October 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics
by James M. Bladel Oct. 21, 2016

Oct. 21, 2016

Councilors – Below, please see a note from Board support, including 2 questions the Board would like to raise with us during our joint meeting in Hyderabad. Additionally, please recall my “Call for Topics” from last week, as the agenda for our joint meetings needs to be finalized by this Wednesday (26 OCT). For your convenience, Staff has prepared a centralized Wiki page (below) with the Draft Agendas for all joint sessions. Some of these are based on previous meetings, so please suggest any edits or changes you’d like to see in India. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=62399849 Thank you, J. From: Vinciane Koenigsfeld <vinciane.koenigsfeld(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, October 17, 2016 at 10:48 To: "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, "board-ops-team(a)icann.org" <Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Subject: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics Dear James, We are looking forward to seeing you in Hyderabad! As you know, over the years, the Board has heard from many Groups on the need to make the interaction between the Board and Constituency/Stakeholder/Advisory Groups at ICANN Public Meetings more effective for both the Groups and the Board. To do this, Board Operations collects, ahead of the Meeting, the questions that each Group would like to bring to the Board. We would appreciate receiving the questions/topics that GNSO might want to discuss with the Board during the meeting currently scheduled on Monday 7 November. The deadline for submission of these topics is Wednesday 26 October. We are as well taking this opportunity to share with you the Board's questions to your Group, for discussion during this meeting. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD : 1. What do we (Board and ICANN organization) have to do to make the transition work for you? 2. What do we (Board, ICANN organization and community) need to do to advance trust and confidence in what we do? Best, The Board Ops team

1 0

Candidate Statement GNSO Council chair
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

