May 2014 - council - lists.icann.org

IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
by Jonathan Robinson June 5, 2014

June 5, 2014

All, Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting. Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for the Issue Report. However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to propose the motions. Thanks, Jonathan

7 12

RE: [council] FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. May 29, 2014

May 29, 2014

Dear Jonathan: As an initial reaction, I am tentative to agree with the four SG representative model for this WG. In parallel, with respect to the IANA transition steering committee, I would refer you to the formal IPC comments on the matter below. The comments essentially conclude that each of the seven constituent organizations within the GNSO should be represented on the steering committee. · ISSUE: The composition of the Steering Committee is troublesome. o From the GNSO point of view, having only two members on the Steering Committee is inconsistent with the multistakeholder composition of the GNSO. The GNSO is an "umbrella" for seven distinct organizations, representing different categories of stakeholders, with widely differing and often opposed points of view. It is not acceptable that at least five, if not six, of the GNSO constituent organizations, and at least two, and possibly three, of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups will not be represented on the Steering Committee. Who will not be represented and why? o On the other hand, the ASO (as an ICANN SO) and the NRO (as an "affected party") each get 2 representatives. However, the ASO and the NRO are essentially the same organization pursuant to their 2004 Memorandum of Understanding. (This MoU establishes that the NRO fulfills the role, responsibilities, and functions of the ASO as defined within the ICANN Bylaws. See http://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso-mou, Art. 1.) o Viewed from outside ICANN, this is an even more troublesome proposal. For example, if one or both of the GNSO representatives is from either the Registry or Registrar SG, there would be no representative of the "private sector" (i.e., CSG) or no representative of "civil society" (i.e., NCSG), or both. At the same time, it is possible that the Registries could have representatives coming through IETF or IAB channels, giving them additional representation. · PROPOSAL: The Steering Group should be reconstituted so that each of the seven constituent organizations of the GNSO has a Steering Committee seat, while the NRO/ASO (combined) entity has two seats. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt(a)kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: May 23, 2014 at 9:43:18 AM EDT To: John Berard <john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process Agree with Volker, John & Jonathan, and believe this approach should be adopted by other community groups (e.g. The proposed IANA Steering Group). Thanks- J. From: John Berard <john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Date: Friday, May 23, 2014 at 8:38 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process Jonathan, I would support any recommendation that properly weights the voice of the GNSO community. Berard On May 23, 2014 4:29 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, It is my view that the GNSO should reasonably expect to have four representatives (one per SG) on this Working Group. Please let me know if you think similarly or differently. Jonathan From: David Olive [mailto:david.olive@icann.org] Sent: 16 May 2014 08:46 To: Jonathan Robinson; Byron Holland; Louie Lee; heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca<mailto:heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca>; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Patrik Fältström; Lars-Johan Liman; Jun Murai Cc: Theresa Swinehart; Samantha Eisner Subject: FW: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process Dear SO-AC Chairs: In follow up to ICANN's recent announcement on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability review, part of the success of this group will be through the SO and AC's identification of members to serve on the Working Group. In contrast to the ATRT reviews and others, ICANN will not be making community appointments to the group from a slate of identified candidates; the community representation on this Working Group is to be determined by the SO/AC leadership. We are hoping that you can start consideration of membership from SO or AC that you are leading. As ICANN is trying to align the timeline of the Enhancing ICANN Accountability work to the IANA Stewardship Transition work, we are hoping that we can have community representation identified in advance of ICANN50 in London. To help structure the work of the Working Group, ICANN has identified a range of subject matter areas within which competency would be helpful, including: · Internet Technical Operations · International Organizational Reviews · Global Accountability Tools and Metrics · Jurisprudence / Accountability Mechanism · Internet Consumer Protection · Economics (Marketplace and Competition) · Global Ethics Frameworks · Operational, Finance and Process · Board Governance · Transparency · Risk Management While we did not specify the full number of community members that will be appointed to the Working Group, we are hopeful that each SO and AC will consider identifying two representatives (and