December 2015 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] RE: Taking the Council's Temperature on Procedures for Consideration of 3rd Accountability Proposal
by James M. Bladel Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

Hi folks - Just a reminder that the 17 DEC GNSO Council meeting will have a slot on the agenda to discuss any high-level concerns/red flags raised by any SGs. This is not the last opportunity for individuals or SGs to weigh in on these recommendations. But we should have a clearer sense of whether or not there are any signifiant outstanding issues. And a reminder that we have planned two additional meeting times planned (14 JAN and 21 JAN) for the final review & vote to adopt the the report. It is my hope that all SG concerns will be raised/expressed by then, if not sooner. However, I should point out that due to external time constraints, we cannot entertain any requests for deferrals if the vote takes place in January. Thanks— J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:40 To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: Taking the Council's Temperature on Procedures for Consideration of 3rd Accountability Proposal Thanks Phil. The RySG is working now to develop its comments and position statements on the CCWG Proposal. I expect they will be completed prior to our next call on December 17. Regards, Keith From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 1:29 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Taking the Council's Temperature on Procedures for Consideration of 3rd Accountability Proposal Fellow Councilors: This morning the BC held its regular members’ call, and we got into some discussion in regard to background information I had circulated prior to the call (below). However, there was insufficient participation to reach a BC consensus, and we shall continue the discussion on the BC email list. It was decided on the call that I would reach out to other Councilors to get an initial impression of whether we are aiming to discuss and vote on a Resolution of approval or disapproval in two weeks, on our call of December 17th, or whether we wish to bring that question to a vote on our first call of January 2016. If we are targeting the 17th then we have a great deal of work to do, including getting consensus feedback from those we represent and preparing a draft Resolution. If we are looking toward January then I would strongly suggest that we schedule that call for January 14th, and not the 21st which is only one day prior to the target delivery date to the Board. What are your views on this most important matter? Very best regards, Philip ******************************* BC members, please note that the second item in item #2, following Steve’s review of the Policy calendar, is: · Discussion of final Accountability proposal #3– Comments close December 21- procedure for BC input into CSG, and then GNSO, for Chartering Organization decision The third Accountability proposal was published on Monday, November 30 for a comment period closing on December 21. The target date for delivering the Proposal to the Board for its consideration is January 22, 2016. While public comment is being solicited, we are now at the stage where the primary objective is to get the Chartering Organizations to indicate whether they approve or disapprove of the Proposal – and, if they disapprove, what changes would be required for approval. The GNSO is the relevant Chartering organization for the BC. The next meeting of the GNSO Council is scheduled for December 17, two weeks from today and four days before the close of the public comment period. Susan and I will be looking to BC members to provide a consensus view of the proposal that we can convey to the rest of the CSG, as well as the NCSG and the full Council. The first meeting of the Council in 2016 will be held on either January 14 or 21. If Council does not approve a Resolution of approval or disapproval on December 17 then I think it is a sure bet that the next call will be on January 14, eight days prior to the scheduled Board delivery date. With all of that as background, the guidance your Councilors are looking for on today’s call is whether BC members believe they will be able to convey a consensus view on the proposal prior to the December 17 Council meeting, or whether we should be targeting January 14 for that Council decision. If you are planning to be on today’s call please be prepared to share your view on that question, and if you are not on the call please provide your view on the BC-Private list. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

3 5

Final Report from the PPSAI Policy Development Process Working Group
by Mary Wong Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

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 Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

Motion on the Endorsement of GNSO Applicants for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team
by James M. Bladel Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

