December 2015 - council - lists.icann.org

Board comments on the latest CCWG draft
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 14, 2015

Dec. 14, 2015

Hello All, From: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30… For information, I have attached the Board comments on the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Proposed new rotation times for Council meetings in 2016
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 11, 2015

Dec. 11, 2015

Dear All, In consultation with the Chair and Vice-chairs there are two new proposed times for rotating the Council calls taking into consideration the new time zone distribution in the Council: · 21:00 UTC and 12:00 UTC. Please let us know whether there are any objections to these new rotation times. (Council calls according to a tool on this Google spreadsheet http://tinyurl.com/qc96dnx) In addition, please review the following three proposed dates and the alternate dates that have been suggested in view of the holidays, Yom Kippur and Thanksgiving and let us know if you would like to change these dates or whether you would like us to create a doodle poll to establish the preferred dates: · 22 September (Thursday) (Yom Kippur) OR THURSDAY 29 September at 12:00 UTC · 24 November (Thursday) at 18:00 UTC (Thanksgiving) OR THURSDAY 1 December at 12:00 UTC · 15 December (Thursday) at 11:00 UTC OR THURSDAY 22 December at 21:00 UTC Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Proposed dates for Council meetings in 2016 14 January AND/OR Thursday 21 January at 21:00/12:00 UTC (to allow flexibility to deal with the CCWG-Accountability Final Report. Closer to the date we will be in a position to determine whether two meetings are needed or whether one is sufficient) 18 February (Thursday) at 21:00 UTC 9 March (Wednesday) - ICANN Meeting - Public Council meeting Marrakech at 13:00 local time 14 April (Thursday) at 12:00 UTC 12 May (Thursday) at 21:00 UTC 27-30 June - ICANN Meeting - Public Council meeting Panama City at 13:00 local time 21 July (Thursday) at 12:00 UTC August - no meetings ??? 1 September (Thursday) at 21:00 UTC 22 September (Thursday) (Yom Kippur) OR THURSDAY 29 September at 12:00 UTC 13 October (Thursday) at 21:00 UTC 2 November, ICANN Meeting - Public Council meeting Puerto Rico at 13:00 local time 24 November (Thursday) at 18:00 UTC (Thanksgiving) OR THURSDAY 1 December at 12:00 UTC 15 December (Thursday) at 11:00 UTC OR THURSDAY 22 December at 21:00 UTC Glen de Saint Géry Supporting Organisations Advisory Committees Manager glen(a)icann.org<mailto:glen@icann.org> http://www.icann.org

5 5

Updated project list for your review
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 11, 2015

Dec. 11, 2015

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the updated Project List, both clean and redline versions for your review. If there are no comments, this list will be posted on the website on Monday 14 December in preparation for the Council meeting on 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC: Posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project and can be directly viewed at http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/projects-list.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/>

1 0

Re: [council] Final Report from the PPSAI Policy Development Process Working Group
by James M. Bladel Dec. 10, 2015

Dec. 10, 2015

Councilors - Mary has reminded me that I am the GNSO Council Liaison to the PPSAI PDP Working Group. I had hoped the new Council chair would find a replacement, but you know how it is with that guy. Nevertheless, I am happy to report that this PDP is nearing completion. Please see the attached motion for consideration during our next call (17 DEC 2015). Thank you, J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, December 7, 2015 at 16:47 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Final Report from the PPSAI Policy Development Process Working Group Dear Councilors, Please find attached the Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Policy Development Process Working Group. As you will recall, this PDP was initiated by the Board, and the Working Group chartered by the GNSO Council in October 2013. The WG published its Initial Report for public comment in May 2015, and has fully reviewed as well as incorporated, where relevant, community input into its Final Report. On behalf of the WG co-chairs Don Blumenthal, Graeme Bunton and Steve Metalitz, I'm pleased to report that the WG has reached Full Consensus on all of its final recommendations. A motion for the Council to consider and adopt these recommendations will shortly be forthcoming from the Council liaison to the WG. Thank you. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889

