October 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Motion: GNSO Adoption of Charter for CCWG-Auction Proceeds
by James M. Bladel Oct. 28, 2016

Oct. 28, 2016

Councilors - Attached and copied below, please find a motion for GNSO approval of the charter for the CCWG-Auction Proceeds. Additionally, you’ll note that in this motion we are expected to name a GNSO co-chair, and establish a deadline for SGs and Cs to name a Member to join this CCWG. (highlighted blanks) As an aside, I spoke individually with Jonathan Robinson, who chaired the Drafting Team for this CCWG. He is interested in continuing to serve as a GNSO Co-Chair, but we should discuss this and any other volunteers when we are together in Hyderabad. Thank you, J. Motion – Adoption of the Charter for a Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds Whereas, 1. Following a number of sessions on the topic of new gTLD Auction proceeds during the ICANN53 in Buenos Aires (see https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-soac-high-interest and https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-new-gtld-auction) a discussion paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds/discussion-paper-…> was published in September 2015 to solicit further community input on this topic as well as the proposal to proceed with a CCWG on this topic. 2. As the feedback received on the discussion paper confirmed the support for moving forward with a CCWG, James Bladel, GNSO Chair, reached out to all the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to ask for volunteers to participate in a drafting team to develop a charter for a CCWG on this topic. All ICANN SO/ACs, apart from the ccNSO, responded to this request and put forward volunteers to participate in the drafting team. 3. The GNSO Council appointed Jonathan Robinson to chair the Drafting Team (‘DT’), which commenced its deliberations on Tuesday 23 February 2016. 4. The DT published a draft charter for community discussion in advance of ICANN 56 which was discussed during the cross-community session<http://sched.co/7NE0> held at ICANN56. Following ICANN56, the DT reviewed all the input received<https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw> and updated the proposed charter accordingly. On 13 September, this proposed charter<https://community.icann.org/x/mRuOAw> was shared with all ICANN SO/ACs with the request to review it and identify any pertinent issues that would prevent adoption of the charter, if any. 5. Subsequently, a webinar was held on 13 October to allow for some additional time and information to undertake this review (see https://community.icann.org/x/gh_4Aw) 6. As no pertinent issues were raised, the DT submitted the proposed CCWG charter (see https://community.icann.org/x/mRuOAw<https://community.icann.org/x/mRuOAw)>) for consideration to all ICANN SO/ACs on 17 October 2016 Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-stewardship-naming-function-charter-1…> and appoints [Name] as the GNSO Appointed (Co-)Chair and Member to the CCWG. 1. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CCWG by [date] taking into account the charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members: o Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds; o Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis; o Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them; o Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG; o Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers); o Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected. Furthermore, in addition to a Statement of Interest, all members and participants will be required to provide a declaration on intention to apply for (or in any way support the application for) new gTLD Auction Proceeds, either as an individual or through the entity you are representing or employed by or are otherwise funded by or affiliated with or support/endorse. It will be mandatory to report any changes in relation to these intentions throughout the CCWG life-cycle. 1. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for participants and observers to join the CCWG, each in accordance with its own rules. 1. The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Auction Proceeds Drafting Team for their contriubtions developing this Draft Charter.

1 0

Re: [council] FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#220]
by James M. Bladel Oct. 28, 2016

Oct. 28, 2016

Thank you Glen. Please ensure that Sarah is included on relevant materials for the Council meeting in Hyderabad. J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 3:18 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#220] FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 6:57 AM To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#220] Name of Officer: * Tapani Tarvainen Officer Email Address: * ncsg(a)tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, October 26, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Temporary Alternate Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Marilia Maciel cannot attend council meeting in ICANN57 in Hyderabad. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any and all. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Thursday, November 10, 2016 Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate. [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. * Sarah Clayton Temporary Alternate Email Address: * sarahliannec(a)gmail.com<mailto:sarahliannec@gmail.com>

2 1

GNSO Policy Brief
by David Tait Oct. 28, 2016

Oct. 28, 2016

Dear Council Members In advance of ICANN 57 in Hyderabad, Staff are pleased to enclose the GNSO Policy Briefing ICANN57 Edition in order to assist your deliberations in Hyderabad. The briefing is available here and other important links to documents, agendas and other pertinent information for the upcoming ICANN Meeting, are available here. We look forward to meeting with you in Hyderabad.

1 0

Proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Hyderabad 07 November 2016 Part 1(13:45 IST) and 2 ( 15:15 IST)
by Terri Agnew Oct. 28, 2016