no more than three) so that the Working Group is of a size that can perform its work in an efficient manner. We also encourage the consideration of the subject matters when identifying representatives. If you have more questions about this process, please let Theresa Swinehart or myself know. Best regards, David David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters -Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.381.8727 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Email: david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:47 AM To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org<mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org>> Subject: Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/enhancing-accountabili… Proposed Next Steps for the Process Establishing the ICANN Accountability Working Group: At the ICANN meeting in Singapore, members of the community suggested establishing a working group to address topics raised around ICANN Accountability. To respond to both the community dialogues and suggestions, an ICANN Accountability Working Group is proposed. The leaders of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will be responsible for appointment of community members to the Working Group. Community members with skills in the subject matter areas listed below are encouraged to have their names put forward by the leadership of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for participation in the Working Group before the end of the comment and reply period. The Board may appoint liaisons to the Working Group. ICANN staff will identify external experts in these subject matter areas to join the Working Group and bring in new ideas. The subject matter areas are: * Internet Technical Operations * International Organizational Reviews * Global Accountability Tools and Metrics * Jurisprudence / Accountability Mechanism * Internet Consumer Protection * Economics (Marketplace and Competition) * Global Ethics Frameworks * Operational, Finance and Process * Board Governance * Transparency * Risk Management After the public comment and reply period, the Working Group will commence in time for the ICANN 50 Meeting. It's expected that sub-working groups on specialized subject areas will be useful and open to all including experts. The ICANN Accountability Working Group would coordinate community dialogue, including discussion on draft materials on the discussions and proposed themes outlined above with regards to strengthening ICANN's accountability to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government and other identified issues. One of the first tasks of the Working Group will be to identify the issues that need to be solved. The ICANN Accountability Working Group would prepare a draft report on issues identified including whether measures are needed to strengthen ICANN's accountability, and if so, the recommended time frames for development of new or improved mechanisms, if any. The draft report would be provided for public comment. The ICANN Accountability Working Group would submit its final report to the ICANN Board. The Board would immediately and publicly post the final report, consider whether to adopt all or parts of it, and direct the CEO to implement those parts it has accepted once that decision is made. It is expected that the ICANN Accountability Working Group would operate in an open, transparent and inclusive process, primarily through remote participation opportunities, that would include: * A website that would include a timeline of activities and events, as well as all materials and communications from the working group, and a full archive of all content provided and evaluated throughout the process; * A mailing list to ensure anyone can remain involved in the activities and progress of the group; and, * All meetings and phone conference would be open for stakeholders to observe and transcripts and recordings would be posted. Questions for Community Discussion: As the next steps are being outlined and process finalized, ICANN is collecting community input to help provide feedback to further the work of the ICANN Accountability Working Group once it is comprised. ICANN is now seeking community discussion on both the questions first posed in March 2014 as well as some additional questions: * What issues does the community identify as being core to strengthening ICANN's overall accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government? * What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working Group's mandate? * Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's accountability and so, how? * What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is meeting its accountability commitments? * Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives up to its commitments? * What additional comments would you like to share that could be of use to the ICANN Accountability Working Group? Please provide your input on the questions above at comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14@icann.org> Download a PDF of this document here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/enhancing-accountabili…> [PDF, 375 KB]. David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters -Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.381.8727 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Email: david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). ===========================================================

