July 2014 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: [soac-chairs] Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance proposed Charter
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

FYI. Apologies for the delay in sending it on. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: 17 June 2014 14:15 To: soac-chairs(a)icann.org; Ergys Ramaj Cc: Renate DeWulf; 'Bart Boswinkel'; Rafik Dammak Subject: [soac-chairs] Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance proposed Charter Dear SO/AC Chairs, please be so kind to find the proposed draft charter of the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance attached to this message. The working group asks that this draft charter be considered by your Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees for the official creation of the CCWG. As a reminder, this is a follow-up to the work that was cast aside whilst input to the NetMundial meeting was needed at short notice. The draft Charter is the result of discussion held in Singapore regarding the future of the working group as well as a Team of individuals from several SOs and AC drawing on their combined experience in drafting charters. It is hoped that the issue of chartering this WG can be added to the agenda of all SOs and ACs that will meet in London and that the WG will receive your feedback by the end of the ICANN meeting, on 26 June 2014. Of particular importance you might with to look at the votes and the (lack of) normalisation on a per SO/AC basis. The charter drafting team could not reach consensus on whether normalisation of votes was needed or not. We leave it to your community to provide its feedback on preference. For any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rafik Dammak or myself, the current interim coordinators of the WG. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond CCWG on Internet Governance Coordinator

2 1

Call for Volunteers to the PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms
by Petter Rindforth July 30, 2014

July 30, 2014

Dear fellow Councilors, As GNSO Council liaison to the new PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms, I write to ask that you circulate the Call for Volunteers to the WG to your respective communities: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jul14-en.htm>. We are preparing to hold our first meeting on Monday 11 August, and would very much like to see representation from all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies and if possible the ccNSO, ALAC and other SO/ACs, especially those who participated in the original IGO-INGO PDP Working Group chaired by Thomas. I will also be reaching out to the GAC, to try to ensure balanced and diverse representation in this WG, including from IGO and INGO representatives if they are interested. Please do not hesitate to contact me or the policy staff supporting this WG (Mary Wong, Steve Chan and Berry Cobb) if you have any questions or require further information. FYI the WG currently has volunteers from the BC, IPC, RySG as well as several individuals participating in a personal capacity. The current list of WG volunteers is posted on the WG’s wiki space at <https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg>. Please note also that this is the first WG formed for which participants can choose to be a full member or an observer (i.e. tracking the mailing list but without participating in the meetings; this status can be changed on request). Best regards, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you

1 0

IDN Variant Project Update: first version of Maximal Starting Repertoire released
by Mary Wong July 29, 2014

July 29, 2014

Dear Councilors, On behalf of my colleagues who are supporting ICANN¹s IDN Variant Project, I¹m pleased to share with you recent news of the release of the first version of the Maximal Starting Repertoire (MSR-1), a critical step in the implementation phase of IDN variant TLDs: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-06-20-en As you know, in order to support IDN labels in the root zone, ICANN developed a Procedure for the creation of Label Generation Rulesets (LGR) for a number of specific scripts, to create and manage rules applicable to IDN labels in the root. The LGR for a particular script is to be created by an LGR Panel for that script; the Arabic panel has already been seated and a number of other script communities are working to create other panels. MSR-1 is the first Deliverable under the LGR Procedure, and constitutes the defined set of code points from which individual LGR Panels will construct their rules for each script. The next update to the GNSO Council and community on IDN variant implementation is being scheduled for the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. In the meantime, we will continue to provide you with further updates as they become available, so as to enable you and your groups to prepare for the LA meeting and further discussions with the IDN Variant Project staff. 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

Update on JIG Report on Universal Acceptance
by Mary Wong July 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