Oct. 28, 2016

On behalf of Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat ************* Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Hyderabad - part one on 07 November 2016 at 13:45 IST (08:15-09:30 UTC) and part two on 07 November 2016 at 15:15 IST (09:45-11:15 UTC) Also published on the Wiki at: Part one: https://community.icann.org/x/ww_sAw Part two: https://community.icann.org/x/Qwe4Aw and the GNSO website at: Part 1: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-07nov16-en.htm Part 2: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-2-07nov16-en.htm **NOTE: Agendas have not yet been reviewed fully by the Chairs. DRAFT AGENDA FOR GNSO COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING (PART 1) ICANN57 HYDERABAD 7 NOVEMBER 2016 13:45 IST (08:15-09:30 UTC) Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/ww_sAw This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> v3.2, updated on 01 September 2016. 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: 08:15 UTC http://tinyurl.com/zbh2z3m 00:15 Los Angeles; 03:15 Washington; 08:15 London; 11:15 Istanbul; 13:45 Hyderabad 19:15 Hobart Main Meeting Page https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cyy/gnso-council-public-meeting ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review/amend agenda. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 13 October 2016 posted on xxxx 2016. Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_meetings…> and Action List<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of Consensus Recommendations from the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team (20 minutes) On 30 June 2016, the GNSO Council created a Drafting Team (DT) to work with ICANN staff to identify the GNSO's new rights and obligations under the revised ICANN Bylaws, and prepare an implementation plan to address any needed changes by 30 September (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2)<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2%29>. On 29 September 2016, the Council received an update on the status of the DT's work and, pending the completion of the DT's work, the Council voted to appoint the GNSO Chair as its interim representative to the Empowered Community (EC) Administration. At its meeting on 13 October, the Council reviewed the DT's report and recommendations (Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-…; Minority Statement: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-minority-report-10oct…) Here the Council will vote on on whether or not to adopt the DT's consensus recommendations. Following the GNSO Council's review and approval of the DT's recommendations, the GNSO is expected to confirm its process for appointing its EC representative going forward. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+October+…> (James Bladel) 4.2 - Council discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Next Steps for the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (20 minutes) The Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance Charter<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888213/Charter%20ccWG%20…> for the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) was ratified by the ALAC and the ccNSO and GNSO Councils between September 2014 and April 2015. Under its Charter, the CCWG-IG is to "do whatever it deems necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes", including providing input to ICANN staff, Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees on issues pertaining to Internet governance discussions and processes and informing the community about ICANN-related issues arising in Internet governance discussions and processes. As part of its Charter-mandated review of the work of the CCWG-IG, the GNSO Council in 2016 requested and received activity reports from the CCWG co-chairs. Here the Council will evaluate the appropriateness of continuing with the CCWG-IG in light of the deliverables prescribed under the Charter and in the context of the recently adopted Uniform Framework of Principles for Cross Community Working Groups<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendatio…>. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion [INSERT LINK] 5.2 - Council discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE - GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO Policy Development Processes (10 minutes) This Consultation Group was established following various discussions between the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and the GNSO Council on enhancing GAC participation in GNSO PDPs. The group was tasked to explore ways for the GAC to engage early in the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) and to improve overall cooperation between the two bodies (for example, by exploring the option of a liaison). This need had been noted specifically by both Accountability and Transparency Review Teams. Various pilot projects and mechanisms have been implemented as a result of recommendations from the group, which is currently in the process of winding down its work. Here the Council will consider the Final Status Report<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-status-report-rec-10oct16-en.pdf> from the Consultation Group, and vote on whether or not to approve the group's recommendations. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion https://community.icann.org/x/xQ_sAw 6.2 - Council discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE - Appointment of GNSO Liaison to the GAC (15 minutes) As part of a two-year pilot program initiated in June 2014, the joint GAC-GNSO Consultation Group recommended the appointment of a GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Subsequently, following a review of the pilot program, the the Consultation Group recommended that the Liaison role be made a permanent one in March 2016. At its meeting in April 2016, the Council approved the creation of this permanent Liaison role as well as a process for the application, selection and confirmation of a Liaison (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf) At its June 2016 meeting, the Council agreed to extend the term of the current Liaison and an extended timetable for the selection of the new Liaison (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201607) Following a review of the candidates who applied under the extended timeline, the GNSO Council chairs agreed to recommend Carlos Gutierrez to succeed Mr. Mason Cole as the new GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Here the Council will vote on whether or not to approve Carlos Gutierrez's appointment as recommended by the GNSO Council chairs. 7.1 - Presentation of the motion https://community.icann.org/x/xQ_sAw 7.2 - Council discussion 7.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) ---------- BREAK (15 MINUTES) ---------- Item 8: COUNCIL VOTE - Chartering of a New Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (20 minutes) The 2012 New gTLD Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention. Although most string contention sets have been resolved through other means prior to reaching the stage of an auction conducted by ICANN's authorized auction service provider, it was recognized from the outset that significant funds could accrue as a result of several auctions. As such, any and all auction proceeds have been reserved and earmarked until the Board authorizes a plan for the appropriate use of the funds. The Board, staff, and community are expected to work together in designing the appropriate processes for addressing the use of the new gTLD auction proceeds.To this end, a cross-community Drafting Team (DT) was formed which has now submitted a proposed Charter<https://community.icann.org/x/mRuOAw> for a cross-community working group to all SO/ACs for consideration. The proposed charter is the result of extensive community input and DT deliberations and the DT presented it in the belief that it represents a careful balance between the different viewpoints and perspectives, including from the DT members and the ICANN Board liaisons to the DT. At its meeting on 29 September 2016, the GNSO Councilr received a briefing and update on the draft Charter and the work of the DT from Jonathan Robinson, the DT chair. As there were no substantive suggested edits to the draft Charter received consequently from the GNSO, the Council will here consider whether or not to become one of the Chartering Organizations for the proposed new CCWG. 8.1 - Presentation of the motion [INSERT LINK] 8.2 - Council discussion 8.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - ICANN Board Letter regarding policy implications of the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Expert Working Group (15 minutes) On 11 May 2016, ICANN Board Chair Dr. Steve Crocker sent a letter to the GNSO Council following up on the Board's 10 March 2016 Resolution (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-11may16-en.pdf)<https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-11may16-en.pdf%29>. The Board's request was for the GNSO Council to "review the broader policy implications of the IRD Final Report<http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/ird-expert-wg-final-23sep1…> as they relate to other GNSO policy development work on WHOIS issues, and, at a minimum, forward the IRD Final Report as an input to the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS that is currently underway." The GNSO Council sought input from the co-chairs of the recently completed GNSO Policy Development Process on the Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data, requesting feedback on several specific points: (1) how certain recommendations in the IRD Final Report were considered, if at all, in the Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/translation-transliteration-contact-…> of the T&T PDP Working Group; (2) how those recommendations could potentially conflict with the T&T PDP Working Group's recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board; and (3) What steps are recommended to the GNSO Council in considering the policy implications of the IRD Final Report. Here the Council will discuss the input received from a member of the T&T PDP Working Group (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ird-tt-recs-10oct16-en.pdf) [CHECK THAT LINK IS CORRECT], and decide on next steps. 