7 20

Fwd: Tweets from "GNSO"
by Bret Fausett May 29, 2014

May 29, 2014

Dear Council Members, One of our constituency members noted that the “GNSO” is tweeting about Internet governance matters generally, on initiatives that are outside the current activity list of the GNSO. The registries think this is inappropriate and that the GNSO twitter feed should not be used for general ICANN issues. What can we do to rein in the twitter posts being sent on our behalf? -- Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret(a)uniregistry.com — — — — — Begin forwarded message: > GNSO @ICANN_GNSO > > #ICANN blog: Panel on Global Internet > Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms Builds on > #netmundial2014 Momentum > > bit.ly/1toswJl

10 11

Initial comment of Business Constituency (BC) on enhancing ICANN Accountability
by john＠crediblecontext.com May 29, 2014

May 29, 2014

Jonathan, As the participation in the working group on ICANN accountability has recently been a subject of the Council mailing list, now that the BC has filed formal comments, I thought I would add them to the mix. Note the concern over the structure, nature and nomination of members to the working group. Cheers, Berard

1 0

Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference 5 June 2014 at 18:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry May 27, 2014

May 27, 2014

Dear Councillors, Please find the Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference 5 June 2014 at 18:00 UTC. Also posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+5+June+2014 And http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-05june14-en.htm 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/nfhb2q4 Coordinated Universal Time 18:00 UTC 11:00 Los Angeles; 14:00 Washington; 19:00 London; 20:00 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 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 meeting 8 May 2014, were posted as approved on 31 May 2014. Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 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 (0 mins) Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a PDP on IGO and INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (15 mins) In November 2013, the GNSO Council adopted<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201311> a consensus recommendation for an Issue Report from the Policy Development Process Working Group on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs (IGO-INGO PDP WG). The Issue Report on the topic of amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use these curative rights protection mechanisms was published in preliminary form<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-2014-03-10-en> and offered for public comment<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-04jun12-en.htm>. The Final Issue Report [LINK] was updated following staff review of public comments, delivered to the Council on 25 May 2014 and published on 26 May 2014. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process (PDP), limited to consideration of the issues discussed in the report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process (PDP), limited to consideration of the issues discussed in the report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Here the Council will vote on whether or not to initiate a PDP as recommended in the Final Issue Report. 4.1 - Present the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+5+June+2014> (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Vote Item 5: MOTION - Approval of a Charter for a PDP Working Group for the IGO & INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP (10 mins) The Final Issue Report on the topic of amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use these curative rights protection mechanisms (UDRP & URS) contains a draft charter for the proposed PDP WG. The draft Working Group Charter is appended as Annex 3 to the Final Issue Report and was delivered to the GNSO Council on 25 May 2014. Here the Council will vote on whether or not to approve the Charter. 5.1 - Present the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+5+June+2014> (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Vote Item 6: MOTION - Close the work on WHOIS Studies and discuss any appropriate next steps (10 mins) The last of a series of studies on WHOIS, commissioned by the GNSO, were recently completed and published. The results of these studies may be useful to the ongoing work on WHOIS, both in the GNSO and elsewhere in the ICANN community (e.g. the Expert Working Group on gTD Registration Data Directory Services). Here the GNSO Council will consider formally closing the work on WHOIS studies and deliberate any next steps. 6.1 - Present the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+5+June+2014> - Staff Update (Mary Wong) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Vote Item 7: DISCUSSION - Internet Governance Issues (15 mins) The transition of the IANA function from the US government oversight is now firmly on the GNSO's agenda and the Council must determine its role and function with respect to this. A proposal was made in Singapore for the formation of a Cross-Community Working Group (CWG) to work on transition from NTIA and a very early stage initial draft of a potential charter for such a CWG was circulated. This has been modified a little since and is available here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-transfer-process-charter-15apr14-en.pdf>. The existing CWG on internet governance has since commenced work on its own charter and indications are that such a charter will not include detailed work on the NTIA transition. In addition, indications are that the ccNSO may be interested in jointly initiating a new CWG on the NTIA transition together with the GNSO and that other AC/SO parts of ICANN will participate in such a CWG. Given the scope and impact of the IANA transition, it is likely that such a CWG will need to reach out beyond the ICANN community for participation and input. In this item, the Council will take the opportunity to provide direction on the formation and development of a CWG on the NTIA transition. 7.1 - Discussion 7.2 - Next steps Item 8: Update - Update on the work of the GNSO Review Working Party (10 mins) As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, work on the ICANN board initiated reviews of the GNSO (and the GNSO Council and related functions) has commenced. The objective of the Review is to examine the organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review is to be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to an independent examiner. A webinar<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-23apr14-en.htm> to discuss this has recently taken place. The GNSO Review Working Party has been assembled to: a. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, b. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, c. Coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. The SIC envisages that once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party will also coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. 8.1 - Update (Jennifer Wolfe) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: Update - Update on the work of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group (10 mins) Here the Council will receive an update, including plans for the Group's work before and during ICANN 50 in London and discuss any actions being planned. 9.1 - Update (Jonathan Robinson) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: Update - Issues for the SCI (10 mins) A couple of issues have arisen recently which may be relevant for consideration by the SCI. The issues to be discussed are the role and function of a seconder to a motion and the mechanisms for dealing with amendments to motions. Here the Council will discuss the issues and specifically whether or not it is appropriate to review them to the SCI at this time. 10.1 - Discussion 10.2 - Next steps Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Planning for London (10 mins) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in London will take planning. GNSO Council Vice Chair, Volker Greimann 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. 11.1 - Update (Volker Greimann & Jonathan Robinson) 11.2 - Discussion 11.3 - Next steps Item 12: Any Other Business (5 mins) * Public comment on the Strategic Plan<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/stratplan-draft-09apr14-en.htm>? * Whois Requirements and National Law Conflicts Procedure Review 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 18:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 11:00 Iowa City, USA (CST<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+1DST 13:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 14:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 15:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-2+1DST 15:00 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 19:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 21:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 21:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 21:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2014, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/nfhb2q4 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Motion to Close the Study Phase of GNSO Whois Policy Work
by Volker Greimann May 27, 2014

