June 2014 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council resolutions 25 June 2014
by Glen de Saint Géry June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

Dear All, Ahead of the official Council minutes, please find the resolutions that Council approved on 25 June 2014 in London. Consent agenda Confirmation of Becky Burr (ccNSO) and John Berard (GNSO) as the permanent co-chairs for the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on a Framework for CWG Operating Principles. 1. Approval of a charter for a PDP working group for IGO and INGO access to Curative Rights and Protection Mechanisms WHEREAS: 1. The GNSO Council has resolved (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406) to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) to explore possible amendments to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) so as to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use curative rights protection mechanisms; 2. The GNSO Council has reviewed the draft Working Group Charter appended as Annex 3 to the Final Issue Report (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-25may14-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-25may14-en.pdf) which was delivered to the GNSO Council on 25 May 2014, and the 24 June 2014 amendments proposed thereto (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-24jun14-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-24jun14-en.pdf) RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter as amended by the 24 June 2014 proposals and appoints Petter Rindforth as the GNSO Council liaison to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP Working Group (WG); 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for the PDP WG no later than seven days after the approval of this motion; and 3. Until such time as the WG selects a chair for the WG and that chair is confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council liaison to the WG shall serve as the interim chair. 2. New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds 1. Whereas, in 2005, this Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) began a policy development process to consider the introduction of new gTLDs, which resulted in the creation of certain policy recommendations for the launch of a new gTLD application process; and, 2. Whereas, in September 2007, this Council adopted the policy recommendations from the GNSO policy development process and forwarded them to the ICANN Board of Directors; and, 3. Whereas, in June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO's policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs and directed staff to develop an implementation plan for a new gTLD introduction process; and 4. Whereas, in September 2009, ICANN and the U.S. National Telecommunications Information Administration entered into an Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) in which ICANN committed to organize a review of certain aspects of the introduction and expansion of gTLDs (AOC, at Section 9.3); and, 5. Whereas, in its April, 2011 Communique, ICANNs Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) asked (at p.6) for a "comprehensive post-launch independent review of the [Trademark] Clearinghouse [to] be conducted one year after the launch of the 75th new gTLD in the round; and, 6. Whereas, in June 2011, the ICANN Board approved an Application Guidebook ("AGB") for new gTLDs and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program; and, 7. Whereas, the AGB provided that it was intended to govern "the first round of what is to be an ongoing process for the introduction of new TLDs" (Application, Module 2); and, 8. Whereas, Section 1.1.6 of the AGB ("Subsequent Application Rounds") provided that "ICANNs goal [was] to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as quickly as possible" and promised to base the timing of subsequent rounds on "experiences gained and changes required after this round is completed" with a "goal...for the next application round to begin within one year of the close of the application submission period for the initial round.;" and 9. Whereas, the first round application submission period closed in June, 2012; and, 10. Whereas, the Council believes that it has a continuing interest and role to play in evaluating the experiences of the first round and proposing policy recommendations, if necessary, for changes to subsequent rounds; Now therefore, it is resolved: 1. The GNSO Council creates a new Discussion Group to discuss the experiences gained by the first round of new gTLD applications and identify subjects for future issue reports, if any, that might lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent application procedures; and, 2. ICANN invites the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board to provide input into the GNSO Council discussion to identify areas that it believes may be appropriate for discussion for an evaluation of the current gTLD application round and/or for possible adjustments for subsequent application procedures; and, 3. The GNSO Council requests a status report from ICANN Staff on the current progress of (a) the New gTLD program generally; (b) ICANN's anticipated timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments; (c) ICANN's work to date on any evaluation of the first round; (d) the work to date on the post-launch independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse; and (e) ICANN's current projection for a timetable for subsequent rounds. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Compliance Presentation
by Marika Konings June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

Dear All, Please find attached the slide deck referred to by Maguy during today's meeting. Best regards, Marika

2 1

FW: GNSO review
by Glen de Saint Géry June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: philip(a)brandregistrygroup.org [mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org] Sent: mercredi 25 juin 2014 15:59 To: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: GNSO review Glen, this is the resolution I referred to on scope of GNSO review. Helpful to circulate to Council. Philip http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm

