December 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT)
by Amr Elsadr 08 Jan '17

08 Jan '17

Hi, The “thick” WHOIS IRT has asked me to forward a letter (attached) sent on its behalf to the GNSO Council. If folks recall, the “thick” WHOIS Consensus Policy recommendations included this: > "As part of the implementation process a legal review of law applicable to the transition of data from a thin to thick model that has not already been considered in the EWG memo is undertaken and due consideration is given to potential privacy issues that may arise from the discussions on the transition from thin to thick Whois, including, for example, guidance on how the long-standing contractual requirement that registrars give notice to, and obtain consent, from each registrant for uses of any personally identifiable data submitted by the registrant should apply to registrations involved in the transition. Should any privacy issues emerge from these transition discussions that were not anticipated by the WG and which would require additional policy consideration, the Implementation Review Team is expected to notify the GNSO Council of these so that appropriate action can be taken.” In June, 2015, ICANN’s Legal Dept. submitted a memo in follow up of the above recommendation, which can be found on this page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/thick-whois-2016-06-27-en. The IRT believes that the privacy/data protection law environment has changed since the production of the legal memo by ICANN Legal. Although the IRT has not reached any consensus on recommending further policy work as a result of its findings, there is agreement that the shifting privacy/data protection environment may complicate the transition from “thin” to “thick” WHOIS for some contracted parties. This letter is meant to brief the Council on the IRT’s work in that regard. Thanks. Amr

3 2

RC / IGO / CRP Updates
by James M. Bladel 05 Jan '17

05 Jan '17

Council Colleagues – At the Second Public Forum in Hyderabad, Bruce Tonkin reported on the Board’s discussions regarding the inconsistencies between GAC Advice and GNSO Policy Recommendations on the subject of RC/IGO protections. At this session, Bruce made the following comment: “The board met yesterday and we had a discussion about, you know, how best to move this forward, and we haven't made any resolution at this meeting because we want to talk to the different parties, but the gist of our suggestion is that we like the idea of some sort of facilitated discussion between the GNSO and GAC. We think it's important that in doing such a discussion, that there's a clear set of shared information and briefing documents that are available for all the parties in that discussion. “ http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/60/I57%20HYD_Tue08Nov2016-Public%20… Since we left Hyderabad, there hasn’t been much progress to report on this front. However, this week the Council chairs (Donna, Heather and myself) had a brief call with Bruce, Becky and a few other folks from the Board, and also with Thomas Schneider and a few other folks from the GAC. During this call, we brainstormed about a potential for a public session on this topic at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, and also discussed what materials & documents we should gather to ensure a constructive dialog (trialog?). However, before we get too far in to this “facilitated discussion”, we first wanted to check in with the Council (and by extension, your SGs and Cs) and start a conversation to establish some boundaries and get consensus on our direction: · Any concerns about participating with the Board & GAC on this effort? I don’t believe this is the case, but worth asking at the outset. o Also, we’d like to keep the GNSO “delegation” small: Chairs, GAC Liaison (Carlos) but situationally include subject matter experts (Phil, Petter, Thomas Rickert, etc.) · It is not our intention to “negotiate” or “compromise” on the substance of community-developed policy. These are not ours to trade away. o Instead, the goal is to familiarize the other participants with GNSO procedures, provide rationale for how the recommendations were reached, and (only if necessary) describe the process for asking the GNSO community to revisit their earlier recommendations. · Naturally, we would report back to Council with any major developments, decisions or agreements. · Any other thoughts, questions or concerns from this Council. Thanks in advance for your feedback. And on behalf of Heather, Donna and myself: Have a great holiday break! All the best wishes to Councilors, Staff and their families & friends, and looking forward to a productive and prosperous 2017. Thank you, J. ----- James Bladel

3 4

Document and Motion deadline Monday, 9 January 2017 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 19 January 2017 at 21:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 29 Dec '16

29 Dec '16

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 9 January 2017 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council Meeting on 19 January 2017 at 21:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at:https://community.icann.org/x/YKzDAw 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

