October 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Follow up on the IGO discussion on the Council call
by Mary Wong Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

Dear all, In the interests of concluding the Council call on time, staff had a few specific staff comments that we are sending around by email. We hope they are helpful. 1. The process question Insofar as there is concern amongst the GNSO community that there may now be several recent examples where the GNSO PDP seems to have been “compromised” (for lack of a better word) for one reason or another, what may be helpful to the Board, GAC and other community groups is for the GNSO to raise this concern by providing those examples. This can have the benefit of allowing each specific issue (whether that be IGO acronyms protection, privacy/proxy service accreditation implementation, etc.) to be considered on its substantive merits, and progress achieved on resolution on each front, while a more focused, if parallel, discussion is launched (especially with the Board) on the more general topic of overall process (e.g. how the Board treats GAC advice and GNSO recommendations, whether the Bylaws are sufficiently clear, what went wrong in the past and what can be improved, etc.). 2. The statement in the IGO small group proposal about GDD implementation Our understanding from discussions with GDD colleagues is that the point raised by Phil on GDD’s role vis-à-vis the small group proposal is that this part of the Next Steps section of the proposal was intended to allow GDD to pro-actively think through potential implementation challenges with all of the substantive recommendations in the proposal. This will allow for operational issues (if any, e.g. with implementing a “permanent claims” service) to be raised and understood more fully while discussions are ongoing, and not “after the fact”. In other words, our understanding is that the intention is for preparatory planning and discussions on how to implement likely recommendations to take place before formal adoption of any final recommendations by the Board. This can, of course, be clarified in the proposed Council response to the Board’s letter. 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

Minority report for GNSO-Bylaws-DT
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

Dear GNSO Councilors, Please see the attached Minority Report for the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team Report. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 9:18 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt(a)icann.org> Subject: Minority report for GNSO-Bylaws-DT Dear Julie, Please ensure that the attached minority report from myself, Wolf Ulrich, and Steve DelBianco is forwarded to the Council lists. It expands on the minority views that were summarized in the Drafting Team final report, and also suggests an alternative to having Council speak for GNSO. Thank you. Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met(a)msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com[msk.com] 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.

2 1

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#219]
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 10:35 AM To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#219] Name of Officer: * Tapani Tarvainen Officer Email Address: * ncsg(a)tapani.tarvainen.ingo<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.ingo> Date Prepared: * Thursday, October 13, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Edward Morris is unable to attend council meeting. 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, October 13, 2016 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Marilia Maciel

1 0

Re: [council] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
by James M. Bladel Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

Thank you, Julie. And please convey our appreciation to Steve and the members of the Drafting Team. Councilors – This will be Agenda Item #5 on tomorrow’s call, so please try to review before then. Thank you, J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 9:14 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Dear GNSO Councilors, Please see the attached Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Report and implementation plan, plus the cover note below from Steve DelBianco, Drafting Team Chair. Kind regards, Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Note from Steve DelBianco: Dear GNSO Councilors, As you may recall, the Bylaws Drafting Team (DT) was created to provide the GNSO Council with a draft implementation plan for any necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or possibly the Bylaws as they relate to the GNSO, arising as a result of the revised ICANN Bylaws. The Council requested that this DT submit the proposed implementation plan by 30 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc…> for the full Council resolution). At the GNSO Council meeting on 29 September, I requested an additional two weeks to complete the report due to the complexity of the task as well as the short time frame. Thank you for allowing the DT the additional two weeks to complete this very important task. Please see the attached final report and implementation plan from the DT for GNSO Council consideration on at its meeting on 13 October. As noted previously, this implementation plan for the Council is not intended to include specific language for new or amended rules and procedures. Drafting of these new or amended processes will therefore likely begin only after approval of the implementation plan. The understanding is that the initial task of the DT was to identify and agree on how GNSO should handle new obligations and rights arising from the revised ICANN Bylaws. I will be available during the GNSO Council call on the 13th to address any questions you may have concerning this implementation plan. Best regards, Steve DelBianco