Councilors - For discussion during our next (17 DEC) meeting, please find a motion to submit a list (TBD) of CCT-RT applicants who have sought GNSO endorsement. The Motion itself is attached and copied below. Once adopted, this motion instructs the Secretariat and Chair to inform the CCT-RT Selectors of our endorsed applicants, and highlight the interests of the GNSO on this topic, and emphasize the need for balanced representation by all GNSO stakeholders on this Review Team. Further, it informs the applicants that, if selected, they are expected to represent the GNSO in its entirety, and report back on a regular basis during the course of the Review. Finally, it asks the Secretariat to respond to any applicants who were not endorsed (if any), thanking them for their interest and encouraging them to stay engaged in this important work. Hoping for a second to this motion prior to our call the 17th. Regarding the Endorsement Process: There seem to be two general proposals emerging from the discussion on the list. One approach would simply endorse/not endorse each individual candidate, and submit the list to the Selectors. This has the benefit of keeping the focus on individual applicants seeking endorsement, and doesn’t put SGs in the position of choosing. The risk is that it shifts this choice to the Selectors, who may decide on a much smaller number of applicants, leaving some SGs unhappy with the final composition of the RT. It also diminishes the value & weight of GNSO endorsement, if a large number of GNSO-endorsed applicants are not selected. The other approach would allocate 0-2 endorsements to each SG, and then submit the (presumably smaller) aggregated list. It will take longer and could become contentious for any SGs that have received a large number of candidate submissions. But would preserve the weight of our endorsement and ensure that all SG positions are represented in the GNSO list. I propose a compromise/hybrid approach, whereby we take a “first pass” at the list of applicants using the first method, and examine the resulting list. Presumably it would be larger group of applicants, but some might receive multiple endorsements, creating a degree of overlap. We can then discuss this list during our meeting on the 17th, and either (a) add additional names for missing SGs and/or (b) work together to improve the balance of the list. For reference, I would refer you to the list of folks seeking GNSO Endorsement: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoaocreview/CCT+Review+GNSO+Candidate… Note that all applicants have been asked to provide GNSO-specific information, and have until the end of the day today (7 DEC) to respond. I would ask Councilors & SGs to consider only those applicants who have responded to be edible for endorsement. Please post your “first pass” list of endorsed applicants to the Council list by next Monday (14 DEC 2015). Thank you, J. ________________________________ Motion on the endorsement of GNSO Applicants for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT) Whereas, 1. Under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…>, ICANN launched a process to review the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT Review). This AoC mandated review will 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. 2. To conduct this review, a Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team will be formed in late 2015. Once formed, the Review Team will independently plan its work and schedule. 3. A call for volunteers was launched on 1 October 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en) Those applying to serve as a volunteer member, where asked to identify the name of the Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee they wish to represent. 26 applicants identified the GNSO as the Supporting Organization they wished to represent (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw) 4. Following its meeting on 19 November 2015, the GNSO Council agreed to follow up with all 26 applicants to request additional information required to reach its decision on endorsement (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17695.html) 5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the information received from the applicants requesting GNSO endorsement (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw) Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council endorses the following applicants: [TBC] and expects the selectors for this Review Team to weigh this endorsement as an important factor in their selection process. 2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat, on behalf of the GNSO Council and Chair, to inform the CCT selectors in writing of the outcome of this process. The selectors should also be advised to consider the specific consideration to the role of the GNSO regarding the New gTLD implementation and ensure that all relevant GNSO stakeholders shall be represented on the CCT RT. 3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the applicants that have received endorsement that the GNSO Council expects that, if selected for the CCT, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the CCT, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the CCT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team Members. 4. The GNSO Council instructs the Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement (if any), thanking them for their interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the CCT RT work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions.

1 0

For your review - Updated new gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper
by Marika Konings Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

Dear All, Please find attached for your review and consideration the updated new gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper which has been updated to reflect the contributions received in response to the public comment forum. As outlined in the document, as there was general support for proceeding with a CCWG, the proposed next step is to go back to each of the ICANN SO/ACs to confirm their interest to participate in this effort and request up to 2 volunteers for the drafting team to develop a charter which is to be submitted for review and adoption to all the potential chartering organizations. You can find the public comment review tool which outlines the input received and how it has or is expected to be addressed in Annex B of the report. For those interested, I can also provide a redline version, but as some sections moved around it may appear as more changes were made than in reality happened. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Austin, Donna Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

All Following Steve Chan's email of Friday 4 December 2015 that provided the GNSO Council with a copy of the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, attached is a motion proposing the initiation of a PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures and convening of the PDP WG as soon as possible. Regards Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, 4 December 2015 3:16 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Dear Councilors, Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue…. You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic at the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN Bylaws, an Issue Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is initiated by the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing on 30 October 2015. The Report of Public Comments received is expected to be published on 4 December 2015 and made available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31…. In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate Annex. The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance. The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO Councilor. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

2 1

Document and Motion deadline Monday, 7 December 2015 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 7 December 2015 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 December 2015 at 18:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+December… Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Timeline and next steps (updated)
by Marika Konings Dec. 5, 2015