9.1 - Status update (GNSO Council chairs) 9.2 - Council discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Results of GNSO Newcomer Survey (5 minutes) On 30 June 2016, the GNSO Council directed<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-1> ICANN staff to develop a survey to "assess the familiarity that the community has with the different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness", as part of the permanent integration of successful Policy Development Process (PDP) pilot project improvements into the overall structure of PDPs. Here the Council will receive a report on the results of the survey (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/newcomer-tools-survey-04oct16-en.pdf) and consider whether staff should proceed with implementing some of the suggested improvements following additional input (if any) from GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. 10.1 - Summary and update (David Tait) 10.2 - Council discussion 10.3 - Next steps Item 11: Open Microphone (10 minutes) Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 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[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_about_…>): 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[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_council_…>) 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) 08:15 UTC Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT)UTC-7+0DST 00:15 San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST 02:15 Iowa City, USA (CDT<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__fr.wikipedia.org_wiki_U…>) UTC-5+0DST 02:15 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 03:15 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 09:15 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 10:15 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 11:15 Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 16:15 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 +0DST 16:15 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 19:15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2017, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/zbh2z3m ________________________________ Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Hyderabad, 7 November 2016 Part 2 15:15 IST (09:45-11:15 UTC) Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/Qwe4Aw This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> v3.2, updated on 01 September 2016. 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: 09:45 UTC 01:45 Los Angeles; 04:45 Washington; 09:45 London; 15:15 Hyderabad Meeting Times 09:45 UTC http://tinyurl.com/jds8zkh Main Meeting Page: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cz1/gnso-council-public-meeting-part-2 Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. ________________________________ Item 1: Seating of the 2016 / 2017Council (20 mins) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Statements of interest Darcy Southwell - SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Darcy+Southwell+SOI> Registrars Stakeholder Group Michele Neylon- SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Michele+Neylon+SOI> Registrars Stakeholder Group Rafik Dammak- SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rafik+Dammak+SOI> Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Erika Mann - SOI Nominating Committee Appointee [NEED ERIKA'S SOI AND LINK] 1.3 - Review/amend agenda Item 2: Election of the Chair (15 mins) One nomination was received for this position, James Bladel from the Contracted Parties House. The GNSO Council held a question & answer session with the candidate on [INSERT DATE]. Here the GNSO Council will proceed to elect its Chair for 2017-2018, according to the GNSO Operating Procedures (note Section 2.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures on Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs (see Appendix 1 below)). Item 3: Any Other Business (10 mins) Reminder: The Council Development Meeting will take place in Hall 6, Hyderabad International Convention Center on Wednesday, 9 November 2016, 09:00 Appendix 1: Excerpt from GNSO Operating Procedures (Section2.2) 2.2 https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair and two Vice-Chairs as follows: a. The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of each house. b. Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of a house, but must be a current or incoming member of the GNSO Council. Should a Chair be elected from outside of the houses that Chair will be a non-voting Chair. i. All ballots will include the "none of the above" option. In the event that a 60 percent vote of each house selects the "none of the above" option, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be scheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote. ii. In the case of a tie for the most votes between the two candidates, or between a candidate and "none of above," a second election will be held no sooner than 30 days. The candidates shall remain the same for this second election. In the case this second election also results in a tie, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote. iii. The leading candidate will be defined as the one with the highest score. The score is calculated by adding together the voting percentages attained from each house. The highest percentage attainable in each house is 100. Thus, the maximum score a candidate can achieve is 200 as a result of attaining 100 percent of the votes from the contracted party house and 100 percent from the non-contracted party house (100 percent + 100 percent = score of 200). In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold, a second ballot will be held between the leading candidate and "none of the above." iv. In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of each house threshold and the candidates do not tie, a second runoff ballot will be held between the leading candidate and "none of the above." v. If the single candidate does not reach the 60 percent of each house threshold in the runoff ballot, then each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. An election for the new nominees will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful runoff ballot. c. Each house shall select a Council Vice-Chair from within its respective house. d. A Chair may not be a member of the same Stakeholder Group of either of the Vice-Chairs. e. The Chair and Vice-Chairs shall retain their votes (if any) in their respective houses (if any). f. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co- Chairs to jointly oversee the new Chair election and conduct Council business until a successful election can be held. In the event that one or both Vice-Chairs' terms ends concurrently with the term of the previous Chair, the procedures described in Section 2.2.1 below shall apply. g. The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following each election and runoff ballot, whether successful or unsuccessful. Appendix 2: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws,<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11> Article 11, Section 3) (i) Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A, Annex A-1 or Annex A-2 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: (i) Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. (ii) Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. (iii) Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority (as defined in Section 11.3(i)(xix)). (iv) 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. (v) Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. (vi) Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under (iv) or (v) above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. (vii) 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. (viii) 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. (ix) Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, (x) 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. (xi) Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. (xii) Initiation of an Expedited Policy Development Process ("EPDP"): requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. (xiii) Approve an EPDP Team Charter: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. (xiv) Approval of EPDP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. (xv) Approve an EPDP 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. (xvi) Initiation of a GNSO Guidance Process ("GGP"): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. (xvii) Rejection of Initiation of a GGP Requested by the Board: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. (xviii) Approval of GGP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. (xix) A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (B) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council members of one House and a majority of the Council members of the other House. https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf Appendix 1 GNSO Council Voting Results table Absentee Voting Procedures https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf 4.4 Absentee Voting 4.1.1 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. 4.1.2 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. 4.1.3 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. 4.1.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 09:45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 01:45 San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+1DST 03:45 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-5+1DST 03:45 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 04:45 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 07:45 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC+0DST 06:45 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 09:45 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 10:45 Amsterdam, Netherlands(CET) UTC+1+0DST 10:45 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 11:45 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 12:45 Singapore (SGT) UTC+8+0DST 17:45 Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 18:45 Sydney, Australia (AEDT) UTC +20:45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2017, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/jds8zkh Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry Manager Supporting Organisations Advisory Committees Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers - ICANN glen(a)icann.org http://www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Reminder - Document and Motion deadline Friday 28 OCTOBER 2016 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Public Meeting Hyderabad 7 November 2016 at 08:15 UTC
by Gisella Gruber Oct. 28, 2016

