December 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Letter to GNSO Council from "thick" WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT)
by Amr Elsadr Jan. 8, 2017

Jan. 8, 2017

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 Jan. 5, 2017

Jan. 5, 2017

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 Dec. 29, 2016

Dec. 29, 2016

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 Dec. 28, 2016

Dec. 28, 2016

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 Dec. 27, 2016

Dec. 27, 2016

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 Dec. 25, 2016

Dec. 25, 2016

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 Dec. 23, 2016

Dec. 23, 2016

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 Dec. 22, 2016

Dec. 22, 2016

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 Dec. 21, 2016

Dec. 21, 2016

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 Dec. 21, 2016

Dec. 21, 2016

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

1 0

FW: [Correspondence] RE: Transfer Policy Part C - Letter from GNSO
by James M. Bladel Dec. 21, 2016

Dec. 21, 2016

Councilors – Please see response from Wendy and attached letter form Steve Crocker. Thank you, J. From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 11:36 To: James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, "donna.austin(a)neustar.biz" <donna.austin(a)neustar.biz>, "heather.forrest(a)acu.edu.au" <heather.forrest(a)acu.edu.au>, "'gnso-secs(a)icann.org'" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Cc: "Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org" <board-ops-team(a)icann.org>, Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah(a)icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board(a)icann.org> Subject: [Correspondence] RE: Transfer Policy Part C - Letter from GNSO Dear GNSO Council leadership, Please find the attached letter from Dr. Crocker in response to your 1 December 2016 letter regarding the Transfer Policy Part C. The letter will be posted shortly on the ICANN Correspondence page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence. Best regards, Wendy Profit ICANN Board Operations Specialist 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Mobile: 1-310-773-6811 Office: 1-310-578-8695 From: <board-ops-team-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:board-ops-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org<mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 3:32 PM To: "board-ops-team(a)icann.org<mailto:board-ops-team@icann.org>" <Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>> Cc: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest(a)acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [Board-Ops-Team] Letter: ICANN's Transfer Policy Part C Dear Board Operations Colleagues, Please be so kind as to forward the attached letter from the GNSO Council leadership to Dr. Crocker as Chairman of the ICANN Board The letter concerns ICANN’s Transfer Policy, specifically Part C, which goes into effect on 1 December 2016 The letter will be published on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> Thank you. Respectfully submitted. Nathalie -- Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <x-msg://83/nathalie.peregrine@icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<x-msg://83/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

FW: [Soac-infoalert] Report CSC on PTI Performance (November 2016)
by Marika Konings Dec. 21, 2016

Dec. 21, 2016

For your information. From: <soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 3:11 AM To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Cc: "icann-csc(a)icann.org" <icann-csc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Report CSC on PTI Performance (November 2016) Dear all, On behalf of Byron Holland, chair of the CSC, included the second report of the CSC and the underlying report of PTI to the CSC, Kind regards, Bart Boswinkel --------------------------------------------- Dear Community Members, As chair of the Customer Standing Committee I am pleased to provide you with our second monthly report on the performance of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), for November, 2016. You will see the CSC has concluded that, overall, PTI’s performance was “Satisfactory”, in that they met the service level agreement. The CSC is aware of some minor issues and is in an ongoing discussion with PTI to mediate them for the future, noting there is no trend. In summary: No persistent problems were identified and no further action is needed, nor was the CSC informed about any complaint. Also attached is the report from PTI to the CSC listing the individual service level metrics along with their actual and historical performance. As this is the first report in what we expect to be an evolving process, any comments would be welcomed. The CSC was formed effective October 1, 2016. Background on the committee along with transcripts of our meetings and other useful information can be found at https://www.icann.org/csc[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_csc&d=Dg…> . Byron Holland Chair of the CSC

1 0

IPC input on draft response to proposed RDS Charter revisions
by Heather Forrest Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

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

RE: [council] FW: House Freedom Caucus First 100 Days Agenda Omits Mention of IANA Transition
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

2 1

FW: House Freedom Caucus First 100 Days Agenda Omits Mention of IANA Transition
by Phil Corwin Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

FYI, the House Freedom Caucus, composed of the right wing of House Republicans, has issued an agenda of rules, regulations and executive orders it wants reviewed, revoked or issued during the first 100 days of the Trump Administration. Tellingly, it has no mention of the Commerce Department or any of its rules or actions, including the IANA Transition, indicating that any attempt by Congress to revisit or reverse that decision is not likely to occur, at least based upon present information. The agenda is available at https://meadows.house.gov/first-100-days 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

