December 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: [Ext] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#233]
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 11:51 AM To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [Ext] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#233] Name of Officer: * Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Officer Email Address: * wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date Prepared: * Thursday, December 15, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Internet Services Provider Constituency Officer Position or Title: * Constituency Vice Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Tony Harris will be unable to join the council meeting due to other commitments on short term Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any and all Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, December 16, 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: * Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

1 0

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

Dec. 15, 2016

2 1

Document for RDS Review Team Charter Discussion
by Drazek, Keith Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

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

UPDATE re Item 2: For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
by Austin, Donna Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Paul, all Please accept the language below for consideration as potential replacement language provided below by Paul. This language supersedes an earlier email I sent to the list. I apologise for any confusion. Just to be clear, this language is relevant to Item 2 of the Council response to the GAC communique. Proposed language from the RySG: The GNSO Council observes that ICANN is only one party to its contracts; the others are registries or registrars. It is inappropriate for one party to a contract to unilaterally define standards for reporting enforcement. Contracted parties voluntarily have developed, and continue to develop, various operational practices that proactively address abuse in various forms. To replace the following language suggested by Paul: Some contracted parties to ICANN have or are in the process of developing a number of “best practices” initiatives related to registry and registrar operations. ICANN is responsible for setting standards for abuse reporting and performance when determining compliance with contractual obligations. If the RySG language is acceptable, Paul’s response would read: The GNSO Council would like to express concern that the list of questions set out in Annex 1 has been categorised as “advice”. In this context, the term “advice” ought to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, and a request to the Board to provide various data and information does not constitute “GAC Advice”, as this term is used in the ICANN Bylaws. Since GAC Advice has a specific status and treatment under the under the ICANN Bylaws, precision of terminology is crucial to avoid any perception that there is an attempt to direct the Board, rather than making a request for information and attempting to impose a reasonable deadline for its provision. That said, the GNSO Council looks forward to reviewing ICANN’s responses to the questions listed in Annex 1 to the Communiqué. The GNSO Council observes that ICANN is only one party to its contracts; the others are registries or registrars. It is inappropriate for one party to a contract to unilaterally define standards for reporting enforcement. Contracted parties voluntarily have developed, and continue to develop, various operational practices that proactively address abuse in various forms. The issue of DNS Abuse Mitigation raised by the GAC may also be dealt with by the GNSO in GNSO PDP Working Groups, producing relevant Consensus Policy recommendations then duly adopted by the Board. Further, the issue of DNS Abuse Mitigation raised by the GAC is dealt with by the GNSO as the issue arises, whether it be various active and/or open projects on the Projects List<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meet…>, or as part of GNSO Policy Activities<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…>. I do want to reiterate a previous suggestion I had made in that I do believe it would be worthwhile to elevate the comments about the definition of GAC Advice to the letter of transmittal. Thanks Donna From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of policy(a)paulmcgrady.com Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 12:11 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad Hi All, The IPC has had a chance to consider the draft language for Section 2 and propose the following (heavily) edited draft response: ___________________________ The GNSO Council would like to express concern that the list of questions set out in Annex 1 has been categorised as “advice”. In this context, the term “advice” ought to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, and a request to the Board to provide various data and information does not constitute “GAC Advice”, as this term is used in the ICANN Bylaws. Since GAC Advice has a specific status and treatment under the under the ICANN Bylaws, precision of terminology is crucial to avoid any perception that there is an attempt to direct the Board, rather than making a request for information and attempting to impose a reasonable deadline for its provision. That said, the GNSO Council looks forward to reviewing ICANN’s responses to the questions listed in Annex 1 to the Communiqué. The issue of DNS Abuse Mitigation raised by the GAC may also be dealt with by the GNSO in GNSO PDP Working Groups, producing relevant Consensus Policy recommendations then duly adopted by the Board. Further, the issue of DNS Abuse Mitigation raised by the GAC is dealt with by the GNSO as the issue arises, whether it be various active and/or open projects on the Projects List<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meet…>, or as part of GNSO Policy Activities<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…>. ___________________________ I'm very happy to discuss the rationale for these proposed changes. Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thu, December 08, 2016 11:48 am To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Dear All, Please find attached for your review the proposed GNSO Review of the GAC Communique. This draft has been developed by the small drafting team that was formed at ICANN57 consisting of Donna Austin, James Bladel, Heather Forrest, Phil Corwin, Michele Neylon, Paul McGrady and Carlos Guttierez. Please share any comments and/or input you may have with the mailing list. Consideration of this document is also on the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 15 December. 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

FOR PUBLICATION: Updated Project List
by Mary Wong Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