Dear all, During the ICANN meeting in London, a small group of GNSO Council and community members met with the ICANN Board¹s IDN Variant Working Group and ICANN operational staff working on ICANN¹s IDN Variant Program. Staff were asked for an update on progress with implementing the recommendations made by the Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG). Attached please find a progress report from the IDN Variant Program staff, highlighting in particular the recent publication by ICANN of a proposed initial Roadmap for Universal Acceptance. The reply comment period for the Roadmap is open till 8 August, and GNSO community members and groups are encouraged to put in your comments so that further concrete processes and proposals for achieving universal acceptance of all TLDs (including IDNs) can be put in place: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/tld-acceptance-initiative-2014-06-18-e n We will provide additional requested updates as we receive them, and the IDN Variant Program staff will also be providing its regular update to the GNSO at the LA meeting in October. 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

ICANN Board meeting agenda - 30 July 2014
by Bruce Tonkin July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2014-07-30-en Agenda | ICANN Special Board Meeting 30 Jul 2014 Consent Agenda 1. Approval of Minutes from 26 June 2014 Board Meeting 2. Approval of Audit Firm for FY14 Independent Audit 3. Proposed GAC-related Bylaws revisions (to address ATRT1 and ATRT2 recommendations) 4. 2015 October Meeting Venue in Europe 5. Istanbul Office Lease Main Agenda 1. Final Report of BWG-NomCom 2. Board Member Compensation 3. Internet Governance Update and Follow up from Discussion at ICANN 50 4. AOB

1 0

RE: Protection IGO/INGO Identifiers in All gTLDS
by Jonathan Robinson July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

All, FYI. Jonathan From: Cherine Chalaby [mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org] Sent: 24 July 2014 13:18 To: Jonathan Robinson Subject: Protection IGO/INGO Identifiers in All gTLDS Dear Jonathan, On behalf of the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), I write to follow up on our letter of 16 June 2014 regarding Protection of IGO/INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs and the advice from the GAC in its Buenos Aires Communiqué addressing the same topic. We understand that the GNSO has initiated a PDP on Curative Rights Protections for IGO/INGOs. This PDP is closely related to the issue of IGO/INGO Identifiers and will have an impact on how the NGPC ultimately addresses the GACs advice. We would be grateful for a briefing by the GNSO on the progress of this PDP, including current status and projected timeline for completion. Finally, to the extent that it would be helpful, the NGPC would be pleased to provide a briefing (oral or written) to provide greater clarity on the GACs advice and expectations with respect to protections of IGO-INGO Identifiers. If you have any specific questions, please send those as well as they could help focus the briefing. We appreciate the GNSOs hard work in developing policy recommendations and look forward to our continued discussions as we work together on this matter. In the meantime, we note that the temporary protections afforded to IGO acronyms remain in place while we continue our discussions. Best regards, Cherine Chalaby Chair, New gTLD Program Committee

2 1

MP3 recording & chat transcript GNSO Council 24 July 2014
by Glen de Saint Géry July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference held on Thursday, 24 July 2014 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20140724-en.mp3 as well as the Adobe chat transcript at : http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-24jul14-en.pdf all on page http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul Thank you. Happy listening and reading! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: COMPLETION OF GNSO WHOIS STUDIES
by Jonathan Robinson July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 July 2014 07:48 To: Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca Cc: olof.nordling(a)icann.org; Marika Konings (marika.konings(a)icann.org) 'Glen de Saint Géry'; Mary Wong (mary.wong(a)icann.org) Subject: COMPLETION OF GNSO WHOIS STUDIES Dear Heather, Please see the attached letter for the attention of yourself and your colleagues on the GAC relating to the completion of the studies on WHOIS in the GNSO. Many thanks for giving this your attention. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r

2 2

Russia's new "local storage" law adds to the mix
by john＠crediblecontext.com July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

All, On our call this morning, Thomas offered to catalog the ways in which practices, policies and contracts at ICANN may rub wrong the laws of nations. Though we decided to not conduct the exercise (saving Thomas a lot of time), now comes fresh evidence that the problem, however big it is now, is only going to get bigger. Here is a link to a story about the new local storage law in Russia:http://www.securityweek.com/russian-lawmakers-pass-new-bill-restrict… Cheers, Berard

1 0

FW: Accountability track
by Jonathan Robinson July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