Dear Councillors, Nominations for GNSO Council Chair closed on 7 October 2016. There was one nomination from the Contracted Parties House, James Bladel. James has accepted the nomination as noted in his candidate statement below which is published on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/elections https://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-20oct16-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/> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>. From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Thank you, Glen. Candidate statement is attached (PDF) and below. J. Candidate Statement GNSO Chair October 2016 Candidate: James Bladel (RrSG - North America) Citizenship / Residence: USA Dear Glen, Marika, and Fellow Councilors - I am honored to accept the nomination to serve as Council Chair for a second and final term. My personal background and relevant experience remains unchanged from last year’s Candidate Statement, and can be viewed at https://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/bladel-statement-01oct15-en.pdf[gnso.ic…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_elec…>. For this year’s statement I’d like to highlighting some of our achievements over the past year, and look ahead at work that is incomplete, and would enhance the Council. A Council that is Effective Working together, the Council has recorded several key accomplishments this year. At our meeting in Marrakech, we approved the recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability working group. This was no small undertaking, given the complexity of the material and the diversity of opinions. GNSO approval was necessary to adopt the entire CCWG-ACCT package, and was therefore on the critical path for the IANA Transition. During its meeting at ICANN55, the Council adopted a modified voting format that accommodated individual votes in opposition to some recommendations, while still permitting adoption of the overall CCWG package. In my opinion, this is a case study in how the Council can balance the need to uphold the integrity (and legitimacy) of its decision making processes, without tripping over its own rules and becoming ineffective and marginalized. Preserve the Council’s Remit This year the Council has also held the line on initiatives that, intentional or otherwise, would have undermined the GNSO’s exclusive remit to create gTLD policy. A clear example of this is the ongoing effort to protect IGO/INGO acronyms. When compared against the GNSO-approved PDP recommendations, advice from the GAC and the proposed “small group” do not seem materially significant. However, the Council has correctly recognized the hazards of negotiating with the Board over approved recommendations, the chilling effect this could have on future participating in PDP working groups, and using GAC advice as a measuring stick to gauge whether or not a community-led PDP resulted in a successful outcome. Similarly, we’ve identified that efforts in other standards-setting bodies, like the IETF, can have policy implications that either predetermine or “box out” proposals that might otherwise be addressed via PDP. Early in the year, we identified a few such issues underway in the IETF, and have made overtures to enhance the visibility, communication and coordination with the work of that group. But rather than burden either organization with maintaining formal liaisons, we’ve opted for a light-weight approach that leverages the high degree of common membership between our groups. The proliferation of Cross-Community Working Groups (CCWGs) is also noteworthy, particularly if the subject matter under review collides with active policy development. The recently-adopted framework for CCWGs will help to preserve these scope distinctions, and prevent CCWGs from becoming an alternative mechanism to the PDP. Finally, we must acknowledge that the Council itself poses a threat to multi-stakeholder policy development. During the course of our work, it is inevitable that we will encounter gaps or omissions in a PDP, requiring the Council to resist any temptation to “fix”. Like a trickle of water under a dam, we must remain vigilant against actions by other groups, or ourselves, that erode confidence in this model. Team Based Leadership Last year I observed that our previous Chair seemed to take on a substantial portion of the workload by himself. This wasn’t a criticism, but rather an acknowledgement that this approach to Council leadership doesn’t scale to keep pace the growing project list, and a new strategy was needed. I made the commitment then to work more closely with the Vice Chairs, and to seek volunteers from the Council and broader GNSO community to lead on specific tasks. I’m pleased to report that these changes have been adopted, with observable results. As an alumnus of the Meetings Strategy Working Group, Donna Austin took the lead representing the GNSO in planning for the ICANN56 Policy Forum in Helsinki. We all owe her our gratitude for successfully striking the balance between the needs of the community and the vision that was outlined for “Meeting B” by the MSWG. Similarly, Heather Forrest has contributed to the planning for ICANN57, and took the wheel as Chair for our May meeting, including many follow-up administrative actions. I rely on Donna and Heather almost daily for their advice and leadership, and no major decisions are taken without agreement (or at worse, non-objection) from all of us. The Council is fortunate to have them both. And aside from the Vice Chairs, other Councilors and GNSO volunteers have also made significant contributions to the work of the Council. Whether it is taking the lead on a specific issue or motion, managing the drafting of a letter, document, or presenting on the work of a CCWG, these individuals have all stepped forward to lend their expertise and their time to advancing our work, and deserve our gratitude. Work in Progress Alongside these accomplishments, the Council owns several incomplete initiatives as well. Clearly, we must continue to preserve the GNSO’s unique role in developing gTLD policy, as outlined above. But an important component of this is GNSO education and outreach to other SOs and ACs. At the root of most contentious issues, I believe, is a general misunderstanding of the GNSO, our processes, and how to engage in our work. Keeping the channels of communication open to other organizations, and creating new channels, is an important first step to preventing friction between groups. The GNSO will also need to continuously evaluate and evolve its role in the new ICANN. We’ll consider the report of the Bylaws Drafting Team (and associated minority report(s)) at ICANN57, but generally I believe that the GNSO’s participation in the Empowered Community will be more challenging than other SOs and ACs, primarily due to our size, complexity, and diversity. We’ll have to find a way to effectively contribute the voices of our stakeholders to these new accountability processes, or run the risk of becoming a passive observer in the new model. On the subject of reforming the GNSO, the next year will also require us to execute on the implementation plan currently under development by the group working on GNSO Improvements. This plan is expected by the end of the year, and will presumably be adopted by the Board early in 2017. The subsequent group will also stand in for the Standing Committee for Improvements, which was folded in to this effort as well. Additionally, there are several operational improvements still necessary for the GNSO to optimize its effectiveness. We need a way to measure the capacity of the volunteer community, and gauge the level of utilization. This is fundamental to sound project management practices, and yet it is a capability that the GNSO lacks (although Berry Cobb has modeled some ideas worth considering). Information sharing and issue tracking presents another challenge, as many Councilors and GNSO volunteers can easily lose track of singular efforts, which only compounds the burden of our support staff. Making the most efficient use of our limited meeting time is also key, as the GNSO Council is only in session for 2 hours each month, and a few hours during our in-person meetings. Most of us probably spend more time at our day job in a typical work week than we do on Council work in a calendar year, so it is important that our meetings and calls stay focused, and we use the mailing list as a default wherever possible. Finally, I’d like to continuously examine the tools and technologies we employ in the conduct of Council work. Many of the individuals and companies represented in the GNSO are leading technology innovation around the globe, and this could be leveraged by expanding our toolkit beyond email, teleconference and Adobe Connect. Collaboration and document authoring platforms would be helpful, and even the GNSO website (which I’m betting most use only for the calendar) could benefit from a refresh. Summary I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the previous year, and am proud to serve my colleagues on Council and in the broader GNSO community. I’d particularly like to thank the GNSO support staff: Glen, who handles all logistics with an ever-cheerful demeanor; Mary, for her encyclopedic knowledge of issues and GNSO processes, and of course Marika who makes the impossible look easy. Without them, and the Vice Chairs, leaders on Council, and GNSO volunteers, I don’t believe I (or anyone else) could be effective in this role. I ask for your support in this election, and over the coming year in service to the GNSO Council and broader ICANN community. Thank you, J. James Bladel From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 15:26 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Subject: URGENT DEADLINE FOR Statement! Glen de Saint Géry Manager Supporting Organisations Advisory Committees Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers - ICANN glen(a)icann.org<mailto:glen@icann.org> http://www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DQMGaQ…> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses[learn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Message from Auction Proceeds DT to SO/AC
by James M. Bladel Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

