November 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
by Marika Konings Dec. 11, 2016

Dec. 11, 2016

Dear All, As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be made to ensure that members: 1. 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; 2. Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis; 3. Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them; 4. Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG; 5. Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers); 6. 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. The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization appointed members that: In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG. Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member selection process, to take into account how appointed members can better contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be achieved by looking at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge and expertise diversity as well as gender balance of Chartering Organizations appointed members. Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should include reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN’s five regions is represented. As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ‘The GNSO Council expects to select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016’. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@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-…>.

6 7

Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law
by James M. Bladel Dec. 8, 2016

Dec. 8, 2016

Councilors – Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J.

7 12

Review Project List
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 1, 2016

Dec. 1, 2016

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the updated Project List in both red-line and clean version for your review before the Council meetings. If there are no comments, the list will be posted on the website on page. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project and be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf Thanks so 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<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-…>.

4 3

Re: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
by Marika Konings Dec. 1, 2016

Dec. 1, 2016

And to clarify, in addition to up to 5 appointed members per chartering organization, the CCWG will also be open to anyone interested in the capacity of participant or observer. To this end, a call for volunteers is expected to go out soon. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Dear All, As a reminder, please note that each Stakeholder Group has been requested to identify one (1) member for the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG by 5 December. Per the charter, best efforts should be made to ensure that members: 1. 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; 2. Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis; 3. Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them; 4. Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG; 5. Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers); 6. 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. The Charter furthermore notes in relation to Chartering Organization appointed members that: In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG. Chartering Organizations are encouraged as part of the CCWG member selection process, to take into account how appointed members can better contribute from a diversity of viewpoints. This can be achieved by looking at the cultural, geographic, industry, knowledge and expertise diversity as well as gender balance of Chartering Organizations appointed members. Chartering Organizations are encouraged to use open and inclusive processes when selecting their members for a CCWG and this should include reasonable efforts to ensure that each of ICANN’s five regions is represented. As noted in the resolution from ICANN57, ‘The GNSO Council expects to select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016’. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> 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…>.

2 1

AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from the Bylaws Drafting Team
by James M. Bladel Nov. 30, 2016

Nov. 30, 2016

Councilors – Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night’s working session. As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly. Thank you, J 1. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016) Made by: James Bladel Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl WHEREAS: 1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities”; 2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016”; 3. During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and 4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-…) The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report. RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report as submitted. 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council. 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed. 4. In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration. 5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote. 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.

5 8

FW: [EXTERNAL] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#227]
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 30, 2016

Nov. 30, 2016

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 5:32 PM To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#227] Name of Officer: * Graeme Bunton Officer Email Address: * gbunton(a)tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, November 30, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Registrars Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Darcy Southwell will be unable to attend the meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Michele Neylon should have Darcy's vote for any voting motions. 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] * Saturday, December 10, 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: * Michele Neylon

1 0

Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning
by Emily Barabas Nov. 30, 2016

Nov. 30, 2016

Dear Councilors, Item 11 on the agenda of the December 1 Council meeting is a discussion on planning for ICANN58. On November 23, James sent an email the Council list requesting feedback on several questions related to meeting planning. The attached document provides an overview of responses to the following questions: (1) Do we prefer a Single or Split Constituency Day? (2) What is the right number of High Interest Topics (HIT)? The current Block Schedule drafts contain five HIT sessions. (3) Any thoughts on the best way to solicit topics for HIT sessions, and how to choose the top 5? (4) Similarly, any thoughts on how to address the inevitable conflicts between working sessions and HITs? (5) Any other specific feedback you’d like us to bring to the SO/AC meeting Rubens, Michele, Donna, Rafik, Ed and Carlos provided responses to the above questions. Please reference the attached for full text of the comments, but staff notes a few common threads in the responses that may feed into further discussion in the Council: - There were several responses supporting a single constituency day. Rubens, Michele, and Rafik supported a single constituency day. - Several responses supported either reducing the number of HIT sessions or rethinking the HIT concept. Ed suggested having a single HIT. Rubens supported having 1 or 2 at most. Rafik suggested 3. Michele and Donna recommended taking a step back to look more broadly at goals around the HIT concept and then planning accordingly. - Rubens, Ed, and Carlos all supported the notion that when in doubt, make meeting A more like meeting B than meeting C. The issue of scheduling was also raised in the Council session in Hyderabad (transcript here: http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/c8/I57%20HYD_Mon07Nov2016-GNSO%20Pu…) Several themes came up in the discussion, including: - Improving communication during the planning process - Revisiting the rubric used for scheduling: take a step back, clarify and prioritize objectives for ICANN meetings, develop schedule based on priorities to use the time effectively - Focusing meetings on ICANN’s core, substantive work - Managing and (to the extent possible) avoiding critical scheduling conflicts - Avoiding duplication of content across sessions - Scheduling sessions in a way that maximizes productivity and does not overload participants Please note that the above is not intended to be a full summary. It highlights some of the points that have been raised to support further discussion. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