All, As requested by Amr / discussed on today's call. Jonathan From: Theresa Swinehart [mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org] Sent: 22 July 2014 02:29 To: Byron Holland Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> (jrobinson(a)afilias.info) David Olive; Heidi Ullrich Subject: Re: Accountability track Hi Byron, all, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you via email. I appreciate all were on the SO/AC leadership call last week on the 17th of July where we provided an update of where things are on the accountability track (as well as the NTIA IANA Stewardship track), and that we're finalizing the input and next steps based on the community feedback and London discussions. I believe all have the transcripts? A small addition to that call, as noted then, we're wanted to ensure that the points raised in last week's Coordination Group meeting were factored in, which we're doing as well. I'm hopeful we have something to share per the call last week shortly, before finalizing anything. Thanks again for the patience in my getting back to the gropu. Theresa From: Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca> Date: Monday, July 14, 2014 11:33 AM To: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org> Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, "Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> (jrobinson(a)afilias.info)" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Subject: Accountability track Hello Theresa, Can you provide a status update on where the Accountability track process/discussions are currently at as well as what the timelines and milestones are anticipated to be going forward? Thank you, Byron Byron Holland, President & CEO Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) Twitter: @cira001 Trends, Commentary, Perspective. Stay tuned to cirablog.ca <http://www.cirablog.ca/> www.cira.ca <http://www.cira.ca/>

2 2

FW: [Soac-infoalert] SO-AC-SG Leaders Call with CEO, Global Leaders - 17 July 2014
by Jonathan Robinson July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

FYI. Jonathan From: soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Olive Sent: 22 July 2014 06:47 To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Cc: Duncan Burns; Global Leadership Subject: [Soac-infoalert] SO-AC-SG Leaders Call with CEO, Global Leaders - 17 July 2014 Dear SO-AC-SG Leaders: Attached please find the following: 1) SO-AC-SG Leader's Conference Call with CEO/Global Leaders Chat History; and 2) SO-AC-SG Leader's Conference Call with CEO/Global Leader Transcript; and Also, here is the link to the recording. http://audio.icann.org/so-ac-leaders-17jul14-en.mp3 Best regards, David David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters -Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.381.8727 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Email: david.olive(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0

Cross-Community Committee on Accountability (3CA)
by john＠crediblecontext.com July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

All, Here is a link to the reply comments of the BC on ICANN Accountability that makes reference to the need for a cross-community committee on accountability (3CA): http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BC-reply-comment-on-Enha… Cheers, Berard

1 0

IGO/RC motion
by Thomas Rickert July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

All, I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the latest developments. Kind regards, Thomas

10 25

RE: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
by Alan Greenberg July 23, 2014