Dec. 5, 2015

Please use this version of the timeline instead. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Thursday 19 November 2015 07:20 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: cc staff all <cc-staff(a)lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:cc-staff@lists.ibiblio.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Timeline and next steps (updated) An earlier version of this email was sent mistakenly so please disregard the earlier version and have this version as the final version. ================= Dear all, As indicated on call #68, we have designed a detailed roadmap of key dates and milestones toward finalizing theThird Draft Proposal that we invite you to read and mark in your calendars. In order to meet our 30 November deadline, it will be important that we all comply with this calendar of deliverables to ensure feedback and edits are incorporated into the Third Proposal in a prompt and appropriate fashion: 20-Nov-15 Full Proposal content is delivered to CCWG by 23:59 UTC 21-23 Nov-15 CCWG Co-Chairs and Rapporteurs gather feedback from Working Party groups, legal counsel and Advisors 23-Nov-15 CCWG final comments on Full Proposal content due by 23:59 UTC 24-Nov-15 Weekly call #69 24-25-Nov 15 Back and forth and finalizing content with Co-Chairs, Writing team holding the pen 25-Nov-15 Content due to translation / formatting by 23:59 UTC 26-Nov-15 Additional CCWG-ACCT call (call #70) 30-Nov-15 Begin Phase 2 of Consideration by Chartering Organizations 30-Nov-15 Begin professional proofreading/final editing 12 -Dec-15 Translations ready 20-Dec-15 Delivery of final proofreading/editing 21-Dec-15 End of public comment and first close for Chartering Organizations to indicate support for recommendations 24-Dec-15 Staff summary of public comments and Chartering Organization support for recommendation Please note that in consideration of the work load, we recommend holding an additional next week on Thursday 26 November at 14:00-16:00 UTC. For US-based colleagues, the timeslot was selected so that it is early in day for you in consideration of the U.S. holiday. We recognize that we are operating under tight deadlines to produce our Third Draft Proposal and as always, thank you for your cooperation and hard work. Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León

3 5

Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Steve Chan Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

Dear Councilors, Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue- 04dec15-en.pdf. You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic at the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN Bylaws, an Issue Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is initiated by the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing on 30 October 2015. The Report of Public Comments received is expected to be published on 4 December 2015 and made available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31- en. In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate Annex. The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance. The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO Councilor. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

1 0

Taking the Council's Temperature on Procedures for Consideration of 3rd Accountability Proposal
by Phil Corwin Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

Fellow Councilors: This morning the BC held its regular members' call, and we got into some discussion in regard to background information I had circulated prior to the call (below). However, there was insufficient participation to reach a BC consensus, and we shall continue the discussion on the BC email list. It was decided on the call that I would reach out to other Councilors to get an initial impression of whether we are aiming to discuss and vote on a Resolution of approval or disapproval in two weeks, on our call of December 17th, or whether we wish to bring that question to a vote on our first call of January 2016. If we are targeting the 17th then we have a great deal of work to do, including getting consensus feedback from those we represent and preparing a draft Resolution. If we are looking toward January then I would strongly suggest that we schedule that call for January 14th, and not the 21st which is only one day prior to the target delivery date to the Board. What are your views on this most important matter? Very best regards, Philip ******************************* BC members, please note that the second item in item #2, following Steve's review of the Policy calendar, is: * Discussion of final Accountability proposal #3- Comments close December 21- procedure for BC input into CSG, and then GNSO, for Chartering Organization decision The third Accountability proposal was published on Monday, November 30 for a comment period closing on December 21. The target date for delivering the Proposal to the Board for its consideration is January 22, 2016. While public comment is being solicited, we are now at the stage where the primary objective is to get the Chartering Organizations to indicate whether they approve or disapprove of the Proposal - and, if they disapprove, what changes would be required for approval. The GNSO is the relevant Chartering organization for the BC. The next meeting of the GNSO Council is scheduled for December 17, two weeks from today and four days before the close of the public comment period. Susan and I will be looking to BC members to provide a consensus view of the proposal that we can convey to the rest of the CSG, as well as the NCSG and the full Council. The first meeting of the Council in 2016 will be held on either January 14 or 21. If Council does not approve a Resolution of approval or disapproval on December 17 then I think it is a sure bet that the next call will be on January 14, eight days prior to the scheduled Board delivery date. With all of that as background, the guidance your Councilors are looking for on today's call is whether BC members believe they will be able to convey a consensus view on the proposal prior to the December 17 Council meeting, or whether we should be targeting January 14 for that Council decision. If you are planning to be on today's call please be prepared to share your view on that question, and if you are not on the call please provide your view on the BC-Private list. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

4 3

Review of CCWG - ACCT Report
by James M. Bladel Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

Colleagues - Following up from our most recent call, and the actions associated with review of the next Draft Report from the CCWG-Accountabilty WG, it would be great if we can get out in front of any concerns that might be raised by the GNSO Community or the Council. With this in mind, could we ask each SG/C to designate one Councilor to report back to the Council list with: * Efforts (planned or underway) in their SG/C to review & discuss the Draft Report * The expected time frame for completing the review, and any deadlines for the SG to raise concerns * Any issues or topics arising from this review that need to be discussed by the Council, and/or included in our response back to the CCWG. The Draft Report is expected to be published on 30 Nov, with the comment period closing on 21 Dec. No question that this is an extremely tight schedule, and hopefully this approach will allow us to gather topics for discussion on our next call on 17 Dec. Thanks- J.

3 2