1 0

RE: [council] Fwd: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

Dear James: I do not think it impacts the Charter, I just wanted to add some clarity to guide our Council discussions, and perhaps PDP WG deliberations. 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 575 Madison Avenue / New York, NY 10022-2585 p / (212) 940.6762 f / (212) 894.5585 brian.winterfeldt(a)kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> ________________________________ From: James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:16:39 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) To: Winterfeldt, Brian J. Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 Thanks, Brian. One thing I love about my work is that I'm always learning something new. My only question involves whether or not this, in your opinion, impacts the charter? Did we goof on this? Thank you-- J. __________________________ James Bladel GoDaddy jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> On Jun 25, 2014, at 10:58, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <brian.winterfeldt(a)kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com>> wrote: Dear all: I wanted to clarify that the mechanisms we are discussing in connection with the motion and PDP WG, namely the UDRP, the URS, and any newly developed mechanism for IGOs, are all administrative alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, rather than arbitration mechanisms. There is an important legal distinction between the two that we should recognize and adopt in our discussions. The UDRP and URS are contractual administrative mechanisms for resolving disputes outside of national courts. Conversely, arbitration awards are inter alia enforceable in national courts. See Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York (June 10, 1958). I do not believe this subtle point necessitates any changes to the draft Charter. I just wanted to add some clarity to guide our Council discussions, and perhaps PDP WG deliberations. 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 575 Madison Avenue / New York, NY 10022-2585 p / (212) 940.6762 f / (212) 894.5585 brian.winterfeldt(a)kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> -----Original Message----- From: Winterfeldt, Brian J. Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:47 PM To: Marano, Phillip V. Subject: FW: [council] Fwd: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 ________________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.orgOn<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn> Behalf OfAvri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:44:44 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Fwd: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 A revised revision of the charter that corrects one mistake. avri -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:58:43 -0700 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell(a)gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Hello ladies - are you planning to send this to the Council for discussion this evening? Thanks! From: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman(a)ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org%20%3cmailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 2:31 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%20%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>> Subject: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 FYI - just sent *Lori S. Schulman** General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 * Lori.Schulman(a)ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> Description: cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0 *From:*Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:21 AM *To:* 'Kathy Kleiman'; 'Avri Doria (avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org>)' *Cc:* 'Rudi Vansnick (rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be<mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be> <mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>)'; 'Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>)' *Subject:* RE: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 *Importance:* High Dear All, Attached is the amendment with the name of the UN list corrected. I didn't catch that last night. I went to the UN link that Avri provided and literally copied the title. There is a redline with the corrected version and then a "clean" redline. This should go to the GNSO Council. This was clearly a drafting error. Lori *Lori S. Schulman** General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 * Lori.Schulman(a)ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> Description: cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0 *From:*Lori Schulman *Sent:* Monday, June 23, 2014 4:41 PM *To:* 'Kathy Kleiman'; Avri Doria (avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org>) *Cc:* Rudi Vansnick (rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be<mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be> <mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>); Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>) *Subject:* RE: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 (3) with LS Edit I like these changes. Thanks for expanding. I especially like the "research who already owns marks." Good Luck at the GNSO. *Lori S. Schulman** General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 * Lori.Schulman(a)ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> Description: cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0 *From:*Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] <mailto:[mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com]> *Sent:* Monday, June 23, 2014 3:45 PM *To:* Lori Schulman; Avri Doria (avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org>) *Cc:* Rudi Vansnick (rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be<mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be> <mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>); Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>) *Subject:* Re: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 (3) with LS Edit Hi All, Tx so much to Lori for starting everything. I really appreciate it! All, here is an edited version based on considerations of scope and limits that we discussed in framing both the UDRP and URS. What do you think? Best, Kathy p.s. Lori, again, tx you! What do you think of the edits? Hopefully, I extended and continued your thoughts... : Dear Avri and Kathy, Here is my attempt at a short, hopefully not too debatable, amendment to the charter. My edits and comments are in redline form. I tried to keep it very simple given the issue of time. I put 2 new bullet points before the final bullet point under "The WG should also include the following additional topics in its deliberations:" I specifically referenced the Nice Classification system as a method of mission differentiation as an optional clause. My thoughts are to leave it out but I wanted to surface the option to the group instead of just dismissing it out of hand. Nice has a lot of problems but it is the document that drives international classification and may be worth referencing. I will leave that up to you. / / I believe that this working group should move forward and incorporate the principles that we discussed yesterday. Perhaps these few lines will do the trick? Please let me know if I can help further. *Explore ways to make excellent teaching the reality in every classroom. Attend the ASCD Conference on Teaching Excellence, June 27-29, in Dallas, Tex. Choose from more than 150 sessions on assessment, college and career readiness, STEM, and instructional practices. Featured presenters include Jay McTighe, Baruti Kafele, Richard Curwin and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at **www.ascd.org/cte<http://www.ascd.org/cte>. <http://www.ascd.org/cte>* This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active. *Explore ways to make excellent teaching the reality in every classroom. Attend the ASCD Conference on Teaching Excellence, June 27-29, in Dallas, Tex. Choose from more than 150 sessions on assessment, college and career readiness, STEM, and instructional practices. Featured presenters include Jay McTighe, Baruti Kafele, Richard Curwin and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at **www.ascd.org/cte<http://www.ascd.org/cte>. <http://www.ascd.org/cte>***** This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. =========================================================== 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). ===========================================================

