July 2014 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: [Soac-infoalert] SO-AC-SG Leaders Call with CEO, Global Leaders - 17 July 2014
by Jonathan Robinson 24 Jul '14

24 Jul '14

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 24 Jul '14

24 Jul '14

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 24 Jul '14

24 Jul '14

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 23 Jul '14

23 Jul '14

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 23 Jul '14

23 Jul '14

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 22 Jul '14

22 Jul '14

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 22 Jul '14

22 Jul '14

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 21 Jul '14

21 Jul '14

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 18 Jul '14

18 Jul '14

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 16 Jul '14

16 Jul '14

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