Oct. 28, 2016

On behalf of Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat ********************** Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. FRIDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2016 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Hyderabad on 7 November 2016 at 13:45 IST (08:15 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+7+November+… 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[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_&d=DQMFA…> 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

FOLLOW UP on Coordination Call on IGO/Red Cross protections among Board, GAC and GNSO representatives
by Mary Wong Oct. 28, 2016

Oct. 28, 2016

Dear all, As further follow up to James’ email (below), please find attached a Decision Tree that ICANN staff prepared to illustrate the various options available to the Board, and each of its consequences. Steve Chan and I are currently updating the document to also include information on Board-GAC process interaction, and we will send that updated version as soon as we can. In the meantime, we hope the attached is helpful to the Council in your continuing deliberations on this topic. 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 From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Date: Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 17:07 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: mp3, attendance, AC chat for the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC Council colleagues – Earlier today, the Council leadership (Heather, Donna and myself), along with the co-chairs of the IGO Curative Rights PDP (Phil Corwin and Petter Rindforth) and our liaison to the GAC (Mason Cole) had a conversation with members of the ICANN Board and leadership on the GAC. The focus of our discussions were protections for IGO Acronyms, and included a status update on consideration of the “small group” proposal and an exchange of views on the path(s) forward. MP3 recording and Adobe chat transcript below, with a transcript of the call forthcoming. Please feel free to share with your SGs and Cs, as I think many will find this material interesting in the run up to Hyderabad. Thanks— J. From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 14:23 Subject: mp3, attendance, AC chat for the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC Dear All, Please find attendance ,mp3, and AC chat below for the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC. We will send transcription upon receipt. MP3: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/8qwxvolztr9ydjk9ii4gf0izayvv8yy4.mp3[ic…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.box.com_shared_s…> Attendance: Petter Rindforth, Heather Forrest, Donna Austin, James Bladel, Markus Kummer , Tom Dale, Mason Cole, Thomas Schneider , Phil Corwin, Jorge Cancio, Ashley Heineman, Chris Disspain , Mark Carvell, Steve Crocker and Becky Burr Staff: Mary Wong, Olof Nordling, Jamie Hedlund, Steve Chan, Terri Agnew, Nigel Hickson Apologies: none Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew AC Chat Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Heather Forrest:Thanks Terri - I'll dial in now but if I have trouble I will let you know Terri Agnew:sounds good thanks Heather James Bladel:Heather made it, Bruce is expected. Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):It's 3am in Canberra too. Heather Forrest:Indeed it is 3am Philip Corwin:Heather is setting an example for Bruce ;-) James Bladel:Thanks, recording & roll call would be great. nigel hickson:good afternoon Donna Austin, RySG:Good morning Tom :-) Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Yo. Mary Wong:The best bits were done by Steve :) Petter Rindforth:Is it possible to get a specified agenda to us all on each session at ICANN57 where this topic will be discussed? Mary Wong:@Petter, at the moment on the public schedule there is a GAC session at noon local time on Friday 4 Nov Mary Wong:I believe the Board, GAC and GNSO are still finalizing their internal agendas, including topics for their joint meetings with one another. Petter Rindforth:Thanks Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Steve: The GAC has put together a list of around 230 IGOs that should have their acronyms protected. This list was put together in around 2013 and it is planned that this list will be updated every few years. Olof Nordling:and the meeting GAC-GNSO Friday 4 Nov 1430 - 1600 has this topic on the agenda Thomas Schneider (GAC):And: the list has been set up following some criteria, i believe taken from those that are used for eligibilty for getting a .int domain Mary Wong:@Thomas,yes, I believe so. Thomas Schneider (GAC):ok Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):I understand the Curative Rights WG will present its draft recommendations at a session on the Monday 0900-1030. There are GAC plenary sessions at this time. Mary Wong:@Tom, yes that is the slot, I'm afraid. Jorge Cancio:Guess we are entering very much into substance here... a pity that IGOs/ICRC are not here Philip Corwin:Petter has his hand up and may want to comment on the WG status as well Chris Disspain:acknowledged Philip Chris Disspain:Petter will be next Heather Forrest:I lost much of what Thomas said - not sure if others did as well or if it was just a problem on my end of the phone bridge James Bladel:I think it was on your side, I can hear him fine. Chris Disspain:I can hear him clearlyu Heather Forrest:OK - glad it wasn't the bridge itself Mary Wong:Following up on James' point, the process he is describing requires both consultation with the original PDP Working Group AND public comment. Becky Burr:i am moving to phone only Jorge Cancio:the reconvening of the PDP WG would be needed for adjusting the preventative protections only, right? Philip Corwin:I must demur from the charcaterization of IGO Proposal as a "compromise", at least in regard to its CRP provisions. While providing somewhat more detail, it is essentially the same position they have conveyed for the part two years. Mary Wong:@Jorge, yes - as the proposals for curative rights (rapid relief plus