2 1

Update: Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 10, 2015

Dec. 10, 2015

Dear Councillors, Update: Item 7: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique (10 mins) "Here the Council will review an updated draft document<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-10nov15-en.pdf> and vote on whether to adopt it for forwarding to the ICANN Board." The link to the document should point to the updated link below: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-19nov15-en.pdf<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnuFT4taHix-2FWC…> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Please find the proposed draft Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference on 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC. Please note the agenda is still subject to change, but we wanted you and your groups to have a timely review of the agenda before the next Council meeting. The agenda is also posted on the Wiki at and will reflect the latest updates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+17+December+… And posted on the website at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-17dec15-en.htm The motions are posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December… This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures,<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> approved and updated on 24 June 2015. 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. Coordinated Universal Time: 18:00 UTC (http://tinyurl.com/oobnrtf) 10:00 Los Angeles; 13:00 Washington; 18:00 London; 20:00 Istanbul; 05:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review/amend agenda. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings of 19 November have been posted as approved on 5 December 2015 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION - Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes) In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO's policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2015/non-pdp-new-gtld> (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issu…> was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue…> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (Donna Austin) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes) This PDP had been requested<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm> by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN's implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf> for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Here the Council will review the Working Group's Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (James Bladel) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House) Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION - Endorsement of GNSO Candidates for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (20 minutes) Under ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments (AoC)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…> with the United States government, ICANN is mandated to review the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT Review). The CCT Review Team is expected to also assess the effectiveness of the application and evaluation processes, as well as the safeguards put in place by ICANN to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion of new gTLDs. A Call for Volunteers<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en> to the CCT Review Team closed on 13 November 2015, and twenty-six (26) applicants indicated that they wished to be endorsed as representatives of the GNSO to the Review Team. ICANN staff has since followed up with all these applicants for further information to assist the Council in its decision on endorsements (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw) Here the Council will discuss and determine which of the applicants to endorse for the CCT Review Team. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (James Bladel) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique (10 mins) Following discussions at the Council level in late 2014 to develop a means for the GNSO to provide input to the ICANN Board regarding gTLD policy matters highlighted in a GAC Communique, a template framework to review each GAC Communique was created by a group of Council volunteers assisted by ICANN staff. The Council agreed that while it would review carefully each GAC Communique issued at an ICANN meeting, it would not always provide input to the Board unless it also agreed that such feedback was either necessary or desirable, on a case-by-case basis. The first GNSO Review of a GAC Communique was of the GAC's Communique from ICANN53 in Buenos Aires. That Review document was sent<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-08jul15-en.pdf> to the ICANN Board in July 2015 and acknowledged<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-robinson-21oct15-en.pdf> by the Board in October. At its last meeting, the Council discussed an initial draft<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-10nov15-en.pdf> of a possible review document to be sent to the Board in response to the GAC's Dublin Communique<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20Dublin%2054%20…>. Here the Council will review an updated draft document<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-10nov15-en.pdf> and vote on whether to adopt it for forwarding to the ICANN Board. 7.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (Stephanie Perrin) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (25 minutes) In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en…> of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization. In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…> an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability has made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20…> for public comment on 30 November 2015. Following ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) - the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue - announced<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en> that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send the consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN…>) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. Public comments on these latest recommendations closes on 21 December 2015, with all the Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt them in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016. Here the Council will discuss its review and adoption of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, including the timeline and consideration of any input from its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. 8.1 - Update (Thomas Rickert) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION - New gTLD Auction Proceeds (10 minutes) On 8 September 2015 ICANN published for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-…> a Discussion Paper concerning possible next steps in the community process regarding proceeds obtained from ICANN-conducted auctions for contested strings in the New gTLD Program. The Discussion Paper summarized the community discussions that had occurred to date, including discussions started by the GNSO Council and conducted at ICANN52. An updated [INSERT LINK] Discussion Paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015, noting that there seems to be general community support for a Cross-Community Working Group to be formed on the topic and proposing that the next step be confirming the interest of each ICANN Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) in participating in this effort. Interested SO/ACs would then be requested to nominate up to 2 volunteers for the Drafting Team to be formed, to develop a charter for adoption by all the potential Chartering Organizations. 9.1 - Status update (Marika Konings) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: Any Other Business (10 Minutes) 10.1 - Confirming schedule of GNSO Council meetings for 2016 10.2 - Marrakech meeting planning (note: weekend session planning being led by Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr) _________________________________ 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 March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 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 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 15:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 16:00 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+3+0DST 20:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 02:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 02:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 05:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2015, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/j8rmlem Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 10, 2015