2 1

Updated GNSO Council Agenda 13 October 2016
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated draft GNSO Council agenda for the meeting on Thursday 13 October at 12:00 UTC. The updates consist of links that have been added to the agenda. Thanks to Nathalie and Terri there is an updated GNSO Schedule that has been developed from the internal schedule which is not yet ready for posting and may still change, but which gives you a good idea of the meeting spread. 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/hhO4Aw 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: 12:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/j3f4pbe 05:00 Los Angeles; 08:00 Washington; 13:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 23:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review/amend agenda. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19237.html> of the GNSO Council Meeting on 29 September 2016 to be posted on 17 October 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_meetings…>and Action List[community.icann.org]<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 the Proposed Final Framework of Principles for Future Cross Community Working Groups (20 minutes) In March 2014, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils jointly chartered<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/30345126/Final%20Approved%…> a Cross Community Working Group to develop a framework of principles to guide the formation, chartering, operations and closure for future cross community working groups (CCWG-Principles). The CCWG-Principles published an initial proposed framework for public comment in February 2016 (see https://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-ccwg-22feb16-en.pdf)<https://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-ccwg-22feb16-en.pdf%29>, and following its review of the comments received and further community discussion at ICANN56 in Helsinki in June, completed a proposed Final Framework<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendatio…> that it submitted to both its Chartering Organizations. Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve the Final Framework. If both the ccNSO and GNSO Councils approve the Final Framework<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendatio…>, it is expected that the Framework will be forwarded to all other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees with the suggestion that the principles it contains serve as guidelines for the formation, chartering, operations and closure of all future cross community working groups. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+October+…> (Donna Austin) 4.2 - Council discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5: 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. Following the GNSO Council's review and approval of the DT's recommendations, the GNSO is expected to finalize its process for appointing its EC representative going forward. Here the Council will review the DT's report and recommendations https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-… and discuss the placeholder motion that has been submitted, with a view to voting on whether or not to adopt the DT's consensus recommendations either at this meeting or at ICANN57 in Hyderabad in early November. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+October+…> (James Bladel) 5.2 - Council discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (20 minutes) On 5 August 2016, ICANN Board Chair Dr. Steve Crocker sent a letter to the GNSO Council concerning work on the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-05aug16-en.pdf)<https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-05aug16-en.pdf%29>. The Board wished to know the GNSO Council's view of the current work in light of the existing GNSO policy and ongoing parallel review work on the 2012 New gTLD Program. The Board letter specifically asked for information on the PDP timeline and whether the GNSO believes that the current PDP must be completed prior to advancing a new application process under the current policy recommendations, including whether any consideration has been given in relation to whether a future application process could proceed while policy work continues and be iteratively applied to the process for allocating new gTLDs. On 16 August the GNSO Chairs sent a reply to the Board on behalf of the Council, acknowledging the Board's request (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/council-leadership-to-crocker-16au…)<https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/council-leadership-to-crocker-16au…>. At its meeting on 2 September, the GNSO Council agreed to seek input from all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituency leaders, as well as the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group. At its 29 September meeting, the Council agreed to form a small group of Councilors to synthesize the responses received. Here the Council will discuss the synthesized draft response [Input - ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - 27 Sept 2016.docx<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490519/Input%20-%20ICANN…>], with a view toward voting on it as soon as is practicable, and at the latest before the end of the ICANN57 meeting in November in Hyderabad. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+October+…>[1]<file:///C:/Users/glen/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/CW6XMYV1/20161013-Draft%20GNSO%20Council%20agenda%20-%20updated%205%20Oct.docx#_ftn1> (Carlos Gutierrez) 6.2 - Council discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority Item 7: UPDATE AND COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GAC-GNSO CONSULTATION GROUP ON GAC EARLY ENGAGEMENT IN GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES (10 minutes) Following various discussions between the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and the GNSO Council on enhancing GAC participation in GNSO PDPs, this Consultation Group was jointly established to explore ways in which the GAC's early participation reflecting a joint desire 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). The importance of this had also 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 receive a status update from the group, with a view toward seeking feedback from the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies prior to formalizing the closure of the group. 7.1 - Status summary (GNSO Council Chairs / Marika Konings) 7.2 - Council discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - ICANN Board Letter regarding policy implications of the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Expert Working Group (10 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 of the T&T PDP Working Group;<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/translation-transliteration-contact-…> (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 the T&T PDP Working Group<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ird-tt-recs-10oct16-en.pdf> and decide on next steps. 8.1 - Status update (GNSO Council chairs) 8.2 - Council discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Meeting Planning for ICANN57 (15 minutes) ICANN57 will take place in Hyderabad, India, from 3-9 November 2016. This will be the first "Meeting C" under the new ICANN Meeting Strategy as well as the Annual General Meeting for ICANN. Draft meeting schedules had been circulated to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council is planning to meet with the ICANN Board, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ccNSO Council, among other groups. Here the Council will review the latest GNSO meeting schedule [INSERT LINK WHEN AVAILABLE] and, if time permits, discuss its proposed agenda items for those Board and inter-SO/AC meetings. 9.1 - Overview of the proposed schedule (GNSO Council Chairs / Glen de St Gery) 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: 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) UTC 12:00 Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT[timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.timeanddate.com_lib…>) UTC-7+0DST 05:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST 07:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT[fr.wikipedia.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__fr.wikipedia.org_wiki_U…>) UTC-5+0DST 07:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 08:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART[timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.timeanddate.com_lib…>) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 13:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 14:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 15:00 (next day) Perth, Australia (WST[timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__timeanddate.com_library…>) UTC+8+0DST 20:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 +0DST 20:00 00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com[timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.timeanddate.com_&d=…> http://tinyurl.com/j3f4pbe ________________________________ [1]<file:///C:/Users/glen/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/CW6XMYV1/20161013-Draft%20GNSO%20Council%20agenda%20-%20updated%205%20Oct.docx#_ftnref1> Staff notes that the motion was submitted to the Council after the deadline for motions for this meeting had passed. See Section 3.3.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures for the applicable procedures in this instance. In relation to the timing of a vote, Section 4.10 provides for the possibility of voting outside a GNSO Council meeting: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf.