separate DRP) is being handled by the ongoing PDP Working Group chaired by Phil and Petter. Jorge Cancio:@Mary: thanks! Mary Wong:@Jorge, and for further background - the reason for this is that the original PDP Working Group made recommendations for preventative protections, and proposed that curative rights be referred to a subsequent effort (via a GNSO Issue Report and thus a new PDP). James Bladel:Agreeing with Heather & Donna - We are awaiting some action from the Board (rejection of GAC advice of PDP). And in the case of the latter, it's not a foregone conclusion that the GNSO Council will vote to reconstittue the PDP, or that the outcome would be materially different than the original recommendations. Donna Austin, RySG:@Thomas, it is a compromise between the GAC and the Board regarding GAC advice that the GNSO was not involved in. Chris Disspain:'why have we done this' may turn out to be a very pertinent question Thomas... Heather Forrest:I'm just increasingly afraid that the perception is that the GNSO is unwilling or uninterested when that is not the case. Our procedures simply leave no room for "reconciliation" or "negotiation" on the GNSO's or GNSO Council's own initiative. Chris Disspain:understood Heather Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Donna: the GAC and the IGOs were participating in the small group in the clear understanding that the Board (and ICANN staff) was at least informally in contact with the authorized parties of the GNSO to make sure that what we have been working on would at least have a chance to serve as a basis for finding a concrete and pragmatical solution Donna Austin, RySG:@Thomas, understood Heather Forrest:Phil's comments that the IGOs have not participated in the Curative Rights PDP WG worry me, because this suggests that issues like this will keep arising, putting us all in this position over and over again Jorge Cancio:Just to make sure I explained myself: 1) on IGOs we have two clear positions before the Board. The Board can get all parties on a table with a clear timeframe to seek for a pragmatic solution. Part of that could feed into the ongoing work on curative protections; 2) a low-hanging fruit that could send a positive signal across the community would be to swiftly resolve the ICRC issue (at least the protection of the national society names) nigel hickson:Just to note for ICRC main issue is "National Names" (like British Red Cross); they only have 5 acronyms that current,y have temporary protection. Mary Wong:@James, the original recommendations that have already been approved by the Board would not be affected. Those remaining interim protections - i.e. reservations - that are in place will go away once a permanent resolution is approved. Jorge Cancio:Indeed a low-hangig fruit, I feel, that could create the right atmosphere Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Heather: i gave some explanations for why that the GAC and the IGOs came to the conclsuion that - after the experience with their participation in the first PDP and given that the second would build on the first and be dealing with the issue focussing on legal aspects that were not considered to be very conducive to finding a pragmatical solution. But i guess somebody like Brian Beckham from WIPO would be able to explain this more accurately and in more detail. Chris Disspain:it was not and is not intended that this call would be about the past and why X and Y were not in the room or were in the room etc. James Bladel:@Mary - So you are saying that, effectively, the Board has a "line item veto" when presented with a package of PDP recommendations? If so, then we should consider this for future PDPs, espeically if there are inseparable dependencies. Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:Chris: hope you are going to repond on RedCross? Jorge Cancio:The ad hoc process would need to be inclusive of the PDP WG on curative protections of course - do not think that is impossible Mary Wong:@James, in this case the Board adopted the consistent recommendations and asked for more time for those that were inconsistent. Chris Disspain:I can't respond on RC Mark.....I will find out and see if we can get a note out ASAP Chris Disspain:James...does the GNSO consdier that the RC issue cn be dealt with separately? Jorge Cancio:@Chris: as I said, swift resolution of the ICRC would be a significant positive sign James Bladel:Mary - To my knowledge, we didn't highlight any dependencies for this PDP. We may need to do this going forward, if piecemeal approval/rejection is a potential outcome. Chris Disspain:understood @ Jorge Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:Chris - I mean respond on a next final step to do a fix that meets legal requirements. James Bladel:Agree with Thomas, the world is watching. Espeically in regard to the recent transition, to see if the community model can stand alongside of governments. Philip Corwin:The world is also watching to see if ICANN follows its own Bylaws -- not "flexible" ad hoc processes Donna Austin, RySG:Thomas, I agree with you, we need to find some flexibility within our proceses before PDP recommendations are finalised and GAC advice is delivered to the Board. Jorge Cancio:@James: the GAC is part of the community - we have to work out a solution together Mason Cole:We do have mechanisms that the GNSO-GAC consultation group put into place for GAC engagement in poicy development. James Bladel:Chris - sorry, missed your question about severabiliyt of the RC. That is something we are also discussing. Jorge Cancio:@James: resolution of the ICRC really would help Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:ICRC is over-long-running issue! Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Philipp: But i am convinced that internet users (inviduals and businesses) care about solutions that work. if the current structures and procedures allow to get there fine. if not then maybe there is a need for improvement of strucutres... nigel hickson:Thanks to all; Markus Kummer:Bye all -- this call was very helpful. thanks! Thomas Schneider (GAC):thank you all. bye! Jorge Cancio:bye all and thanks!

