Consumer Trust, Choice and Competition Perspective Steve DelBianco (Executive Director, NetChoice & Vice-Chair for Policy Coordination, ICANN Business Constituency) Intellectual Property Rights & IDN Perspective Hong Xue (Director, Institute for Internet Policy and Law, Beijing Normal University & Member, ccNSO Council) Community - Indigenous Groups Perspective - Karaitiana Taiuru (Chair, New Zealand Maori Internet Society) Community - Geographic Names Perspective Olga Cavalli (Representative of Argentina to the Governmental Advisory Committee & Director, South School on Internet Governance) Developing Country Perspective Tijani Ben Jemaa (Executive Committee Member, At-Large Advisory Committee & Vice-Chair, African Regional At-Large Organization) ICANN Compliance Perspective - Maguy Serad (Vice-President, Contractual Compliance Services, ICANN) Participation: This roundtable is open. Members of the following ICANN community are especially invited to attend - ICANN At-Large community, ICANN Advisory Committees, ICANN Supporting Organizations, ICANN Board and ICANN Staff.

1 0

Statements of Interest for NCSG temporary alternates
by Glen de Saint Géry July 7, 2013

July 7, 2013

Dear Councillors, Please find the statements of interest of the two people who have been assigned as temporary alternates in the NCSG for the Durban meeting in the places of Maria Farrell and Wendy Seltzer. Marie-Laure Lemineur https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Marie-laure+Lemineur+SOI Roy Balleste https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Roy+Balleste+SOI 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<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

FW: July NomCom report card
by Glen de Saint Géry July 7, 2013

July 7, 2013

FYI 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/> From: Stephane Van Gelder [mailto:stephvg@gmail.com] On Behalf Of svg(a)stephanevangelder.com Sent: dimanche 7 juillet 2013 10:22 To: Glen de Saint Géry Cc: Yrjö Länsipuro; Adam Peake; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: July NomCom report card Glen, Please find attached the latest NomCom report card. Please forward to the liaison list. As usual, these are also archived here (this latest one hasn't been uploaded yet): http://nomcom.icann.org/report-cards-2012-2013.htm Best,

1 0