January 2015 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#165]
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 9, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: vendredi 9 janvier 2015 23:23 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#165] Name of Officer: * Steve Metalitz Officer Email Address: * met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Date Prepared: * Friday, January 9, 2015 GNSO Organization: * Intellectual Property Constituency Officer Position or Title: * Acting President Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Heather Forrest is unable to attend the next GNSO Council meeting and would like to give her proxy to Brian Winterfeldt for all matters before the Council at its next meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * All. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, January 16, 2015 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Brian Winterfeldt

1 0

FW: High Level Statements (CCWG-Accountability).
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 9, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015

Dear Councillors, On behalf of Jonathan Robinson: Please see below for text of letter, received today, as approved by the the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). Particularly in reference to: Item 5: UPDATE - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (15 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-15jan15-en.htm Thank-you, Kind regards, Glen From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: 08 January 2015 17:07 To: Lise Fuhr; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Subject: High Level Statements Dear Lise and Jonathan, the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) are regularly liaising and co-ordinating their work as both work areas are interdependent and interlinked. The co-chairs of both groups have agreed that it would be valuable for the CWG-Stewardship to provide the CCWG-Accountability with a list of issues it has identified during its deliberations where the work of both group overlaps. Subsequently, the following items from the proposal published on Dec. 1st, 2014 have been identified: · Section 3.3 – “Independent Review of Board Actions – the CWG-Stewardship may propose that this becomes binding under certain circumstances directly related to IANA; no other changes proposed”. If this were to be included in the final proposal implementation would require a change to the ICANN Bylaws regarding the IRP. · Section 3.4.3.2 - Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests. This is still under consideration by the CWG-Stewardship but would be a replacement for the authorization function for all changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. The replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision on these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. This would probably require modifications to the ICANN Bylaws. · Section 3.4.3.3 - Independent Appeals Panel – The CWG-Stewardship is proposing that an independent review panel be set up to deal with contested changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal it is generally agreed that such a mechanism should be part of the final proposal and that its decisions would be binding. As such this would also require changes to the ICANN Bylaws. Additionally, the CCWG-Accountability has been advised that "ICANN-only“ proposals currently considered might have significant input on the Accountability mechanisms required. Finally, the CWG-Stewardship pointed out that feedback would ideally be received early enough to be taken into account when finalizing the proposal to be submitted to the ICG. While the CCWG-Accountability appreciates the sense of urgency and works as expeditiously as possible on the tasks it has been chartered with, it is not feasible to publish a work results of the group in January. Nonetheless, the CCWG-Accountability has chosen to publish high level statements as a preliminary assessment of the situation. However, the CCWG-Accountability is cognizant that any preliminary assessment might be subject to change because of - changes made to the proposal published by the CWG-Sterwardship on Dec.1st, 2014 - other proposals and - changes due to other external and internal factors, such as evolving deliberations of our group. The below high level statements might be valuable to all groups or individuals working on proposals to be submitted to the ICG, which is why they are not only a response to the CWG-Stewardship, but published as a status update by the CCWG-Accountability. 1. The CCWG-Accountability noted that a significant number of contributions during the two Public Comments on Enhancing ICANN Accountability called for the implementation of independent mechanisms enabling to review and, when appropriate, redress, decisions from the ICANN Board of Directors. It was often noted that these mechanisms should be in place or committed to before the IANA Stewardship Transition takes place. The CCWG-Accountability is therefore considering addressing this need in its Work Stream 1 (WS1). Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions could be added to the remit of such independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1. Other issues that were brought up by many and could qualify for being in the remit of such mechanism were decisions broadening or altering ICANN’s mandate as well as recalling one or multiple ICANN Board members. Please note that the legal nature, composition, and specific mandate of this mechanism are yet to be determined. 2. The CCWG-Accountability acknowledges the expectation for certain internal and / or external review and / or appeals processes to be implemented or committed to prior to the transition and will consider these as part of its work. 3. Further, we would like to assure you that the CCWG-Accountability output will adhere to the following considerations; · Any proposal will address the concern on to whom should ICANN be held accountable. · Any proposal will address the concern on what should ICANN be held accountable for. · Any proposal will address the concern on how ICANN or its Board of Directors should be held accountable. We hope this broad but clear roadmap helps the CWG complement their work and that we continue to work on a coordinated fashion. Please note that these statements reflect the current status of deliberations of the CCWG-Accountability and might be subject to change for the reasons mentioned above and further input from the community. Kind regards, Mathieu Weill, León Sánchez and Thomas Rickert Co-Chars of the CCWG-Accountability