1 0

Re: [council] Motion – Withdrawal of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN
by James M. Bladel Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

Thank you, Darcy. Councilors – Please note that this will be considered during our meeting in Hyderabad. Glen - In the interests of keeping other Chartering Organizations informed of our work, could you kindly share this motion with the leadership of the other SO/ACs? Thank you, J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com> Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 18:56 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Motion – Withdrawal of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN Dear Councilors, Attached is a motion for the GNSO to withdraw as a Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN for our November 7 Council meeting. Best, Darcy __________ Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart [https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/tjCmzaF_7ZGN1PtB2KAV5OVQn-Q_Xvh_p3z…]

1 0

FW: mp3, attendance, AC chat for the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC
by James M. Bladel Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

Council colleagues – Earlier today, the Council leadership (Heather, Donna and myself), along with the co-chairs of the IGO Curative Rights PDP (Phil Corwin and Petter Rindforth) and our liaison to the GAC (Mason Cole) had a conversation with members of the ICANN Board and leadership on the GAC. The focus of our discussions were protections for IGO Acronyms, and included a status update on consideration of the “small group” proposal and an exchange of views on the path(s) forward. MP3 recording and Adobe chat transcript below, with a transcript of the call forthcoming. Please feel free to share with your SGs and Cs, as I think many will find this material interesting in the run up to Hyderabad. Thanks— J. From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 14:23 Subject: mp3, attendance, AC chat for the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC Dear All, Please find attendance ,mp3, and AC chat below for the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC. We will send transcription upon receipt. MP3: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/8qwxvolztr9ydjk9ii4gf0izayvv8yy4.mp3 Attendance: Petter Rindforth, Heather Forrest, Donna Austin, James Bladel, Markus Kummer , Tom Dale, Mason Cole, Thomas Schneider , Phil Corwin, Jorge Cancio, Ashley Heineman, Chris Disspain , Mark Carvell, Steve Crocker and Becky Burr Staff: Mary Wong, Olof Nordling, Jamie Hedlund, Steve Chan, Terri Agnew, Nigel Hickson Apologies: none Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew AC Chat Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Heather Forrest:Thanks Terri - I'll dial in now but if I have trouble I will let you know Terri Agnew:sounds good thanks Heather James Bladel:Heather made it, Bruce is expected. Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):It's 3am in Canberra too. Heather Forrest:Indeed it is 3am Philip Corwin:Heather is setting an example for Bruce ;-) James Bladel:Thanks, recording & roll call would be great. nigel hickson:good afternoon Donna Austin, RySG:Good morning Tom :-) Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Yo. Mary Wong:The best bits were done by Steve :) Petter Rindforth:Is it possible to get a specified agenda to us all on each session at ICANN57 where this topic will be discussed? Mary Wong:@Petter, at the moment on the public schedule there is a GAC session at noon local time on Friday 4 Nov Mary Wong:I believe the Board, GAC and GNSO are still finalizing their internal agendas, including topics for their joint meetings with one another. Petter Rindforth:Thanks Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Steve: The GAC has put together a list of around 230 IGOs that should have their acronyms protected. This list was put together in around 2013 and it is planned that this list will be updated every few years. Olof Nordling:and the meeting GAC-GNSO Friday 4 Nov 1430 - 1600 has this topic on the agenda Thomas Schneider (GAC):And: the list has been set up following some criteria, i believe taken from those that are used for eligibilty for getting a .int domain Mary Wong:@Thomas,yes, I believe so. Thomas Schneider (GAC):ok Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):I understand the Curative Rights WG will present its draft recommendations at a session on the Monday 0900-1030. There are GAC plenary sessions at this time. Mary Wong:@Tom, yes that is the slot, I'm afraid. Jorge Cancio:Guess we are entering very much into substance here... a pity that IGOs/ICRC are not here Philip Corwin:Petter has his hand up and may want to comment on the WG status as well Chris Disspain:acknowledged Philip Chris Disspain:Petter will be next Heather Forrest:I lost much of what Thomas said - not sure if others did as well or if it was just a problem on my end of the phone bridge James Bladel:I think it was on your side, I can hear him fine. Chris Disspain:I can hear him clearlyu Heather Forrest:OK - glad it wasn't the bridge itself Mary Wong:Following up on James' point, the process he is describing requires both consultation with the original PDP Working Group AND public comment. Becky Burr:i am moving to phone only Jorge Cancio:the reconvening of the PDP WG would be needed for adjusting the preventative protections only, right? Philip Corwin:I must demur from the charcaterization of IGO Proposal as a "compromise", at least in regard to its CRP provisions. While providing somewhat more detail, it is essentially the same position they have conveyed for the part two years. Mary Wong:@Jorge, yes - as the proposals for curative rights (rapid relief plus separate DRP) is being handled by the ongoing PDP Working Group chaired by Phil and Petter. Jorge Cancio:@Mary: thanks! Mary Wong:@Jorge, and for further background - the reason for this is that