With immense thanks to Donna for the thorough edits and comments, please find attached the updated Project List where we’ve tried to incorporate all the links requested and make the suggested changes. Given that we are two days out from the 15 December Council meeting, I hope it’s all right if Nathalie posts the attached version as soon as possible. For the next iteration that we’ll be preparing for the Council meeting in January, we will be sure to do a full sweep through the document to catch any remaining quirks and ensure uniformity and consistency. I’ll also note that we do check the Project List for consistency periodically, but it has been some time so, once again, thanks, Donna! Cheers Mary From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz> Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 02:20 To: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Review Project list All Suggested changes for consideration, which mostly go to consistency. Thanks Donna From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:59 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [council] Review Project list 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc…> and be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_meetings…> Thanks so much. Kind regards, Nathalie

2 1

Final Agenda GNSO Council Meeting 15 December 2016 at 12:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

**With reformatted hyperlinks** Dear all, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 December 2016 at 12:00 UTC. Links will be provided for Item 6 when available. Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/IZfDAw This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> v3.2, updated on 01 September 2016. For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/jmry4q4 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 23:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: <http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________ Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins) 1.1 - Roll Call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council Part I on 7 November 2016, posted on 11 December 2016 Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council Part II on 7 November 2016, posted on XXXXX 2016. Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 1 December 2016, posted on XXXXXXX 2016. Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 mins) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List<https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> Item 3. Consent Agenda (10 mins) 3.1 Confirmation of Appointment of GNSO Members and GNSO Co-Chair to the New Cross Community Working Group for New gTLD Auction Proceeds The 2012 New gTLD Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention. Although most string contention sets have been resolved through other means prior to reaching the stage of an auction conducted by ICANN's authorized auction service provider, it was recognized from the outset that significant funds could accrue as a result of several auctions. As such, any and all auction proceeds have been reserved and earmarked until the Board authorizes a plan for the appropriate use of the funds. The Board, staff, and community are expected to work together in designing the appropriate processes for addressing the use of the new gTLD auction proceeds. To this end, a cross-community Drafting Team (DT) was formed, and the DT subsequently submitted a proposed Charter<https://community.icann.org/x/mRuOAw> – a document that was the result of extensive community input to the DT - for a new cross-community working group (CCWG) to all SO/ACs for consideration. At its meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the GNSO Council approved<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161107-4> the Charter and a set of criteria for GNSO-appointed members to the new CCWG. Following the approval of the Charter by the ALAC, SSAC and ccNSO, a Call for Volunteers was to be issued on 13 December 2016. For the GNSO, the Council has received the following nominations for approval: · Jonathan Robinson (nominated to be the GNSO CCWG co-chair) · Tony Harris (nominated by the Commercial Stakeholders Group) · Jon Nevett (nominated by the Registries Stakeholder Group) · Eliot Noss (nominated by the Registrars Stakeholder Group) · Stephanie Perrin (nominated by the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group) 3.2 – Confirmation of Council response to ICANN Board letter regarding policy implications of the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Expert Working Group On 11 May 2016, ICANN Board Chair Dr. Steve Crocker sent a letter to the GNSO Council following up on the Board’s 10 March 2016 Resolution (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-11may16-en.pdf) The Board’s request was for the GNSO Council to “review the broader policy implications of the IRD Final Report<http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/ird-expert-wg-final-23sep1…> as they relate to other GNSO policy development work on WHOIS issues, and, at a minimum, forward the IRD Final Report as an input to the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS that is currently underway.” The GNSO Council sought input from the co-chairs and members of the recently completed GNSO Policy Development Process on the Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data (T&T PDP), requesting feedback on several specific points, viz.: (1) how certain recommendations in the IRD Final Report were considered, if at all, in the Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/translation-transliteration-contact-…> of the T&T PDP Working Group; (2) how those recommendations could potentially conflict with the T&T PDP Working Group’s recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board; and (3) what steps are recommended to the GNSO Council in considering the policy implications of the IRD Final Report. Following input received, the GNSO Council Chairs circulated a draft response to the Council on 5 December (see https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19547.html) for approval to send on to the Board. ** The two items described in 3.1 and 3.2 above will be considered approved if the Council votes to pass the Consent Agenda ** Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE – GNSO Council Response to the Board on gTLD Policy Matters related to the GAC Communique from Hyderabad (25 minutes) Beginning in July 2015, the GNSO Council has reviewed each GAC Communiqué for issues relating to gTLD policy, with a view toward providing information to the ICANN Board and the broader community concerning past, present or future GNSO policy activities relating to GAC advice touching on these topics. A placeholder motion was proposed for the 1 December Council meeting, and deferred pending the completion of a draft response being prepared by a small group of Council volunteers. The draft response (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-08dec16-en.pdf) to the GAC’s Communique from ICANN57 in Hyderabad was circulated to the GNSO Council on 8 December. Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve the response to the Board. 4.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+…> (Paul McGrady) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5. COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of Proposed Implementation Plan for Recommendations relating to the 2014 GNSO Review (10 minutes) Along with the ICANN Board’s adoption in June 2016 of certain recommendations from the 2014 GNSO Review, the GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper outlining the possible options for implementation, taking into account past implementation of previous GNSO Reviews as well as existing mechanisms. At ICANN56 in Helsinki in June 2016, the GNSO Council discussed the options outlined in the staff discussion paper (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discu…) On 21 July 2016 the GNSO Council chartered<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-21jul16-en.pdf> the GNSO Review Working Group and directed it to submit a proposed implementation plan to the Council for approval by the ICANN57 meeting. The GNSO Review Working Group circulated its proposed implementation plan to the Council on 21 November. https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-plan…. A motion to adopt the proposed plan was submitted for the Council’s 1 December meeting but was withdrawn to allow the Council additional time to consider the details. A webinar was held on 8 December 2016 to go through the plan. Here the Council will consider whether to approve the plan for transmission to the ICANN Board. 5.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+…> (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Council Response to Proposed Scope of the Forthcoming Registration Directory Services (RDS) Review (formerly the Whois Review) (10 minutes) On 4 November 2016 ICANN staff circulated a document to all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) leaders that described a proposed limited scope for the forthcoming RDS (formerly Whois) Review https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19381.html) This topic was also discussed as part of a High Interest Topics Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, and certain concerns with the proposal were noted by the GNSO Council during its Wrap Up Session. At its meeting on 1 December, the Council discussed the likely nature of the feedback it may provide to ICANN staff, and Susan Kawaguchi and Keith Drazek volunteered to draft a proposed response. The draft response was circulated to the Council on [INSERT DATE HERE] Here the Council will discuss the draft response, and decide what to include in the final document to be sent. 6.1 – Summary and update (Susan Kawaguchi / Keith Drazek) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next steps Item 7. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposal for a Uniform Selection of GNSO Representatives to Future Review Teams, and Selection of GNSO Representatives to the Second Security, Stability & Resiliency Review Team (20 minutes) At ICANN57 in Hyderabad, SO/AC leaders (including the chairs of several GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies) met with ICANN staff to discuss the selection process for appointments to the forthcoming Security, Stability & Resiliency (SSR) Review Team (SSR-RT-2). It was agreed that selection of the final slate of Review Team members should be a collective effort by all SO/AC leaders, and that each SO/AC would develop its own internal guidelines for selecting its representatives for consideration (up to a maximum of 3 per SO/AC). The group also discussed how independent experts should be appointed to the Review Team. The current slate of applicants can be viewed at https://community.icann.org/x/xRqsAw. At the Council’s 1 December meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Ed Morris confirmed that they were working on a proposed set of criteria and a uniform process for selection of GNSO representatives to all future Review Teams. The draft document (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf) was circulated to the Council on 13 December 2016. Here the Council will discuss the proposal, and confirm its deadline for selecting the GNSO’s representatives on the SSR-RT-2 using the new, agreed criteria and process. 7.1 – Status summary (Susan Kawaguchi / Ed Morris) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Planning for ICANN58 (15 minutes) At its Wrap Up Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the Council discussed the need to start planning early for ICANN58. It also agreed that confirming certain sessions (including joint meetings with other SO/ACs and the ICANN Board) as fixed in the overall meeting schedule would be helpful for scheduling purposes, as would facilitating better coordination between and with individual Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and ensuring that sufficient time is given over to policy development work. To assist in the Council’s deliberations, staff compiled all GNSO Council input received on the ICANN58 Council Planning Survey: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/icann58-council-planning-survey-30nov16-en…. At the Council’s 1 December meeting, the Council Chairs provided an update on the latest SO/AC leadership call where planning for ICANN58 was discussed. The Council agreed that it would be helpful to create a draft GNSO Block Schedule, to be shared with the other SO/AC leaders ahead of the next SO/AC leadership call. The Council also noted that, with several important Policy Development Processes (PDPs) ongoing, it will be important to ensure that ICANN58 scheduling take into account those PDP Working Groups that will need face-to-face meeting time. Here the Council will continue its discussion of scheduling priorities for the GNSO as well as next steps. 8.1 – Status summary (GNSO Council leadership) 8.2 – Council discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes) 9.1 – Hold on request of SO/AC Support Team Leader Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_about_…>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_council_…>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 12:00 UTC Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8 +0DST 04:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC--6 +0DST 06:00 Iowa City, USA (CST) UTC--6 +0DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5 +0DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2 +0DST 10:00 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2 +0DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (TRT) UTC+3+0DST 15:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 +0DST 20:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 21:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2017, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/jmry4q4 Please let me know if you have any questions. 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[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

