July 2014 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 24 July 2014
by Glen de Saint Géry July 16, 2014

July 16, 2014

Dear Councilors Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 24 July 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 > 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 11:00 UTC: http://tinyurl.com/lwky9he Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Brussels; 19:00 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 (5 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 25 June 2014, posted as approved on XXXX 2014 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 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 - A proposed modification of the GNSO's consensus recommendations relating to IGO acronyms and Red Cross identifiers (20 mins) On 10 November 2013 the PDP Working Group (IGO-INGO PDP WG) delivered its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council that included twenty-five consensus recommendations of the WG. On 20 November 2013 the GNSO Council unanimously adopted<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> all twenty-five consensus recommendations of the IGO-INGO PDP WG and forwarded them to the ICANN Board in January 2014 with a recommendation for their adoption. On 30 April 2014 the Board resolved<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-04-30-en> to adopt those of the GNSO's recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice, and to facilitate dialogue between the affected parties in order to reconcile the remaining differences, as further detailed in Annex A<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-a-30apr14…> and Annex B<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-b-30apr14…> of the Board's resolution. The GNSO's recommendations and GAC advice are largely consistent except in relation to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and the full names and acronyms of 189 Red Cross national societies and the international Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, for which the GNSO had recommended<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> a 90-day period of protection by way of a claim notification service utilising the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). On 16 June 2014 the NGPC sent<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/chalaby-to-robinson-16jun14-en.pdf> a letter to the GNSO Council requesting that the GNSO consider modifying its recommendations relating to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and national society names of the Red Cross. This modification to be in accordance with and as envisaged by Section 16 of the GNSO's PDP Manual<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-13jun13-en.pdf>. 4.1 - Present the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+25+June+2014> (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Vote (Threshold; One third of each house or two thirds of one house) Item 5: Update - On the Uniformity of Reporting Final Issue Report Resolution (20 mins) Here the Council will receive an update, regarding an approved resolution<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20130516-1> as a result of the Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf> on Uniformity of Reporting (a recommendation from RAPWG). The resolution states, "The GNSO Council does not initiate a Policy Development Process at this stage but will review at the completion of the ICANN Contractual Compliance three-year plan expected for 31 December 2013 whether additional action is required." ICANN's Contractual Compliance team provided a presentation to the Council in London and here will present and be in a position to discuss the past activities and results of the Contractual Compliance three-year plan and future efforts to evolve the contractual compliance function with regard to metrics collection and reporting. The GNSO Council will deliberate whether further attention to this issue is warranted. Note: The second resolution launched what is now known as the non-PDP, Data & Metrics for Policy Making WG<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/dmpm> that is currently executing against its approved charter. 5.1 - Update (Maguy Serad) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Next steps Item 6: UPDATE - A cross-community working group to develop a transfer process for the IANA stewardship role (10 mins) An invitation to participate in a drafting team has now been circulated and sent to all ICANN SO & ACs. Here the Council will take the opportunity, as manager of the policy development processes of the GNSO, to provide direction on the formation, development and work of a CWG on the NTIA transition. 6.1 - Update (Jonathan Robinson) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Next steps Item 7: 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: * Act as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, * Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, * 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. 7.1 - Update (Jennifer Wolfe) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: UPDATE - On the work of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group (10 mins) Here the Council will receive an update, including reactions to the Group's work presented during ICANN 50 in London and to discuss any actions being planned. In particular, the Consultation Group will provide an update on the overall direction of its work and specifically, remind the Council of the decision to recruit and appoint a GNSO Liaison to GAC as well as the selection process for such a liaison. The call for applications is out and the deadline for applicants is the 31 July 2014. The Consultation Group envisages that a preliminary decision on the actual appointment will take place as soon as possible. Moreover that such an appointment will be subject to a motion before the GNSO Council in September and the appointment will be made immediately thereafter and, in any event, before ICANN 51. 8.1 - Update (Jonathan Robinson) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Planning for LA (10 mins) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in LA will take planning and preparation work. The Council has output from the survey<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QMQJY7Z> of the ICANN 50 meeting in London. Please complete the survey<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QMQJY7Z> if you have not already done so. GNSO Council Vice Chair, David Cake will work with Jonathan Robinson 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 such as the ccNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. Please Note: The LA Meeting is an ICANN annual meeting and so will include the GNSO Council development session on the second Friday i.e. Friday 17 October 2014. This is a day and evening session focused on the successful and productive functioning of the Council for the period Annual Meeting 2014 to Annual Meeting 2015. 9.1 - Update (David Cake & Jonathan Robinson) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: Any Other Business (5 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 March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 04:00 Iowa City, USA (CST<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 07:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 09:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-2+1DST 09:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 13:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 14:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 14:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/lwky9he Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Council Action Items / List - Please Review
by Jonathan Robinson July 16, 2014

