July 2015 - council - lists.icann.org

Updated GNSO Council agenda 23 July 2015 at 11:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry July 22, 2015

July 22, 2015

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the Council meeting tomorrow, 23 July 2015 at 11:00 UTC, please find the updated proposed agenda. The updates concern: Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Purpose of New gTLD Registration Data Policy Development Process (PDP) 5.1 - Update<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-next-generation-rds-23…> (Marika Konings) the link to the presentation has been added:http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-next-generation-…<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> Under Item 9: Any Other Business the following items have been added: 9.1 - Staff request for time extension in preparing the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report. 9.2 - Discuss appointment of three experts from the GNSO to join new Working Group to review IDN Guidelines: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en (due 3 August 2015) 9.3 - Selection of a PDP Working Group for facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN54. Part of the continued GNSO Council Pilot Project to improve PDP effectiveness. 9.4 - Discuss possible Council action regarding IETF proposed standard for .onion as a Special Use Domain Name: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/ (due 11 August 2015) 9.5 - Planning for ICANN54 9.6 - Other topics Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures<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. Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/qepm2cs 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Brussels; 19:00 Perth 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 a dial out call is needed. ___________________________________________ 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 meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting of 11 February, 19 March, 16 April, 21 May 2015 posted as approved on 28 June 2015. Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 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> 2.2 - Comments or questions arising Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Motion to Approve GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué from Buenos Aires (15 minutes) The GNSO had previously discussed appropriate mechanisms to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on specific issues in GAC Communiqué that relate to gTLDs, to inform the Board and the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. A template was developed to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué, by GNSO Council volunteers. Input provided through this process is intended to enhance co-ordination and information sharing on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Here the Council will vote on whether to adopt the completed draft template relating to the Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+23+July+2015> (Volker Greimann) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Vote (voting threshold - simple majority) Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Purpose of New gTLD Registration Data Policy Development Process (PDP) (20 minutes) The GNSO Council and community had previously provided feedback to the Board-GNSO process group that was formed to develop a proposed approach for dealing with this Board-mandated PDP associated with, the work of the Expert Working Group's (EWG) Final Report, published in June 2014. Prior to the EWG's Final Report, a Preliminary Issue Report had been published in 2013 for public comment, with the Final Issue Report anticipated for publication only after the EWG had completed its work. The Board-GNSO process group's amended framework has been submitted to the GNSO Council and the Board, which has since reconfirmed its request for an Issue Report on the topic. Here the Council will receive an update on the status of the Issue Report, and discuss timelines and next steps. 5.1 - Update<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-next-generation-rds-23…> (Marika Konings) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Next steps Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability - CCWG Accountability (15 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. Considering that the US Government (through the 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. The CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…> some initial proposals surrounding its first Work Stream (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment in May 2015. All public comments received are being reviewed by the CCWG, which will conduct a face-to-face meeting on 17 & 18 July. Here the Council will review the CCWG's status and progress, and discuss any specific issues that need to be addressed in view of the timeline of the CCWG and the transition. 6.1 - Summary and status update (Thomas Rickert) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Next steps Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Proposed Cross Community Working Group On New gTLD Auction Proceeds (15 minutes) Previous outreach by the GNSO to other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees had indicated that there is substantial community interest in forming a Cross Community Working Group to address the topic of dealing with the proceeds from auctions in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. Following further community discussions at ICANN53, it was decided that a Discussion Paper would be helpful to scope out the various issues of community interest. Here the Council will receive an update on the status of work on this proposed project and discuss next steps. 7.1 - Update (Jonathan Robinson / Marika Konings) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL ACTION - GNSO Chair Election Timetable (10 minutes) At ICANN53, the GNSO Council discussed succession planning and the upcoming elections for the Council leadership positions that will become vacant at the ICANN Annual Meeting in Dublin. Staff has prepared and circulated a proposed timeline for the elections, based on previous election proceedings. Here the Council will continue its discussion on succession planning, and decide on the proposed timeline. 8.1 - Discussion (Jonathan Robinson) 8.2 - Council decision 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: Any Other Business (15 minutes) 9.1 - Staff request for time extension in preparing the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report. 9.2 - Discuss appointment of three experts from the GNSO to join new Working Group to review IDN Guidelines: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en (due 3 August 2015) 9.3 - Selection of a PDP Working Group for facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN54. Part of the continued GNSO Council Pilot Project to improve PDP effectiveness. 9.4 - Discuss possible Council action regarding IETF proposed standard for .onion as a Special Use Domain Name: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/ (due 11 August 2015) 9.5 - Planning for ICANN54 9.6 - Other topics ______________________________________________ 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 11:00 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 04:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+1DST 06:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-5+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST07:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 13:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 14:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+3+0DST 14:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 19:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+1DST21:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/qepm2cs 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