1 0

Council’s submission to the reply phase of the Board Working Group Report on Nominating Committee
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 8, 2015

Jan. 8, 2015

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the Council’s submission and covering note below to the reply phase of the Board Working Group Report on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom which ends on 9 Jan 2015 23:59 UTC. “Please find attached a motion, approved by a majority of the GNSO Council, which incorporates the feedback from the GNSO Council in relation to the Nominating Committee Recommendations of the Board Working Group.” Please note that the voting results summary has been corrected to read as follows in the attachment. Voting results in summary: Contracted Party House (7 votes) 7 votes in favour Non Contracted Party House (13 votes) 9 votes in favour 3 votes against 1 person did not vote Apologies for this error in the initial announcement<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16984.html>. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference on 15 January 2015 at 18:00 UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 8, 2015

Jan. 8, 2015

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Teleconference on 15 January 2015 at 18:00 UTC. Also posted on the Wiki, where all updates can also be found, at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+15+January+2… This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf> approved and updated on 13 November 2014. 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 Time 18:00 UTC: http://tinyurl.com/lgn2ohv Coordinated Universal Time 18:00 UTC 10:00 Los Angeles; 13:00 Washington; 18:00 London; 19:00 Brussels; 02:00 Perth GNSO Council meeting audio cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. 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 11 December 2014 will be posted as approved on xxxxx 2015. 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) * Approve the GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board concerning IRTP Part D Note: The outcome<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16984.html> of the vote on the Council input to the public comment forum on the Board Working Group Report on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom). Item 4: UPDATE - Cross Community Working Group to develop a transition proposal for IANA stewardship on naming related functions (20 mins) The CWG<https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg> has been chartered to develop a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and has been meeting for 2 hours every week since its creation with a goal of delivering a final proposal by the end of January 2015. The January 2015 target date is driven by the request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group<https://www.icann.org/stewardship/coordination-group> (ICG). A number of sub-groups were formed to progress work on the different elements of the ICG Request for Proposals and a face-to-face meeting was run in mid-November. A draft proposal was published for community comment on 1 December 2014 and the public comment period has since closed. An intensive work weekend is planned for the CWG on 10 & 11 January 2015, following which it is anticipated that a proposal on Naming Related Functions for the IANA Stewardship Transition will be drafted and then distributed to the chartering organisations. Given the deadlines and associated intensity of the work of the CWG as well as the need for the GNSO as a chartering organisation to approve the proposal, it is timely for the Council to receive a full update and to discuss the work of the CWG. 4.1 - Update (Jonathan Robinson) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Next steps Item 5: UPDATE - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (15 mins) The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management (see item 4 above). During discussions around the transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability given its historical contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN accountability mechanisms does not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA has stressed that it was expecting community consensus regarding the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent the transition to proceed. As a result, a DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO, GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees on 3 November 2014 and the charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en…> was adopted by the GNSO Council during its meeting on 13 November. Here the Council will receive