RE: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

3 3

FW: [Ext] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#230]
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 4:05 PM To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [Ext] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#230] Name of Officer: * Tapani Tarvainen Officer Email Address: * ncsg(a)tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, December 14, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Temporary Alternate Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Edward Morris is unable to attend council meetings in December and January. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any and all. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Tuesday, January 31, 2017 Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate. [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. * Martin Silva Valent Temporary Alternate Email Address: * mpsilvavalent(a)gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>

1 0

FW: [Ext] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#229]
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 3:15 PM To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [Ext] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#229] Name of Officer: * Paul Diaz Officer Email Address: * pdiaz(a)pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, December 14, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Registries Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Rubens Kuhl will be late to the 15 Dec GNSO Council call, and asks that Keith Drazek serve as his proxy if any voting occurs. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * See above Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Thursday, December 15, 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: * Keith Drazek

1 0

RE: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

2 1

Appointments Procedure proposal
by Edward Morris Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Hi everybody, Attached please find the GNSO Appointments Procedure that Susan and I have worked together to create. I'm proud of it and think we've come up with something that respects the diversity of the GNSO and will allow us to nominate our best candidates for positions within the ICANN community. You'll note that in section 1(a) we still have one item we'd like the Council to consider and make a determination on: the composition of the proposed GNSO Selection Committee. I'm sure both Susan and myself would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Suggestions to improve upon our work, of course, are encouraged and welcome. On a personal note, I'd like to thank Susan for her exceptionally hard work in making this policy proposal a reality. It has been nothing less than a complete delight to work with her on this and I'm very happy I had the opportunity to do so. Kind Regards, Edward Morris Sent from my iPhone

2 1

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Review Project list
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Dear Donna, Thank you for the edits. If we receive no further comment, we will post this version to the GNSO Website and let you know when it's done. Kind regards, Nathalie From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>> Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 7:20 PM To: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org<mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org>>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Review Project list All Suggested changes for consideration, which mostly go to consistency. Thanks Donna From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:59 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Review Project list 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc…> and be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_meetings…> Thanks so much. Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