July 23, 2014

John, if the BC question is why are we willing to CONSIDER re-opening the decision, the answer is because we were asked to by the Board. My personal answer (and this is not an ALAC statement) is that we are continually saying that the Board must be willing to reconsider decisions that they or staff (or a subcontractor) make to look at whether the conditions have changed or there is some other reason to rethink the issue. I think it is reasonable that we be subject to similar reconsideration. Whether we will or not remains to be seen. Alan At 23/07/2014 03:04 PM, john(a)crediblecontext.com wrote: >Alan, Thomas, et. al., > >In as much as the motion and its intended action >(to take another look at the protections given >ICO and INGOs in the new gTLD program) is as >much politics as policy, I don't think delaying >the discussion and vote enhances likelihood of >passage. There are voices in the BC who >question why we are willing to re-open a decision that was unanimously closed. > >Cheers, > >Berard > >--------- Original Message --------- >Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion >From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: 7/23/14 11:41 am >To: "Thomas Rickert" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, >"GNSO Council List" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > >Thanks for the heads up Thomas. > >That unfortunately adds another month to the >process. Is there really no way to get >clarification of what they meant outside of a >Council meeting? This does not speak well to our communications skills. > >Alan > >At 23/07/2014 01:24 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote: > >All, > >in my previous e-mail on this subject, I > >mentioned that Chris will join the upcoming GNSO > >Council call. We have now spotted that I invited > >him for the 25th and not the 24th (my bad - I > >took the June date from the GNSO master calendar > >instead of the July date) and Chris is in a > >plane at that time. I am happy to report that > >the NGPC willing to provide us with information. > >However, such information will not be with us before the call. > > > >In my view, we have two topics to discuss, which are > > > >- getting a better understanding and clarity on > >how to invoke a procedure that the Council has never invoked before and > >- the substance of the motion itself. > > > >Having discussed this with Jonathan, I would > >like to ask that we discuss the procedural issue > >during the call. We might also discuss the > >substance of the motion, but I would like to let > >you know that I will likely withdraw the motion > >during the meeting pending further clarification. > > > >Thanks, > >Thomas > > > >Am 19.07.2014 um 20:59 schrieb Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>: > > > > > > > > All, > > > in the light of the discussions on the list, > > I have asked Chris Disspain to join the > > upcoming Council call and he accepted the invitation. > > > > > > I am sure that this will help us understand > > better what the NGPC's thinking is so we can > > take this into account when discussing the > > motion. I suggest to get back to the amendments > > that were proposed once we have heard Chris. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Thomas > > > > > > ============= > > > thomas-rickert.tel > > > +49.228.74.898.0 > > > > > >> Am 17.07.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Volker > > Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net>: > > >> > > >> > > >> I support the suggestions James made. > > >> > > >> V. > > >> > > >> Am 16.07.2014 19:14, schrieb James M. Bladel: > > >>> Some other thoughts: > > >>> > > >>> First Â³ResolvedÂ² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I > > >>> thought the goal was to reconvene > volunteers that had previous served on > > >>> the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to > consider the amendments. Also, I > > >>> donÂ¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG > > >>> decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if > > they even need a permanent chair > > >>> for this short-term effort. > > >>> > > >>> Proposed (friendly?) amendment: > > >>> Â³The GNSO Council hereby calls for > volunteers that have previously served > > >>> in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a > > [Review Team], and establishes the > > >>> previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair." > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Second Â³ResolvedÂ² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it > > >>> should flow through the subsequent clauses. > > >>> Proposed (friendly?) amendment: > > >>> Â³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to consider.Â² > > >>> > > >>> Third Â³ResolvedÂ² Clause: 45 days is a > > tight deadline, should we allow the > > >>> new group to report back if it needs more time? > > >>> Proposed (friendly?) amendment: > > >>> Â³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review > > Team] provide the Council with > > >>> its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification > > >>> within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to > > >>> the Council prior to the end of this period > > with an updated time frame for > > >>> completion of its work.Â² > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Thanks > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> J. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> All, > > >>>> I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London > > >>>> meeting. I am sure we will continue the > conversation in the light of the > > >>>> latest developments. > > >>>> > > >>>> Kind regards, > > >>>> Thomas > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur VerfÃ¼gung. > > >> > > >> Mit freundlichen GrÃ¼Ãen, > > >> > > >> Volker A. Greimann > > >> - Rechtsabteilung - > > >> > > >> Key-Systems GmbH > > >> Im Oberen Werk 1 > > >> 66386 St. Ingbert > > >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > > >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > > >> Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net > > >> > > >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net > > >> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com > > >> > > >> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: > > >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems > > >> www.twitter.com/key_systems > > >> > > >> GeschÃ¤ftsfÃ¼hrer: Alexander Siffrin > > >> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > > >> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 > > >> > > >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > > >> www.keydrive.lu > > >> > > >> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich > > und nur fÃ¼r den angegebenen EmpfÃ¤nger bestimmt. > > Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, VerÃ¶ffentlichung > > oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den EmpfÃ¤nger > > ist unzulÃ¤ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht > > fÃ¼r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich > > mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. > > >> > > >> -------------------------------------------- > > >> > > >> Should you have any further questions, > > please do not hesitate to contact us. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Volker A. Greimann > > >> - legal department - > > >> > > >> Key-Systems GmbH > > >> Im Oberen Werk 1 > > >> 66386 St. Ingbert > > >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > > >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > > >> Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net > > >> > > >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net > > >> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com > > >> > > >> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan > > community on Facebook and stay updated: > > >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems > > >> www.twitter.com/key_systems > > >> > > >> CEO: Alexander Siffrin > > >> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > > >> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 > > >> > > >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > > >> www.keydrive.lu > > >> > > >> This e-mail and its attachments is intended > > only for the person to whom it is addressed. > > Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any > > content of this email. You must not use, > > disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. > > If an addressing or transmission error has > > misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the > > author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Strickling affirms ICANN accountability comes before IANA transition
by john＠crediblecontext.com July 23, 2014