Reminder/Action: SCI Vacancies and Membership
by Julie Hedlund July 22, 2015

July 22, 2015

Dear GNSO Council members, One of the action items from the GNSO Wrap Up session at ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires was for staff to send to the Council a reminder of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) vacancies and current membership since the Council recognized that full representation from all Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups is essential to the work of the SCI. In particular, staff had reminded the Council that attendance at SCI meetings has been lacking recently, and thus the Council deemed that a review of members is necessary to ensure participation from all representatives. You will find the current membership on the SCI wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/3.+Members and for reference I have included it below. You will note that representatives are missing for the following organizations: Business Constituency (BC): Primary Member -- Angie Graves; Alternate Member TBD Nominating Committee Appointee: Primary Member: TBD; Alternate Member: Thomas Rickert (Council term ends at AGM 2015, 22 October 2015) Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency - NPOC Constituency: Primary Member -- Rudi Vansnick, (Vice Chair 2015); Alternate Member TBD As noted below Anne Aikman-Scalese is the 2015 SCI Chair. Rudi Vansnick recently joined the SCI and volunteered to be the Vice Chair. He was welcomed in this role at the SCI meeting in Buenos Aires on Saturday, 20 June. Avri Doria is the Council Liaison. Per the action item it would be helpful for Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups to review their membership on the SCI and to provide updates as soon as possible, but no later than 21 July by replying to the GNSO Secretariat at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Thank you very much for your prompt assistance in this matter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Members of the Standing Committee Stakeholder Group / Constituency Primary Member Alternate Member Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG)Jennifer Standiford - Jennifer Standiford SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Jennifer+Standiford+SOI> Sara Bockey - Sara Bockey SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Sara+Bockey+SOI> Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG)Ken Stubbs - Ken Stubbs SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Ken+Stubbs+SOI> Ray Fassett - Ray Fassett SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Ray+Fassett+SOI> Business Constituency (BC)Angie Graves - Angie Graves SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Angie+Graves+SOI> TBD ISPs and connectivity providers Constituency (ISPCP)Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - Wolf-Ulrich Knoben SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Wolf-Ulrich+Knoben+SOI> Osvaldo Novoa - Osvaldo Novoa SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Osvaldo+Novoa+SOI> Intellectual Property ConstituencyAnne E. Aikman-Scalese (Chair 2015) - Anne Aikman-Scalese SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Anne+Aikman-Scalese+SOI> Lori Schulman - Lori S. Schulman SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Lori+S.+Schulman+SOI> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG)Avri Doria - Avri Doria SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Avri+Doria+SOI> Stefania Milan - Stefania Milan SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stefania+Milan+SOI> Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)Amr Elsadr- Amr Elsadr SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Amr+Elsadr+SOI> David Cake - David Cake SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/David+Cake+SOI> Nominating Committee AppointeeTBDThomas Rickert - Thomas Rickert SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Thomas+Rickert+SOI> Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency - NPOC ConstituencyRudi Vansnick (Vice Chair 2015) - Rudi Vansnick SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rudi+Vansnick+SOI> TBD GNSO Council Liaison: Avri Doria