Final Agenda GNSO Council Meeting 15 December 2016 at 12:00UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Dear All, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 December 2016 at 12:00 UTC. Links will be provided for Item 6 when available. Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/IZfDAw This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> v3.2, updated on 01 September 2016. For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/jmry4q4 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 23:00 Hobart ___________________________________ Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins) 1.1 - Roll Call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council Part I on 7 November 2016, posted on 11 December 2016 Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council Part II on 7 November 2016, posted on XXXXX 2016. Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 1 December 2016, posted on XXXXXXX 2016. Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 mins) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List<https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> Item 3. Consent Agenda (10 mins) 3.1 Confirmation of Appointment of GNSO Members and GNSO Co-Chair to the New Cross Community Working Group for New gTLD Auction Proceeds The 2012 New gTLD Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention. Although most string contention sets have been resolved through other means prior to reaching the stage of an auction conducted by ICANN's authorized auction service provider, it was recognized from the outset that significant funds could accrue as a result of several auctions. As such, any and all auction proceeds have been reserved and earmarked until the Board authorizes a plan for the appropriate use of the funds. The Board, staff, and community are expected to work together in designing the appropriate processes for addressing the use of the new gTLD auction proceeds. To this end, a cross-community Drafting Team (DT) was formed, and the DT subsequently submitted a proposed Charter<https://community.icann.org/x/mRuOAw> – a document that was the result of extensive community input to the DT - for a new cross-community working group (CCWG) to all SO/ACs for consideration. At its meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the GNSO Council approved<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161107-4> the Charter and a set of criteria for GNSO-appointed members to the new CCWG. Following the approval of the Charter by the ALAC, SSAC and ccNSO, a Call for Volunteers was to be issued on 13 December 2016. For the GNSO, the Council has received the following nominations for approval: · Jonathan Robinson (nominated to be the GNSO CCWG co-chair) · Tony Harris (nominated by the Commercial Stakeholders Group) · Jon Nevett (nominated by the Registries Stakeholder Group) · Eliot Noss (nominated by the Registrars Stakeholder Group) · Stephanie Perrin (nominated by the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group) 3.2 – Confirmation of Council response to ICANN Board letter regarding policy implications of the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Expert Working Group On 11 May 2016, ICANN Board Chair Dr. Steve Crocker sent a letter to the GNSO Council following up on the Board’s 10 March 2016 Resolution (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-11may16-en.pdf) The Board’s request was for the GNSO Council to “review the broader policy implications of the IRD Final Report<http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/ird-expert-wg-final-23sep1…> as they relate to other GNSO policy development work on WHOIS issues, and, at a minimum, forward the IRD Final Report as an input to the GNSO PDP on the Next Generation Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS that is currently underway.” The GNSO Council sought input from the co-chairs and members of the recently completed GNSO Policy Development Process on the Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data (T&T PDP), requesting feedback on several specific points, viz.: (1) how certain recommendations in the IRD Final Report were considered, if at all, in the Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/translation-transliteration-contact-…> of the T&T PDP Working Group; (2) how those recommendations could potentially conflict with the T&T PDP Working Group’s recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board; and (3) what steps are recommended to the GNSO Council in considering the policy implications of the IRD Final Report. Following input received, the GNSO Council Chairs circulated a draft response to the Council on 5 December (see https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19547.html) for approval to send on to the Board. ** The two items described in 3.1 and 3.2 above will be considered approved if the Council votes to pass the Consent Agenda ** Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE – GNSO Council Response to the Board on gTLD Policy Matters related to the GAC Communique from Hyderabad (25 minutes) Beginning in July 2015, the GNSO Council has reviewed each GAC Communiqué for issues relating to gTLD policy, with a view toward providing information to the ICANN Board and the broader community concerning past, present or future GNSO policy activities relating to GAC advice touching on these topics. A placeholder motion was proposed for the 1 December Council meeting, and deferred pending the completion of a draft response being prepared by a small group of Council volunteers. The draft response (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-08dec16-en.pdf) to the GAC’s Communique from ICANN57 in Hyderabad was circulated to the GNSO Council on 8 December. Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve the response to the Board. 4.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+…> (Paul McGrady) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5. COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of Proposed Implementation Plan for Recommendations relating to the 2014 GNSO Review (10 minutes) Along with the ICANN Board’s adoption in June 2016 of certain recommendations from the 2014 GNSO Review, the GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper outlining the possible options for implementation, taking into account past implementation of previous GNSO Reviews as well as existing mechanisms. At ICANN56 in Helsinki in June 2016, the GNSO Council discussed the options outlined in the staff discussion paper (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discu…) On 21 July 2016 the GNSO Council chartered<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-21jul16-en.pdf> the GNSO Review Working Group and directed it to submit a proposed implementation plan to the Council for approval by the ICANN57 meeting. The GNSO Review Working Group circulated its proposed implementation plan to the Council on 21 November. https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-plan…. A motion to adopt the proposed plan was submitted for the Council’s 1 December meeting but was withdrawn to allow the Council additional time to consider the details. A webinar was held on 8 December 2016 to go through the plan. Here the Council will consider whether to approve the plan for transmission to the ICANN Board. 5.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+…> (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Council Response to Proposed Scope of the Forthcoming Registration Directory Services (RDS) Review (formerly the Whois Review) (10 minutes) On 4 November 2016 ICANN staff circulated a document to all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committee (SO/AC) leaders that described a proposed limited scope for the forthcoming RDS (formerly Whois) Review https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19381.html) This topic was also discussed as part of a High Interest Topics Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, and certain concerns with the proposal were noted by the GNSO Council during its Wrap Up Session. At its meeting on 1 December, the Council discussed the likely nature of the feedback it may provide to ICANN staff, and Susan Kawaguchi and Keith Drazek volunteered to draft a proposed response. The draft response was circulated to the Council on [INSERT DATE HERE] Here the Council will discuss the draft response, and decide what to include in the final document to be sent. 6.1 – Summary and update (Susan Kawaguchi / Keith Drazek) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next steps Item 7. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposal for a Uniform Selection of GNSO Representatives to Future Review Teams, and Selection of GNSO Representatives to the Second Security, Stability & Resiliency Review Team (20 minutes) At ICANN57 in Hyderabad, SO/AC leaders (including the chairs of several GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies) met with ICANN staff to discuss the selection process for appointments to the forthcoming Security, Stability & Resiliency (SSR) Review Team (SSR-RT-2). It was agreed that selection of the final slate of Review Team members should be a collective effort by all SO/AC leaders, and that each SO/AC would develop its own internal guidelines for selecting its representatives for consideration (up to a maximum of 3 per SO/AC). The group also discussed how independent experts should be appointed to the Review Team. The current slate of applicants can be viewed at https://community.icann.org/x/xRqsAw. At the Council’s 1 December meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Ed Morris confirmed that they were working on a proposed set of criteria and a uniform process for selection of GNSO representatives to all future Review Teams. The draft document (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf) was circulated to the Council on 13 December 2016. Here the Council will discuss the proposal, and confirm its deadline for selecting the GNSO’s representatives on the SSR-RT-2 using the new, agreed criteria and process. 7.1 – Status summary (Susan Kawaguchi / Ed Morris) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Planning for ICANN58 (15 minutes) At its Wrap Up Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the Council discussed the need to start planning early for ICANN58. It also agreed that confirming certain sessions (including joint meetings with other SO/ACs and the ICANN Board) as fixed in the overall meeting schedule would be helpful for scheduling purposes, as would facilitating better coordination between and with individual Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and ensuring that sufficient time is given over to policy development work. To assist in the Council’s deliberations, staff compiled all GNSO Council input received on the ICANN58 Council Planning Survey: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/icann58-council-planning-survey-30nov16-en…. At the Council’s 1 December meeting, the Council Chairs provided an update on the latest SO/AC leadership call where planning for ICANN58 was discussed. The Council agreed that it would be helpful to create a draft GNSO Block Schedule, to be shared with the other SO/AC leaders ahead of the next SO/AC leadership call. The Council also noted that, with several important Policy Development Processes (PDPs) ongoing, it will be important to ensure that ICANN58 scheduling take into account those PDP Working Groups that will need face to face meeting time. Here the Council will continue its discussion of scheduling priorities for the GNSO as well as next steps. 8.1 – Status summary (GNSO Council leadership) 8.2 – Council discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes) 9.1 – Hold on request of SO/AC Support Team Leader Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_about_…>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_council_…>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 12:00 UTC Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8 +0DST 04:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC--6 +0DST 06:00 Iowa City, USA (CST) UTC--6 +0DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5 +0DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2 +0DST 10:00 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2 +0DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (TRT) UTC+3+0DST 15:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 +0DST 20:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 21:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2017, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com http://tinyurl.com/jmry4q4 Please let me know if you have any questions. 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[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Review Project list
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 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. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project and be directly viewed at: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_meetings…>http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf Thanks so much. Kind regards, Nathalie