1 0

Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 13 October 2016 at 12:00 UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Dear Councillors Please find the draft Agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 13 October 2016 at 12:00 UTC. Links will be completed as the documents become available. 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/hhO4Aw 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: 12:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/j3f4pbe 05:00 Los Angeles; 08:00 Washington; 13:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 23:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review/amend agenda. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 29 September 2016 to be posted on xx xxxxx 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_meetings…>and Action List[community.icann.org]<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 the Proposed Final Framework of Principles for Future Cross Community Working Groups (20 minutes) In March 2014, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils jointly chartered<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/30345126/Final%20Approved%…> a Cross Community Working Group to develop a framework of principles to guide the formation, chartering, operations and closure for future cross community working groups (CCWG-Principles). The CCWG-Principles published an initial proposed framework for public comment in February 2016 (see https://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-ccwg-22feb16-en.pdf) and following its review of the comments received and further community discussion at ICANN56 in Helsinki in June, completed a proposed Final Framework<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendatio…> that it submitted to both its Chartering Organizations. Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve the Final Framework. If both the ccNSO and GNSO Councils approve the Final Framework<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendatio…>, it is expected that the Framework will be forwarded to all other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees with the suggestion that the principles it contains serve as guidelines for the formation, chartering, operations and closure of all future cross community working groups. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+October+…> (Donna Austin) 4.2 - Council discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5: 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) 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. Following the GNSO Council's review and approval of the DT's recommendations, the GNSO is expected to finalize its process for appointing its EC representative going forward. Here the Council will review the DT's report and recommendations [INSERT LINK WHEN AVAILABLE], and discuss the placeholder motion that has been submitted, with a view to voting on whether or not to adopt the DT's consensus recommendations either at this meeting or at ICANN57 in Hyderabad in early November. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+October+…> (James Bladel) 5.2 - Council discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (20 minutes) On 5 August 2016, ICANN Board Chair Dr. Steve Crocker sent a letter to the GNSO Council concerning work on the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-05aug16-en.pdf) The Board wished to know the GNSO Council's view of the current work in light of the existing GNSO policy and ongoing parallel review work on the 2012 New gTLD Program. The Board letter specifically asked for information on the PDP timeline and whether the GNSO believes that the current PDP must be completed prior to advancing a new application process under the current policy recommendations, including whether any consideration has been given in relation to whether a future application process could proceed while policy work continues and be iteratively applied to the process for allocating new gTLDs. On 16 August the GNSO Chairs sent a reply to the Board on behalf of the Council, acknowledging the Board's request (https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/council-leadership-to-crocker-16au…) At its meeting on 2 September, the GNSO Council agreed to seek input from all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituency leaders, as well as the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group. At its 29 September meeting, the Council agreed to form a small group of Councilors to synthesize the responses received. Here the Council will discuss the synthesized draft response [INSERT LINK WHEN AVAILABLE], with a view toward voting on it as soon as is practicable, and at the latest before the end of the ICANN57 meeting in November in Hyderabad. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+October+…>[1] (Carlos Gutierrez) 6.2 - Council discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7: UPDATE AND COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GAC-GNSO CONSULTATION GROUP ON GAC EARLY ENGAGEMENT IN GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES (10 minutes) Following various discussions between the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and the GNSO Council on enhancing GAC participation in GNSO PDPs, this Consultation Group was jointly established to explore ways in which the GAC's early participation reflecting a joint desire 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). The importance of this had also 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 receive a status update from the group, with a view toward seeking feedback from the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies prior to formalizing the closure of the group. 7.1 - Status summary (GNSO Council Chairs / Marika Konings) 7.2 - Council discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - ICANN Board Letter regarding policy implications of the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Expert Working Group (10 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) 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 the T&T PDP Working Group [INSERT LINK WHEN AVAILABLE], and decide on next steps. 8.1 - Status update (GNSO Council chairs) 8.2 - Council discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Meeting Planning for ICANN57 (15 minutes) ICANN57 will take place in Hyderabad, India, from 3-9 November 2016. This will be the first "Meeting C" under the new ICANN Meeting Strategy as well as the Annual General Meeting for ICANN. Draft meeting schedules had been circulated to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council is planning to meet with the ICANN Board, the Governmental Advisory Committee and the ccNSO Council, among other groups. Here the Council will review the latest GNSO meeting schedule [INSERT LINK WHEN AVAILABLE] and, if time permits, discuss its proposed agenda items for those Board and inter-SO/AC meetings. 9.1 - Overview of the proposed schedule (GNSO Council Chairs / Glen de St Gery) 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 [INSERT LINK WHEN AVAILABLE], 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: 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) UTC 12:00 Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT[timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.timeanddate.com_lib…>) UTC-7+0DST 05:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST 07:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT[fr.wikipedia.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__fr.wikipedia.org_wiki_U…>) UTC-5+0DST 07:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 08:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART[timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.timeanddate.com_lib…>) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 13:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 14:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 15:00 (next day) Perth, Australia (WST[timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__timeanddate.com_library…>) UTC+8+0DST 20:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 +0DST 20:00 00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com[timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.timeanddate.com_&d=…> http://tinyurl.com/j3f4pbe 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] Staff notes that the motion was submitted to the Council after the deadline for motions for this meeting had passed. See Section 3.3.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures for the applicable procedures in this instance. In relation to the timing of a vote, Section 4.10 provides for the possibility of voting outside a GNSO Council meeting: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf.

4 4

Hyderabad Meetings - Call for Topics
by James M. Bladel Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Council Colleagues – As we finalize sessions for ICANN57 in Hyderabad, we’ll need to prepare for our meetings with other groups & organizations. With this in mind, I’d like to kick off a Call for Topics for our meetings with: · GAC · ccNSO · Board · Executive Staff / CEO / GDD Please weigh in with your proposed topics, and we will ask our staff to manage & share these lists. Thank you, J.