1 1

Fwd: Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>
by Avri Doria July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Hi, The following message is a hint at some of the discussions that have been going on in the IETF for some time now. These relate to RF6761 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6761.txt> on Special Use domain names. At some point we may want to discuss this issue. Should not let the IETF working group have all the fun. We need to remember that because the IETF determines the protocols and their reserved names, they determine which names are available to ICANN. One example of a special use name is currently in last call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt which is in last call until 11 August: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/> We may decide that this is ok. Part of me think it may be. But in any case, we should probably not let this slip my without a discussion. RFC6761 slipped by without out noticing it. I think I mentioned it at the time to various folks but the GNSO did not discuss it in any way. Perhaps it is time we had some discussions on the issue and perhaps want to send in a comment as part of the last call. avri -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt> Date: 20 Jul 2015 19:22:19 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl(a)taugh.com> To: ietf(a)ietf.org Now that you and Andrew have pointed it out, and after today's dnsop session, I agree that the trickle of not-DNS domain names is likely only to become larger, and we need a better way to deal with it than a two-month all-IETF debate per name. > why can't we take the Special Names >problem to them, say "look, we understand that these names look >like names in the public DNS root and that confusion that would >have bad effects is a real risk, how about you devise a >procedure for dealing with them that recognizes the importance >of existing deployment and use and considers the low likelihood >that people who are using these names will stop because you tell >them too. Clearly the procedure you use for new gTLD >applications won't work. And, because some of these names won't >wait, if you can't get that procedure together immediately, we'd >be willing to let you delegate things to us on some reasonable >basis until you do." That is an excellent question, and I suppose it couldn't hurt to ask. But I have little confidence that ICANN in anything like its current form, where it is dominated by people who want to collect rent on every imaginable TLD, would come up with an answer any better than let them pay $185K and take their chances. As a second level issue, we might want to consider whether it's worth standardizing DNS escapes which are now typically done by a hacked version of a SOCKS server or DNS resolver. R's, John --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

3 2

Resolution from Board meeting yesterday to consider the Indepdent Review Panel delcaration on .Africa
by Bruce Tonkin July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-16-en DotConnectAfrica Trust (DCA) v. ICANN IRP Final Declaration Whereas, on 9 July 2015, an independent review panel ("Panel") issued a final Declaration ("Declaration") in the independent review proceedings (IRP) initiated by DotConnectAfrica Trust (DCA), in which DCA sought relief relating to Board action or inaction on its application for .AFRICA. Whereas, in the Declaration, the Panel set forth the following: 148. Based on the foregoing, after having carefully reviewed the Parties' written submissions, listened to the testimony of the three witness [sic], listened to the oral submissions of the Parties in various telephone conference calls and at the in-person hearing of this IRP in Washington D.C. on 22 and 23 May 2015, and finally after much deliberation, pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, paragraph 11 (c) of ICANN's Bylaws, the Panel declares that both the actions and inactions of the Board with respect to the application of DCA Trust relating to the .AFRICA gTLD were inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of ICANN. 149. Furthermore, pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, paragraph 11 (d) of ICANN's Bylaws, the Panel recommends that ICANN continue to refrain from delegating the .AFRICA gTLD and permit DCA Trust's application to proceed through the remainder of the new gTLD application process. 150. The Panel declares DCA trust to be the prevailing party in this IRP and further declares that ICANN is to bear, pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, paragraph 18 of the Bylaws, Article 11 of the Supplementary Procedures and Article 31 of the ICDR Rules, the totality of the costs of this IRP and the totality of the costs of the IRP Provider as follows: a) the fees and expenses of the panelists; b) the fees and expenses of the administrator, the ICDR; c) the fees and expenses of the emergency panelist incurred in connection with the application for interim emergency relief sought pursuant to the Supplementary Procedures and the ICDR Rules; and d) the fees and expenses of the reporter associated with the hearing on 22 and 23 May 2015 in Washington D.C. e) As a result of the above, the administrative fees of the ICDR totalling US$4,600 and Panelists' compensation and expenses totalling US$403,467.08 shall be born entirely by ICANN, therefore, ICANN shall reimburse DCA Trust the sum of US$198,046.04. 151. As per the last sentence of Article IV, Section 3, paragraph 18 of the Bylaws, DCA Trust and ICANN shall each bear their own expenses. The parties shall also each bear their own legal representation fees. Whereas, the independent review process is an integral ICANN accountability mechanism that helps support ICANN's multistakeholder model, and the Board thanks the Panel for its efforts in this IRP, and would like to specifically honor the memory of former panelist Hon. Richard C. Neal, who passed away during the proceedings. Whereas, in addition to the Declaration, the Board must also take into account other relevant information, including but not limited to: (i) that ICANN received and accepted GAC consensus advice that DCA's application for .AFRICA should not proceed; and (ii) that ICANN has a signed Registry Agreement with ZA Central Registry ("ZACR") to operate the .AFRICA top-level domain. Whereas, pursuant to Article IV, Section 3.21 of the Board considered the Declaration at the Board's next meeting, which the Board specifically scheduled in order to take action on this matter as quickly as possible. Resolved (2015.07.15.01), the Board has considered the entire Declaration, and has determined to take the following actions based on that consideration: 1. ICANN shall continue to refrain from delegating the .AFRICA gTLD; 2. ICANN shall permit DCA's application to proceed through the remainder of the new gTLD application process as set out below; and 3. ICANN shall reimburse DCA for the costs of the IRP as set forth in paragraph 150 of the Declaration. Resolved (2015.07.16.02), since the Board is not making a final determination at this time as to whether DCA's application for .AFRICA should proceed to contracting or delegation, the Board does not consider that resuming evaluation of DCA's application is action that is inconsistent with GAC advice. Resolved (2015.07.16.03), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to take all steps necessary to resume the evaluation of DCA's application for .AFRICA and to ensure that such evaluation proceeds in accordance with the established process(es) as quickly as possible (see Applicant Guidebook at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb for established processes). Resolved (2015.07.16.04), with respect to the GAC's consensus advice in the Beijing Communiqué that DCA's application for .AFRICA should not proceed, which was confirmed in the London Communiqué, the Board will ask the GAC if it wishes to refine that advice and/or provide the Board with further information regarding that advice and/or otherwise address the concerns raised in the Declaration. Resolved (2015.07.16.05), in the event that DCA's application for .AFRICA successfully passes the remainder of the evaluation process, at that time or before, the Board will consider any further advice or information received from the GAC, and proceed as necessary, balancing all of the relevant material information and circumstances. Should the Board undertake any action that may be inconsistent with the GAC's advice, the Board will follow the established process set out in the Bylaws (see ICANN Bylaws, Article XI, Section 2.1).