FW: [Soac-infoalert] Adopted Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board - ICANN
by Phil Corwin Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

Adding to the email that Donna just sent, the scorecard is attached… From: Phil Corwin Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 11:43 AM To: Phil Corwin Subject: FW: [Soac-infoalert] Adopted Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board - ICANN FYI. When you go to the Resolution regarding Helsinki GAC advice there is this further link – Resolved (2016.12.13.05), the Board adopts the scorecard titled "GAC Advice – Helsinki Communiqué: Actions and Updates (13 December 2016)<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-helsinki56-gac-advi…>" [PDF, 298 KB] in response to items of GAC advice in the Helsinki Communiqué. For convenience I have attached the referenced “scorecard”. Best regards 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: soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Olive Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 9:37 AM To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Adopted Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board - ICANN https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#2.a Adopted Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 13 Dec 2016 1. Consent Agenda:<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#1> * Approval of Minutes<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#1.a> * RSSAC Co-Chair Appointment<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#1.b> * Rationale for Resolution 2016.12.13.02<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#1.…> * Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Liaison Appointment<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#1.c> * GAC Advice: Helsinki Communiqué (June 2016)<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#1.d> * Rationale for Resolution 2016.12.13.05<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#1.…> 2. Main Agenda:<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#2> * Community Consultation on San Juan, Puerto Rico as the Location of the March 2018 North America ICANN Meeting – for discussion – no resolution to be taken<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#2.a> * March 2018 ICANN Meeting Hotels Contracting<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#2.b> * Rationale for Resolutions 2016.12.13.06 – 2016.12.13.07<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#2.…> 1. Executive Session - Confidential:<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#3> * Officer Compensation<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#3.a> * Rationale for Resolution 2016.12.13.08<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#3.…> * President and CEO At Risk Compensation – FY17-SR1<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#3.b> * Rationale for Resolution 2016.12.13.09<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#3.…> --------------- David A. Olive Senior Vice President | Policy Development Support General Manager | ICANN Regional Headquarters | Istanbul david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers | Hakki Yeten Caddesi | Selenium Plaza | No:10/C K:10 | 34349 | Fulya | Besiktas | Istanbul Mobile +1. 202.341.3611 | Mobile +90.533.341.6550 | Direct Line +90.212.999.6212 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

FW: [Soac-infoalert] Adopted Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board - ICANN
by Austin, Donna Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

All, just as an FYI The Board has developed a scorecard for the GAC advice from the Helsinki communique. This scorecard includes the GNSO Review of the Helsinki Communique and the Board understanding of advice following dialogue with the GAC. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-helsinki56-gac-advi… Donna From: soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Olive Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 6:37 AM To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Adopted Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board - ICANN https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-12-13-en#2.a<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> Adopted Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 13 Dec 2016 1. Consent Agenda:<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * Approval of Minutes<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * RSSAC Co-Chair Appointment<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * Rationale for Resolution 2016.12.13.02<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Liaison Appointment<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * GAC Advice: Helsinki Communiqué (June 2016)<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * Rationale for Resolution 2016.12.13.05<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> 2. Main Agenda:<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * Community Consultation on San Juan, Puerto Rico as the Location of the March 2018 North America ICANN Meeting – for discussion – no resolution to be taken<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * March 2018 ICANN Meeting Hotels Contracting<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * Rationale for Resolutions 2016.12.13.06 – 2016.12.13.07<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> 3. Executive Session - Confidential:<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * Officer Compensation<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * Rationale for Resolution 2016.12.13.08<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * President and CEO At Risk Compensation – FY17-SR1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> * Rationale for Resolution 2016.12.13.09<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> --------------- David A. Olive Senior Vice President | Policy Development Support General Manager | ICANN Regional Headquarters | Istanbul david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers | Hakki Yeten Caddesi | Selenium Plaza | No:10/C K:10 | 34349 | Fulya | Besiktas | Istanbul Mobile +1. 202.341.3611 | Mobile +90.533.341.6550 | Direct Line +90.212.999.6212