2 1

RE: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

3 2

FW: [EXTERNAL] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#228]
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 10:15 PM To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#228] Name of Officer: * Graeme Bunton Officer Email Address: * gbunton(a)tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> Date Prepared: * Monday, December 12, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Registrars Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * James Bladel will be travelling for at least a portion of the next GNSO call. He's asked for Donna to step in as proxy and I've approved. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any issue that requires a vote. 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] * Friday, December 16, 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: * Donna Austin

2 1

Status of Draft Response to Board re: IGO/INGO/Red Cross names
by James M. Bladel Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

Dear Colleagues We wanted to provide you all with an update on that status of the attached communication prepared prior to the recent ICANN meeting in Hyderabad. As you are all aware this was the topic of many conversations for the Council, as well as the Board, the GAC, and the community during meeting. Some of you may also be aware that during Public Forum 2<http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/60/I57%20HYD_Tue08Nov2016-Public%20…>, (pp 90-92) Bruce Tonkin noted a common topic for the Board during the week was around how to handle the situation where the Board receives inconsistent information or recommendations or advice and used the protection of Red Cross names and IGOs as a case in point. The Board considers that there would be value in a facilitated discussion between the GNSO and the GAC to try to reach some sort of shared view point, and offered to make available the necessary resources to make this happen. Heather and James had an initial conversation with Bruce and Becky Burr after the Public Forum, in order to get a better understanding of what is being proposed. At the time the idea was a very loose framework at best and we have been endeavoring to set up a call with representatives from the Board and the GAC to discuss what is being proposed, with a view to bringing this suggestion back to Council for further discussion in January. Unfortunately, to date we have not been able to schedule a call. As a result we have not progressed the attached communication. We would prefer to wait until we understand the intent of the facilitated discussion, and how and when that would take place, in the event that the Council and the GAC agree to move forward with this approach. We will keep you informed as more information becomes available. Regards James, Heather, Donna

1 0

RE: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

2 1

Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017: Nominations
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-12-12-en Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form<https://goo.gl/forms/sKJcUjdA5gT50Dl72> ICANN is pleased to announce the opening of the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award. Launched in 2014 at ICANN50 in London, the Multistakeholder Ethos Award recognizes ICANNparticipants who have deeply invested in consensus-based solutions, acknowledging the importance of ICANN's multistakeholder model of Internet governance, and contributed in a substantive way to the higher interests of ICANN's organization and its community. The ideal recipient(s) will have served in roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees and collaborated with more than one Supporting Organization and/or Advisory Committee in a significant capacity. Candidates for the award will demonstrate at least five years of participation in the ICANN Community. Candidates will be evaluated by a panel of community members appointed by the Chairs of each Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees using a merit-based point system evaluated against three criteria: 1. Demonstrated ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANNStakeholders with the aim of consensus building and collaboration that substantiate ICANN's multistakeholder model; 2. Facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner, through the spirit of collaboration as shown through empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests; and 3. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. Please submit your nominations via this Nomination Form<https://goo.gl/forms/sKJcUjdA5gT50Dl72> including detailed information outlining why the nominee meets the award criteria. Any additional information in support of nominations and/or questions about the award process may be submitted via email at ethosaward2017(a)icann.org<mailto:ethosaward2017@icann.org>. Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2017 at ICANN59 Johannesburg.For more insights on the award program, please consult the ICANN Community Wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/YyOAAw>. Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form<https://goo.gl/forms/sKJcUjdA5gT50Dl72> ###