On to 2017...
by James M. Bladel 28 Dec '16

28 Dec '16

Council Colleagues – As we close the book on 2016, I wanted to send a short note to the mailing list highlighting our accomplishments, and setting the stage for the upcoming year. I’m proud of what we’ve achieved on Council in 2016, including several “big ticket” projects associated with the IANA transition, new bylaws, GNSO improvements, and our policy work covering topics like privacy services, domain transfers, rights protection mechanisms, WHOIS/RDS and of course, future gTLDs. The GNSO is situated at the core of every major ICANN issue, and this group rose to meet every challenge. But aside from any singular success, I’m most proud of the way we’ve come together to work as a team. For examples of this, consider our three-faceted approach to chairing the Council, the coordination with broader Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and our outreach to other SOs and ACs. In all cases, we favor openness and engagement over isolation inside a GNSO “silo”. I strongly believe that this cultural shift will benefit the entire community in the years to come. And with a thought to the future, there is no shortage of big issues for the GNSO Council to take on in 2017. First up, we need to find a path towards resolving the IGO/Red Cross issue. This topic was the first order of business when I joined the Council in 2013, and ideally it will be addressed before I’m termed out in November. We are kicking off a “standing selection committee” to predictably and consistently appoint the growing number of liaisons and review team delegates as the GNSO expands its outreach and participates in the Empowered Community. And Heather, Donna and I are working with Marika and her team to improve how the Council tracks and manages its workload. On the Policy front, expect to see important milestones in Curative Rights, RPM Reviews, RDS/WHOIS and New gTLDs in 2017. We should also expect developments on implementation of completed policy work associated with transfers and PPSAI. And finally, we must preserve the role of the GNSO from encroachment by other organizations, both inside and outside of ICANN. Some of these groups would prefer to see policy proposals presented directly to the Board, in the form of advice, or CCWG recommendations, or new protocol definitions. But the development and management of policies governing gTLDs remains the sole remit (and responsibility) of the GNSO, and it falls to us as community leaders to continuously demonstrate how this is principle is essential to the multi-stakeholder model. For 2017, my request to you is simply for more of the same: enthusiastically contribute your ideas, speak up with your concerns, volunteer for projects and sub-teams, keep talking to each other, and seek out ways to bridge differences. We are not always going to agree on the issues, but we should never give up on pragmatic solutions that can strike a compromise and advance our work. Next year will be my last year on the Council, and I’m hoping to leave it a more effective, efficient, and congenial organization than it was four years ago. It’s a privilege to work with everyone here, and I’m excited for 2017. Best regards, and Happy New Year! Thanks – J. ----- James Bladel

2 1

GNSO Appointments to the New Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds
by Nathalie Peregrine 27 Dec '16

27 Dec '16

Dear all, On behalf of the GNSO Council, please find attached the confirmation of GNSO appointments to the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds. 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-…>

2 1

Draft Minutes Meeting of the GNSO Council 15 December 2016 to review
by Nathalie Peregrine 25 Dec '16

25 Dec '16

Dear Councillors, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 15 December 2016 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc…> section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 2nd January 2017. 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

GNSO Council appreciation of GAC- GNSO Consultation Group
by Nathalie Peregrine 23 Dec '16

23 Dec '16

Dear all, On behalf of the GNSO Council, please find attached a letter of appreciation on the work of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on Early Engagement of the GC in the Policy Development Processes. 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

Email address change
by Heather Forrest 21 Dec '16

21 Dec '16

Hello colleagues, Just a quick note to ask you to change your email contact details for me. As of 31 December, my acu.edu.au email is closing, so please update your address book to haforrestesq(a)gmail.com (as copied in this message) Best wishes to all and happy holidays, Heather

1 0

LAST CALL for Councilors' input on draft response to proposed RDS Charter revisions
by Mary Wong 21 Dec '16

21 Dec '16

Dear Councilors, As agreed on the last Council call of 13 December, please provide your (and your respective SG/C’s) input, if any, to the draft response prepared by Susan and Keith on the proposed scope of the RDS Review by today, Wednesday 21 December. Please also provide your feedback on the proposed modifications and questions raised by the IPC (below). The agreed date for finalizing the Council response is tomorrow, Thursday 22 December. Staff will prepare to send the finalized Council response to our colleagues who are supporting the Review Team on Friday 23 December. Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter. Cheers Mary From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest(a)acu.edu.au> Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 07:19 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "Paul McGrady (Policy)" <policy(a)paulmcgrady.com> Subject: [council] IPC input on draft response to proposed RDS Charter revisions Dear colleagues, Following up on our action items from the Council meeting last week, the IPC is grateful to Susan and Keith for their work on developing the strawman response from Council in relation to the proposed narrowing of the scope of the charter of the forthcoming RDS Review. Please find attached the strawman with a few proposed modifications by the IPC, plus these clarifying questions: * The bylaws language in red - is there a reason for the red text? * Items 1 and 2 refer to "current RDS efforts" - should we specify exactly what this means? (ie, does this refer to the Registration Directory Services as is/currently running, improvement efforts underway but not yet fully operational (e.g., PPSAI), or does it refer to the efforts of the RDS PDP WG? Or all of the above?) * 4.6(e)(i) refers to efforts ICANN should make with the SO/ACs "to improve accuracy and access to generic top-level domain registration data." This goal is not reflected in the Charter items. Isn't it appropriate that the RT review the "efforts" underway to see if this goal is being met? Best wishes, Heather

1 0

Test (disregard)
by James M. Bladel 21 Dec '16

21 Dec '16

Getting some strange errors when sending to the list. Thanks – J.

1 0