August 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

questions re IGO/INGO motion
by Thomas Rickert Sept. 4, 2014

Sept. 4, 2014

All, we had discussed during the last Council call that it would be helpful to provide the NGPC / Chris Disspain with questions Councillors might have. Would you be as kind as to send your questions to the list in preparation of the upcoming call? Thanks and kind regards, Thomas ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH www.anwaelte.de Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry www.eco.de

4 3

Motion - Appointment of GNSO liaison to the GAC
by Jonathan Robinson Sept. 3, 2014

Sept. 3, 2014

All, Please see attached for a motion for consideration at the forthcoming Council meeting on 4th September 2014. The motion relates to the Appointment of a GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee The motion will need to be seconded. Thank-you, Jonathan

5 8

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda for 4 September 2014 at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 3, 2014

Sept. 3, 2014

Dear Councillors, Please find the Proposed GNSO Council Agenda for 4 September 2014 at 15:00 UTC. 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 15:00 UTC: http://tinyurl.com/k5lubtm Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 16:00 London; 17:00 Brussels; 23:00 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<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16567.html>,and 24 July 2014<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16568.html> will be posted as approved on 3 September 2014 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 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 (5 mins) 3.1 - Uniformity of Reporting and the ICANN Contractual Compliance three-year plan. A MOTION<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+04+Septembe…> to : 1. Thank ICANN Contractual Compliance for its presentation of their three-year plan and continued collaboration with the GNSO in future policy development efforts AND 2. Consider the issues identified in the Uniformity of Reporting Final Issue Report to have been addressed and to consider the issue closed. 3.2 - The Council confirms the Co-Chairs for the Working Group on Curative Rights Protections for IGO/INGOs (IGO-INGO-CRP), namely Philip Corwin and Petter Rindforth. Item 4: MOTION �C 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>. On 24 July 2014, the Chair of the NGPC followed up with a note to the Chair of the GNSO Council and offered to provide a written or oral briefing to provide greater clarity on the GAC��s advice and expectations with respect to protections of IGO-INGO Identifiers. Such briefing will now be provided as part of this meeting. 4.1 �C Receive the briefing (Chris Disspain) 4.2 �C Present the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+04+Septembe…> (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) 4.3 �C Discussion 4.4 �C Vote (Threshold: simple majority) Item 5: MOTION �C To appoint a GNSO liaison to the GAC (10 mins) The call for applications<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16435.html> for the GNSO Liaison to GAC was circulated and a deadline for applications was set for the 31 July 2014. The three evaluators (GNSO Council Chair and Vice Chairs) carefully and thoroughly evaluated each application against the specified criteria. Following this process, the application submitted by Mason Cole was selected to be put forward to the GNSO Council for the position of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Here the council will consider motion 5<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+04+Septembe…> to appoint Mason Cole as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC with immediate effect such that he can be well informed and up to speed in order to participate effectively as soon as possible and, in particular, at ICANN 51. Unless terminated earlier according to the processes agreed or extended by a new motion of the Council, the term of the Liaison will run for the course of the current financial year, FY 2015 (ending 30 June 2015). 5.1 �C Motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+04+Septembe…> (David Cake) 5.2 �C Discussion 5.3 �C Vote (simple majority) Item 6: MOTION �C Adoption of the charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-stewardship-naming-function-charter-14…> for a cross community working group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (15 mins) Following the distribution of an invitation to participate<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en>, a drafting team (DT) was formed with participants from the ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. A drafting team was formed and has worked efficiently to produce a charter. The charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-stewardship-naming-function-charter-14…> is now being sent out to the supporting organisations for support. Here the Council will take the opportunity to review, discuss and vote on the adoption of the Charter. 6.1 �C Motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+04+Septembe…> (Avri Doria) 6.2 �C Discussion 6.3 �C Vote (simple majority) 6.4 �C Next steps Item 7: DISCUSSION �C The report of the ICANN Board Working Group on the Nominating Committee (10 mins) The Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG�\NomCom) is charged with performing the review called for in Recommendation 10 of the Nominating Committee Review Finalization Working Group, addressing issues of the size and composition of the Nominating Committee, as well as the related issues of NomCom��s recruitment and selection functions. The Board Working Group on Nominating Committee has recently published its report<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en>. Here the Council will take the opportunity to discuss the report and consider what if any action to take. 7.1 �C Discussion 7.2 �C Next steps Item 8: DISCUSSION �C The draft charter from for a cross community working group on internet governance (10 mins) A drafting team was formed and has worked to produce a charter. The charter<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16549.html> has been previously sent out to organisations for discussion and comment, including the GNSO Council. Here the Council will take the opportunity to discuss the charter and consider the appropriate next steps. 8.1 �C Discussion 8.2 �C Next steps Item 9: UPDATE �C 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. 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. 9.1 �C Update (Jennifer Wolfe) 9.2 �C Discussion 9.3 �C Next steps Item 10: Procedure to elect the GNSO Council Chair (10 mins) We have previously used an election procedure. Here we will review a current version<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-council-chair-election-26aug14-en.pdf> of the same procedure with a view to approving it for use in the run up to and during the course of the 2014 ICANN Annual Meeting in Los Angeles. 10.1 Presentation of procedure<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-council-chair-election-26aug14-en.pdf> (Jonathan Robinson) 10.2 Discussion 10.3 Call to approve the procedure Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION �C 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. 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. 11.1 �C Update (David Cake & Jonathan Robinson) 11.2 �C Discussion 11.3 �C Next steps Item 12: 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 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 08:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-5+1DST 10:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 11:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 12:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-2+1DST 12:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 16:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+3+0DST 18:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/k5lubtm Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G��ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