July 23, 2014

All, As we begin to prep for tomorrow;s Council meeting, even though accountability is not specifically on the agenda, remarks made Secretary Strickling makes it clear we can have no discussion of IANA transition without first handling accountability. For your reading pleasure, Cheers, Berard Top-Line: Also this spring, in response to community discussions at its Singapore meeting, ICANN announced a separate process to address ways to improve its overall accountability. Specifically, this process will examine how ICANN can strengthen its accountability mechanisms to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship with NTIA. This important accountability issue will and should be addressed before any transition takes place. Full text: Keynote Address by Assistant Secretary Strickling at the American Enterprise Institute http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/keynote-address-assistant-secr… Keynote Address by Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information “Who governs the Internet? A conversation on securing the multistakeholder process” American Enterprise Institute Washington, D.C. July 22, 2014 --As Prepared for Delivery-- I want to thank the American Enterprise Institute, and in particular, Jeff Eisenach and Shane Tews, for inviting me to address this group today on the important issue of Internet governance. In particular, I want to focus on what has been happening in response to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) announcement [3] in March that we intend to transition our stewardship role with respect to the Internet domain name system (DNS). At the outset, I want to put your minds at ease. Contrary to some initial concerns that we were giving away the Internet, the response from the global Internet community has been overwhelmingly supportive. The community has organized a multistakeholder process to determine what will happen once the United States government steps out of its current limited role. The discussions to date demonstrate that the community is taking this transition very seriously and is determined to develop a transition plan that will ensure that the Internet DNS continues to support a growing and innovative Internet. However, before I get into the details, let me start by setting the stage. What is NTIA's role today with respect to the domain name system? And what is changing? This transition is the last step in a process that started 16 years ago when the U.S. government committed to allowing the private sector to take leadership for domain name system management. In 1998, the Department of Commerce designated [4] the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to perform what are known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority or IANA functions. These include assigning Internet protocol, or “IP,” numbers to regional registries who then assign them to Internet service providers. Another function is the maintenance and updating of the root zone file for top-level domain names-the so-called address book for the Internet that is necessary for the routing of Internet communications. In March, we asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by my agency in the coordination of the domain name system. Our role is largely procedural in that NTIA verifies that ICANN followed its policies and procedures in processing domain name change requests. Then we pass that request on to Verisign, which implements those changes in the root zone file. We have no operational role and we do not initiate any changes to the root zone file, to the assignment of IP numbers, or the allocation of Internet numbering resources. In making our announcement, we communicated a number of conditions that must apply to the transition. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet. This announcement does not change anything about how the domain name system operates today. Before any transition takes place, the businesses, civil society and technical experts of the global Internet community must present a consensus plan that ensures the uninterrupted and stable functioning of the Internet and its present openness. We have not set a deadline for this action. While the current contract [5] with ICANN expires in September 2015, we have repeatedly noted that we can extend the contract for up to four years if the Internet community needs more time to develop a proposal that meets the criteria we have outlined. In the meantime, our current role will not change. Since our announcement, ICANN - working with other Internet organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the Internet Society, and the Regional Internet Registries - has laid out a process for developing the plan based on consultations with stakeholders, which began in Singapore in March. Acting as a facilitator, ICANN earlier this month announced the formation of a coordination group of around 30 individuals representing 13 different Internet communities that will help develop a transition proposal. The group held its first meeting last week in London. The group appears to be off to a good start. It has developed a proposed charter for comment that affirms that it “will conduct itself transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that its proposals support the security and stability of the IANA functions.” I am confident that by working out these important issues, this process will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will result in ICANN becoming even more directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community. Also