Dear Council Colleagues – Please see below for a note from Jonathan Robinson and Alan Greenberg from the Auction Proceeds Drafting Team, asking the GNSO to formally consider adoption of the charter for a CCWG. Thanks— J. Dear SO/AC Chairs, We are following up on our message below from 13 September (see below) concerning the proposed new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Charter. To date, we’ve received confirmation from the ccNSO that it is ready to go ahead and consider the charter for adoption. In addition, the GNSO leadership team requested a webinar to allow for a walk-through of the charter and address any questions there might be. This webinar, which was communicated to you and open to anyone interested, was held on Thursday 13 October. For those interested to listen to a recording of the webinar, or to review the slides, please see here: https://community.icann.org/x/gh_4Aw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. Although a number of interesting points were discussed in relation to the prospective work of the CWG, no pertinent issues were identified which would require modification of the charter. Therefore, the Drafting Team considers its work done and would hereby like to formally submit the proposed charter for a CCWG on new gTLD Auction Proceeds (see https://community.icann.org/x/mRuOAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>) for your group’s consideration as soon as reasonably possible. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Best regards, Jonathan Robinson, DT Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair

1 0

Save the date for Bruce Tonkin's Reception - Sunday 6 November 2016 @ 18:30
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 19, 2016

Oct. 19, 2016

Please submit responses to http://doodle.com/poll/vai9pgtz62fctw4v[doodle.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doodle.com_poll_vai9pgt…> Dear GNSO Council & Staff, As you may know already, the RrSG & RySG will be holding a Reception at ICANN 57 in honour of Bruce Tonkin's service to the ICANN Board on Sunday 6 November at 18:30. Please see the attached Save-the-date card and RSVP as requested if you will be able to join us. If you have any queries, please contact secretariat(a)icannregistrars.org<mailto:secretariat@icannregistrars.org>. Kind regards, Zoe Bonython RrSG Secretariat

1 0

Fwd: [GAC] For GAC: Draft Report of the Independent Review of the Trademark Clearinghouse Available for Public Comment
by Mason Cole Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