3 2

Re: [council] RE: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy
by Darcy Southwell Nov. 30, 2016

Nov. 30, 2016

All, I appreciate the support for James’ suggestion. Based on concerns expressed by some, I’ve revised the last two paragraphs of the letter slightly (they are redlined so you can easily see the changes) and offer this friendly amendment (so to speak) to the draft letter that goes with this motion. For those of you who already expressed support for James’ suggestion and the prior draft, is this new draft still agreeable to you? I believe this new draft captures the same spirit, but opens up the possibility of solutions to what could end up being something more appropriate than the PPSAI IRT. Please let me know if you have questions. I’m happy to answer. Best, Darcy From: Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris(a)gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 5:10 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] RE: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy I also agree with the letter being sent to the Board Tony On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: Concurring with my BC colleague. 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 Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 6:11 PM To: Darcy Southwell; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Re: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy Hello, I agree with the letter being sent to the Board instead of a formal motion. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook, Inc. Legal Dept. 1601 Willow Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com> Date: Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 3:41 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy All, Attached is the Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy along with a proposed draft communication. You will recall from our meetings in Hyderabad that ICANN GDD staff advised us that Council would need to submit this issue to the Board for consideration and further direction to ICANN staff. This motion and the draft communication were prepared based on that advice, and I’d appreciate this being heard at our December 1 meeting. Best, Darcy __________ Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13314 - Release Date: 10/30/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

3 2

Document and Motion deadline Monday, 5 December 2016 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 December 2016 at 12:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 29, 2016

Nov. 29, 2016

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 5 December 2016 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 December 2016 at 12:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+15+December… Thank you very much. Kind regards, Nathalie -- Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>

1 0

Re: [council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58
by Edward Morris Nov. 29, 2016

Nov. 29, 2016

Hi James, Thanks for this. Remarks in line. > > (1) Do we prefer a Single or Split Constituency Day? No preference. I would like to highlight a problem for NCSG Councillors though. We represent the members of two constituencies - NPOC and NCUC - on Council. Meetings of these constituencies are held at the same time making it impossible for us to attend both meetings of the constituencies whose members we represent on Council. If consideration could be given to somehow scheduling Constituency meetings so these two groups do not completely overlap I would be grateful. It would make it easier at least for this Councillor to feel he is adequately representing all those he is charged to represent on Council. > (2) What is the right number of High Interest Topics (HIT)? The current Block Schedule drafts contain five HIT sessions. One. At most. HIT's belong at the IGF and other fora. If there are burning issues directly involving ICANN and ICANN policy that masses of ICANN meeting attendees are interested in learning about and discussing fine. I just don't think this happens very often. The A and C meetings are too long. Events that are not directly tied to policy making and the functioning of our California based public benefits corporation should be reduced with an eye towards elimination. > (3) Any thoughts on the best way to solicit topics for HIT sessions, and how to choose the top 5? Open call with attention paid to the number of requests for certain topics. High interest should, well, mean that there is high interest in a topic by a large number of community members. > (4) Similarly, any thoughts on how to address the inevitable conflicts between working sessions and HITs? If HIT's are to continue then I would suggest they should be of sufficient interest that attendees would want to attend the sessions in lieu of other nonessential activities. I would thus schedule HIT's, based upon the Hyberabad meeting, in the 18:30 and beyond time slots. Competition would largely, although not exclusively, be cocktail receptions and other optional activities rather than sessions directly related to the functioning of the corporation. > (5) Any other specific feedback you’d like us to bring to the SO/AC meeting I am concerned that private trade associations such as the Domain Name Association were able to schedule sessions under the auspices of ICANN SG's. I would suggest this practice be prohibited before it proliferates. I have already had inquiries from NCSG institutional members concerning their desire and ability to hold similar meetings at ICANN using ICANN hosted facilities and resources. We need to stop this practice now before it wreaks havoc on our meeting schedules. I would also like to echo a comment made earlier by Ruebens: when in doubt please make meeting A a more like meeting B than like meeting C. I would go so far as to suggest we actually make meeting A exactly like meeting B and have only have one large non policy focused (the AGM) meeting a year. Ed > Please respond by next week with your ideas, and we’ll take them back to the planning group. > Thanks— > > J. > <ICANN58 Block Schedule_ProdTimeline_Nov16[3].pdf>

7 21