July 2014 - council - lists.icann.org

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

Call for candidates: GNSO Liaison to the GAC
by Glen de Saint Géry July 8, 2014

July 8, 2014

Dear All, Please find attached the call for candidates for the GNSO Liaison to the GAC. The attached document outlines amongst others the process for applications - please note that the leadership of each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to submit the application of its candidate(s), by 31 July 2014 at the latest to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Board Response to Statement made during the ICANN 50 Public Forum by GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies
by Bruce Tonkin July 8, 2014

July 8, 2014

For info: From: Steve Crocker Subject: Response to Statement made during the ICANN 50 Public Forum by GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies Dear GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, On behalf of the ICANN Board I thank you for your statement at the ICANN public forum on 26 June with regards to ICANN accountability. It's copied below for reference. The Board heard your statement and we agree that trust in ICANN's accountability processes and mechanisms is of great importance to present and future success. We look forward to your active participation in the already planned accountability track along with the rest of the community. This will be, as you note in your statement, an important area of ICANN's work. And let me emphasize "your active participation." This cannot be done without you. As you know, ICANN's efforts to improve the accountability mechanisms are ongoing. The work that involves the community includes the work of the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…) , by the US Department of Commerce and ICANN, Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT2) process (https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/ATRT2+Report ) , with the most recent developments reflected in the Board approved ATRT2 recommendations during the ICANN 50 meeting (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-06-26-en ). Thank you again for your input and we look forward to your continued work in this area. Kind regards, Steve Crocker Chairman, ICANN Board

1 0

FW: Update from the GNSO Council
by Jonathan Robinson July 7, 2014

July 7, 2014

All, FYI. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 June 2014 19:45 To: Heather Dryden (Dryden.Heather(a)ic.gc.ca) Cc: Marika Konings (marika.konings(a)icann.org) olof.nordling(a)icann.org Subject: Update from the GNSO Council Heather Dryden Chair, ICANN GAC Dear Heather & ICANN GAC Colleagues, Following up on the session between the GAC and the GNSO, I would like to briefly outline both the current status as well as the next steps with respect to the IGO/INGO and RCRC issues. 1. As you are aware, the GNSO Council has received a letter from the NGPC (16 June, 2014) suggesting that an 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 our public meeting on Wednesday. A prospective course of action will be to reconvene the relevant PDP WG to consider this very question and to report back to the GNSO Council in due course. We would like to stress that this process is consistent with the GNSO bylaws and we do not believe it will be unduly lengthy. This will not be a new PDP. 2. The second suggestion is to modify certain aspects of the URS to enable its use by IGOs and to develop the rules and procedures for an arbitration process to resolve claims of the abuse of IGO names and acronyms. We note that this work is already under way with a PDP that was initiated by the GNSO Council at its last meeting on June 5th, 2014. Therefore, 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 this PDP is conducted, the temporary protections remain in place, as the NGPC confirmed. We welcome an open communication on these matters. Yours sincerely, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council

2 1

CoE report and the GNSO
by Avri Doria July 6, 2014

July 6, 2014

Hi, Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human Rights http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp A lot of this refers specifically to gTLDs and the process that has resulted from the GNSO's new gTLD recommendations, and to whatever extent the AGB and the adhoc variations in practice can be said to be based on GNSO recommendations. Is this something that the GNSO should take up a discussion on as part of the discussion on future gTLD application procedures? avri

1 0

REMINDER [council] Please participate - GNSO Meeting Survey
by Marika Konings July 2, 2014

July 2, 2014

Reminder please participate in the survey if you have not done so yet (and share the link with your respective groups). Thanks, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday 26 June 2014 12:58 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Please participate - GNSO Meeting Survey Dear All, As discussed during today's wrap up meeting, please participate in the GNSO meeting survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QMQJY7Z as it will help inform the preparations for the next meeting. Also, please feel free to share this link with your respective groups for participation. Thanks, Marika

1 0

NCSG nominee to the Coordination Group on Transition of NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions
by Maria Farrell July 2, 2014

July 2, 2014

Dear Jonathan and Councillors, The NCSG has selected Milton Mueller as our nominated representative to the Coordination Group on Transition of NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions. All the best, Maria

1 0