May 27, 2014

Dear fellow councillors, please find attached a motion to close for the time being the study phase of the GNSO Policy work. All commissioned studies have been completed and while the results will have to be analyzed in detail, they do provide a source of data for ongoing and upcoming policy work. I therefore submit the attached motion and request a second. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

3 2

Urgent Reminder: Document and Motion deadline Monday, 26 May 2014 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting on 5 June 2014 at 18:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry May 26, 2014

May 26, 2014

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 26 May 2014 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 5 June 2014 at 18:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+5+June+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

1 0

Global Domains Division (GDD) update - 21 May 2014
by Bruce Tonkin May 26, 2014

May 26, 2014

See attached from: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars/gdd-21may14-e… GDD Update Webinar Date/Time: 21 May 2014, 17:00 - 18:00 UTC Team members from ICANN's Global Domains Division provide updates on a wide range of subjects including: New gTLD Program statistics, Code of Conduct and Specification 13, Auctions, Community Priority Evaluation, Registry Services, Name Collision, and Universal Acceptance of TLDs.

1 0

Final Issue Report on IGO & INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms
by Mary Wong May 25, 2014

May 25, 2014

Dear all, Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on amending the UDRP and URS to enable IGO and INGO access to curative rights protection mechanisms. You will recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic at the Buenos Aires meeting in November 2013 when it adopted the consensus recommendations from the PDP WG on Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs (IGO-INGO PDP WG). Under the ICANN Bylaws, an Issue Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is initiated by the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 10 March 2014, with the reply period of the forum closing on 6 May 2014. A Report of Public Comments received was published on 16 May 2014. In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate Annex. Essentially, the staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to consider: (1) whether the UDPR and/or URS should be amended for IGO and INGO access and use; and (2) if so, in what way or whether a separate, narrowly tailored procedure modeled on these measures, to apply specifically only to IGOs and INGOs, should be developed. Staff also recommends that the PDP be limited to considering only those IGO and INGO identifiers that the original IGO-INGO PDP WG recommended for protection, and the Final Issue Report outlines a number of specific issues and additional considerations for the Council to review in determining the scope and work of the PDP. The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO Councilor. The public comment forum, including a link to the Report of Public Comments, the Preliminary Issue Report and the Final Report of the IGO-INGO PDP WG can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-2014-03-10-en. 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 0

Amendments to GNSO Council Motions
by Jonathan Robinson May 24, 2014

May 24, 2014

All, During the last GNSO Council meeting, we dealt with the issue of amendments to motions that were considered 'unfriendly'. Having checked the GNSO Operating Procedures, I see that the practice that has been used by the Council over the last few years is actually not incorporated there. The question therefore is whether this should be the case or whether we are comfortable with leaving this as a practice? Any amendments to motions that are not considered friendly by the original maker of the motion (and the seconder?) are currently submitted to a simple majority vote. If the vote passes, the motion is amended accordingly and if not, the proposed amendment is discarded. If we do believe this should be incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures, one option would be to pass this on as a narrowly scoped issue to the SCI. Alternatively, mark this as one of the items that needs to go on the list of items that will need to be addressed when the recommendations of the upcoming GNSO Review are implemented. Should the Council wish to pass this on to the SCI, it could be scoped along the following lines: 'The GNSO Council has a standing practice of considering formally proposed amendments to motions by requesting the maker (and the seconder) of the motion to consider whether or not the proposed amendment is considered 'friendly'. If the amendment is considered 'friendly' by the maker of the motion and the seconder, the motion is amended accordingly and the amended motion is then considered by the GNSO Council. If the proposed amendment is not considered 'friendly' by the maker of the motion the proposed amendment is put to a vote (if the seconder objects, he/she may choose to withdraw their name as the seconder of the motion). If it meets the simple majority threshold, the motion is amended accordingly and the amended motion is then considered by the GNSO Council. If it does not meet the simple majority threshold, the amendment is discarded and the original motion is then considered by the GNSO Council. The GNSO Council would like to incorporate this practice into the GNSO Operating Procedures and as such requests the SCI to propose the appropriate language as well as section in order to do so'. I look forward to any feedback you may wish to provide on the above. In addition, the formal definition of the role of a seconder of a motion may need some work but I suggest we deal first with the issue of motion amendments. Thanks. Jonathan

6 5