1 0

Revised Motion for Council Meeting on Wednesday
by Bret Fausett June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

Here is a new version of the motion we discussed that makes two changes from the previous version: (a) it adopts Avri’s helpful suggestion that we change “subsequent application rounds” to “subsequent application procedures”, and I have made this change in both Section 1 and 2 of the “Resolved"; and (b) it changes the committee created in Section 1 from a Committee of the Council to a new “open committee”. Since this is just a committee to identify issues appropriate for an issues report, I thought it important to avoid calling it a working group, and I have had multiple expressions of interest in participating from outside the Council, so I thought it would be appropriate to keep the committee open. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this, and I look forward to the discussion tomorrow. Glen, can you please add this version to the Council motion page? Bret — START MOTION — Whereas, in 2005, this Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) began a policy development process to consider the introduction of new gTLDs, which resulted in the creation of certain policy recommendations for the launch of a new gTLD application process; and, Whereas, in September 2007, this Council adopted the policy recommendations from the GNSO policy development process and forwarded them to the ICANN Board of Directors; and, Whereas, in June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO's policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs and directed staff to develop an implementation plan for a new gTLD introduction process; and Whereas, in September 2009, ICANN and the U.S. National Telecommunications Information Administration entered into an Affirmation of Commitments (“AOC”) in which ICANN committed to organize a review of certain aspects of the introduction and expansion of gTLDs (AOC, at Section 9.3); and, Whereas, in its April, 2011 Communique, ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) asked (at p.6) for a "comprehensive post-launch independent review of the [Trademark] Clearinghouse [to] be conducted one year after the launch of the 75th new gTLD in the round;” and, Whereas, in June 2011, the ICANN Board approved an Application Guidebook ("AGB") for new gTLDs and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program; and, Whereas, the AGB provided that it was intended to govern "the first round of what is to be an ongoing process for the introduction of new TLDs" (Application, Module 2); and, Whereas, Section 1.1.6 of the AGB ("Subsequent Application Rounds") provided that "ICANN’s goal [was] to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as quickly as possible" and promised to base the timing of subsequent rounds on "experiences gained and changes required after this round is completed" with a "goal...for the next application round to begin within one year of the close of the application submission period for the initial round.;" and Whereas, the first round application submission period closed in June, 2012; and, Whereas, the Council believes that it has a continuing interest and role to play in evaluating the experiences of the first round and proposing policy recommendations, if necessary, for changes to subsequent rounds; Now therefore, it is resolved: 1. The GNSO Council creates a new open committee to discuss the experiences gained by the first round of new gTLD applications and identify subjects for future issue reports, if any, that might lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent application procedures; and, 2. ICANN invites the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board to provide input into the GNSO Council discussion to identify areas that it believes may be appropriate for discussion for an evaluation of the current gTLD application round and/or for possible adjustments for subsequent application procedures; and, 3. The GNSO Council requests a status report from ICANN Staff on the current progress of (a) the New gTLD program generally; (b) ICANN's anticipated timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments; (c) ICANN's work to date on any evaluation of the first round; (d) the work to date on the post-launch independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse; and (e) ICANN's current projection for a timetable for subsequent rounds. — END MOTION — -- 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 — — — — —

5 6

Updated IGO proposal
by Mary Wong June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

Dear all, Please find attached an updated table showing the GAC advice, GNSO PDP recommendations, and current draft Council proposal, for the Red Cross and IGO acronym identifiers. The only difference between this and the table circulated earlier by Thomas is the addition of a new column with the GAC advice. Please note also that there may be certain inconsistencies and lack of clarity regarding possible differences across some of these recommendations, which I believe Jonathan and Thomas intend to bring up and discuss at our meeting this afternoon. 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

1 0

FW: Updated motion for IGO Curative Rights charter
by Jonathan Robinson June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

