April 2014 - council - lists.icann.org

Call for volunteers - GNSO Review Committee
by Marika Konings April 7, 2014

April 7, 2014

Dear All, Following our discussion in Singapore concerning the formation of a small committee to liaise with the SIC on the GNSO Review and discuss a potential self-review of the GNSO Council, we've reviewed the existing gnso-review-dt mailing list and the following GNSO Council members are currently subscribed: * Jen Wolfe * John Berard * Brian Winterfeldt * Thomas Rickert * Osvaldo Novoa Please let us know if you would like to be added to the list or removed from the list. Best regards, Marika

3 2

new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
by Bruce Tonkin April 6, 2014

April 6, 2014

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26mar14… Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of Applicants Whereas, on 2 July 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approved the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement to be entered into by ICANN and successful New gTLD applicants. Whereas, the Brand Registry Group engaged with ICANN regarding modifications to the New gTLD Registry Agreement to address concerns of their constituents. Whereas, on 6 December 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a proposed Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-proposed… [PDF, 80 KB] ("Specification 13"), which if adopted would provide limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as ".Brand TLDs." Whereas, the proposed Specification 13 was revised in response to the public comments, including the removal of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to designate one or more ICANN accredited registrars as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD in response to a comment submitted by a group of eleven registrars. An update to the community and a revised draft was posted on the ICANN Blog on 14 March 2014 (http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/summary-and-analysis-of-specification-13-publ… ). Whereas, on 25 March 2014 the NGPC received notification from the group of registrars that submitted the joint comment referenced above during the public comment period that it no longer objected to the inclusion of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to be limited to using no more than two registrars at one time. Whereas, the NGPC takes specific note of Policy Recommendation 19 in the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains (8 August 2007), which provides that "registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars." Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from the community, and has determined that the revised Specification 13 provides appropriate and limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as .Brand TLDs. Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2014.03.26.NG01), the NGPC approves Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1… ) [PDF, 106 KB] (which does not include the clause allowing a .Brand registry operator to designate a limited number preferred registrars for the TLD), and authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee, to take all necessary steps to implement Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution. Resolved (2014.03.26.NG02), the NGPC approves the incorporation of the additional clause identified below into Specification 13. Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution to: (i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity to advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains; or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required. "The second sentence of Section 2.9(a) of the Agreement is superseded by the following: Subject to the requirements of Specification 11, Registry Operator must either (i) provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to all ICANN accredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with the registry-registrar agreement for the TLD; provided that Registry Operator may establish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to register names in the TLD that are reasonably related to the proper functioning of the TLD, or (ii) designate no more than three ICANN accredited registrars at any point in time to serve as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD." A .BRAND TLD registry operator may amend its Specification 13 to incorporate this provision upon request as part of implementation. The President and CEO, or his designee, is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement this provision in Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.

5 7

FW: Letter from the NGPC Chair
by Jonathan Robinson April 5, 2014

April 5, 2014

All. FYI. Jonathan. From: Megan Bishop [mailto:megan.bishop@icann.org] Sent: 05 April 2014 04:02 To: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Cc: Cherine Chalaby Subject: Letter from the NGPC Chair Dear Jonathan, Attached please find a letter from Cherine Chalaby notifying the GNSO Council of the NGPC's resolution on 26 March regarding Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement. Regards, Megan Megan Bishop Board Support Coordinator ICANN 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 Direct: +1-310-301-5808 One World. One Internet.

1 0

Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting Thursday 10 April 2014 at 14:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine April 3, 2014

