December 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: [EXTERNAL] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#228]
by Glen de Saint Géry 13 Dec '16

13 Dec '16

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 13 Dec '16

13 Dec '16

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 12 Dec '16

12 Dec '16

2 1

Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017: Nominations
by Nathalie Peregrine 12 Dec '16

12 Dec '16

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 12 Dec '16

12 Dec '16

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 12 Dec '16

12 Dec '16

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 09 Dec '16

09 Dec '16

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 08 Dec '16

08 Dec '16

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 08 Dec '16

08 Dec '16

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 08 Dec '16

08 Dec '16

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