All, To take into account the new edits/additions that have been proposed by the NCSG, I suggest (with acknowledged assistance from Policy Staff) that the motion for the Curative Rights Protection PDP charter be augmented as below (additions in bold). Now further revised to take account of Council input. Thomas, as the second, please confirm acceptance. Thanks, Jonathan -- WHEREAS: 1. The GNSO Council has resolved (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406) to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) to explore possible amendments to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) so as to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use curative rights protection mechanisms; 2. The GNSO Council has reviewed the draft Working Group Charter appended as Annex 3 to the Final Issue Report (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-25may14-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-25may14-en.pdf) which was delivered to the GNSO Council on 25 May 2014, and the 24 June 2014 amendments proposed thereto (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-24jun14-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-24jun14-en.pdf) RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter as amended by the 24 June 2014 proposals and appoints ___________ as the GNSO Council liaison to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP Working Group (WG); 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for the PDP WG no later than seven days after the approval of this motion; and 3. Until such time as the WG selects a chair for the WG and that chair is confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council liaison to the WG shall serve as the interim chair.

2 1

Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
by Jonathan Robinson June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

All, Please recall that we would like to commence the recruitment and selection of a GNSO Liaison to the GAC as soon as possible. This item will be discussed under Item 10 in the GNSO Council meeting today. Please note that the GAC has already approved this at our meeting with them on Sunday. I have attached the slides from the presentation to the GAC for your information. I have also attached the draft specification. Thanks, Jonathan

5 4

London session on the NTIA Stewardship Transition - Thursday 26 June 2014
by Jonathan Robinson June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

All, Please see below with regard to tomorrow's London session on the NTIA Stewardship Transition. For the discussion part (part 3 below), there is an opportunity for a member of each participating organisation (in the ICANN Coordination Group) to be available on stage to contribute. I am willing and feel able to do this BUT am mindful that the registries will have two seats in the ICANN Coordination Group and therefore on stage for part 3 tomorrow. Please let me know if you are OK with me being there OR if someone else from the GNSO makes sense noting that we have not yet chosen our 2 RySG reps or the 3 non-RySG reps to the coordinating group. Thanks Jonathan --- The NTIA announced on 14 March 2014 that they are planning to relinquish their stewardship of the IANA functions to the multistakeholder community, subject to certain conditions relating to meeting the needs and expectations of the global partners and customers of IANA services, and employing a multistakeholder (rather than a government-only) process. This session will offer the community the opportunity to hold a dialogue on all elements of the transition process. Topics for discussion include the organisation for the processes that the global communities need to run themselves for their respective parts of the NTIA transition and coordination necessary to assemble a proposal. ICANN has been designated as a facilitator of the transition process. On 6 June 2014, ICANN published a Process to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps that is the result of a series of community discussions and input into the process to develop a proposal to transition the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community. See NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship transition portal for more information. The document reflects the multitude of views expressed in different fora and, among other things, calls for the establishment of a Coordination Group to assemble a proposal from components provided by respective communities. Now that the definition of that process is progressing, the real work in moving forward with planning IANA stewardship without NTIA needs to begin. A big part of this work rests on the individual communities (IETF, RIRs, ICANN and CC names communities) that are IANAs customers. This session will be the kick-off session to start this work, and will discuss expectations both for the communities and the communitys expectations of the Coordination Group moving forward. The session is organised as a set of invited introductory talks around a number of topics, followed by open discussion with the community. For the discussion part, we expect the speakers and one member from ALAC, ASO, ccNSO, gNSO, gTLD, GAC, ICC, IAB, IETF, ISOC, NRO, RSAC, and SSAC to be in front of the stage tot engage in a discussion. Comments and questions will be limited to 2 minutes, and there will be two microphone queues in the room, one for new questions and another one for comments on the ongoing topic. Participation from the overflow rooms and remote locations will also be possible, including ability to make comments. Agenda: 1. Background and scope (moderators, 10min) 2. Introductory talks (40 min) o Role of communities vs. the coordination group (Alissa Cooper) o Engaging participants outside the traditional ICANN, IETF, and RIR participants (Heather Dryden + to be confirmed 2nd speaker) o Defining success criteria (Olaf Kolkman) o Relationship of the work on accountability and NTIA transition (Becky Burr) 3. Open mic (65 min) 4. Wrap-up and next steps (moderators, 5 min) Moderators: Patrik Fältström and Jari Arkko