Dec. 10, 2015

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed draft Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference on 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC. Please note the agenda is still subject to change, but we wanted you and your groups to have a timely review of the agenda before the next Council meeting. The agenda is also posted on the Wiki at and will reflect the latest updates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+17+December+… And posted on the website at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-17dec15-en.htm The motions are posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December… This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures,<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> approved and updated on 24 June 2015. 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. Coordinated Universal Time: 18:00 UTC (http://tinyurl.com/oobnrtf) 10:00 Los Angeles; 13:00 Washington; 18:00 London; 20:00 Istanbul; 05:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review/amend agenda. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings of 19 November have been posted as approved on 5 December 2015 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) Item 4: VOTE ON MOTION - Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (15 minutes) In June 2015, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures, including any modifications that may be needed to the GNSO's policy principles and recommendations from its 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>. Preparation of the Preliminary Issue Report was based on a set of deliverables from the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2015/non-pdp-new-gtld> (DG) as the basis for analysis. The Preliminary Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issu…> was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, and the comment period closed on 30 October as a result of a request by the GNSO Council to extend the usual 40-day comment period. The Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue…> was submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015. Here the Council will review the report, including the draft Charter setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP and adopt the Charter. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (Donna Austin) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) Item 5: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (15 minutes) This PDP had been requested<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> by the ICANN Board when initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group in October 2011 for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The 2013 RAA was approved<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm> by the ICANN Board in June 2013, at which time the accreditation of privacy and proxy services was identified as the remaining issue not dealt with in the negotiations or in other policy activities, and that was suited for a PDP. In October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf> the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group to develop policy recommendations intended to guide ICANN's implementation of the planned accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf> for public comment in May 2015, and delivered its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015. Here the Council will review the Working Group's Final Report, and vote on whether to adopt the consensus recommendations contained in it. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (James Bladel) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of each House or more than three-fourths (3/4) of one House and one-half (1/2) of the other House) Item 6: VOTE ON MOTION - Endorsement of GNSO Candidates for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (20 minutes) Under ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments (AoC)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…> with the United States government, ICANN is mandated to review the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT Review). The CCT Review Team is expected to also assess the effectiveness of the application and evaluation processes, as well as the safeguards put in place by ICANN to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion of new gTLDs. A Call for Volunteers<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en> to the CCT Review Team closed on 13 November 2015, and twenty-six (26) applicants indicated that they wished to be endorsed as representatives of the GNSO to the Review Team. ICANN staff has since followed up with all these applicants for further information to assist the Council in its decision on endorsements (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw) Here the Council will discuss and determine which of the applicants to endorse for the CCT Review Team. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (James Bladel) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7: VOTE ON MOTION - Adoption of GNSO Review of the GAC Dublin Communique (10 mins) Following discussions at the Council level in late 2014 to develop a means for the GNSO to provide input to the ICANN Board regarding gTLD policy matters highlighted in a GAC Communique, a template framework to review each GAC Communique was created by a group of Council volunteers assisted by ICANN staff. The Council agreed that while it would review carefully each GAC Communique issued at an ICANN meeting, it would not always provide input to the Board unless it also agreed that such feedback was either necessary or desirable, on a case-by-case basis. The first GNSO Review of a GAC Communique was of the GAC's Communique from ICANN53 in Buenos Aires. That Review document was sent<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-08jul15-en.pdf> to the ICANN Board in July 2015 and acknowledged<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-robinson-21oct15-en.pdf> by the Board in October. At its last meeting, the Council discussed an initial draft<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-10nov15-en.pdf> of a possible review document to be sent to the Board in response to the GAC's Dublin Communique<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20Dublin%2054%20…>. Here the Council will review an updated draft document<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-10nov15-en.pdf> and vote on whether to adopt it for forwarding to the ICANN Board. 7.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December…> (Stephanie Perrin) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (25 minutes) In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As that the U.S. government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en…> of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization. In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…> an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability has made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20…> for public comment on 30 November 2015. Following ICANN54, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) - the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue - announced<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en> that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send the consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN…>) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. Public comments on these latest recommendations closes on 21 December 2015, with all the Chartering Organizations expected to consider whether to adopt them in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its final report on Work Stream 1 to the ICANN Board by late January 2016. Here the Council will discuss its review and adoption of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, including the timeline and consideration of any input from its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. 8.1 - Update (Thomas Rickert) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION - New gTLD Auction Proceeds (10 minutes) On 8 September 2015 ICANN published for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-…> a Discussion Paper concerning possible next steps in the community process regarding proceeds obtained from ICANN-conducted auctions for contested strings in the New gTLD Program. The Discussion Paper summarized the community discussions that had occurred to date, including discussions started by the GNSO Council and conducted at ICANN52. An updated [INSERT LINK] Discussion Paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015, noting that there seems to be general community support for a Cross-Community Working Group to be formed on the topic and proposing that the next step be confirming the interest of each ICANN Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) in participating in this effort. Interested SO/ACs would then be requested to nominate up to 2 volunteers for the Drafting Team to be formed, to develop a charter for adoption by all the potential Chartering Organizations. 9.1 - Status update (Marika Konings) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: Any Other Business (10 Minutes) 10.1 - Confirming schedule of GNSO Council meetings for 2016 10.2 - Marrakech meeting planning (note: weekend session planning being led by Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr) _________________________________ 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 March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 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 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 15:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 16:00 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+3+0DST 20:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 02:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 02:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 05:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2015, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/j8rmlem Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