July 16, 2014

All, Ahead of the Council meeting next week, please review the Action Items list. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items I intend to review the items and ask for updates at the start of the meeting and so it will be helpful if you have all reviewed it and picked up on any outstanding items that you may have committed to lead or help with. Councillors individually named on the Action List are: . Avri Doria / Alan Greenberg . Jen Wolfe . Thomas Rickert . James Bladel . Bret Fausett But that doesn't mean others shouldn't run their eyes over the list of activities. These are busy times and some groups are coming back to me with questions indicating that they are unware of GNSO Council activity in certain areas. Many thanks, Jonathan

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#153]
by Glen de Saint Géry July 15, 2014

July 15, 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: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mardi 15 juillet 2014 23:04 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#153] Name of Officer: * Tony Holmes Officer Email Address: * tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, July 15, 2014 GNSO Organization: * Internet Services Provider Constituency Officer Position or Title: * Chairman ISPCP Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Tony Holmes will be on vacation (sailing in the Southern Ionian without Internet or phone connectivity) when the GNSO Council meet on 24 July 2014 Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Osvaldo Novoa has full proxy rights for Tony Holmes on all issues Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Saturday, March 8, 2014 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Osvaldo Novoa

1 0

X-Community WG on IANA etc.
by Avri Doria July 11, 2014

July 11, 2014

Hi, Whatever happened on this? Is there a design team working on a charter. I went looking at the projects and activities list to see what was going on, and perhaps was blind but did not see it mentioned. Did a team ever start? When this WG is ready, we might want to make it a point to extend the participation invite to the some of the IETF governance and Internet Society lists - the ones that are currently fretting about how ICANN does not seem to be including them in decision making processes. avri

3 3

Collecting questions / clarifications for EWG
by Marika Konings July 10, 2014

July 10, 2014

Dear All, As was suggested in London, we would like to collect any questions or clarifications that you and/or your respective groups may have following your review of the Expert Working Group (EWG) Final Report (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf) as well as the FAQs (see https://community.icann.org/x/PVZ-Ag) as this may assist follow up conversations on the report and its recommendations as part of the next steps in the policy development process. As such, please share any questions / requests for clarification by 31 July at the latest following which we will relay these to the EWG for feedback. Thanks, Marika

1 0

RE: [council] Briefing Note on process for amending IGO/INGO policy recommendations
by avri July 10, 2014