the original PDP Working Group made recommendations for preventative protections, and proposed that curative rights be referred to a subsequent effort (via a GNSO Issue Report and thus a new PDP). James Bladel:Agreeing with Heather & Donna - We are awaiting some action from the Board (rejection of GAC advice of PDP). And in the case of the latter, it's not a foregone conclusion that the GNSO Council will vote to reconstittue the PDP, or that the outcome would be materially different than the original recommendations. Donna Austin, RySG:@Thomas, it is a compromise between the GAC and the Board regarding GAC advice that the GNSO was not involved in. Chris Disspain:'why have we done this' may turn out to be a very pertinent question Thomas... Heather Forrest:I'm just increasingly afraid that the perception is that the GNSO is unwilling or uninterested when that is not the case. Our procedures simply leave no room for "reconciliation" or "negotiation" on the GNSO's or GNSO Council's own initiative. Chris Disspain:understood Heather Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Donna: the GAC and the IGOs were participating in the small group in the clear understanding that the Board (and ICANN staff) was at least informally in contact with the authorized parties of the GNSO to make sure that what we have been working on would at least have a chance to serve as a basis for finding a concrete and pragmatical solution Donna Austin, RySG:@Thomas, understood Heather Forrest:Phil's comments that the IGOs have not participated in the Curative Rights PDP WG worry me, because this suggests that issues like this will keep arising, putting us all in this position over and over again Jorge Cancio:Just to make sure I explained myself: 1) on IGOs we have two clear positions before the Board. The Board can get all parties on a table with a clear timeframe to seek for a pragmatic solution. Part of that could feed into the ongoing work on curative protections; 2) a low-hanging fruit that could send a positive signal across the community would be to swiftly resolve the ICRC issue (at least the protection of the national society names) nigel hickson:Just to note for ICRC main issue is "National Names" (like British Red Cross); they only have 5 acronyms that current,y have temporary protection. Mary Wong:@James, the original recommendations that have already been approved by the Board would not be affected. Those remaining interim protections - i.e. reservations - that are in place will go away once a permanent resolution is approved. Jorge Cancio:Indeed a low-hangig fruit, I feel, that could create the right atmosphere Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Heather: i gave some explanations for why that the GAC and the IGOs came to the conclsuion that - after the experience with their participation in the first PDP and given that the second would build on the first and be dealing with the issue focussing on legal aspects that were not considered to be very conducive to finding a pragmatical solution. But i guess somebody like Brian Beckham from WIPO would be able to explain this more accurately and in more detail. Chris Disspain:it was not and is not intended that this call would be about the past and why X and Y were not in the room or were in the room etc. James Bladel:@Mary - So you are saying that, effectively, the Board has a "line item veto" when presented with a package of PDP recommendations? If so, then we should consider this for future PDPs, espeically if there are inseparable dependencies. Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:Chris: hope you are going to repond on RedCross? Jorge Cancio:The ad hoc process would need to be inclusive of the PDP WG on curative protections of course - do not think that is impossible Mary Wong:@James, in this case the Board adopted the consistent recommendations and asked for more time for those that were inconsistent. Chris Disspain:I can't respond on RC Mark.....I will find out and see if we can get a note out ASAP Chris Disspain:James...does the GNSO consdier that the RC issue cn be dealt with separately? Jorge Cancio:@Chris: as I said, swift resolution of the ICRC would be a significant positive sign James Bladel:Mary - To my knowledge, we didn't highlight any dependencies for this PDP. We may need to do this going forward, if piecemeal approval/rejection is a potential outcome. Chris Disspain:understood @ Jorge Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:Chris - I mean respond on a next final step to do a fix that meets legal requirements. James Bladel:Agree with Thomas, the world is watching. Espeically in regard to the recent transition, to see if the community model can stand alongside of governments. Philip Corwin:The world is also watching to see if ICANN follows its own Bylaws -- not "flexible" ad hoc processes Donna Austin, RySG:Thomas, I agree with you, we need to find some flexibility within our proceses before PDP recommendations are finalised and GAC advice is delivered to the Board. Jorge Cancio:@James: the GAC is part of the community - we have to work out a solution together Mason Cole:We do have mechanisms that the GNSO-GAC consultation group put into place for GAC engagement in poicy development. James Bladel:Chris - sorry, missed your question about severabiliyt of the RC. That is something we are also discussing. Jorge Cancio:@James: resolution of the ICRC really would help Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:ICRC is over-long-running issue! Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Philipp: But i am convinced that internet users (inviduals and businesses) care about solutions that work. if the current structures and procedures allow to get there fine. if not then maybe there is a need for improvement of strucutres... nigel hickson:Thanks to all; Markus Kummer:Bye all -- this call was very helpful. thanks! Thomas Schneider (GAC):thank you all. bye! Jorge Cancio:bye all and thanks!