2 2

FW: [Acct-Staff] CCWG Accountability Draft Report
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 10, 2015

Dec. 10, 2015

For your Attention: From: <acct-staff-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 11:57 AM Dear all, On 30 November, the CCWG-Accountability delivered its third Draft Proposal to the ICANN community for consideration. The proposal includes twelve recommendations and annexes describing each of these in detail. As previously announced, the comment period - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20… - is two-fold: firstly It invites Chartering Organization to indicate their endorsement of the proposed Work Stream 1 recommendations to ICANN's accountability and secondly It seeks feedback from the broader public. To assist the community in considering its proposal the CCWG-Accountability held two informational webinars on 2 December, which were attended by a diverse set of community members (140 attendees including 56 who were neither member nor participants to the CCWG). Session archives and list of attendees can be found on the wiki page at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984258. The CCWG-Accountability encourages individuals to channel their comments through their respective SO/ACs to streamline the processing of input and avoid duplication of comments. However, any individual, whether or not they are part of a Chartering Organization or an SO/AC, is welcome to provide their comments with respect to the CCWG-Accountability's proposal. As indicated in the CCWG-Accountability Charter: Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. The CCWG-Accountability considers this Draft Proposal to be the Final proposal unless significant concerns are raised by Chartering Organizations. As the case may be, the CCWG-Accountability might then amend the proposal to address these and post a supplementary report for approval by the Chartering Organizations. In an effort to clearly identify the level of support for the recommendations the CCWG-Accountability would request that input clearly indicate your position on each of the twelve recommendations. Should a Chartering Organization, in its process to approve the proposal, identify any significant concerns that would require it to reject a specific recommendation, the CCWG-Accountability would request that such concerns be communicated to it as soon as possible even if the approval process in the Chartering Organization is not yet completed. This would allow the CCWG-Accountability to begin addressing any such concerns while advising the other Chartering Organizations of the situation. The CCWG-Accountability would also like to remind the Chartering Organizations that the language proposed in the recommendations for ICANN Bylaw revisions, which affects all of the recommendations, are conceptual in nature at this stage. The CCWG-Accountability's external legal counsel and the ICANN legal team will draft final language for these revisions to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws (Fundamental/Standard Bylaws). As such the CCWG-Accountability is asking the Chartering Organizations to focus on approving the core concepts of the recommendations and not specific wording or implementation details. Any comments or issues on implementation should be clearly identified as such and will be considered for the implementation phase. Given the time constraints the CCWG-Accountability is working to we would appreciate indications of support, if formal approval is not possible, from Chartering Organizations in a timeframe that is generally consistent with the official closing date of 21 December. The CCWG-Accountability recognizes that the internal process requirements of the Chartering Organizations may only allow these to provide formal approval of the proposal in the early days of January which would be acceptable if an indication of support has been provided. Following the conclusion of the public comment period (21 December - 23:59 UTC), the CCWG-Accountability will assess the level of support received and attempt to reconcile differing input, if any, from the Chartering Organizations. Should a Supplementary Report be necessary, the CCWG-Accountability would inform the Chartering Organizations of this promptly. We look forward to your input on our Draft Proposal. For your information, to facilitate responses as well as enable the collection and aggregation of input, a survey was created for the community's use - see https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ccwg-acct-draftproposal. Should you wish to organize an informational webinar for your membership, we are more than happy to schedule a meeting. As always, feel free to contact us should you have any questions. Thanks Best regards CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs Thomas Rickert Leon Sanchez Mathieu Weill