July 10, 2014

Hi So it is correct to say that we need to, provisionally at least, approve of the amendments we are proposing. I will find that hard to vote for based both on personal viewpoint and my understanding of ncsg perspectives. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> </div><div>Date:07/09/2014 3:58 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> </div><div>Subject: [council] Briefing Note on process for amending IGO/INGO policy recommendations </div><div> </div>Dear all, Attached please find a short Briefing Note outlining the process to be followed by the GNSO Council in invoking Section 16 of the PDP Manual, with respect to a possible modification of a GNSO policy recommendation. As we noted previously, we have checked with our colleagues in the legal department regarding questions such as voting thresholds, and we hope that the attached note is helpful for understanding how Section 16 will work. Please note also that we have not included the actual proposed draft modifications or related motion in the Note or this email - the attached Note therefore deals purely with the process issue. Thanks and cheers Mary -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC? > >I will await the staff briefing note, but my >understanding of the rules is that Council passes >particular changes on to the WG for their >consideration. The WG can agree or disagree with >them. If they agree, Council then needs to vote >on whether to approve or not. Having passed the >specific wording to the WG does not bind the >Council to approve the changes. However, like any >recommendation of a PDP WG, Council should have a >good reason to not follow the WG's recommendations. > >Regarding voting, I the threshold "should" be the >same as was required to pass the original WG >Recs, since these are yet more rec ofut of the >PDP WG. However, I current wording may make that subject to >interpretation. > >Alan > >At 09/07/2014 12:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>As another meeting approaches, I return to my discomfort with the motion. >> >>As I interpret the rules, we are to send changes that we wish to see >>made to the 'reconstituted' WG for reconsideration. I know that some >>have argued that we do not need to approve of them, we just send them >>on, but that is not the way I read the rules. Perhaps we need a legal >>opinion. >> >>I have no objection to passing issues on to a WG for study and >>reconsideration. My problem is sending them on with prior council >>approval and I think that is what the current rules demand. >> >>Also, what is the voting threshold for this motion. Is it a majority >>issue since it is not otherwise defined? >> >>thanks >> >>avri >> >>On 26-Jun-14 10:12, Avri Doria wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > The relevant Procedures: >> > >> >> 16. Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies Approved >> > >> >> GNSO >> >> Council policies may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council at >> >> any time prior to the final approval by the ICANN Board as follows: >> > >> >> 1. The PDP Team is reconvened or, if disbanded, reformed, and should >> >> be consulted with regards to the proposed amendments or >> >> modifications; >> > >> >> 2. The proposed amendments or modifications are posted >> >> for public comment for not less than thirty (30) days; >> > >> >> 3. The GNSO >> >> Council approves of such amendments or modifications with a >> >> Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour. Approved GNSO Council >> >> policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been >> >> implemented by ICANN Staff may only be amended by the initiation of a >> >> new PDP on the issue. >> > >> > I interpret this as meaning we have to approve the wording of the >> > amendments before sending them, as these will be the amendments the WG >> > needs to either accept of reject. I do not see the procedure as >> > allowing us to just send them topics to be discussed. >> > >> > I must admit I am finding them all a bit hard to accept. I also must >> > say I do not see any new >> > evidence or arguments. >> > >> > In terms of TMCH+50_Forever I do not see on what basis we could ever >> > make such a decision as this was not ever a subject for the PDP in the >> > first place. >> > >> > Lastly, what is the voting threshold for this motion? Majority? >>Super >> > Majority? >> > >> > >> > Finally, if this is going to become a regular occurrence, which would >> > not surprise me, we should give consideration to asking the SCI to >>look >> > at the subject after we have completed the project. >> > >> > Thanks >> > avri >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 23-Jun-14 16:58, Thomas Rickert wrote: >> >> All, 1. Following up to the discussion we had on this subject, please >> >> find attached: (1) a draft motion setting out the background (in the >> >> Whereas clauses) and