December 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

RECIRCULATING FOR FINAL REVIEW: Response to Board Request re: IRD Working Group Report
by Mary Wong 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

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 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

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 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

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 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

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 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

1 0

FW: [Ext] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#233]
by Glen de Saint Géry 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

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 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

2 1

Document for RDS Review Team Charter Discussion
by Drazek, Keith 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

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 14 Dec '16

14 Dec '16

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 14 Dec '16

14 Dec '16

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