Councilors — I was copied on the attached email from Mark Carvell, the GAC representative from the UK. I’m forwarding to you as a heads up on an issue the GAC will likely seek to put on the agenda for the council’s joint meeting with the GAC in Hyderabad. Please let me know if you’d like me to return any information or concerns to Mark. I’m happy to do so. Mason > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Mark Carvell <mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk> > Subject: Re: [GAC] For GAC: Draft Report of the Independent Review of the Trademark Clearinghouse Available for Public Comment > Date: October 7, 2016 at 12:29:02 PM PDT > To: "gac(a)icann.org" <gac(a)icann.org> > Cc: Mason Cole <mason(a)donuts.co>, "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au> > > Dear GAC colleagues > > As aide memoire I'm resending my e-mail of 14 August below which set out proposed action by the GAC on the draft report of the review of the Trade Mark Clearing House (TMCH) which has been undertaken in response to a GAC proposal before the launch of the current new gTLD application round in view of the criticality of the TMCH as a rights protection mechanism (RPM). > > Responses received from stakeholders to the consultation on the draft report of the TMCH review are accessible at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/tmch-review-2016-07-25-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/tmch-review-2016-07-25-en> > > The GAC has a session in Hyderabad on the TMCH review scheduled for 6 November and it is possible that one of the authors of the report will be able to attend. I encourage colleagues therefore in the remaining time available before travelling to Hyderabad to familiarise themselves with this RPM, to review the responses to the draft review report and if necessary to seek comments and advice from intellectual property policy experts in your administrations. > > Kind regards > > Mark > > Mark Carvell > > Representative of the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN > > GAC Vice-Chair candidate for 2017 > > Global Internet Governance Policy > Department for Culture, Media and Sport > mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> > tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 > > On 14 August 2016 at 17:11, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>> wrote: > Dear GAC colleagues > > One of the key parts of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook as it was being written in 2009-11 that came under scrutiny by the GAC in its "scorecard" progressive review of the proposals was that relating to intellectual rights protection. This was in order to mitigate what was perceived to be a substantial risk of escalation of the cybersquatting problem of bad faith registration of trade mark names in order to extort money from brand-owners if there were to be a significant expansion in the number of top level domains. Cybersquatting costs business over a billion dollars annually. > > The level of public policy concern relating to how the rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were being developed to address this risk, is indicated in the detailed exchanges on rights protection at the time of the inter-sessional GAC meeting with the Board in Brussels on 28 February-1 March 2011 - see for example: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/ICANN+Board-GAC+Consultation+Brusse… <https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/ICANN+Board-GAC+Consultation+Brusse…> > > There is also the statement of comments on the guidebook that issued on 25 May: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may1… <https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may1…> which in how it addresses issues such as community-based applications is a very interesting document from the archives, when read in the light of the experience of the new gTLDs round. > > The key safeguard mechanism that emerged from these discussions is the "Trademark Clearinghouse" which is essentially a database of registered marks to which registrars need to refer when receiving registration enquiries and requests. This has been operational since the roll out of the new gTLD programme started in late 2013; the size of the database is described on pp5-6 of the draft review report. > > The message to corporate brand-owners was that they needed to develop strategies to prepare for this rapidly growing TLD landscape and use the clearing house as the one-stop-solution for protecting their brand in the era of the massively expanded new gTLD system. > > For its part the GAC after some of its recommendations and proposals had not been fully accepted, ultimately recommended in the 25 May 2011 statement that a comprehensive independent review of the TMCH be conducted that would be triggered at the one year point after the launch of the 75th new gTLD in the round. We are now at that point. > > As the topic lead of the RPMs at the time of the inter-sessional meeting with the Board, the GAC leadership has asked me to coordinate the GAC's interaction and response to the review report. I now propose to do this with a view to presenting a GAC statement of position at our next meeting in Hyderabad. By the time of that meeting in November, we and the GNSO will have had the opportunity to review the stakeholder responses to the current public consultation which concludes on 3 September and it is likely that the planned revised report taking into account the responses will have issued. > > The ICANN announcement summarises very succinctly the main conclusions of the draft report - including relating to few specific critical questions raised back in 2011 about TMCH not dealing with non-exact matches of trademarks (which had been rejected by the Board) and not handling notifications after 60 days limit - but not exclusively so as this should be a comprehensive evaluation of the TMCH's effectiveness including how unforeseen problems have been dealt with. > > For further information and key links, Tom Dale has provided the attached GAC Secretariat briefing note. > > My proposed way forward for the GAC in preparing its response to the Independent Review of TMCH Services: > > 1. Colleagues familiarise themselves with the draft report and its preliminary conclusions in preparation for consideration of the stakeholder consultation responses in September. We should bear in mind what the GAC required of this comprehensive review in 2011. In particular we should question whether all the relevant issues relating to mitigating the cybersquatting risk have been covered in the draft report and whether all the emerging issues from the experience since the roll-out of new gTLDs commenced. have been taken into account. > > Timeline: send me your initial responses to the draft report