6 6

Letter to Fadi Chehadé and Stephen Crocker August 26th, 2014
by Amr Elsadr Aug. 31, 2014

Aug. 31, 2014

Hi, I’ve been wondering about this letter for a couple of days now (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cooper-et-al-to-chehad…) and am asking Jonathan and everyone else what the procedure is for the GNSO (or GNSO Council) to sign off on it. I would imagine that a motion and a vote would be necessary, and I imagine that it would have been received positively by the majority of Councillors, but I don’t recall a discussion taking place. I’m thinking there was either a discussion I’ve completely overlooked, or a procedural issue I’m not aware of. To be honest, I wasn’t very much in favour of having the NCSG sign off on this letter when it was discussed at the stakeholder group level (and I don’t believe the NCSG did actually sign off on it despite being listed as a signatory). That is not to say that I am particularly happy with the way the Accountability Process is moving forward, but would have preferred if there was a more concrete reason to request a delay in the process than to simply formulate questions. Speaking for myself, I think the reconsideration request filed (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/request-bc-rysg-ncsg-29aug14-en…) served this purpose more eloquently. I only mention my personal preference in the substantive merits of the letter to clarify my personal thoughts, but my question is a process question irrespective of the actual contents of the letter. I would appreciate any and all thoughts on this. Thanks. Amr