1 0

GNSO Council Resolutions - 15 December 2016
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear Councillors, The following resolutions were adopted by the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday, 15 December 2016. These resolutions are also published on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions 1. Appointment of GNSO Members and GNSO Co-Chair to the New Cross Community Working Group for New gTLD Auction Proceeds Whereas, 1. The GNSO Council adopted the charter for the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds during its meeting on 7 November 2016; 2. As a Chartering Organization, the GNSO can appoint a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 Members to the CCWG. Members 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. 3. The Charter specifies that a chair may be appointed by each Chartering Organizations. Chartering Organizations that do decide to appoint a chair should make reasonable efforts that the proposed chair / co-chair has the necessary experience to manage an effort of this nature by, for example, having actively participated as a member in at least one CCWG or ICANN Working Group throughout its lifecycle in order to have relevant or related experience of the different tasks that come with chairing a CCWG. Prior leadership experience (chair / co-chair / vice-chair) is desirable. 4. The GNSO Council notes that that best efforts have been to ensure that GNSO appointed members: * 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; * Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis; * Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them; * Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG; * Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers); * 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. Resolved 1. The GNSO Council appoints Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Appointed Co-Chair and Member to the CCWG - Auction Proceeds. 2. The GNSO Council confirms Tony Harris, Jon Nevett, Eliot Noss and Stephanie Perrin as GNSO appointed members to the CCWG-Auction Proceeds. 3. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Appointed Co-Chair and the GNSO appointed members to ensure that the GNSO community is kept up to date on the progress of the deliberations as well as making sure that input from the GNSO community is sought on a regular basis. 4. The GNSO Council encourages other interested in this topic to join this effort as a participant or observer. <https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-15dec16-en.…> Voting results<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-15dec16-en.…> https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-15dec16-en.… 2. Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué from Hyderabad for submission to the ICANN Board Whereas, 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 4. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Hyderabad GAC Communiqué https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-15dec16-en.pdf and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Hyderabad GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.. 2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. Voting results<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-15dec16-en.…> https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-15dec16-en.… 3. Adoption of GNSO Review Working Group Implementation Plan WHEREAS, 1. The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014. 2. The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future. 3. The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb…) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority). 4. On 25 June, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). 5. Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations. An implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution. 6. The GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews. This discussion paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 20 June 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discu…) 7. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed next steps during the ICANN meeting in Helsinki where it was proposed to repurpose the SCI as a Working Group to develop the requested implementation plan as outlined in the staff discussion paper. 8. On 21 July 2016 the GNSO Council approved a motion to adopt the charter for the GNSO Review Working Group and directed the Working Group to submit the proposed implementation plan to the GNSO Council for approval at the latest by the ICANN57. RESOLVED 1. The GNSO Council adopts the implementation plan. 2. The GNSO Council directs staff to submit the implementation plan to the ICANN Board for its consideration. 3. Following approval of the implementation plan by the ICANN Board of Directors, the GNSO Council directs the GNSO Review Working Group to execute and oversee the implementation of the recommendations as specified in the implementation plan, and to provide the GNSO Council with regular status updates (at a minimum prior to every ICANN meeting) on the status of implementation, including an overview for which recommendations implementation is considered complete. As part of this status update, the GNSO Review Working Group should also identify any questions and/or concerns that may have arisen during the implementation that would require further guidance. Voting results<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-15dec16-en.…> https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-15dec16-en.… Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry Manager Supporting Organisations Advisory Committees Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers - ICANN glen(a)icann.org http://www.icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.

1 0

Thank you and 'au revoir'
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear Councillors, As from the end of January 2017 I will be transitioning out of my current role and scaling down my workload. So what does this mean? I will still be around for a while in a consulting capacity and in particular I will be working on the Copenhagen meeting. However, today is my last Council meeting - going forward you will be in the very capable hands of Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew who are currently slowly and will be fully taking over the GNSO administrative functions and making the transition smooth and unobvious. There is simply no way I can express the magnitude of spending all these years working, laughing and growing with you all, so it is just a thank you for the great memories and life experience you have all afforded me. Glen Glen de Saint Géry Manager Supporting Organisations Advisory Committees Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers - ICANN glen(a)icann.org<mailto:glen@icann.org> http://www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

MP3 recording & Adobe chat transcript GNSO Council teleconference Thursday, 15 December 2016
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear all, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 15 December 2016 on page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep>http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec>dec<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailer.samanage.com_wf_…>http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-15dec16-en.mp3<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-15dec16-en.mp3 > <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-15dec16-en.mp3 > and the Adobe chat transcript can be viewed here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-15dec16-en.pdf Thank you, Nathalie