by 9 September prior to my launch the main GAC exercise which is to review the stakeholder responses (with the help of ICANN staff) in the second half of September and first week of October. > > How can you contribute? > > Few of us on the GAC are IPR experts. Back in 2011 several GAC members (including the UK) actively consulted their intellectual property policy expert leads in the respective ministries and agencies, for direction as to the position that the GAC should take on enhancing rights protection while also balancing the opportunity for new stakeholders in the domain name system. So I recommend at this time of the TCMH services review, that colleagues likewise consider engaging their intellectual property policy colleagues - especially those familiar with the cybersquatting risk and complaints and so who would be in contact with brand-owners in particular - in order to develop your inputs into the GAC deliberations on the TMCH, well in advance of the Hyderabad. > > 2. At the Hyderabad meeting, I propose I chair a substantive discussion with the aim of formulating a GAC statement of position on the TMCH services and the revised review report. and as appropriate recommend adjustments both for the current round and the subsequent mechanisms should there be a community decision to extend further the domain name system with more gTLDs.. > > 3. The TMCH services review will quite possibly be an issue for discussion with the GNSO in Hyderabad (I'm copying in our liaison Mason Cole so that he is aware). One further option for colleagues to consider is the potential value of inviting the review authors (Jiariu Liu of the Stamford Law School, Greg Rafert of Analysis Group, and Katja Seim of the Warton School Pennsylvania University) to present their findings to the GAC and take questions in open session. Let me know what you think of that option in due course. > > I'm away on summer leave for the rest of August but will be happy to take questions and comments on the above proposed way forward on the Trademark Clearinghouse Services review, when I return to the office on 2 September. > > Kind regards > > Mark > > Mark Carvell > United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN > > Global Internet Governance Policy > Department for Culture, Media and Sport > mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk <mailto:mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk> > tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29%2020%207211%206062> > On 26 July 2016 at 06:44, Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au <mailto:tom@acig.com.au>> wrote: > Dear GAC > > Please see the news alert from ICANN, below, advising that the draft report of the Review of the Trademark Clearinghouse has been released for public comment. The deadline for comment is 3 September 2016. > > This review is based on a GAC recommendation of May 2011 for a comprehensive post-launch independent review of the Clearinghouse to be conducted one year after the launch of the 75th new gTLD in the round. > > Further briefing will be provided in the near future. > > Regards > > > Tom Dale > ACIG GAC Secretariat > > > From: ICANN News Alert <no-reply(a)external.icann.org <mailto:no-reply@external.icann.org>> > Reply-To: "no-reply(a)external.icann.org <mailto:no-reply@external.icann.org>" <no-reply(a)external.icann.org <mailto:no-reply@external.icann.org>> > Date: Tuesday, 26 July 2016 at 2:16 AM > To: Thomas Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au <mailto:tom@acig.com.au>> > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report of the Independent Review of the Trademark Clearinghouse Available for Public Comment > > <http://www.icann.org/>News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-25-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-25-en> > Draft Report of the Independent Review of the Trademark Clearinghouse Available for Public Comment > 25 July 2016 > 25 July 2016 – ICANN today announced the publication of the Draft Report of the Independent Review of the Trademark Clearinghouse. Specific considerations related to the matching criteria, Trademark Claims service and Sunrise period are assessed in the review, conducted by Analysis Group. > > Read the report <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/tmch/draft-services-review-25jul16-en…> [PDF, 1.15 MB]. > > The report is available for public comment through 3 September 2016. Feedback will be incorporated into a revised report. > > Comment on the Draft Report of the Independent Review of the Trademark Clearinghouse <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/tmch-review-2016-07-25-en>. > > Key Findings: > > Expanding Matching Criteria to include non-exact matches may be of limited benefit: The dispute rate of completed registrations that are variations of trademark strings is very low. > > Extending the Trademark Claims Service may have diminishing value: Registrations of names matching trademarks decline after the required 90-day Claims service period ends. > > Few trademark holders utilize the Sunrise period: Most users of the Trademark Clearinghouse submit proof of use to gain access to the Sunrise period. However, across eligible trademark holders, fewer than 20 percent have used the Sunrise period to date. > > Additional Information > > An independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse was recommended <https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may1…> [PDF, 110 KB] by the GAC in May 2011 to be completed after the launch of the New gTLD Program. The review is informed by an analysis of Trademark Clearinghouse and third-party data sources, including data collected from stakeholders via interviews and surveys. > > About ICANN > > ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation and a community with participants from all over the world. ICANN and its community help keep the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It also promotes competition and develops policy for the top-level of the Internet's naming system and facilitates the use of other unique Internet identifiers. For more information please visit: www.icann.org <https://www.icann.org/>. > > > > This message was sent to tom(a)acig.com.au <mailto:tom@acig.com.au> from: > ICANN News Alert | no-reply(a)external.icann.org <mailto:no-reply@external.icann.org> | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> > Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=25640136&l=6333&s=FGHE&m=99…> > > _______________________________________________ > gac mailing list > gac(a)gac.icann.org <mailto:gac@gac.icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac> > > > Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. ………………………………………… mason(a)donuts.email Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555

