January 2014 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference 23 January 2013.
by Glen de Saint Géry 15 Jan '14

15 Jan '14

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference 23 January 2013. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+23+January+2… 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 18:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/otro8aq Coordinated Universal Time 18:00 UTC 10:00 Los Angeles; 13:00 Washington; 18:00 London; 19:00 Brussels; 02:00 Perth Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 mins) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates Bret Fausett https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Bret+Fausett+SOI 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings 20 November 2013<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg15531.html> part 1 and part 2<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg15532.html> will be posted as approved on 23 January 2014. Minutes of the Council meeting 12 December 2013<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg15533.html> will be posted as approved on 23 January 2014. Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins) 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 (5 mins) 3.1 Approve Council Recommendations Report on protection of IGO-INGO names and acronyms to the ICANN Board Item 4: MOTION - Metrics and Reporting Working Group Charter (15 mins) The 2010 Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified the an issue relating to Uniformity of Reporting which it described as "need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports." The RAPWG recommended in its Final Report that "the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform [problem-] reporting [and report-tracking] processes." The GNSO Council recommended the creation of an Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf> to further research metrics and reporting needs with the aim of improving the policy development process. The report created by ICANN Staff outlined accomplishments regarding reporting and metrics by the Contractual Compliance function and it also reviewed other reporting sources that may be of relevance. The GNSO Council subsequently adopted a recommendation to form a non-PDP Working Group tasked with exploring opportunities for developing reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized methodologies that could better inform fact-based policy development and decision making. Here the Council vote on whether to approve the Charter of the Metrics and Reporting Working Group. 4.1 - Review the Motion 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Vote (voting threshold - simple majority vote of each house) Item 5: INPUT & DISCUSSION - Prospective improvements to the Policy Development Process (15 mins) The Council is committed to on-going enhancements to the methods of working of the Council and the work initiated and managed by the Council. The PDP process is a cornerstone of policy making within the GNSO and, as such, the work of the Council. The PDP outcomes and associated processes are the subject of focus and attention both within the GNSO and the broader ICANN Community. The Council has previously discussed a paper prepared by ICANN staff<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-22aug13-en.pdf> on potential improvements to the PDP process. The discussion is now encapsulated in a table form which has been revised through various discussions at council meetings and on email lists. The document now also includes reference to the related recommendations of the ATRT2. Here the Council will aim to agree concrete next steps including the requirement to form a group to continue this work, particularly with a focus on items 3 & 5 in the table. 5.1 - Review of table of prospective PDP Improvements<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-table-08jan14-en.pdf> (Marika Konings) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Next steps Item 6: UPDATE - GAC Engagement - the work of the Joint GAC / GNSO Consultation Group (10 mins) Here the Council will receive an update and discuss any action going forward. 6.1 - Status update (Jonathan Robinson) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Next steps Item 7: Update - Forthcoming review of the GNSO (10 mins) As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, ICANN board initiated reviews of the GNSO (and the GNSO Council and related functions) are expected. In order to be informed and effectively prepared for this work, we have begun to engage with the body that commissions such reviews (the structural improvements committee) through its chair, Ray Plazk. The Council will track the planning work of the SIC and, where appropriate; provide relevant input to the process. We will also prepare to undertake a form of self-review in a similar format to that which we expect to arise out of the work of the SIC. A self-review will ensure that we are not only prepared for the board initiated work but also able to flag areas for potential improvement in as timely as possible a manner. 7.1 - Update (Jennifer Wolfe) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Planning for Singapore (10 mins) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Buenos Aires will take planning. GNSO Council Vice Chair, David Cake will lead this and will be working with the Council and staff on this effort. Here the Council has the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience. Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the approach to and substance of the Council's proposed meetings with other groups in such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. 8.1 - Update (David Cake) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: Any Other Business (5 mins) * Proposal to review SSAC reports and determine whether or not any recommendations impact on GNSO Consensus Policy 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 October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 10:00 Iowa City, USA (CST<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+1DST 12:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 13:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 16:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-2+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 15:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 18:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 19:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 19:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 next day Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2014, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/otro8aq 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/>