an update on status and activities of the CCWG to date. 5.1 Update (Thomas Rickert) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps Item 6: UPDATE - Prospective policy work on "name collision" (10 mins) On the 30 July 2014, the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board directed staff to "provide information to, and work with the GNSO to consider whether policy work on developing a long-term plan to manage gTLD name collision issues should be undertaken." ICANN Staff submitted this paper<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-gnso-policy-07oc…> to the GNSO Council on 7 October 2014 and it was presented to the Council during the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. Council members agreed in Los Angeles to discuss with their respective group what further action, if any, should be taken on this topic and report back accordingly during this meeting. Furthermore, a letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/namazi-to-robinson-30oct14-en.pdf> was received from Cyrus Namazi offering any additional information or assistance that ICANN Staff can provide to further assist the Council in its deliberations. The GNSO Council discussed the topic during previous meetings following which it was agreed to draft a response. Here the Council will receive and update and provide any additional input needed. 6.1 Status update (Donna Austin) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: DISCUSSION - Board resolution concerning future gTLD Application Rounds (10 mins) On 17 November 2014 the ICANN Board adopted a resolution<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-11-17-en#2.b> the planning for future gTLD application rounds. As part of its action, the Board acknowledged the effort and progress within the GNSO to identify areas where the GNSO believes that policy advice can be clarified or where it wishes to provide additional policy advice applicable to future application rounds. Furthermore, as requested in the GNSO Council's June 2014 resolution, the Board provided input into the GNSO Council's discussion to identify areas that the Board believes may be appropriate for discussion in an evaluation of the current gTLD application round and for possible adjustments for subsequent application procedures. A draft letter<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16945.html> of response has been prepared, distributed to the Council and commented on. This is an opportunity for the GNSO Council to review the draft and ideally agree to send the letter as drafted or with any agreed modifications. 7.1 - Update 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: UPDATE - GNSO / GAC Consultation Group and related work (15 mins) Here the Council will have an opportunity to hear about the work of the GNSO / GAC Consultation Group and from the GNSO Liaison to the GAC including any initial input and feedback derived following the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles. In addition, there will be an opportunity to further discuss ideas put forward during the GNSO Council Development Session in relation to potential GNSO work in response to the GAC Communiqué from ICANN meetings. 8.1 - Update on GAC/GNSO Consultation Group (Mason Cole) 8.2 - Update on draft process for dealing with GAC Communique (Volker Greimann) 8.3 - Discussion Item 9: Planning for ICANN meeting in Singapore - key direction & themes Update - Volker Greimann Item 10: Any Other Business (10 mins) 10.1 - Correspondence with NGPC on IGO & RCRC. Any update? 10.2 - Consideration of a CWG to deal with new gTLD auction proceeds 10.3 - Note that the Translation & Transliteration PDP WG Initial Report is out for public comment 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.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 18:00 Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+0DST 10:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 12:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 12:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 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 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 20:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+3+0DST 20:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 02:00 Melbourne, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+1DST 05:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2015, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/lgn2ohv Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Results of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment NomCom Recs from the Board WG
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 7, 2015