1 0

2017 Council Dates
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 2016

Dear all, The 2017 Council dates have been published on the GNSO Master calendar: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2017 Kind regards Nathalie

1 0

Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
by Marika Konings Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 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

Re: [council] Request for High Interest topics (HIT) at ICANN58 Copenhagen
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight Dec. 9, 2016

Dec. 9, 2016

Thanks James The data on attendance is interesting, though I thought that there were a smaller number of HIT sessions in Helsinki. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blacknight.blog/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Date: Thursday 8 December 2016 at 20:08 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Request for High Interest topics (HIT) at ICANN58 Copenhagen Councilors – ICANN Meeting Staff is now accepting proposals for an expected three (3) High Interest Topic (HIT) sessions in Copenhagen. Proposals will be accepted until Friday, 23 DEC, and can be submitted using this link: https://icann.wufoo.com/forms/icann58-topic-proposal/ All topic proposals will be shared for review & discussion by the meeting planning team during its next meeting, currently scheduled for 4 JAN. Also, Staff has provided attendance figures (below) for HITs in Hyderabad and Helsinki. This data may be informative if you are considering a related topic. Thanks – J. ICANN56 (Policy Forum) | Helsinki Headcount 1 Cross-Community Session: Next Generation Registration Directory Services 215 2 Cross-Community Session: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures 208 3 Cross-Community Session: Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs 190 4 Cross-Community Session: Country and Other Geographic Names Forum 182 5 ICANN56 Wrap Up & Planning Ahead for ICANN57 149 6 Cross-Community Session: Workload Scheduling and Management 109 7 Cross-Community Session: Charter for the CCWG on Auction Proceeds 101 8 Cross-Community Session: Draft Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs 65 ICANN57(AGM) | Hyderabad Headcount 1 High Interest Topics session: Mitigation of Abuse in gTLDs 338 2 Update on WHOIS-Related Initiatives 261 3 DNS and Content Regulation NCUC Group 197 4 Exploring the Public Interest Within ICANN's Remit 190 5 High Interest Topic session: Underserved Regions in ICANN 166 6 Q&A with ICANN General Counsel on the legal advice that ICANN receives & how that supports the ICANN mission 132 7 How to do outreach within each SO/AC 119 8 Internet Governance Public Session 101

1 0

Request for High Interest topics (HIT) at ICANN58 Copenhagen
by James M. Bladel Dec. 9, 2016

Dec. 9, 2016

Councilors – ICANN Meeting Staff is now accepting proposals for an expected three (3) High Interest Topic (HIT) sessions in Copenhagen. Proposals will be accepted until Friday, 23 DEC, and can be submitted using this link: https://icann.wufoo.com/forms/icann58-topic-proposal/ All topic proposals will be shared for review & discussion by the meeting planning team during its next meeting, currently scheduled for 4 JAN. Also, Staff has provided attendance figures (below) for HITs in Hyderabad and Helsinki. This data may be informative if you are considering a related topic. Thanks – J. ICANN56 (Policy Forum) | Helsinki Headcount 1 Cross-Community Session: Next Generation Registration Directory Services 215 2 Cross-Community Session: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures 208 3 Cross-Community Session: Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs 190 4 Cross-Community Session: Country and Other Geographic Names Forum 182 5 ICANN56 Wrap Up & Planning Ahead for ICANN57 149 6 Cross-Community Session: Workload Scheduling and Management 109 7 Cross-Community Session: Charter for the CCWG on Auction Proceeds 101 8 Cross-Community Session: Draft Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs 65 ICANN57(AGM) | Hyderabad Headcount 1 High Interest Topics session: Mitigation of Abuse in gTLDs 338 2 Update on WHOIS-Related Initiatives 261 3 DNS and Content Regulation NCUC Group 197 4 Exploring the Public Interest Within ICANN's Remit 190 5 High Interest Topic session: Underserved Regions in ICANN 166 6 Q&A with ICANN General Counsel on the legal advice that ICANN receives & how that supports the ICANN mission 132 7 How to do outreach within each SO/AC 119 8 Internet Governance Public Session 101