1 0

Fw: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER
by WUKnoben Dec. 10, 2015

Dec. 10, 2015

Hi James, by picking this up: could you please make reference to my email from 21 Nov with respect to the process? As time is short – and Thanksgiving is close – I wonder whether the council agrees to the process suggested. I’ve already alerted the CSG and am confident to receive some input. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:22 AM To: Council Subject: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER For your information. From: <soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Charla Shambley <charla.shambley(a)icann.org> Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "'soac-infoalert(a)icann.org'" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Cc: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian(a)icann.org>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Dear SO/AC leaders, We are pleased to report that we received 72 applications from individuals interested in serving on the next review team under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) that will examine the impact of new gTLDS in the areas of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT). Before final selection of the CCT Review Team is completed by the ICANN CEO and the GAC Chair, we are seeking endorsements from any SO/AC for those applicants who have expressed an interest to serve as their representatives. If you choose to endorse an applicant, please send your endorsements by email to reviews(a)icann.org by the updated deadline of 17 December at 23:59 UTC. In order to help with the endorsement process, below are answers to some frequently asked questions: Is there a set allocation for SO/AC representatives? Under the AoC, there is no set allocation per SO/AC or per stakeholder group, nor is there a maximum for total size of the review team. How Many Members Will be on the Review Team? There is no set number of volunteers for the Review Team. However, keep in mind that the review team should be comprised of members that collectively have expertise covering the wide range of topics that are within the mandate of this review team. Past AoC review teams were comprised of approximately 16 members. What Were the Criteria for Applicants? The call for volunteers lists the criteria that we were looking for. The composition should be based on several factors, including: · Subject matter expertise – o New gTLD application process/objections o Intellectual Property o Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS o Competition Issues o Consumer Protection o Public Policy Concerns o Trust in the DNS · Representation across the interested SO/ACs · Diversity · Regional representation For more information, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-11-16-en.

11 20

Clerical corrections to PPSAI PDP Working Group Final Report
by Mary Wong Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

Dear Councilors, Please refer to the attached document as the correct version of the PPSAI PDP Working Group’s Final Report. The version that was sent to you yesterday contained a minor error which the WG co-chairs (cc’d) have confirmed to be a clerical error that staff has since corrected. We are sorry for any inconvenience or confusion, and thank you for your understanding. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

GNSO Candidates for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

Dear all, The updated list of GNSO Candidates for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw Please note that the information received is what was received by the deadline and should any additional information come in after the deadline, it will be added to the same page. Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0