4 3

what about a process to review/evaluate whether SSAC recommendations warrant action by the GNSO
by Mike O'Connor 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

dear all, i would like to introduce a gap-closing proposal for the GNSO -- namely, to take a hard look at SSAC reports and determine whether any of their recommendations bear on GNSO Consensus Policy. this gap between what the SSAC says and the GNSO does has been an issue for me for quite some time, and i think one easy way to close it would be to routinely take up each SSAC report and make that determination. there would likely be cases where we review the reports among the stakeholder groups and conclude that: -- there are NO recommendations that require PDPs -- there ARE recommendations that require PDPs, or -- there are recommendations that we would like to know more about before we decided whether a PDP is in order. i'll give an example of the reason why this is on my mind. in 2005 the SSAC produced an extensive report that addressed the issue of domain-name hijacking. in 2011, six years later, the members of the IRTP-B working group stumbled across the following observation in that ancient report and realized that it would be a good idea Collect emergency contact information from registrants, registrars, and resellers for parties who are suited to assist in responding to an urgent restoration of domain name incident. Define escalation processes (emergency procedures) that all parties agree can be instituted in events where emergency contacts are not available. it took six years for that very common-sense idea to find it's way into Consensus Policy. and it probably took another year or two to implement. and it was all practically by accident. what if we: -- discuss this "formally review SSAC reports" idea with our stakeholders and on the Council list for a while -- put an agenda item on our next call to share what we've heard and test a way forward -- get started, presuming nobody thinks this is a horrible idea i've attached the recommendations from the three (count 'em, three) SSAC reports that were released in Buenos Aires. just to give you an idea of the substantive reports that the SSAC is producing. i think it would be really helpful to run these through a process to decide which, if any, of these recommendations warrant action via PDP. there are plenty more SSAC reports to review in the backlog. thanks, mikey SAC061: SSAC Comment on ICANN’s Initial Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-061-en.pdf Recommendation 1: SSAC reiterates its recommendation from SAC055: The ICANN Board should explicitly defer any other activity (within ICANN’s remit) directed at finding a ‘solution’ to ‘the WHOIS problem’ until the registration data policy has been developed and accepted in the community. The EWG should clearly state its proposal for the purpose of registration data, and focus on policy issues over specific implementations. Recommendation 2: The ICANN Board should ensure that a formal security risk assessment of the registration data policy be conducted as an input into the Policy Development Process. Recommendation 3: SSAC recommends that the EWG state more clearly its positions on the following questions of data availability: A. Why is a change to public access justified? This explanation should describe the potential impact upon ordinary Internet users and casual or occasional users of the directory service. B. Does the EWG believe that access to data currently accessible in generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) WHOIS output should become restricted? If so, what fields and to what extent exactly? Under the EWG proposal, queries from non- authenticated requestors would return only “public data available to anyone, for C. Should all gTLD registries be required to provision their contact data into the Aggregated Registration Data Service (ARDS)? There may be jurisdictions that prohibit by law the export of personally identifiable information outside the jurisdiction. If so, the ARDS may not be a viable way to deliver data accuracy and compliance across all gTLDs. D. Does the EWG propose more types of sensitive registration data be provisioned into ARDS than are found in current gTLD WHOIS output? Recommendation 4: The SSAC suggests that the EWG address this recommendation from SAC058: “SSAC Report on Domain Name Registration Data Validation”3: As the ICANN community discusses validating contact information, the SSAC recommends that the following meta-questions regarding the costs and benefits of registration data validation should be answered: • What data elements need to be added or validated to comply with requirements or expectations of different stakeholders? • Is additional registration processing overhead and delay an acceptable cost for improving accuracy and quality of registration data? • Is higher cost an acceptable outcome for improving accuracy and quality? • Would accuracy improve if the registration process were to provide natural persons with privacy protection upon completion of multi-factored validation? SAC062: SSAC Advisory Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision Risk http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-062-en.pdf Recommendation 1: ICANN should work with the wider Internet community, including at least the IAB and the IETF, to identify (1) what strings are appropriate to reserve for private namespace use and (2) what type of private namespace use is appropriate (i.e., at the TLD level only or at any additional lower level). Recommendation 2: ICANN should explicitly consider the following questions regarding trial delegation and clearly articulate what choices have been made and why as part of its decision as to whether or not to delegate any TLD on a trial basis: -- Purpose of the trial: What type of trial is to be conducted? What data are to be collected? -- Operation of the trial: Should ICANN (or a designated agent) operate the trial or should the applicant operate it? -- Emergency Rollback: What are the emergency rollback decision and execution procedures for any delegation in the root, and have the root zone partners exercised these capabilities? -- Termination of the trial: What are the criteria for terminating the trial (both normal and emergency criteria)? What is to be done with the data collected? Who makes the decision on what the next step in the delegation process is? Recommendation 3: ICANN should explicitly consider under what circumstances un-delegation of a TLD is the appropriate mitigation for a security or stability issue. In the case where a TLD has an established namespace, ICANN should clearly identify why the risk and harm of the TLD remaining in the root zone is greater than the risk and harm of removing a viable and in-use namespace from the DNS. Finally, ICANN should work in consultation with the community, in particular the root zone management partners, to create additional processes or update existing processes to accommodate the potential need for rapid reversal of the delegation of a TLD. SAC063: SSAC Advisory on DNSSEC Key Rollover in the Root Zone http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-063-en.pdf Recommendations: Recommendation 1: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) staff, in coordination with the other Root Zone Management Partners (United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and Verisign), should immediately undertake a significant, worldwide communications effort to publicize the root zone KSK rollover motivation and process as widely as possible. Recommendation 2: ICANN staff should lead, coordinate, or otherwise encourage the creation of a collaborative, representative testbed for the purpose of analyzing behaviors of various validating resolver implementations, their versions, and their network environments (e.g., middle boxes) that may affect or be affected by a root KSK rollover, such that potential problem areas can be identified, communicated, and addressed. Recommendation 3: ICANN staff should lead, coordinate, or otherwise encourage the creation of clear and objective metrics for acceptable levels of “breakage” resulting from a key rollover. Recommendation 4: ICANN staff should lead, coordinate, or otherwise encourage the development of rollback procedures to be executed when a rollover has affected operational stability beyond a reasonable boundary. Recommendation 5: ICANN staff should lead, coordinate, or otherwise encourage the collection of as much information as possible about the impact of a KSK rollover to provide input to planning for future rollovers. PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