this spring, in response to community discussions at its Singapore meeting, ICANN announced a separate process to address ways to improve its overall accountability. Specifically, this process will examine how ICANN can strengthen its accountability mechanisms to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship with NTIA. This important accountability issue will and should be addressed before any transition takes place. We will monitor the progress of both of these work efforts closely and carefully. We remain steadfast in our commitment to preserve and protect the vibrant, free-flowing Internet. We will ensure that the plan submitted to us from the community satisfies our conditions and has been stress-tested to ensure that it can deal with whatever contingencies arise in the future. As anyone paying attention to Internet governance issues knows, our announcement created a lot of discussion and a little bit of controversy. But overall, the international community has applauded the move as it demonstrates in a concrete way the commitment of the United States to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. But here in the United States, some have argued, if it is not broke, do not fix it. However, let me explain why this is the right move at the right time. First, as ICANN has performed the IANA functions over the years, it has matured as an organization and has taken important steps to improve its accountability and transparency as well as its technical competence. Second, as witnessed so strongly in the past several months, international support has continued to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. And as a result, many of the Internet's key stakeholders, including Internet firms like Google; communications providers like AT&T and Cisco; and civil society groups such as Human Rights Watch and Public Knowledge support this transition as the right course, at the right time. Now I understand that these issues are complex and that any change, even one as planned and as evolutionary as this one, raises questions that need to be answered. We welcome a full and open debate on the transition but at the same time, we should base that discussion on facts, not on myths or ideologies. For example, there is a persistent notion that the United States currently controls the Internet. That is simply not true. The Internet has been, and will continue to be, a decentralized network of networks that relies on cooperation and coordination of many stakeholders for its efficient function. It works today, and it will work after the transition, because the stakeholders are committed to making it work, not because of the IANA functions contract between the United States and ICANN. Some critics have argued that NTIA is proposing to give away United States “property” as if we were proposing that the United States give Alaska back to Russia. We do not own the domain name system and we cannot give away what we do not own. Instead, our contract with ICANN simply designates it to perform the IANA functions. Neither ICANN nor the United States pays anything to each other under this contract. Now that ICANN has demonstrated its ability to perform these functions with the support of the community, there is no longer a need for the United States to designate ICANN to perform these functions and we are not obligated to maintain a contract when it is no longer needed. Another misconception about this transition is that our announcement has emboldened authoritarian governments like Russia to attempt to exert greater influence over Internet policy. To the contrary, our announcement arguably has had the effect of reducing Russia's influence in the rest of the world for greater government control over the Internet. It is a historical fact that Russia has long argued for more governmental control of the Internet. This is nothing new. It is simply not the case that Russia started to argue for greater governmental control only after our announcement. It has consistently done so for years. What is new is that other countries are rejecting Russia's arguments and demonstrating support for the multistakeholder model. This was on full display in April when businesses, public interest groups, technical experts and governments met in Brazil for the NetMundial conference on Internet governance. The conference gave all stakeholders the opportunity to participate in a discussion about the future of Internet governance. Those parties came together in two days and agreed that Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes that ensure “meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users.” Now as reported in the press, Russia spoke out against the NetMundial consensus. What was not as fully reported was the fact that only one other government, Cuba, joined it in open opposition to the outcomes statement endorsed by the NetMundial participants. We firmly believe that our announcement will help prevent any government or group of governments to take over the domain name system. Our continued stewardship of the IANA functions has been a source of friction and used as an excuse by Russia and others to push for organizations like the International Telecommunication Union to take over the IANA functions. Our announcement takes that argument off the table, and affirms the role of the global Internet community, which is committed to a truly inclusive multistakeholder process for Internet governance. Leading human rights groups agree. In a letter to Congress earlier this year, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch and others said that the transition “could help thwart government overreach in Internet governance, which would have devastating implications for human rights worldwide.” Another misconception about our announcement is that some countries have used it as an excuse to clamp down on Internet access in their own countries. Nothing about our role with the IANA functions can prevent countries from censoring and restricting access to the Internet within their own borders. Efforts by Russia and others to limit access within their own country to information online and offline began long before our announcement. As the Freedom House noted in its 2013 Internet Freedom report, “Blocking access to information on entire websites, IP addresses, and particular webpages has become the most common means in Russia to restrict user activity on the Internet.” While countries like Russia might want to export this approach worldwide, the Internet's decentralized and cooperative nature would never allow it to happen. Harvard Law Professor Jonathan Zittrain, an expert in the intersection of policy and technology, summed it up best in the New Republic earlier this year. He wrote, “Any attempt to impose broad-based censorship through domain name assignments would be met with stiff resistance by the operators of domain name registries, and ultimately by the Internet Service Providers who choose to consult those registries for information about what destination each name represents.” Such a move would be strongly resisted by the United States government as well. Because while we seek to transition out of our limited, largely clerical, role with the IANA functions, we are not walking away from ICANN or exiting from the debate over Internet governance. We will continue to be vocal and active players in all Internet governance forums including ICANN. Like other governments, the United States is active in ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). We have been and will continue to be vigorous advocates within the GAC for policies that promote the openness and freedom of the Internet. As one group of stakeholders in the ICANN process, governments have unique power to speak to the public interest when they speak as one based on consensus positions. I want to emphasize this point. The Internet does not respect national boundaries. No one country, no two countries, no ten countries can claim to speak on behalf of the public interest. This fact is reflected in the ICANN bylaws in which governments can provide advice on public policy matters to the board. However, such advice only has true power when it is presented as the consensus advice of governments; in other words, when it reflects a global view and not just the parochial view of a handful of governments. In that context, the idea that governments could enhance their influence within ICANN by changing its rules to allow for a majority vote on policy issues reflects a misunderstanding of the policymaking process at ICANN as well as a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word consensus. The United States would strongly oppose any such move and indeed, any effort by governments to eliminate the requirement of consensus will simply weaken the role of governments within ICANN. Ultimately, ICANN's multistakeholder process makes it impossible for any one group to dominate the discussions or impose its will. That is the beauty of the multistakeholder process and why it has enabled the Internet to grow and flourish. Domestically, there has been strong support for the multistakeholder approach. Both chambers of Congress voted unanimously in 2012 to “preserve and advance the multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived.” Now I understand that some lawmakers have concerns about the IANA transition and its potential impact on Internet freedom and openness. I respect those opinions but strongly believe Congressional efforts aimed at delaying this transition would send the wrong message to the rest of the world about our commitment to the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance. The unified message has traditionally been a bulwark against regulatory efforts by foreign authoritarian regimes. It is important that we continue echoing that message and do everything we can to support the multistakeholder approach as the best model for promoting a free and open Internet across the globe. The multistakeholder model allows anyone the opportunity to participate and be heard. That includes all of you in this room today. So I urge all of you to show your support for the transition process by participating in it. We have made it crystal clear that the plan should be developed in an open and transparent manner. Now, there will be coordination out of necessity, and I referred earlier to the coordination group that will do just that. But anyone can provide input into the process. I encourage you to do so. Second, I urge you to continue to demonstrate your support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. As with any consensus-based organization, one will not always be able to get everything one wants. But that is a hallmark of the process. It is not a sign of failure of the process. And finally, continue to work with all of the stakeholders at ICANN to improve the accountability and transparency of the organization. I have made that commitment by personally participating in the two prior Accountability and Transparency Review teams, and I encourage all of you to contribute to the accountability review as it gets organized this summer. Thank you for listening.