proposed steps the Council will take in relation >> >> to possibly modifying the GNSO¹s consensus recommendations on RCRC >> >> and IGO acronym identifier protections in response to the NGPC letter >> >> of 16 June; (2) a document containing the actual proposed >> >> modification for the Council to discuss forwarding on to the >> >> reconvened WG and including some background information such as the >> >> actual original WG recommendation and GAC advice; and (3) a >> >> comparison table showing the original WG recommendations and the >> >> proposed modifications side by side. >> >> >> >> This is to inform your discussion with your respective groups in >> >> preparation for the public meeting on Wednesday. Of course, the >> >> motion will not be voted on till the first meeting following this >> >> London gathering, but we thought it might be useful for the Council >> >> to have all the necessary documentation at the first possible >> >> opportunity. >> >> >> >> Please note also that we have not run the final versions of the >> >> recommended proposal by our legal colleagues as in the interests of >> >> time we thought it important for you to be able to review these >> >> early! >> >> >> >> Kudos to policy staff, especially Mary, for turning this around at >> >> such short notice and prepare the paperwork. Thanks so much! >> >> >> >> 2. During the GAC/GNSO session (which I think was an excellent >> >> meeting), there was only little time to discuss this issue. Having >> >> spoken to a few people afterwards, including a GAC member, I was >> >> wondering whether the current status and the suggested actions are >> >> sufficiently clear. In particular, I am afraid that there is the >> >> misconception that a full PDP might be required for changes to the >> >> recommendations. I would therefore suggest we send a small briefing >> >> note to the GAC (we = Jonathan :-). Chances would be that the GAC >> >> could consider this for its communiqué. >> >> >> >> *** Dear Heather, following up to yesterday's GAC / GNSO session, we >> >> would like to briefly outline both the current status as well as the >> >> next steps with respect to the IGO/RCRC question. >> >> >> >> 1. The GNSO Council has been approached by the NGPC with a letter of >> >> June 16th, 2014 suggesting that indefinite claims service to provide >> >> notice to the organization in question is offered for the >> >> designations in question whenever such designation has been >> >> registered. Currently, the GNSO policy recommendations provide for a >> >> 90 days claims service. >> >> >> >> The GNSO Council will continue its discussion on this subject during >> >> the public meeting on Wednesday. Should the GNSO Council decide so, >> >> the course of action would be to reconvene the PDP WG to consider >> >> this very question and get back to the GNSO Council. We would like to >> >> stress that this consultation process would presumably take a short >> >> period of time. The GNSO's PDP Manual offers such process. This would >> >> not be a PDP. >> >> >> >> 2. The second suggestion is to modify certain aspects of the URS to >> >> enable its use by IGOs and the development of rules and procedures >> >> for an arbitration process to resolve claims of abuse of IGO names >> >> and acronyms. We note that this work is already under way with the >> >> PDP that has been initiated by the GNSO Council at its last meeting >> >> on June 5th, 2014. Thus, no action is required with respect to >> >> potential modifications of GNSO Council policy recommendations as the >> >> aspect of working on potential modifications of curative rights >> >> protection mechanisms was already included in the set of >> >> recommendations the GNSO Council unanimously adopted last year. While >> >> the work on the PDP is conducted, the temporary protections remain in >> >> place, as the NGPC confirmed. >> >> >> >> We welcome your and the IGO Coalition's collaboration on these >> >> matters. >> >> >> >> Yours sincerely, >> >> >> >> *** >> >> >> >> Any thoughts or suggestions? >> >> >> >> Best, Thomas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________ Thomas >> >> Rickert, Attorney at Law Director Names & Numbers >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen >> >> Internetwirtschaft e.V. >> >> >> >> Lichtstraße 43h 50825 Köln >> >> >> >> Fon: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0 Fax: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - >> >> 111 E-Mail: thomas.rickert(a)eco.de <mailto:thomas.rickert@eco.de> Web: >> >> http://www.eco.de >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Geschäftsführer: >> >> Harald A. Summa Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver >> >> Süme (stv. Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix >> >> Höger Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478 Sitz des Vereins: >> >> Köln >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >

2 1

Call for Volunteers: GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group
by Glen de Saint Géry July 9, 2014

July 9, 2014

http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08jul14-en.htm Call for Volunteers: GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group Date: 8 July 2014 This is a call for volunteers to participate in a GNSO Discussion Group to discuss experiences gained by the first round of new gTD applications and identify subjects for possible future issue reports, if any, that might lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent new gTLD application procedures. This Discussion Group has been created by the Generic Names Supporting Organization and is open to anyone interested in participating. What this Discussion Group will do The Discussion Group is to review the first round of the new gTLD program and discuss and reflect upon experiences gained. The Discussion Group is expected to report its findings to the GNSO Council, which may include a list of recommended subjects for future GNSO issue reports that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent new gTLD application procedures. Issue reports are a required first step in developing new policies. How this Group will work Like other GNSO efforts, the Discussion Group is expected to use transparent and open processes. Meetings are recorded, mailing lists are publicly archived and members from the Discussion Group are expected to submit Statements of Interest in order to participate. The group may decide to collaborate using a public workspace for draft materials and all final work products and milestones will be documented. Please note that as a Discussion Group member you are expected to attend conference calls and to actively participate in online discussions. If you are concerned about the amount of time or input that you would be able to provide to the group, but would like to remain informed of the group's activities, it is encouraged that you participate as an observer. Participating as an observer will allow you to follow the group's work on the mailing list. To be able to actively participate in conference calls and online discussions, you would need to change your status from observer to member, which can be accomplished by simply emailing your request to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). The GNSO Secretariat will endeavor to ensure your status is changed in time for the group's next meeting. How to Join The GNSO Council invites all interested parties to put forward their names so that they can be added to the Discussion Group mailing list. The Discussion Group will be open to anyone interested to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) and clearly indicate whether they would like to be subscribed as a member or observer to the mailing list. Background 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. In June 2011, the ICANN Board approved an Application Guidebook ("AGB") for new gTLDs and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program. 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 gTLDs" and that "ICANN's goal [was] to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as quickly as possible" and promised to base the timing of the subsequent rounds on "experiences gained and changes required after this round is completed" with a "goal...for the new application round to begin within one year of the close of the application submission period for the initial round." With the application submission period for the initial round closing in June 2012, the GNSO 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. This Discussion Group is being created to begin that evaluation process and possibly identify areas for future GNSO policy development. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Briefing Note on process for amending IGO/INGO policy recommendations
by Mary Wong July 9, 2014