1 0

RECIRCULATING FOR FINAL REVIEW: Response to Board Request re: IRD Working Group Report
by Mary Wong Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear all, As requested, attached is the proposed Council response to the Board’s letter regarding the IRD Final Report containing the edits suggested by Amr. Staff has updated it with the additional suggestion from Darcy and a few non-substantive formatting and typographical corrections. This is therefore the proposed final version to be transmitted to the Board – please send any concerns or comments you may have to this list by the end of Sunday in your time zone, so that staff can prepare the letter for forwarding to the Board first thing on Monday morning 19 December. Thank you. Cheers Mary On 12/15/16, 22:24, "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of aelsadr(a)egyptig.org> wrote: Hi Darcy, Thanks. Sounds good to me. The term used in the T&T final report was “gTLD provider”. This was meant to cover both gTLD registries and registrars. Thanks again. Amr > On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com> wrote: > > Thanks for these edits and commentary in today's meeting, Amr. That was very helpful. > > I have one suggestion to page 2 of the letter, with new language shown in yellow below: > > "A registry or registrar is expressly permitted to engage in any approved business model with any registrant, but it must expect that only registrants who ordinarily work with the languages and scripts supported by the registry may use the services of the registry." > > From an operational perspective, registries do not engage with registrants, so the original wording didn't quite make sense. > > Thanks, > Darcy > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I’ve made some track changes to the draft response to Steve’s letter, and attached them to this email. Again, I apologize for waiting so long before weighing in on this, but I hope that these changes will add reassurance to the Board regarding Steve’s questions on how the GNSO has taken the IRD WG's recommendations in to consideration in its policy development to date. > > I should probably add that whatever response we do send, I don’t believe it requires a formal motion and vote. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > >> On Dec 13, 2016, at 6:35 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> wrote: >> >> >> Thanks Amr. I agree. >> >> Best, >> Keith >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr >> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 10:34 AM >> To: GNSO Council List >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Response to Board Request re: IRD Working Group Report >> >> >> Hi again, >> >>> On Dec 13, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org> wrote: >>> >> >> [SNIP] >> >>> 3. unless explicitly stated otherwise, all data elements should be tagged with the languages/scripts in use, and this information should always be available with the data element. (not addressed) >>> >>> I also note that the input we received from Jim Galvin addressed this issue, and that the T/T consensus policy on this point does require that internationalized data elements fields in the RDS should be easily identifiable. Furthermore, the consensus policy requires identification of the language in which the authoritative IRD was originally submitted, in the event T/T takes place. These all seem to be nicely consistent with the findings of the IRD WG, and should hopefully address Steve's questions. >> >> Incidentally, this is also consistent with the consistent labelling and display requirement in the "thick" WHOIS CP. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Amr >> > > >