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#218]
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 9:32 PM To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#218] Name of Officer: * Tapani Tarvainen Officer Email Address: * ncsg(a)tapani.tarvainen.fi<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.fi> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, October 12, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Stefania Milan is unable to attend council meeting. 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, October 13, 2016 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Stephanie Perrin

1 0

FOR INFORMATION: Phase Two economic study on Competitive Effects of the New gTLD Program published for public comment
by Mary Wong Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Dear Councilors, The above-mentioned study, which is Phase Two of the economic study that the ICANN Board requested regarding the competitive effects of the 2012 New gTLD Program round, has just been published for public comment: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-11-en. The public comment period will close on 5 December 2016. You may recall that Phase One of the study was released in September 2015. This Phase Two report compares changes in the domain name marketplace since then, and includes an additional number of new gTLDs and registry/registrar-provided data in the sample. The final findings will be shared with the CCT Review Team. 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

FOR REVIEW: IGO acronyms - differences between GNSO policy, GAC advice and the small group proposal
by Mary Wong Oct. 12, 2016

Oct. 12, 2016

Dear Councilors, At the request of the Chairs, staff has put together the attached note that attempts to summarize the differences between the adopted GNSO policy recommendations, GAC advice received, and the recent small group proposal regarding IGO acronyms protection. The document includes a tabular comparison of these differences as well as some notes that we hope will be helpful to your discussions and analysis. As the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group is finalizing its preliminary recommendations regarding dispute resolution for IGOs, and as Phil has summarized in email (below) the status of those Working Group deliberations, we have not included these in the document. 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 6, 2016 at 22:00 To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group" Phil – Thank you for the quick turn on this analysis. Councilors – Recognizing that this proposal came after our agenda deadline, but please try to review it if you have a chance before our next call. If possible, we will add it as a discussion item under AOB. Thank you, J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 17:20 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group" Fellow Councilors: As Co-Chair of the Working Group reviewing Curative Rights Processes (CRP) for International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), I feel it incumbent to provide my initial reaction to this Board letter. In doing so I note that transmission of the letter has been delayed until after the completion of the IANA transition, and that the post-transition role of governments within ICANN was a central controversy surrounding the transition. The CRP WG has labored for the last two years to develop a report and recommendations that are objective and based in fact and relevant law. In order to assure that our conclusions were sound, we suspended our work for nearly one year in order to locate and secure the services of a legal expert on the central subject of the generally recognized scope of IGO sovereign immunity. During this period we continually urged members of the GAC, and IGOs, to participate in our WG. That participation was so sporadic that it amounted to a near-boycott, and when IGO representatives did provide any input they stressed that they were speaking solely as individuals and were not providing the official views of the organizations that employed them. Of course, why should they participate in the GNSO policy processes when they are permitted to pursue their goals in extended closed door discussions with the Board, and when the Board seeks no input from the GNSO in the course of those talks? Turning to the relevant substance of the Board letter and the attached IGO “Small Group” Proposal, I note that this Proposal statement is demonstrably incorrect— The IGO-GAC-NGPC small group that has been discussing the topic of appropriate IGO protections, based on the NGPC’s initial proposal of March 2014, agree that the following general principles should underpin the framework for any permanent solution concerning the protection of IGO names and acronyms in the domain name system: (1) The basis for protection of IGO acronyms should not be founded in trademark law, as IGOs are created by governments under international law and are in an objectively different category of rights-holders; (Emphasis added) In fact, our WG found that many IGOs have trademarked their organizational names and acronyms and have successfully utilized the UDRP. Further, and more relevant, Article 6ter of the Paris Convention provides IGOs with protection of their names and acronyms within the trademark law systems of all Convention signatories, as well as all members of the World Trade Organization, with such protection available through a simple registration procedure with WIPO. So, contrary to the statement quoted above, the basis for IGO acronym protections has already been linked to trademark law. Turning to the relevant portion of the IGO Proposal--- 2. Dispute Resolution Mechanism • ICANN will facilitate the development of rules and procedures for a separate(i.e., separate from the existing UDRP) dispute resolution mechanism to resolve claims of abuse of domain names that are registered and being used in situations where the registrant is pretending to be the IGO or that