Jan. 7, 2015

Dear Councillors, Please find the full results<https://tally.icann.org/cgi/results?e=75a808b91db> of the voting outside a Council meeting on the Council's reply comment to the Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group. The motion passes and will be submitted to the public comment forum<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en> on or before 9 January 2015. The text of the motion is at the bottom of this email. Voting closed at 23:59 UTC 6 January 2015. In summary: Contracted Party House (7 votes) 7 votes in favour Non Contracted Party House (13 votes) 10 votes in favour 3 votes against - Avri Doria, Amr Elsadr, Edward Morris (Non-commercial Stakeholder Group) 1 person did not vote - Marilia Maciel (Non-commercial Stakeholder Group) Avri Doria registered the following comment: While I have concerns with the Board WG report, such as the fact that the Nomcom grew larger instead of smaller and that it is still a selection committee instead of a nominating committee, I generally support the direction they are taking to adjust the balance of representation in the Nomcom. The Nomcom is supposed to be the mechanism, replacing the full and open election that ICANN supported at its creation, by which the entire ICANN community picks a board that balances a multitude of diversity and interest factors. The broader the representation of diverse groups in that Nomcom, the better able it is to understand the scope of that diversity and range of interests and requirements. And the better it understands the need for diversity the better it can perform its duties. The current Nomcom structure, is strongly oriented toward business interests, as the GNSO is 3/4 business stakeholder groups, counting both the Non Contracted and the Contracted business stakeholders. The changes suggested by the Board WG go some distance to putting the various other components of the ICANN community on a equal footing in Nomcom deliberations. This is a goal I strongly support and one that is antithetical to the proposed letter. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Motion to approve sending Council reply comment on Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Made by: Tony Holmes Seconded by: James M. Bladel With the close of the primary comment period on the Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group, it is the view of the GNSO Council that there is support among its members on a number of key points. For this reason, the Council is breaking new ground by offering a reply comment to reinforce that shared point-of-view. The Council has identified five (5) areas which deserve the emphasis we intend by submitting this document: 1. Diversity is hampered, not aided by reducing the role of the GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups Reducing participation of the already globally diversified commercial interests represented within the GNSO at a time when ICANN is increasingly in need of leadership skills is short-sighted. There is no doubt that diversity is a proper goal, but the recommendations ignore the ability of the existing groups as broad and deep as those represented by the GNSO to already be able to meet that objective. It is the view of the GNSO Council that whether participation from other groups is increased, to reduce GNSO participation flies in the face of advice from the Board itself that the Nominating Committee seek to identify candidates with "strong experience in the operation of gTLD registries and registrars, with ccTLD registries, with IP address registries, with Internet technical standards and protocols, with ICANN policy-development procedures, legal traditions, and the public interest." 2. Increasing membership from other groups may be helpful, as long as those new members are able to fully contribute individually In practice and by legacy, the GNSO members of the Nominating Committee are free to look beyond affiliation in search of the best candidates. By contrast, the proposed increase in the number of seats on the Nominating Committee proposed for the Government Advisory Committee would reduce individual insight in favor of institutional policy. The Council opposes that increase as GAC members act as representatives of their governments, not as individual participants. The GAC likely understands the need to steer clear as it recently has not filled its one seat on the Nominating Committee. 3. Delegation voting procedures undercut the integrity of the current model Having made this commitment to the value of the input from its constituencies and stakeholder groups, the Council does not support the proposed delegation voting mechanism. This might seem counter intuitive, but it is totally in line with our view that the strength of the Nominating Committee comes from the background of the individual members drawn from those organizations, not that they be bound by them. 4. The ongoing evolution of the Nominating Committee has been disregarded A more serious concern for the Council is that the Board Working Group seems to have overlooked or ignored the persistent evolution of the Nominating Committee. While not resorting to the adage, "if it isn't broken, don't fix it," we do not fall far from it. The creation of the chair-elect, the increased openness of the process and engaging the entire community in the nomination period are all evidence of self-improvement. This trajectory ought to be applauded and encouraged, not disregarded. 5. Two-year terms, likely staggered, would enhance stability and institutional memory Whether in a business or civil society setting, the ability to make smart and productive decisions is rooted in accountability and stability. It is the view of the Council that the current Nominating Committee holds itself accountable to a degree that ought to be a guide for the entire organization. Enhancing that trait by adding an additional layer of stability seems a prudent move. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Preparation for Singapore meeting
by Volker Greimann Jan. 7, 2015

Jan. 7, 2015

Dear fellow councillors, the preparations for the upcoming ICANN meeting are already underway, and as usual, we have - amongst other items - once again reserved slots with (1) the GDD, (2) Fadi Chehade and (3) Theresa Swinehart. To ensure these meetings can be prepared as well as possible and also to inform our guests, I would like to ask you for suggestions of topics to be discussed during the meeting. This does not preclude us from making last-minute changes, but would allow more fruitful and more productive sessions. Prior preparation would also allow us to shorten the prep-sessions for these meetings during the meeting and to allocate these times for other sessions. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, 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 Geschäftsführer: 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 für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für 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

GNSO Council Report to the Board
by Lars Hoffmann Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Dear Councillors, Please find attached the GNSO Council Report to the Board for adoption of the IRTP Part D PDP Recommendations. The Report is drafted by staff and will serve to inform the ICANN Board on the recommendations prior to its vote. Unless further discussion/review is deemed necessary the Council might want to include the Report as part of the consent agenda. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars

2 1

Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: start 3 January 2015 closes 6 January 2015. Council reply comment NomCom Recs from the Board WG
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Dear Councillors, Reminder: Voting Closes today, Tuesday 6 January 2015 at 23:59 UTC. If you foresee any connectivity issues during this period, please let me know so that alternate arrangements can be made. Further to the voting outside of a Council meeting the electronic ballots have been sent to all the councilors eligible to vote. If you have not received one, please let me know. As noted, ballots will be sent to the Council mailing list because it is an open and transparent vote as are all the votes taken at a Council meeting. The ballots below have been received to date. Ballots Received to date: Ballot ID 3fd99d8ccc7fc61 (Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au:1) Received at 2015-01-06 21:22:48 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID 6caaf1ca64ab799 (jrobinson@afilias.info:1) Received at 2015-01-06 21:11:43 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID 48340f272cd91a8 (brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com:1) Received at 2015-01-06 19:02:11 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID 022f8dc753927f0 (bret@nic.sexy:1) Received at 2015-01-06 18:59:06 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID c4feb4bce814d2d (avri@acm.org:1) Received at 2015-01-05 23:37:31 UTC (counted) 1: [ ] 2: [X] 3: [ ] 4: While I have concerns with the Board WG report, such as the fact that the Nomcom grew larger instead of smaller and that it is still a selection committee instead of a nominating committee, I generally support the direction they are taking to adjust the balance of representation in the Nomcom. The Nomcom is supposed to be the mechanism, replacing the full and open election that ICANN supported at its creation, by which the entire ICANN community picks a board that balances a multitude of diversity and interest factors. The broader the representation of diverse groups in that Nomcom, the better able it is to understand the scope of that diversity and range of interests and requirements. And the better it understands the need for diversity the better it can perform its duties. The current Nomcom structure, is strongly oriented toward business interests, as the GNSO is 3/4 business stakeholder groups, counting both the Non Contracted and the Contracted business stakeholders. The changes suggested by the Board WG go some distance to putting the various other components of the ICANN community on a equal footing in Nomcom deliberations. This is a goal I strongly support and one that is antithetical to the proposed letter. Ballot ID 76b8e14091c56ed (stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca:1) Received at 2015-01-05 23:15:00 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID 7879cf5a79bfe1d (Donna.Austin@ariservices.com:1) Received at 2015-01-05 23:02:34 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID 4b602242988be19 (susank@fb.com:1) Received at 2015-01-05 21:47:25 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID cd830581839a018 (rickert@anwaelte.de:1) Received at 2015-01-05 19:39:27 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID 58b04c10ae86d99 (yoav@dtnt.com:1) Received at 2015-01-05 18:24:55 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID 75bac69aa0c6475 (aelsadr@egyptig.org:1) Received at 2015-01-05 16:00:00 UTC (counted) 1: [ ] 2: [X] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID 7a841e78b734070 (vgreimann@key-Systems.net:1) Received at 2015-01-05 12:03:36 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID 80d157e8e7e8742 (gabrielaszlak@gmail.com:1) Received at 2015-01-05 10:37:07 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID aa75cb17ff73c38 (dave@difference.com.au:1) Received at 2015-01-05 05:12:02 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID 489387a360afad8 (jbladel@godaddy.com:1) Received at 2015-01-05 04:41:35 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID 0ca4ad1e7d30e1e (egmorris1@toast.net:1) Received at 2015-01-04 22:01:49 UTC (counted) 1: [ ] 2: [X] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID fbffc9045745119 (dan-reed@uiowa.edu:1) Received at 2015-01-04 18:51:20 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID e7f1452168429be (onovoa@Antel.com.uy:1) Received at 2015-01-03 10:21:46 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: Ballot ID b90f59bac15d405 (tonyarholmes@btinternet.com:1) Received at 2015-01-03 09:28:28 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] 4: (1 Yes, 2 No, 3 Abstain, 4 Comment box.) Reminder: Voting Closes on Tuesday 6 January 2015 at 23:59 UTC. If you foresee any connectivity issues during this period, please let me know so that alternate arrangements can be made. The results will be tallied at the end of the vote on 7 January 2015 and if the motion carries by a simple majority it will be submitted to the to the public comment forum<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en> on or before 9 January 2015. 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