6 14

if there are any events planned either before or after the Singapore meeting, now would be a good time to know about them
by Mike O'Connor 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

hi all, i’m just settling in to do the travel booking for Singapore. is anybody contemplating meetings i’d miss if i roll in *really* early Friday morning and head out mid-day on the following Friday? people had to jump through a bunch of hoops the last time because of meetings that got scheduled before *and* after the meeting. and they were announced after i’d booked my travel. just checking. thanks, mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

5 7

Draft GNSO Council minutes 12 December 2013 for review
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 12 December 2013 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf%20> > section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 23 January 2014. 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

Draft GNSO Council minutes part 2 20 November 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting part 2 held on 20 November 2013 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf%20> > section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 23 January 2014. 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

Draft Council minutes 20 November 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 20 November 2013 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf%20> > section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 23 January 2014. 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

GNSO Council Report on IGO-INGO PDP Recommendations to the ICANN Board
by Mary Wong 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Dear Council members, Please find attached the proposed GNSO Council Report on IGO-INGO PDP Recommendations to the ICANN Board for your review and approval at the upcoming GNSO Council meeting on 23 January 2014. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org * One World. One Internet. *

1 1

REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday 13 January 2014 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting on 23 January 2014 at 18:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Dear Councilors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY,13 January 2014 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 23 January 2014 at 18:00 UTC If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me at <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>> so that they can be forwarded to the Council. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a Councillor. 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

New Year, New Momentum by Fadi Chehadé
by Glen de Saint Géry 10 Jan '14

10 Jan '14

http://blog.icann.org/2014/01/new-year-new-momentum/ New Year, New Momentum by Fadi Chehadé on January 10, 2014 At ICANN, we begin 2014 with a management "base camp" for executive staff to gather, take stock and get ready for the next phase of intense activities. It follows ICANN's December holiday, during which the staff and I took time to step back from the frenzy of daily work and spend time with family and friends. Holding this base camp so close to our return from the holiday was intentional. The time to recharge and reflect is an important part of ensuring forward progress. As the poet Kahlil Gibran wrote, "the mountain to the climber is clearer from the plain." This trimester, of all the areas I'll focus on, I will personally zero in on four. First and foremost, I am focused on management and human resources development, an important facet for a growing organization. We recently created our first HR development program to foster staff's professional growth. This will also be a personal goal for me, to coach and work closely with the executive team and other managers to encourage continued professional development. Second, we are working diligently to design and operationalize the first ICANN Executive Management Dashboard. At base camp, we will finalize the dashboard's list of key performance indicators for each ICANN objective/goal. The dashboard will provide our managers the ability to gain real-time insights into our performance, thus enhancing decision-making and optimizing operational performance. The third area I will focus on is strengthening the ICANN technical and technology staff profile and resources. Among my objectives is to complete the search for a new head of technical operations. And lastly, I will stay engaged in the global discussions of Internet governance and what ICANN's role should be in this evolving ecosystem. As you may have heard, I plan to split my residence this year among the cities in which ICANN has operational hubs. From mid-February through April, I will be based in the Singapore hub. Later this year, I will also relocate to Istanbul. I am excited to join our staff in bringing ICANN to the world. Happy new year! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Web-Site SurveyDate:
by Glen de Saint Géry 10 Jan '14

10 Jan '14

http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-10jan14-en.htm GNSO Web-Site SurveyDate: 10 January 2014 In May of 2012, the GNSO Policy Team, in partnership with ICANN's Web Team, launched a new theme and information structure for the GNSO website. The primary goal of that initiative was to improve the information architecture of the web site and to better align the documentation of GNSO Council activities with other community operations on the site. Key new features included: * More clarity regarding the activities of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council and its Working Groups * Quick access to active projects and an archive of past GNSO Council efforts * Better descriptions of the current GNSO organizational structures including archives of its various structures from the formative years of the GNSO as it transitioned from the DNSO (note, documentation of past efforts is still under way) * Web site integration with myICANN for pushing (RSS) change notifications So far, the site has experienced nearly 26,000 visits (130/day on avg.) with just over 15,000 being unique visitors. On average, users tend to visit 2.5 pages -- for an average duration of nearly three minutes. Approximately 30% of the traffic is from outside the United States. While we've been collecting a good bit of data about how often the improved site is visited (e.g., Google analytics, etc.), we now want to gather direct community feedback from you on how effective the site is proving to be, so that we can determine what further improvements are desirable and achievable. We've developed the following survey to provide a structured method to collect your input. The survey is designed to take no longer than ten minutes to complete - even if you choose to expand your responses with additional text - which we hope you'll do!. After the survey closes in December, we will collate and analyze the results and publish a report for GNSO leadership review. Depending on the feedback collected, that report may include recommendations for future enhancement. If you are interested in being contacted by us for further discussion and/or feedback regarding your survey responses, please email the GNSO Policy Team at policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. Please follow this link for the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3WBSFFK The Survey closes on 31 January 2014 @ 23:59 UTC. Thanks very much for taking the time to give your feedback. We look forward to reading your views and learning from your experiences with the site. Best regards, The GNSO Policy Team 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