2 3

Letter to ICANN Board & CEO from the Director General of the Red Cross
by Mary Wong Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

Dear Councilors, Please find attached a letter that was just sent to Steve Crocker and Goran Marby from the Director-General of the Red Cross. You may wish to note that the GAC has scheduled a 30-minute discussion on IGO and Red Cross protections for 12 noon (local time) on Friday 4 November. To the extent also that the Council may wish to propose either or both these topics for discussion at your respective joint meetings with the Board and the GAC, that one basic process question in relation to the Red Cross is whether or not to “decouple” the resolution of both topics. On that point, the GNSO Council’s 31 May letter to the Board had requested that both topics be addressed in tandem. This process question is different from the substantive question as to whether or not the names of the Red Cross’ National Societies, and those of the International Red Cross movement, should be reserved or otherwise permanently protected (per GAC advice) rather than subject to time-specific Claims Notice protection (per the GNSO’s previous policy recommendations). 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

FW: [council] Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

Dear All, This letter has been posted on page https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence[mailer.samanage.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailer.samanage.com_wf_…> https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-icann-board-to-council-cha…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailer.samanage.com_wf_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 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: Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 16:02 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>>, Chris Disspain <chris(a)disspain.uk<mailto:chris@disspain.uk>>, "bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>" <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>, Markus Kummer <markus.kummer(a)board.icann.org<mailto:markus.kummer@board.icann.org>>, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>, "board-ops-team(a)icann.org<mailto:board-ops-team@icann.org>" <board-ops-team(a)icann.org<mailto:board-ops-team@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group" Dear Councilors, Please find attached the ICANN Board’s reply to the GNSO Council’s letter of 31 May 2016 on the topic of protections for IGOs and the Red Cross. The letter also includes the final proposal on IGO acronyms protection that was worked on by the IGO “small group” of IGO, Board and GAC representatives, facilitated by ICANN staff as appropriate. We will also transmit a copy of this to the co-chairs of the GNSO IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections PDP Working Group and the GAC. Best regards, 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

1 0

MP3 recording & Adobe chat transcript GNSO Council teleconference Thursday 13 October 2016
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 13 October 2016 on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-13oct16-en.mp3 and the Adobe chat transcript can be viewed here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-13oct16-en.pdf Happy listening and reading! 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/> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

ON NOW: New gTLD Auction proceeds CCWG Charter WEBINAR - Please join!
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

Thank you for your interest in this session! The Webinar on new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Charter is scheduled for Thursday 13 October 2016 at 1600 UTC for 90 mins For other times: http://tinyurl.com/zgakqlc[tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_zgakqlc&d=D…> Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled:https://participate.icann.org/newgtlds-auction<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__participate.icann.org_…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/[<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_calendar…> The dial-in details are below - please let gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://94536F10-8FD4-41E8-9B43-4E14DC872982/gnso-secs@icann.org> know if you require a dial-out. _______________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: AUCTION For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. _______________________________________________________________ For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA

1 0

REMINDER: Please RSVP: Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Terri Agnew Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANNpolicy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Hyderabad. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * New generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds Drafting Team * Cross-Community Working Group for Framework of Cross-Community Working Group Principles * Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains Community Engagement Team Update: * Community Recognition at ICANN57 and Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017 Process Launch * Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees Work Effort Inventory/Snapshot Update * Policy Staff Support in Community Charter Amendment Processes Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Update * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next-Generation Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) * IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community Update * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * Adaptation of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Processes to the new ICANN Bylaws * Government Advisory Committee Vice-Chairs Elections taking place in Hyderabad * Capacity Building Session for the Asia Pacific Region organized by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Working Group for Underserved Regions * The Government Advisory Committee developing further input for ongoing Policy Development Processes on Registration Directory Services and Future new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be run in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0