Re: [council] Stepping aside the GNSO Council
by Gabriela Szlak Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Dear all, Thank you so much for the good wishes and congratulations, both received privately and on list. It is a very happy time for me and my family though of course, I will be missing you all as well, "See" you on our next call, best, Gabi *Gabriela Szlak * *Skype:* gabrielaszlak *Twitter: @*GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2015-01-06 7:54 GMT-03:00 Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>: > Hi Gabi, > that is great news. All the best! > > You will be missed. > > Best, > Thomas > > PS - Sleep is much overrated. > > Am 31.12.2014 um 13:08 schrieb Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak(a)gmail.com>: > > Dear Colleagues, > > I am very sorry to announce that I am stepping aside the GNSO Council > after our next call on the 15th of January 2015. > > The reason is a very happy one: I am pregnant, expecting for June 2015 and > thus, won´t be able to participate in any of the F2F meetings in 2015. We > work a lot remotely, but it is also true that most relevant activities > occur during f2f meetings. Under the current circumstances, the best for > the BC and for the Council was to step aside and have me replaced with > someone that will have the opportunity to participate in all activities > fully, particularly in such a special year to come, in which the community > is dealing with the IANA transition. It was a very hard decision to make > but I am confident is for the best. > > At the BC we are currently hosting elections to select my replacement > asap, so for Singapore, a new BC councillor will be already selected. > > I want to thank everyone, councillors and our great ICANN staff support > members, for the honour and the enriching experience that has been working > with all of you in representation of the BC at the GNSO Council since > November 2013, and in particular to those who have offered me support and > guidance all the way through. Muchas Gracias!!!! > > I have enjoyed the GNSO Council´s work and hope to have the chance to be > back at some point in the future. In the meantime, I will still be > around, of course, as a BC member representing eInstituto and at the LAC > strategy and other ICANN activities, but remotely for some time. > > Best wishes and Happy 2015 to all!!!!! > Gabi > > *Gabriela Szlak * > > *Skype:* gabrielaszlak > > *Twitter: @*GabiSzlak > > La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. > The information in this e-mail is confidential. > > >

1 0

Stepping aside the GNSO Council
by Gabriela Szlak Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Dear Colleagues, I am very sorry to announce that I am stepping aside the GNSO Council after our next call on the 15th of January 2015. The reason is a very happy one: I am pregnant, expecting for June 2015 and thus, won´t be able to participate in any of the F2F meetings in 2015. We work a lot remotely, but it is also true that most relevant activities occur during f2f meetings. Under the current circumstances, the best for the BC and for the Council was to step aside and have me replaced with someone that will have the opportunity to participate in all activities fully, particularly in such a special year to come, in which the community is dealing with the IANA transition. It was a very hard decision to make but I am confident is for the best. At the BC we are currently hosting elections to select my replacement asap, so for Singapore, a new BC councillor will be already selected. I want to thank everyone, councillors and our great ICANN staff support members, for the honour and the enriching experience that has been working with all of you in representation of the BC at the GNSO Council since November 2013, and in particular to those who have offered me support and guidance all the way through. Muchas Gracias!!!! I have enjoyed the GNSO Council´s work and hope to have the chance to be back at some point in the future. In the meantime, I will still be around, of course, as a BC member representing eInstituto and at the LAC strategy and other ICANN activities, but remotely for some time. Best wishes and Happy 2015 to all!!!!! Gabi *Gabriela Szlak * *Skype:* gabrielaszlak *Twitter: @*GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.

7 6