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#181]
by Glen de Saint Géry July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: jeudi 16 juillet 2015 16:28 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#181] Name of Officer: * Greg Shatan Officer Email Address: * gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, July 15, 2015 GNSO Organization: * Intellectual Property Constituency Officer Position or Title: * President Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * IPC Councilor Brian Winterfeldt anticipates that he may be unavailable at the time of the 23-July Council call. If Brian is able to join the call, this proxy should be rescinded. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * All matters that come before the Council. 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, July 24, 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: * Heather Forrest

1 0

- Request for Extension for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report
by Steve Chan July 16, 2015

July 16, 2015

Dear Councillors, Staff would like to request that the GNSO Council consider an extension of time for the preparation and delivery of the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures that was requested by the Council this past June at ICANN53. Per the GNSO PDP Manual, staff is directed to create the Preliminary Issue Report within 45 days. However, the number of subjects expected to be considered in this Preliminary Issue Report is substantial. As such, staff equests additional time to properly consider each subject and suggests that a delivery date of late August is far more likely to be achievable. At ICANN53, it was suggested that the earliest a possible PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures could be initiated is ICANN54 in Dublin. This request for extension would indeed jeopardize that timeline. Here is a possible timeline with the requested extension: * Preliminary Issue Report late August * Public Comment September through mid October * Final Issue Report mid November (though the level of public comment received will play a role in timing) This Preliminary Issue Report is likely to garner considerable attention from the community, and as such, it may in fact warrant extending the public comment beyond the normal 40 days to approximately 60, which would have the added benefit of being able to schedule a public session in Dublin to discuss the Preliminary Issue Report and encourage community input. Staff requests that this extension be considered during the 'Any Other Business' agenda item during the upcoming GNSO Council meeting scheduled for 23 July. We also welcome debate on the length of the public comment period and are happy to answer any questions you or your respective groups may have. 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

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#180]
by Glen de Saint Géry July 16, 2015

July 16, 2015

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: jeudi 16 juillet 2015 11:28 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#180] Name of Officer: * Tony Holmes Officer Email Address: * tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> Date Prepared: * Thursday, July 16, 2015 GNSO Organization: * Internet Services Provider Constituency Officer Position or Title: * Chairman ISPCP Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * I will be on vacation in Greece with no Internet Connectivity or other forms of communication when the Council meeting occurs. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Full proxy and voting rights passed to Osvaldo Novoa 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] * Monday, July 27, 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: * Osvaldo Novoa

1 0

For your information - revised version of GNSO Operating Procedures available
by Marika Konings July 15, 2015

July 15, 2015

Dear All, For your information, per the GNSO Council's resolution of Buenos Aires (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20150624-2) an updated version of the GNSO Operating Procedures has been posted and is now in effect (see GNSO Operating Procedures v3.0<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf>). This version includes a new Annex III (see ANNEX III: Input Process Manual<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-3-input-process-manual-24jun15-en.pdf>) that covers the GNSO Input Process and updates have been made to section 14 of the PDP manual (see ANNEX II Policy Development Process Manual<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-24jun15-en.pdf>) to reflect that the formation of Implementation Review Team (IRT) is mandatory following the adoption of GNSO policy recommendations by the ICANN Board, unless in exceptional circumstances the GNSO Council determines that an IRT is not required. Best regards, Marika