1 0

RE: [council] Fwd: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

Dear all: I wanted to clarify that the mechanisms we are discussing in connection with the motion and PDP WG, namely the UDRP, the URS, and any newly developed mechanism for IGOs, are all administrative alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, rather than arbitration mechanisms. There is an important legal distinction between the two that we should recognize and adopt in our discussions. The UDRP and URS are contractual administrative mechanisms for resolving disputes outside of national courts. Conversely, arbitration awards are inter alia enforceable in national courts. See Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York (June 10, 1958). I do not believe this subtle point necessitates any changes to the draft Charter. I just wanted to add some clarity to guide our Council discussions, and perhaps PDP WG deliberations. 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 575 Madison Avenue / New York, NY 10022-2585 p / (212) 940.6762 f / (212) 894.5585 brian.winterfeldt(a)kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> -----Original Message----- From: Winterfeldt, Brian J. Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:47 PM To: Marano, Phillip V. Subject: FW: [council] Fwd: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 ________________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.orgOn<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn> Behalf OfAvri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:44:44 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Fwd: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 A revised revision of the charter that corrects one mistake. avri -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:58:43 -0700 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell(a)gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Hello ladies - are you planning to send this to the Council for discussion this evening? Thanks! From: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman(a)ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org%20%3cmailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 2:31 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org%20%3cmailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>> Subject: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 FYI - just sent *Lori S. Schulman** General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 * Lori.Schulman(a)ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> Description: cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0 *From:*Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:21 AM *To:* 'Kathy Kleiman'; 'Avri Doria (avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org>)' *Cc:* 'Rudi Vansnick (rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be<mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be> <mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>)'; 'Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>)' *Subject:* RE: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 *Importance:* High Dear All, Attached is the amendment with the name of the UN list corrected. I didn't catch that last night. I went to the UN link that Avri provided and literally copied the title. There is a redline with the corrected version and then a "clean" redline. This should go to the GNSO Council. This was clearly a drafting error. Lori *Lori S. Schulman** General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 * Lori.Schulman(a)ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> Description: cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0 *From:*Lori Schulman *Sent:* Monday, June 23, 2014 4:41 PM *To:* 'Kathy Kleiman'; Avri Doria (avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org>) *Cc:* Rudi Vansnick (rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be<mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be> <mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>); Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>) *Subject:* RE: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 (3) with LS Edit I like these changes. Thanks for expanding. I especially like the "research who already owns marks." Good Luck at the GNSO. *Lori S. Schulman** General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 * Lori.Schulman(a)ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> Description: cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0 *From:*Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] <mailto:[mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com]> *Sent:* Monday, June 23, 2014 3:45 PM *To:* Lori Schulman; Avri Doria (avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org>) *Cc:* Rudi Vansnick (rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be<mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be> <mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>); Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>) *Subject:* Re: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 (3) with LS Edit Hi All, Tx so much to Lori for starting everything. I really appreciate it! All, here is an edited version based on considerations of scope and limits that we discussed in framing both the UDRP and URS. What do you think? Best, Kathy p.s. Lori, again, tx you! What do you think of the edits? Hopefully, I extended and continued your thoughts... : Dear Avri and Kathy, Here is my attempt at a short, hopefully not too debatable, amendment to the charter. My edits and comments are in redline form. I tried to keep it very simple given the issue of time. I put 2 new bullet points before the final bullet point under "The WG should also include the following additional topics in its deliberations:" I specifically referenced the Nice Classification system as a method of mission differentiation as an optional clause. My thoughts are to leave it out but I wanted to surface the option to the group instead of just dismissing it out of hand. Nice has a lot of problems but it is the document that drives international classification and may be worth referencing. I will leave that up to you. / / I believe that this working group should move forward and incorporate the principles that we discussed yesterday. Perhaps these few lines will do the trick? Please let me know if I can help further. *Explore ways to make excellent teaching the reality in every classroom. Attend the ASCD Conference on Teaching Excellence, June 27-29, in Dallas, Tex. Choose from more than 150 sessions on assessment, college and career readiness, STEM, and instructional practices. Featured presenters include Jay McTighe, Baruti Kafele, Richard Curwin and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at **www.ascd.org/cte. <http://www.ascd.org/cte>* This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active. *Explore ways to make excellent teaching the reality in every classroom. Attend the ASCD Conference on Teaching Excellence, June 27-29, in Dallas, Tex. Choose from more than 150 sessions on assessment, college and career readiness, STEM, and instructional practices. Featured presenters include Jay McTighe, Baruti Kafele, Richard Curwin and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at **www.ascd.org/cte. <http://www.ascd.org/cte>***** This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. =========================================================== 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). ===========================================================

3 2