1 0

Updated proposed Council agenda for Thursday, 24 July 2014 at 11:00UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry July 22, 2014

July 22, 2014

Dear All, Please find the updated proposed Council agenda for Thursday, 24 July 2014 at 11:00UTC. The agenda has been updated with the addition of an item under Any Other Business, namely: 10.1 Council development meeting Friday, 17 October 2014 in Los Angeles Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen 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 motions<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+24+July+2014> (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Vote (Threshold: simple majority) Item 5: Update<http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/presentation-gnso-co…> - 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<http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/presentation-gnso-co…> (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) 10.1 Council development meeting Friday, 17 October 2014 in Los Angeles Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 10:00 Iowa City, USA (CST<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+1DST 12:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 13:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 16:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-2+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 15:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 18:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 19:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 19:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 next day Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2014, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/lwky9he 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

Reminder: Call for candidates: GNSO Liaison to the GAC
by Glen de Saint Géry July 22, 2014

July 22, 2014

Dear All, Just a reminder 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 -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: mercredi 9 juillet 2014 00:01 To: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: [council] Call for candidates: GNSO Liaison to the GAC 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

2 1

GNSO Project List for your review
by Glen de Saint Géry July 21, 2014

July 21, 2014

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the updated Project list, both redlined and clean versions, for your review in preparation for the GNSO Council meeting on 24 July 2014. Please let us know if there are any changes you would like us to make. 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

1 0

The GNSO CG reps
by Avri Doria July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

Hi, In reading through the list of names we have representing us, I think we have a really strong crew. > GNSO > > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (CSG) > Milton Mueller (NCSG) > James Bladel (Registrars SG) > Keith Drazek (Registries) > Jon Nevett (Registries) > And while I plan to harass them all the way through the process, I think we have a group we can trust. Just saying, avri

5 7

Two character domain names in the new gTLD namespace
by Marika Konings July 16, 2014

July 16, 2014

Dear All, Following up on our conversation during the wrap up session on the public comment forum that has been opened on the introduction of two character domain names in the new gTLD namespace (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/two-char-new-gtld-2014-06-12-en) the recommendation of the GNSO Reserved Name Working Group in relation to this topic (see (http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2007/reserved-names) was as follows: * We recommend that registries may propose release of two letter and/or number strings at the second level, provided that measures to avoid confusion with any corresponding country codes are implemented. A standardized approach should be used which ensures consultation with appropriate parties, including the ccNSO and ISO-3166 Maintenance Agency, and where security and stability issues are identified, RSTEP. ** (** = The existing gTLD registry agreements provide for a method of potential release of two-character ASCII names at the second level. In addition, two letter and/or number ASCII strings at the second level may be released through the process for new registry services, which process involves analysis of any technical or security concerns and provides opportunity for public input. Technical issues related to the release of two-letter and/or number strings have been addressed by the RSTEP Report on GNR.s proposed registry service. The GAC has previously noted the WIPO II Report statement that .If ISO 3166 alpha-2 country code elements are to be registered as domain names in the gTLDs, it is recommended that this be done in a manner that minimises the potential for confusion with the ccTLDs.) This recommendation was then rolled into recommendation 5 of the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of new Generic Top Level Domains (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-new-gtlds -11sep07.pdf): 'Strings must not be a Reserved Word'. This was implemented in the Applicant Guidebook as part of specification 5 (schedule of reserved names at the second level in gTLD registries) as follows: "Two-character labels. All two-character labels shall be initially reserved. The reservation of a two character label string may be released to the extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with the government and country-code manager. The Registry Operator may also propose release of these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding country codes". And translated into the new gTLD Registry Agreement as: Specification 5 (Schedule of Reserved Names), Section 2: "All two-character ASCII labels shall be withheld from registration or allocated to Registry Operator at the second level within the TLD. Such labels may not be activated in the DNS, and may not be released for registration to any person or entity other than Registry Operator, provided that such two-character label strings may be released to the extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with the related government and country-code manager of the string as specified in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 standard. The Registry Operator may also propose the release of these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding country codes, subject to approval by ICANN". Please note that the public comment forum closes on 10 July with the reply period closing on 1 August. The GNSO Council may want to consider during its next meeting whether or not to provide input on this topic. Best regards, Marika

3 2

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 9, 2014

July 9, 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 7, 2014

July 7, 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