2 2

Enhancing Predictability and Transparency: Policy Implementation Webpage and Calendar Now Live - ICANN
by Marika Konings July 15, 2015

July 15, 2015

For your information: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-policy-implementation-calendar-announ… Enhancing Predictability and Transparency: Policy Implementation Webpage and Calendar Now Live <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-policy-implementation-calendar-announ…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-policy-implementation-calendar-announ…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-policy-implementation-calendar-announ…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-policy-implementation-calendar-announ…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-policy-implementation-calendar-announ…><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-policy-implementation-calendar-announ…> The policies that apply to generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are developed through the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) policy development process, which often represents several months of work, consideration, and discussion in the stakeholder community. When a new policy completes that process and is approved by the ICANN Board of Directors, the ICANN staff then puts those policy recommendations into practice – what is referred to as "policy implementation." After consulting with the community and the Policy/Implementation Non-PDP Working Group<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=41899467>, ICANN developed a set of resources to help streamline and communicate how we implement Consensus Policies, including a standard policy implementation framework and policy change calendar system. These resources will be housed on the new policy implementation status and resources page, which is now live<https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation>. The processes and resources will likely evolve over time, but mark an exciting first step toward enhancing the transparency, accountability and predictability of ICANN's implementation of Consensus Policy recommendations. Specifics about the new standard policy implementation framework and policy change calendar system are below. ICANN will review these resources in one year to determine if any updates are needed. Implementation Framework First, ICANN has standardized the process that Global Domains Division staff follow when implementing GNSO Consensus Policy recommendations that have been approved by the ICANN Board of Directors. This new implementation framework<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa…> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa…) is intended to provide additional transparency surrounding the processes that staff use to implement a policy, and to enhance predictability surrounding the implementation process and timeline. ICANN also launched a new implementation status page<https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation> that will allow the community to track the anticipated path of an implementation effort from the time a policy development process launches in the GNSO, until a consensus policy is fully implemented and, if applicable, reviewed down the road. The page provides projected timeframes for each project's anticipated effective date, which will become more accurate over time as a policy project nears the Board approval and implementation stage. Policy Change Calendar System Additionally, starting today, ICANN will bundle the effective dates for new Consensus Policies into groups. The groups' effective dates will be announced at least six months apart, to give contracted parties time to prepare for each group of changes before the next round of new requirements goes into effect. For example, ICANN could announce on 1 February that a new group of policy implementations is scheduled to go into effect (announcements of new policy requirements are posted on ICANN.org and sent as notifications to the relevant contracted parties). Following the standard policy change calendar's six-month implementation window, each new policy in this group would go into effect on 1 August. This would give contracted parties a full six months to prepare to comply with the new requirements of each policy in the group. After this period has passed, the official announcement for the next group will go out, with its effective date six months from the announcement. These groupings will be assigned based on a variety of factors, including the time of the policies' completion and the total estimated level of effort that the new requirements will place on contracted parties. If implementation details are ready before the planned announcement date, ICANN staff will share the details with the community beforehand to provide even more time to prepare. All details about the implementations and projections about upcoming change cycles will be posted on the new implementation status page<https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation> (https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation) A full description of ICANN's Policy Change Calendar is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may…<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13ma…> Continual Improvement We welcome your input on these processes at any time, and urge you to share your experiences and suggestions for improvement when these processes are reviewed in 2016. Share your ideas by emailing gdd-implementation(a)icann.org<mailto:gdd-implementation@icann.org>.

1 0

FW: New ICANN Meeting Strategy
by Glen de Saint Géry July 15, 2015

July 15, 2015

Dear Councillors, Please find the correspondence from Jonathan Robinson to Dr. Steve Crocker and members of the ICANN Board. The letter has been acknowledged by Board Support and is also posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-crocker-14jul15-en.pdf Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: mardi 14 juillet 2015 16:45 To: board-support Cc: 'gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org'; Marika Konings; Jonathan Robinson Subject: New ICANN Meeting Strategy Dear Board Support, Please be so kind as to transmit the attached letter from Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council chair to Dr. Steve Crocker and members of the ICANN Board. Thank you. Respectfully submitted. 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