3 3

FW: GNSO update - New gTLD subsequent rounds
by Marika Konings Aug. 30, 2014

Aug. 30, 2014

Dear All, Please find below a message from Karen Lentz in relation to the status update requested by the GNSO Council. Note that a complete report is expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council by mid-September. Following the submission of the complete report, we expect that Karen will join one of the upcoming GNSO Council meetings to answer any questions you may have. Of course, if you have any questions / comments in the meantime, please share these with the list and we'll relay these to Karen and her team. Best regards, Marika From: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 29 August 2014 23:46 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Subject: GNSO update - New gTLD subsequent rounds Dear Marika, I wanted to provide an update on the request for a status report from staff as part of the GNSO Council¹s motion on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds during the ICANN 50 meeting in London (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406) This included status reporting on: (a) the New gTLD program generally; (b) ICANN's anticipated timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments; (c) ICANN's work to date on any evaluation of the first round; (d) the work to date on the post-launch independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse; and (e) ICANN's current projection for a timetable for subsequent rounds. This relates to a number of activities that are under way and we expect to be able to deliver the complete report in mid-September. Here are some notes and updates on each of the points below: (a) The New gTLD Program generally As of last week, 373 TLDs have been delegated, 491 applicants have entered registry agreements, and 1321 applications are currently in process through the program. Updated statistics are published on a weekly basis at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics, with the detail according to volume of applications within the various stages. If there are any specific points that the GNSO would like covered in the portion of the report on the status of the program, please let me know. (b) ICANN¹s anticipated timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments Preparations for this review have been under way for some time, beginning with the Board¹s request for advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing definitions, measures, and targets for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the DNS (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-12-10-en#6 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-12-10-en%23 6> ). This resulted in recommendations from both the GNSO and ALAC, whereupon the Board formed the Implementation Advisory Group on Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice (IAG-CCT) in September 2013 to review those recommended metrics and make recommendations to the review team based on an evaluation of the feasibility, utility and cost-effectiveness of each of the proposed 70 metrics. The IAG-CCT has paid particular attention to baselines, to ensure that data is collected that will be important for benchmarking the impact of the New gTLD Program in these areas. The IAG-CCT provided an interim recommendation for a consumer survey and an economic study to help capture baseline data; this recommendation was approved by the Board in March 2014 (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-03-27-en#2. c <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-03-27-en%23 2.c> ). The Final Report of the IAG-CCT is expected to be provided to the Board in October, for consideration during the ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles. ICANN is conducting an open RFP process to engage providers for the consumer survey (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rfps-2012-02-25-en) and the RFP is in development for the economic study and expected to be published within the next two weeks. For the additional set of metrics recommended where baselines are necessary, and that relate to in-house data, staff is already in the process of compiling the data as well as planning for tools for update and presentation of that data. In addition to the areas of competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice, the review in 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments includes review of the effectiveness of the application and evaluation process, and of safeguards put in place in the program to mitigate issues. These relate to areas discussed below in (c) and (d). (c) ICANN¹s work to date on any evaluation of the first round Staff¹s work in reviewing the program to date has focused on operations, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. We¹ve also identified a preliminary set of review areas that would benefit from in-depth discussions about these elements of the program¹s implementation. As reviewing the program¹s operations covers a large number of detailed considerations across a broad range of topics, we are still determining how to best organize the subject areas and review questions so that they can be logically considered and presented to the community for input. To date, staff has held debriefing sessions with all of the panels who performed the Initial and Extended Evaluation processes so that these provider insights and identification of areas for additional consideration can also be taken into account. (d) The work to date on the post-launch independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse This comes from GAC advice, where an independent review was proposed to take place ³one year after the launch of the 75th new gTLD in the round.² (This would be February 2015, which is the current target for this review.) A few other activities are in process relating to rights protection that are also relevant. First is a standing GNSO request for an Issue Report reviewing all rights protection mechanisms (current and developed for the New gTLD Program) including the UDRP and URS, to be delivered 18 months after the first delegation of new gTLDs (which occurred in October 2013). We are on target to have significant analysis done by this time (April 2015) to inform the creation of this Issue Report. Second, as noted above, effectiveness of the safeguards put in place for the New gTLD Program is a topic for consideration under the 9.3 Affirmation of Commitments review, and the analysis in progress is expected to be another input to that effort. In light of the above, staff is well under way in compiling data on the usage of the new rights protection mechanisms in the program (e.g., provider statistics, review of frequent customer service questions, issues raised in user feedback) and expects that this analysis will serve as groundwork for a number of purposes, including the above independent review. A discussion session on this topic is slated for the ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles. (e) ICANN¹s current projection for a timetable for subsequent rounds These projections are still in process. As many of these activities are interrelated, sequencing and scheduling the activities in a logical and efficient way can take several paths. Additional activities, such as a root stability review, have not been discussed in the topics above but also have an impact. We do expect to publish a projected overall timetable, as well as timelines for the individual tracks mentioned here, and will make sure that this is included in the report to be delivered. Also, we note that the Discussion Group formed by the GNSO motion referenced above has been convened and intends to work on issue identification and categorization as a preface to any policy development work that may be pursued by the GNSO, and will follow those developments closely. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to pass this on to the Council and if there is any additional clarification or input needed to support the GNSO work, please don¹t hesitate to reach out. Best regards, Karen Karen Lentz Director, Operations & Policy Research ICANN +1 310 301 5836 office +1 310 895 3637 mobile karen.lentz(a)icann.org

1 0

Reconsideration request
by avri Aug. 30, 2014

Aug. 30, 2014

Hi, I have been corrected. It seems unbeknownst to me, the ncsg chair did approve ncsg inclusion on this reconsideration. Something I argued against and did not know had been decided on, but I guess he felt it was justified. Apologies, my mistake. avri Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

1 0

Reconsideration request
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 30, 2014

Aug. 30, 2014

Hello All, I note that a reconsideration request has been lodged regarding the accountability plan: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-38-2014-08-29-en See attached for a copy. The request is on behalf of the: - The Business Constituency; - The Registries Stakeholder Group; and - The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Regardless of the formal consideration of this request, I remain open to hearing from any parts of the GNSO on how they would like to see the current accountability plan changed. I am happy to participate in a teleconference with any of the GNSO constituencies or stakeholder groups. The ICANN staff have scheduled a meeting for: Date: 2 September 2014 Location: ICEC in the Topkapi A Room, Istanbul, Turkey Time: 06:00-07:30 UTC I won't be at that meeting, but will be interested to follow what is said at that meeting by the community. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