April 3, 2014

Dear All, Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday 10th April 2014 at 14:00 UTC posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10th+April+20 14 and the motions are posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+201 4 Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 10 April 2014 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 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf%20> > 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 14:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time 14:00 UTC 07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 22:00 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. Item 1: Administrative matters (5 mins) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend the Agenda Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: . Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 27 February 2014 will be posted as approved on xxxx 2014 . Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 26 March 2014 will be posted as approved on xxxx 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 Action List <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> . Comments or questions arising. Item 3: Consent agenda (0 mins) [Confirmation of the NCPH election of Board Seat 14] Item 4: DISCUSSION - Specification 13 of the new gTLD Registry Agreement and the proposed incorporation of an additional clause (20 mins) The ICANN new gTLD Programme Committee (NGPC) has approved Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement, see link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1 -26mar14-en.pdf> . However, this does not currently include a proposed clause allowing a so-called .Brand registry operator to designate a limited number preferred registrars for the TLD. The NGPC has approved the incorporation of the additional proposed clause (allowing a .Brand registry operator to designate a limited number of preferred registrars) but its implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution in order to: (i) provide the GNSO Council with an opportunity to advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains; OR (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required. In this item, the Council will receive background information in order to fully inform the discussion and to plan the next steps. 4.1 - Background 4.2 - Discussion 4.2 - Next steps Item 5: DISCUSSION - Internet Governance Issues (20 mins) The transition of stewardship of the IANA function from the US government is now firmly on the GNSO's agenda and the Council must determine its role and function with respect to this. In this item, the Council will take the opportunity to pick up from the meeting in Singapore, including inputs into the public forum on Thursday and decide on any next steps. 5.1 - Discussion 5.2 - Next steps Item 6: Any Other Business (15 mins) 6.1 Submission of Council input to the call for Public Comment on ICANN Strategy Panels - Draft Reports 6.2 Submission of Council input to the call for Public Comment on ICANN Future Meetings Strategy 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 14:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html> ) UTC-7+0DST 07:00 Iowa City, USA ( <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00> CDT) UTC-5+0DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4+0DST 10:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 11:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html> ) UTC-3+0DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html> ) UTC-3+0DST 11:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 16:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 17:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel. html> ) UTC+2+0DST 17:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China/Singapore (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 22:00 Perth, Australia (WST <http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html> ) UTC+8+0DST 22:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

1 0

Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting Thursday 10 April 2014 at 14:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine April 3, 2014

April 3, 2014

Dear All, Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday 10th April 2014 at 14:00 UTC posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10th+April+20 14 and the motions are posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+201 4 Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 10 April 2014 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 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf%20> > 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 14:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time 14:00 UTC 07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 22:00 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. Item 1: Administrative matters (5 mins) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend the Agenda Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: . Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 27 February 2014 will be posted as approved on xxxx 2014 . Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 26 March 2014 will be posted as approved on xxxx 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 Action List <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> . Comments or questions arising. Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins) [Confirmation of the NCPH election of Board Seat 14] Item 4: DISCUSSION - GNSO Council advice regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement (15 mins) Discussions and activity relating to the Internet governance ecosystem are attracting a great deal of attention. This item is on the Council's agenda in order to provide an opportunity for discussion within the Council about how this impacts the role and work of the Council and mindful of the scope and remit of the Council, what action the Council should or could be taking. In addition, the transition of stewardship of the IANA function from the US government is now firmly on the GNSO's agenda and the Council must determine its role and function with respect to this. 8.1 - Background 8.2 - Discussion 8.2 - Next steps Item 5: DISCUSSION - Internet Governance Issues (15 mins) The transition of stewardship of the IANA function from the US government is now firmly on the GNSO's agenda and the Council must determine its role and function with respect to this. 8.1 - Discussion 8.2 - Next steps Item 6: Any Other Business (10 mins) 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 14:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html> ) UTC-7+0DST 07:00 Iowa City, USA ( <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00> CDT) UTC-5+0DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4+0DST 10:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 11:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html> ) UTC-3+0DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html> ) UTC-3+0DST 11:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 16:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 17:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel. html> ) UTC+2+0DST 17:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China/Singapore (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 22:00 Perth, Australia (WST <http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html> ) UTC+8+0DST 22:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

1 0

FW: ICANN Engagement Strategy Session at ICANN49 - Survey
by Marika Konings April 3, 2014

April 3, 2014

Dear All, Please feel free to share the survey below with your members from the European region. The ICANN Global Stakeholder Engagement team is interested to learn about their needs and build on the input received. Best regards, Marika From: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:10 PM To: "euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: ICANN Engagement Strategy Session at ICANN49 - Survey ---- Sorry for cross posting or re-sending --- Dear stakeholder, In preparation to the next Open Session of the ICANN Engagement Strategy for Europe (IESE) <http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-iese> at ICANN49 Singapore, we prepared a short <https://www.surveymonkey.com/collect/?collector_id=49649048> survey <https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CGPSJFM> that will help us identifying your needs and build on your inputs. The survey is anonymous and will take you only few minutes. Do not hesitate in sharing the survey with other interested stakeholders. Looking forward to seeing you at the session either in person or remotely. Best regards, Andrea