1 0

Response to Board Request re: IRD Working Group Report
by James M. Bladel Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Councilors - If you recall, several months ago the Board requested that we examine the recommendations of the IRD WG, and (1) refer these to the RDS PDP for consideration during their work, and (2) confirm that they were compatible with the (concluded) Translation & Transliteration (T&T) PDP. We did both of these, and James Galvin prepared a lengthy response addressing the second question, concluding that these recommendations were not in conflict. Marika and I have reformatted the information provided by James as a response to the original Board letter (attached and copied below). I realize there hasn’t been much traffic on this topic, so I would ask that folks please review this response and share with your SG/Cs to see if any concerns arise. Assuming that everyone is good with this letter, then I would ask the Council if there are any objections to sending the letter, or if folks would rather see this presented formally as a motion for our next meeting. Thank you, J. 5 December 2016 Response to ICANN Board Letter concerning GNSO consideration of the policy implications of the Internationalized Registration (IRD) Working Group’s Final Report Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board Dear Steve, On behalf of the GNSO Council, I am responding to your letter of 11 May 2016. I apologize for the delay in developing this response but it was necessary to take this time to gather and consider the information needed to comprehensively respond to your request. In your letter, you asked the GNSO ‘to consider the policy implications of the IRD’s report, follow up as the Council deems appropriate, and, at a minimum, forward the IRD’s report as an input to the Working Groups engaged in the Next Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS PDP’. With regard to the latter request, the IRD report was forward to the RDS PDP Working Group for consideration during their work on 7 July 2016. With regard to the former request, we consulted with representatives from the (previously concluded) Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (T&T) PDP Working Group, and as a result the GNSO concludes that: * The IRD recommendations were, in fact, considered in the development of the T&T recommendations, and * Those members who participated in both efforts (T&T and the IRD Expert WG) made a point to explicitly compare the discussions, to flag any issues that appeared to be in conflict, and bring these to the attention of both groups, and * All discrepancies were reviewed in detail within each group, and * The short answer to the concern of whether or not the two sets of recommendations are in conflict is, "No, they are not." A more complete, nuanced response is as follows. The following two recommendations are intended to be equivalent. * From the T&T: The Working Group recommends that the language(s) and script(s) supported for registrants to submit their contact information data may be chosen in accordance with gTLD-provider business models. * From the IRD: A registry must be able to accept and store any language or script that might reasonably be expected to be used in their target market. There is a natural tension regarding the language and script used to represent the data among all of the points from a registrant to the final display of the data, including how the date is collected by the registrar, and how it is stored by the registry. Both the T&T and the IRD working groups recognized this and both groups agreed with full consensus that the appropriate place to anchor this preference is with the registry. The gTLD registry operator’s business model will determine how it intends to serve its target registrants, and subsequently drive the decision on which language(s) and script(s) it will use to present and manage its services. The IRD working group went a step further in its deliberations and included the following additional recommendation: * Registrants should only be required to input registration data in a language(s) or script(s) with which they are skilled. The purpose of this recommendation was to mitigate any requirement that would burden registrants with special skills or requirements. The IRD recommendations are based on three foundational principles, and among these is the "User Capability Principle: the capability of the data-submitting user should be the constraining factor. Such users should not be burdened with tasks that cannot be completed under ordinary circumstances." This principle is the primary motivation for this recommendation. These three recommendations are intended to be complementary. A registry is expressly permitted to engage in any approved business model with any registrant, but it must expect that only registrants who ordinarily work with the languages and scripts supported by the registry may use the services of the registry. Some might consider this point obvious from a business perspective, but nonetheless, the IRD working group believed this point was often overlooked in discussions of internationalization and thus chose to make it explicitly. As a result, the GNSO concludes there is no conflict between these sets of recommendations, and as such recommends that the T&T IRT factors in the IRD Expert Working Group recommendations as part of their implementation efforts. However, should the T&T IRT find that there are policy implications resulting from the IRD Expert Working Group recommendations, we would refer them to existing mechanisms for the IRT to flag these and submit them to the GNSO Council for appropriate action. If there are no objections or further questions from the ICANN Board on this approach, I propose that I share this communication with the T&T IRT for their information. Best regards, James Bladel GNSO Chair

4 7

Your input requested - FW: [council] Document for RDS Review Team Charter Discussion
by Marika Konings Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear All, As discussed today, please take this document back to your SG/Cs for input and provide any comments back to the Council mailing list by Tuesday 20 December. This will allow for further discussion, as needed, on Wednesday and Thursday with a view to submitting a response to staff by Thursday 22 December COB (LA time). Thanks, Marika From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)Verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 7:10 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Document for RDS Review Team Charter Discussion Hi all, Susan and I pulled together the attached document to assist our Council discussions tomorrow on the RDS Review Team Charter. Apologies for the late delivery. Regards, Keith

1 0

FW: [council] For your review - draft Council responses to CCWG Accountability survey
by Marika Konings Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Reminder – please provide any comments / edits you may have by Friday 9 December COB. As discussed on the Council call, the objective is to send the response to the CCWG-Accountability Chairs early next week. Thanks, Marika From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 12:51 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] For your review - draft Council responses to CCWG Accountability survey Dear All, In preparation for item 9 – GNSO Council Response to Questions from the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs concerning Work Strems (see further details below), please find attached a draft GNSO Council response for your review. Note that this draft only focuses on the GNSO Council aspects as it is the expectation that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and/or Constituencies will provide their respective responses to the survey. Best regards, Marika Item 9. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Council Response to Questions from the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs concerning Work Stream 2 (10 minutes) On 4 November 2016, the co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) wrote to all SO/AC leaders seeking input by early December on the resources and documents used by each SO/AC to maintain accountability to its respective designated community, taking into account the particular or specific working modalities of each SO/AC (and any subgroups) (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19440.html)[gnso.i…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_mailing…>. The GNSO Council leadership is working on a possible response from the Council, and has requested feedback from each Stakeholder Group and Constituency on the topic. Here the Council will discuss whether or not to send a response to the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs. 9.1 – Status summary (GNSO Council leadership) 9.2 – Council discussion 9.3 – Next steps 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…>.

1 1

RE: UPDATE re Item 2: For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

1 0