FW: [Soac-infoalert] [Accountability] Call for Candidates -- Please share with your communities
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 28, 2014

Aug. 28, 2014

From: David Olive [mailto:david.olive@icann.org] Sent: 28 August 2014 15:42 To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Cc: Grace Abuhamad Subject: [Soac-infoalert] [Accountability] Call for Candidates -- Please share with your communities Link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-28-en Call for Candidates: Seeking Advisors to the ICANN Accountability & Governance Coordination Group In Short The Accountability & Governance Public Experts Group is asked to select up to seven advisors to the ICANN Accountability & Governance Coordination Group. As part of executing its mandate, the Public Experts Group is issuing a Call for Candidates to encourage nominations from the community. Nominations are to be submitted to <mailto:acct-advisors@icann.org> acct-advisors(a)icann.org by Wednesday, 10 September 2014 - 23:59 UTC. _____ Background Information On 14 March 2014 the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition -key-internet-domain-name-functions> announcedits intent to transition its stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the global multistakeholder community. NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as the IANA functions contractor and global coordinator for the Domain Name System (DNS), to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal for the transition. This process is currently under way as further described <https://www.icann.org/stewardship> here. During discussions around the transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change in the historical contractual relationship with the United States in light of the transition ofNTIA's stewardship role. The community identified the importance of improving ICANN Accountability & Governance as a crucial aspect and, after community consultations at the ICANN 49 and ICANN50 meetings and a comment period on a draft process from 6 May - 27 June 2014, ICANN published a <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-08-14-en> final Process and Next Steps on 14 August 2014. Subsequent to this announcement, on 19 August 2014, ICANN <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-19-en> announced the formation of the Public Experts Group. These four individuals - who are not part of ICANN's staff or Board - are asked to select up to seven advisors to the Coordination Group. The Public Experts are Mr. Brian Cute, Ms. Jeanette Hofmann, Amb. Janis Karklins, and Hon. Lawrence E. Strickling. Role of Advisors The role of the Advisors is defined as follows in the <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-08-14-en> Process: The advisors, selected by the Public Experts Group, will bring an external, independent voice to this process to assure that best practices are brought in from outside of the ICANN community. While there is a level of research and work that the advisors will do on their own, the integration of the advisors with the rest of the Coordination Group is key to considering how the research they perform can be best implemented to solve for the issues identified. The advisors can also help bring inputs in from their own networks as necessary. Utilized correctly, the advisor inputs will not only assist in developing enhanced accountability practices for ICANN, but provide a model that other multistakeholder organizations will strive to meet. The areas identified for expertise include: . Internet Technical Operations . International Organizational Reviews . Global Accountability Tools and Metrics . Jurisprudence / Accountability Mechanisms . Internet Consumer Protection (including privacy, human rights and property rights concerns) . Economics (Marketplace and Competition) . Global Ethics Frameworks . Operational, Finance and Process . Board Governance . Transparency . Risk Management . Governmental Engagement and Relations . Multistakeholder Governance Selection of Advisors As part of executing its mandate, the Public Experts Group is issuing a Call for Candidates to encourage nominations and self-nomination of suitable candidates. The Public Experts Group may reach out to their networks for additional suggestions. The Public Experts Group will conduct its activities with a "default open" and its process can be followed, through its <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/public-experts/> mailing list and its <https://community.icann.org/x/_wPxAg> Wiki. In evaluating candidates, the Public Expert Group will respect individual candidates' privacy and will deliberate in closed session where appropriate. How to Submit a Nomination The Public Experts Group is seeking nominations for individuals to serve as Advisors to the Coordination Group. Nominations should include the following: . A brief description of the candidate's background . Identified area(s) of expertise based on the list in the <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-08-14-en> Process. Nominations should be emailed to <mailto:acct-advisors@icann.org> acct-advisors(a)icann.org. Upon receipt of a nomination, ICANN staff will confirm with the candidate if he/she is indeed willing to be considered. Deadline Nominations will be accepted until Wednesday, 10 September - 23:59 UTC. The Public Experts Group will select Advisors to the Coordination Group in time for the first Coordination Group meeting, which will take place from during the ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles from 12-16 October 2014. Timeline Advisors are anticipated to serve on the Coordination Group from October 2014 until April 2015. During this time, Advisors can estimate 5-10h of work per week, with a heightened workload during the ICANN51 (12 - 16 October 2014) and ICANN 52 (8 - 12 February 2015) meetings where travel for in person meetings is expected. NB: The timeline described above is the Public Experts Group's assessment based on the <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-08-14-en> Process and is subject to change after the Coordination Group determines its working methods. Compensation Advisors will not receive remuneration for their time. However, travel, meal and lodging costs to participate in Coordination Group meetings will be reimbursed upon request in accordance withICANN's <https://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/travel-support> community travel support guidelines. Contact Please contact <mailto:acct-advisors@icann.org> acct-advisors(a)icann.org for any questions you may have.