1 0

Re: [council] Please participate - Singapore meeting survey
by Marika Konings April 2, 2014

April 2, 2014

Reminder if you have not done so yet, please participate in this survey. For those of you that have responded, thank you very much! As indicated, please feel free to share the survey with your respective groups as we are also interested to hear the feedback of non-Council members. From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday 27 March 2014 08:21 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Please participate - Singapore meeting survey Dear All, As discussed, please participate in the following survey to provide your feedback on the GNSO related meetings at the ICANN meeting in Singapore that will help prepare us in our planning efforts for the ICANN meeting in London. Please feel free to share this with your respective communities. To participate, please go to: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JB5MDBH. Thanks, Marika

1 0

Final Personal Comments on the proposals from the Strategy Panel on ICANN Multi-stakeholder Innovation
by Jonathan Robinson April 2, 2014

April 2, 2014

All, In considering our draft response to the work of the MSI panel you may wish to be aware of what Chuck Gomes has prepared as a draft submission. Chuck has shared these with the Registries SG. Please note that Chuck has prepared these in his personal capacity and that these comments do not necessarily reflect the views of the Registries SG. Jonathan

1 0

new gTLD recommendations from the GNSO related to the use of registrars
by Bruce Tonkin April 2, 2014

April 2, 2014

Hello All, For a little historical context to the recent request from the Board. The GNSO produced a final report on a set of recommendations for introducing new gTLDs in August 2007: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm The recommendations were approved by the Board in June 2008: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-26jun08-en.htm#_… Nearly 5 years ago :-) The relevant recommendation with respect to the use of registrars is number 19: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars." The relevant discussion in the final report stated: "Recommendation 19 Discussion -- Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars. i. This recommendation is supported by all GNSO Constituencies and Ms Doria. ii. There is a long history associated with the separation of registry and registrar operations for top-level domains. The structural separation of VeriSign's registry operations from Network Solutions registrar operations explains much of the ongoing policy to require the use of ICANN accredited registrars. iii. In order to facilitate the stable and secure operation of the DNS, the Committee agreed that it was prudent to continue the current requirement that registry operators be obliged to use ICANN accredited registrars. iv. ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement has been in place since 2001[77]. Detailed information about the accreditation of registrars can be found on the ICANN website[78]. The accreditation process is under active discussion but the critical element of requiring the use of ICANN accredited registrars remains constant. v. In its CIS, the RyC noted that "...the RyC has no problem with this recommendation for larger gTLDs; the requirement to use accredited registrars has worked well for them. But it has not always worked as well for very small, specialized gTLDs. The possible impact on the latter is that they can be at the mercy of registrars for whom there is no good business reason to devote resources. In the New gTLD PDP, it was noted that this requirement would be less of a problem if the impacted registry would become a registrar for its own TLD, with appropriate controls in place. The RyC agrees with this line of reasoning but current registry agreements forbid registries from doing this. Dialog with the Registrars Constituency on this topic was initiated and is ongoing, the goal being to mutually agree on terms that could be presented for consideration and might provide a workable solution." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Additional Council Meeting on April 10th 2014
by Jonathan Robinson April 1, 2014

April 1, 2014

All, It seems that we could usefully meet in order to progress a number of open items ahead of our next scheduled meeting on May 8th 2014. We currently have a meeting scheduled for April 10th at 14h00 UTC. This meeting was scheduled to deal only with Board Seat 14. Whilst it is the case that the operating procedures make reference to "confirmation of election" we will interpret this as essentially an administrative point and not something requiring a motion. Therefore, I have asked the NCPH to advise the Council of their (Board Seat 14) selection as soon as practical and I will then take it upon myself (in my capacity as Council Chair) to notify ICANN. The GNSO Council will then take advantage of the next available Council meeting to confirm this for the record i.e. "confirmation of election" by simply noting and recording the selection of the NCPH i.e. a special meeting is NOT required for this point alone. Notwithstanding the above, the Council could usefully hold an additional meeting between now and the next scheduled meeting on May 8th and so I propose to continue with the currently scheduled meeting on April 10th at 14h00 UTC. Please make note of this time and also that an agenda will be published within 48 hours. Thanks, Jonathan

2 2