1 0

Re: [council] FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics
by James M. Bladel Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

Councilors – Thank you for your exchange of views and support for Donna’s suggested topics. If there are no objections or additional topics, I will ask Glen to submit these to Board support staff. Thanks— J. On 10/27/16, 10:51 , "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Paul McGrady" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of policy(a)paulmcgrady.com> wrote: Personal View: I agree with Donna. We want to avoid the many unnecessary surprises and lengthy delays caused by the surprises that we experienced in Round 1 by GAC advice arriving well after implementation began. ICANN's herky jerky implementation of Round 1 made it a laughingstock in the business community and it needs to rebuild its image as a trusted business partner. Repeating the phenomenon of surprise GAC advice after applications have been filed will undo much of the good work of the last several years and I think the Board should aggressively manage that risk by bringing the GAC to the table early and keeping them at the table throughout the SubPro PDP. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:30 AM To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; 'GNSO Council List' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics Thanks Bruce It was the subsequent procedures on new gTLDs PDP that I had in mind where I believe it would be beneficial to have structured discussions to either respond to, or perhaps even avoid, the situation where GAC advice is at odds with the PDP recommendations. The PDP WG is making progress on a number of topics and it may be possible to have trilateral sessions before finalization of the PDP recommendations and GAC advice, or vice versa. If we don't have the opportunity for such discussion, I fear there will be unnecessary and potentially lengthy delays. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:02 AM To: 'GNSO Council List' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics Hello Donna. >> On the second point, I really think we would benefit from organized and sometimes moderated trilateral discussions, rather than the Board and GAC/ the Council and the Board/ and the GAC and the Council having separate discussions on the same subject. The continuous back and forth on the IGO acronym and Red Cross issues are a case in point. Perhaps this could have been circumvented if there had been an opportunity for open communication across the three groups. I completely agree the current – GAC-Board, GNSO-Board, GNSO-GAC combination of separate meetings sometimes spread over multiple ICANN meetings (ie Board might discuss a topic with GNSO in one public meeting, and discuss the same topic with GAC at a different public meeting) is dysfunctional. I would much prefer a structured GAC-GNSO-Board meeting on topics related to gTLDs, where the GAC has provided advice. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

FW: ICANN to RrSG re: 2013 RAA Interim Privacy and Proxy Specification Extension
by James M. Bladel Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

Council Colleagues – FYI – Please see the attached notice from ICANN GDD Staff, regarding an extension to the Temporary Privacy/Proxy Specification of the 2013 RAA. Thanks— J. From: Registrar Services <registrarservices(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, October 21, 2016 at 2:02 PM To: Graeme Bunton <gbunton(a)tucows.com> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins(a)icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: ICANN to RrSG re: 2013 RAA Interim Privacy and Proxy Specification Extension 16 October 2016 Dear Graeme, RrSG Chair Please see the attached letter from ICANN seeking agreement from the Registrar Working Group (as defined in the 2013 RAA) to extend the expiration date of this Specification to 1 July 2019. This communication will be posted on the ICANN Correspondence page shortly. Thank you, Jennifer Gore cc. James Bladel, GNSO Council Chair jennifer gore icann | director of registrar engagement & industry affairs [cid:image001.png@01D2304B.81836C80]

1 0