1 0

FW: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review
by James M. Bladel Dec. 9, 2016

Dec. 9, 2016

Councilors – Please see the letter below from the CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs. As we previously discussed, the scheduled reviews of RDS / WHOIS are colliding with existing policy development and implementation work, which could potentially lead to two groups examining the same issues and also drawing from the same pool of volunteers. Staff and the Community have kicked off a proposal to limit the scope of the RDS/WHOIS Review Team, and the GNSO is providing feedback (thank you, Susan & Keith!) And now the CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs are raising similar concerns regarding the third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3), which expected to launch in 2017. They’ve identified 6 of 9 CCWG-ACT Workstream 2 topics as potentially colliding with this scheduled review. As a result and following conversations with the Board, the CCWG-ACCT leadership is asking that all SO/ACs consider a “limited scope” for ATRT3 that focuses on reviewing the implementation & effectiveness of the previous (ATRT2) review. They are asking for our feedback and support on this proposal. Please take a look at the full letter below, and let’s start a conversation on the list and leave the door open for a Discussion Item during our next call on 15 DEC. Thanks – J. From: Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date: Friday, December 2, 2016 at 4:07 Subject: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review Dear SO & AC Chairs, The CCWG-Accountability (CCWG) at its face to face meeting at the ICANN 56 in Helsinki considered the implications of the collision of topics, and therefore efforts, between ATRT3 and Work Stream 2 (WS2) (please see Annex 1 for a detailed consideration of this issue). In its discussion of this issue the CCWG considered the following points: · Collision of topics between WS2 and ATRT3 - There is potential for significant overlap between WS2 topics and the scope of ATRT3 as 6 of the 9 WS2 topics are accountability and transparency issues ATRT3 could also consider. · Timing of the two activities - WS2 began in July 2016 with an objective of completing its work by the end of 2017. ATRT3, which is expected to take 12 months to complete, is currently scheduled to begin in January 2017 but could potentially be delayed until February 2018 under the new Bylaws (which require ATRT every 5 years versus the AoC requirement for every 3 years). It would seem inefficient, at best, to have both of these activities working on the same topics independently, while drawing on the same pool of community volunteers. At worst, ATRT3 and WS2 groups could issue recommendations that are conflicting or duplicative. · Implementation of recommendations – The Bylaws for WS2 give CCWG recommendations greater weight when it comes to board consideration, relative to recommendations from an ATRT organized under the AoC. While in Helsinki, the CCWG concluded its preferred approach, as communicated in our 8-Aug-2016 letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-et-al-to-icann…> to the Board of ICANN: Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope of assessing implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT would convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and transparency topics and make recommendations The ICANN Board replied<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-sanchez-et-…> to the CCWG letter on 24-Oct-2016, saying, It is not up to the Board to dictate the scope of this important community review. While we share the concerns raised of avoiding duplication of resources, it is essential that the broader ICANN community have a voice in determining how the ATRT3 should be scoped in alignment with the Bylaws. The Board and the ICANN Organization stand ready to support the community’s direction. Accordingly, the CCWG is now proposing to community leadership the following approach: • Requesting that the SO/AC leadership select (following the new Bylaws) a small group of review team members that have either participated in or closely tracked ATRT2. • Requesting the ICANN organization to do a "self-assessment" reporting on a) the extent to which each recommendation was followed and/or implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing the issues identified by ATRT2; and c) the need for additional implementation. • Specifically request that the Review Team exclude the issues that are already covered by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 (see Annex 1). • Suggesting that the work be conducted & completed more quickly than normal, such as asking that the Final Report be issued within six months If the suggested approach above is agreeable to SO/AC community, the next steps would be: • SO/AC leadership to issue a public statement or a letter to ICANN CEO and Board Chair that explains why limited scope is appropriate and articulates that they have broad support of the ICANN community • Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise sought • Reach out to previous ATRT Review Team members and encourage them to apply for the narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team • Propose a Charter for the ATRT3 Review Team to adopt that tracks the limited Scope Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez & Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs

1 0

For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
by Marika Konings Dec. 9, 2016

Dec. 9, 2016

Dear All, Please find attached for your review the proposed GNSO Review of the GAC Communique. This draft has been developed by the small drafting team that was formed at ICANN57 consisting of Donna Austin, James Bladel, Heather Forrest, Phil Corwin, Michele Neylon, Paul McGrady and Carlos Guttierez. Please share any comments and/or input you may have with the mailing list. Consideration of this document is also on the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 15 December. 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-…>.

1 0