July 9, 2014

Dear all, Attached please find a short Briefing Note outlining the process to be followed by the GNSO Council in invoking Section 16 of the PDP Manual, with respect to a possible modification of a GNSO policy recommendation. As we noted previously, we have checked with our colleagues in the legal department regarding questions such as voting thresholds, and we hope that the attached note is helpful for understanding how Section 16 will work. Please note also that we have not included the actual proposed draft modifications or related motion in the Note or this email - the attached Note therefore deals purely with the process issue. Thanks and cheers Mary -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC? > >I will await the staff briefing note, but my >understanding of the rules is that Council passes >particular changes on to the WG for their >consideration. The WG can agree or disagree with >them. If they agree, Council then needs to vote >on whether to approve or not. Having passed the >specific wording to the WG does not bind the >Council to approve the changes. However, like any >recommendation of a PDP WG, Council should have a >good reason to not follow the WG's recommendations. > >Regarding voting, I the threshold "should" be the >same as was required to pass the original WG >Recs, since these are yet more rec ofut of the >PDP WG. However, I current wording may make that subject to >interpretation. > >Alan > >At 09/07/2014 12:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>As another meeting approaches, I return to my discomfort with the motion. >> >>As I interpret the rules, we are to send changes that we wish to see >>made to the 'reconstituted' WG for reconsideration. I know that some >>have argued that we do not need to approve of them, we just send them >>on, but that is not the way I read the rules. Perhaps we need a legal >>opinion. >> >>I have no objection to passing issues on to a WG for study and >>reconsideration. My problem is sending them on with prior council >>approval and I think that is what the current rules demand. >> >>Also, what is the voting threshold for this motion. Is it a majority >>issue since it is not otherwise defined? >> >>thanks >> >>avri >> >>On 26-Jun-14 10:12, Avri Doria wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > The relevant Procedures: >> > >> >> 16. Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies Approved >> > >> >> GNSO >> >> Council policies may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council at >> >> any time prior to the final approval by the ICANN Board as follows: >> > >> >> 1. The PDP Team is reconvened or, if disbanded, reformed, and should >> >> be consulted with regards to the proposed amendments or >> >> modifications; >> > >> >> 2. The proposed amendments or modifications are posted >> >> for public comment for not less than thirty (30) days; >> > >> >> 3. The GNSO >> >> Council approves of such amendments or modifications with a >> >> Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour. Approved GNSO Council >> >> policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been >> >> implemented by ICANN Staff may only be amended by the initiation of a >> >> new PDP on the issue. >> > >> > I interpret this as meaning we have to approve the wording of the >> > amendments before sending them, as these will be the amendments the WG >> > needs to either accept of reject. I do not see the procedure as >> > allowing us to just send them topics to be discussed. >> > >> > I must admit I am finding them all a bit hard to accept. I also must >> > say I do not see any new >> > evidence or arguments. >> > >> > In terms of TMCH+50_Forever I do not see on what basis we could ever >> > make such a decision as this was not ever a subject for the PDP in the >> > first place. >> > >> > Lastly, what is the voting threshold for this motion? Majority? >>Super >> > Majority? >> > >> > >> > Finally, if this is going to become a regular occurrence, which would >> > not surprise me, we should give consideration to asking the SCI to >>look >> > at the subject after we have completed the project. >> > >> > Thanks >> > avri >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 23-Jun-14 16:58, Thomas Rickert wrote: >> >> All, 1. Following up to the discussion we had on this subject, please >> >> find attached: (1) a draft motion setting out the background (in the >> >> Whereas clauses) and proposed steps the Council will take in relation >> >> to possibly modifying the GNSO¹s consensus recommendations on RCRC >> >> and IGO acronym identifier protections in response to the NGPC letter >> >> of 16 June; (2) a document containing the actual proposed >> >> modification for the Council to discuss forwarding on to the >> >> reconvened WG and including some background information such as the >> >> actual original WG recommendation and GAC advice; and (3) a >> >> comparison table showing the original WG recommendations and the >> >> proposed modifications side by side. >> >> >> >> This is to inform your discussion with your respective groups in >> >> preparation for the public meeting on Wednesday. Of course, the >> >> motion will not be voted on till the first meeting following this >> >> London gathering, but we thought it might be useful for the Council >> >> to have all the necessary documentation at the first possible >> >> opportunity. >> >> >> >> Please note also that we have not run the final versions of the >> >> recommended proposal by our legal colleagues as in the interests of >> >> time we thought it important for you to be able to review these >> >> early! >> >> >> >> Kudos to policy staff, especially Mary, for turning this around at >> >> such short notice and prepare the paperwork. Thanks so much! >> >> >> >> 2. During the GAC/GNSO session (which I think was an excellent >> >> meeting), there was only little time to discuss this issue. Having >> >> spoken to a few people afterwards, including a GAC member, I was >> >> wondering whether the current status and the suggested actions are >> >> sufficiently clear. In particular, I am afraid that there is the >> >> misconception that a full PDP might be required for changes to the >> >> recommendations. I would therefore suggest we send a small briefing >> >> note to the GAC (we = Jonathan :-). Chances would be that the GAC >> >> could consider this for its communiqué. >> >> >> >> *** Dear Heather, following up to yesterday's GAC / GNSO session, we >> >> would like to briefly outline both the current status as well as the >> >> next steps with respect to the IGO/RCRC question. >> >> >> >> 1. The GNSO Council has been approached by the NGPC with a letter of >> >> June 16th, 2014 suggesting that indefinite claims service to provide >> >> notice to the organization in question is offered for the >> >> designations in question whenever such designation has been >> >> registered. Currently, the GNSO policy recommendations provide for a >> >> 90 days claims service. >> >> >> >> The GNSO Council will continue its discussion on this subject during >> >> the public meeting on Wednesday. Should the GNSO Council decide so, >> >> the course of action would be to reconvene the PDP WG to consider >> >> this very question and get back to the GNSO Council. We would like to >> >> stress that this consultation process would presumably take a short >> >> period of time. The GNSO's PDP Manual offers such process. This would >> >> not be a PDP. >> >> >> >> 2. The second suggestion is to modify certain aspects of the URS to >> >> enable its use by IGOs and the development of rules and procedures >> >> for an arbitration process to resolve claims of abuse of IGO names >> >> and acronyms. We note that this work is already under way with the >> >> PDP that has been initiated by the GNSO Council at its last meeting >> >> on June 5th, 2014. Thus, no action is required with respect to >> >> potential modifications of GNSO Council policy recommendations as the >> >> aspect of working on potential modifications of curative rights >> >> protection mechanisms was already included in the set of >> >> recommendations the GNSO Council unanimously adopted last year. While >> >> the work on the PDP is conducted, the temporary protections remain in >> >> place, as the NGPC confirmed. >> >> >> >> We welcome your and the IGO Coalition's collaboration on these >> >> matters. >> >> >> >> Yours sincerely, >> >> >> >> *** >> >> >> >> Any thoughts or suggestions? >> >> >> >> Best, Thomas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________ Thomas >> >> Rickert, Attorney at Law Director Names & Numbers >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen >> >> Internetwirtschaft e.V. >> >> >> >> Lichtstraße 43h 50825 Köln >> >> >> >> Fon: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0 Fax: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - >> >> 111 E-Mail: thomas.rickert(a)eco.de <mailto:thomas.rickert@eco.de> Web: >> >> http://www.eco.de >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Geschäftsführer: >> >> Harald A. Summa Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver >> >> Süme (stv. Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix >> >> Höger Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478 Sitz des Vereins: >> >> Köln >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >

1 0

IGO/RCRC - NGPC letter / briefing note to GAC?
by Thomas Rickert July 9, 2014

July 9, 2014

All, 1. Following up to the discussion we had on this subject, please find attached: (1) a draft motion setting out the background (in the Whereas clauses) and proposed steps the Council will take in relation to possibly modifying the GNSO’s consensus recommendations on RCRC and IGO acronym identifier protections in response to the NGPC letter of 16 June; (2) a document containing the actual proposed modification for the Council to discuss forwarding on to the reconvened WG and including some background information such as the actual original WG recommendation and GAC advice; and (3) a comparison table showing the original WG recommendations and the proposed modifications side by side. This is to inform your discussion with your respective groups in preparation for the public meeting on Wednesday. Of course, the motion will not be voted on till the first meeting following this London gathering, but we thought it might be useful for the Council to have all the necessary documentation at the first possible opportunity. Please note also that we have not run the final versions of the recommended proposal by our legal colleagues as in the interests of time we thought it important for you to be able to review these early! Kudos to policy staff, especially Mary, for turning this around at such short notice and prepare the paperwork. Thanks so much! 2. During the GAC/GNSO session (which I think was an excellent meeting), there was only little time to discuss this issue. Having spoken to a few people afterwards, including a GAC member, I was wondering whether the current status and the suggested actions are sufficiently clear. In particular, I am afraid that there is the misconception that a full PDP might be required for changes to the recommendations. I would therefore suggest we send a small briefing note to the GAC (we = Jonathan :-). Chances would be that the GAC could consider this for its communiqué. *** Dear Heather, following up to yesterday's GAC / GNSO session, we would like to briefly outline both the current status as well as the next steps with respect to the IGO/RCRC question. 1. The GNSO Council has been approached by the NGPC with a letter of June 16th, 2014 suggesting that indefinite claims service to provide notice to the organization in question is offered for the designations in question whenever such designation has been registered. Currently, the GNSO policy recommendations provide for a 90 days claims service. The GNSO Council will continue its discussion on this subject during the public meeting on Wednesday. Should the GNSO Council decide so, the course of action would be to reconvene the PDP WG to consider this very question and get back to the GNSO Council. We would like to stress that this consultation process would presumably take a short period of time. The GNSO's PDP Manual offers such process. This would not be a PDP. 2. The second suggestion is to modify certain aspects of the URS to enable its use by IGOs and the development of rules and procedures for an arbitration process to resolve claims of abuse of IGO names and acronyms. We note that this work is already under way with the PDP that has been initiated by the GNSO Council at its last meeting on June 5th, 2014. Thus, no action is required with respect to potential modifications of GNSO Council policy recommendations as the aspect of working on potential modifications of curative rights protection mechanisms was already included in the set of recommendations the GNSO Council unanimously adopted last year. While the work on the PDP is conducted, the temporary protections remain in place, as the NGPC confirmed. We welcome your and the IGO Coalition's collaboration on these matters. Yours sincerely, *** Any thoughts or suggestions? Best, Thomas ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law Director Names & Numbers ------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Lichtstraße 43h 50825 Köln Fon: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0 Fax: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 111 E-Mail: thomas.rickert(a)eco.de Web: http://www.eco.de --------------------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Geschäftsführer: Harald A. Summa Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver Süme (stv. Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix Höger Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478 Sitz des Vereins: Köln

5 7

Document and Motion deadline Monday, 14 July 2014 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting on 24 July 2014 at 11:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry July 9, 2014

July 9, 2014

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 14 July 2014 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 24 July 2014 at 11:00 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+24+July+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