1 0

Interaction between the ICANN Board's IDN Variant Working Group and the GNSO
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 28, 2014

Aug. 28, 2014

The letter has been posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence and can be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/mohan-to-robinson-28aug14-en.pdf 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/> From: Ram Mohan [ Sent: 28 August 2014 13:04 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: 'Ram Mohan'; 'Board Variant Working Group' Subject: RE: Interaction between the ICANN Board's IDN Variant Working Group and the GNSO Importance: High Dear Jonathan, The Board's IDN Variant Working Group (BV-WG) members thank the GNSO Council and its community for maintaining an active interest in the IDN program. We are pleased to learn that we were able clarify the status of the IDN Program during the discussion on topics of mutual interest with the GNSO Council and community members in London. The GNSO Council is correct in its assessment that the current work on the development of the Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone (P2.2) is technical in nature and policy advise is not required at this stage. If the Integration Panel or the Generation Panels communicate any such need in the future, the ICANN staff will issue the call for the advisor position as per the procedure<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lgr-procedure-20mar13-en.pdf> for developing the LGR for the Root Zone. ICANN staff will ensure that the GNSO Council is informed in this case. BV-WG continues to oversee and guide the progress of the IDN Variant TLD program. The Program is currently being advised by the BV-WG to focus on organizing the community efforts for developing the LGR for the Root Zone, which is the necessary pre-requisite for further implementation. The BV-WG encourages active involvement of the GNSO community in this current phase of the work by volunteering for the Generation Panels for the various scripts, especially for Latin and Cyrillic. The BV-WG welcomes the GNSO community's intention to self-organize to review the original New gTLD IDN WG recommendations, with a view toward assisting Program staff with preparation for P7 following maturation of the work on LGR. Based on our prior agreement, IDN Program staff will continue to provide regular updates to GNSO Council and GNSO members. The BV-WG also looks forward to the continued discussion on the status and the future of the IDN Variant TLD program. Regards, Ram Mohan Chair, Board Variant Working Group From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 4:39 AM To: Ram Mohan Subject: Interaction between the ICANN Board's IDN Variant Working Group and the GNSO Importance: High Dear Ram, I write to follow up on the meeting in London between the ICANN Board's IDN Variant Working Group and a number of GNSO Council and community members. I'd like to thank you and the other Board members for taking the time to meet with them to discuss the progress of ICANN's IDN Variant Program. We believe the discussion was helpful to all of us, and appreciate the updates that ICANN staff has been providing to the GNSO regarding ongoing work on the Program. I'd like to follow up on a specific observation that had been shared by a few GNSO community members in Singapore and London, regarding a perceived need for policy input into the Program by individuals with experience and expertise in ICANN policy development. Our discussions in Singapore and now in London have served to clarify that the current work being done in the Program (and specifically in P2.2) is largely technical in nature. In addition, I understand that ICANN's call last summer for advisors and experts to assist the Label Generation Rule-set (LGR) panels provided that the LGR panels might call on advisors (including ICANN staff) as the need arises. I note further that an advisor has already been appointed to the Integration Panel and that ICANN has announced that any additional advisors to be appointed will be at the request of the panels, in accordance with the LGR Procedure. As the Program progresses, and particularly in the near future as the panels conclude their work, some GNSO community members have noted that should the need for policy expertise arise at any point there are individuals within the GNSO who will be willing to volunteer to assist. In this regard the GNSO Council will be happy to serve as a contact point for any such requests. Separately, I note that a suggestion was made at the London meeting for interested GNSO community members to "self-organize" to review the original New gTLD IDN WG recommendations, with a view toward assisting Program staff with preparation for P7. It is my hope as GNSO Chair that these suggestions, along with ICANN staff continuing to provide their regular update to the GNSO on the Program, will allow the GNSO community to be of assistance to the important work of the Program and, in particular, if and when any policy questions are encountered. Thank you again for your time. I look forward to continuing our discussion and to facilitating any appropriate involvement of interested members of the GNSO community in the current and future work of the IDN Variant Program. Best regards, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair

1 0