are otherwise likely to result in fraud or deception, and (a) are identical to an IGO acronym; (b) are confusingly similar to an IGO acronym; or (c) contain the IGO acronym. • Decisions resulting from this mechanism shall be “appealable” through an arbitral process to be agreed. --While our WG is in the process of vetting our preliminary report and recommendations, because it has operated transparently it is no secret that it has decided against creation of a new DRP for the sole and exclusive use of IGOs because there is no demonstrated need to do so. Further, as regards availability of arbitration for appeals from initial CRP decisions, while that matter is still being finalized by the WG, to the extent it is premised upon broad claims of IGO sovereign immunity such claims are not generally supported by existing legal views according to the report received from our retained expert on international law. Here are some other preliminary observations: · The timing of this letter, and the specific DRP recommendations contained in the attached Proposal, are likely to complicate final agreement within the WG on our preliminary report and recommendations. IGOs, having chosen not to meaningfully participate in the WG, are now disrupting its final stage. · It appears that the proposal we have just received has not been endorsed by the Board, but is simply the IGO small group’s “consensus on a proposal for a number of general principles and suggestions that it hopes will be acceptable to the GAC and the GNSO”. Although these IGOs have not meaningfully participated in our WG, they are known to have monitored our work closely enough that they surely know that these proposals stand in stark opposition to the WG’s preliminary conclusions. Finally, in regard to this statement in the Board letter— The Board’s understanding is that those aspects of the proposal that concern curative rights protection may be referred by the GNSO Council to the GNSO’s Working Group that is conducting the ongoing Policy Development Process (PDP) on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms. We understand further that the Working Group is currently discussing preliminary recommendations that it intends to publish for public comment soon, in the form of an Initial Report. We therefore hope that the presentation of the attached proposal is timely, and will be fully considered by the Working Group regarding the specific topic of enabling adequate curative rights protections for IGO acronyms, and in conjunction with the GNSO Council’s management of the overall process for possible reconciliation of GNSO policy with GAC advice. We also acknowledge, in line with prior correspondence between the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee and the GNSO Council, that the Board will not take action with respect to GAC advice on curative rights protections for IGOs prior to the conclusion of the GNSO’s PDP. - I appreciate the Board’s assurance that it will take no action with respect to GAC advice on CRP for IGOs until the current PDP is concluded. I further note that ICANN staff has already transmitted the Board letter and attached IGO Proposal to all members of the CRP WG and, following consultation with my Co-Chair, it will likely be the main topic of discussion at the WG’s next meeting on October 13th. I can assure you that the Proposal will be fully considered by the WG. However, given the fact that the Proposal is at nearly complete odds with the WG’s preliminary conclusions, and that the IGOs chose not to participate in the WG in any significant way and thereby take advantage of the opportunity to make their case to those community volunteers who have labored in good faith on this project for more than two years, it is most unlikely that the WG will now abandon its own conclusions and adopt those of the IGOs. The Board letter closes with the observation that it wants to “ reiterate our belief that the most appropriate approach for the Board in this matter is to help to facilitate a procedural way forward for the reconciliation of GAC advice and GNSO policy prior to the Board formally considering substantive policy recommendations”. With all respect, what has occurred seems a thoroughly inappropriate approach for reconciling GAC advice and GNSO policy. This Council has undertaken extraordinary steps to conduct outreach to the GAC and to strive to integrate it within the GNSO policy development process, and much of that progress is at risk of being undone by how this matter is ultimately decided. What is at stake in this matter goes far beyond the relatively rare instance in which a domain registrant infringes upon the name or acronym of an IGO and the IGO seeks relief through a CRP. The larger issue is whether, in a post-transition ICANN, the GAC and the UN agencies that comprise a large portion of IGOs, will participate meaningfully in GNSO policy activities, or will seek their policy aims by bypassing the ICANN community and engaging in direct, closed door discussions with the Board. Therefore, how the GNSO and the Board ultimately resolve this matter will have implications far beyond the narrow issue of available CRPs for IGOs. If IGOs are successful in attaining their policy aims through the course of action they have pursued it will send a most unfortunate message that will be detrimental to the functioning of an ICANN in which community members representing business, technology, and civil society are supposed to have the lead role in setting policy, and in which governments are supposed to have a secondary, advisory role. Sincerely, Philip S. Corwin Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 5:03 PM To: GNSO Council List Cc: Steve Crocker; Chris Disspain; bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au; Markus Kummer; Becky Burr; board-ops-team(a)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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DQMGaQ&c=…> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13157 - Release Date: 10/06/16

5 7