December 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
by Marika Konings Dec. 1, 2016

Dec. 1, 2016

And to clarify, in addition to up to 5 appointed members per chartering organization, the CCWG will also be open to anyone interested in the capacity of participant or observer. To this end, a call for volunteers is expected to go out soon. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Reminder - each SG to identify one member for new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG 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[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…>.

2 1

Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meeting 1 December 2016 at 21:00UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 1, 2016

Dec. 1, 2016

Dear All, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 1 December 2016 at 21:00 UTC. Links will be provided for Item 5 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/l5LDAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> 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: 21:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/zqkas4h[tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_zqkas4h&d=D…> 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; (Friday 2nd December) 00:00 Istanbul; 08:00 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 on 7 November 2016 and 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…>and Action Item List[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Item 3. Consent Agenda (0 mins) Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of Consensus Recommendations from the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team (10 minutes) On 30 June 2016, the GNSO Council created a Drafting Team (DT) to work with ICANN staff to identify the GNSO’s new rights and obligations under the revised ICANN Bylaws, and prepare an implementation plan to address any needed changes by 30 September (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2)[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…>. On 29 September 2016, the Council received an update on the status of the DT’s work and, pending the completion of the DT’s work, the Council voted to appoint the GNSO Chair as its interim representative to the Empowered Community (EC) Administration. At its meeting on 13 October, the Council reviewed the DT’s report and recommendations (Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…>; Minority Statement: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-minority-report-10oct…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…>. At ICANN57, the Council agreed to amend the original motion that had been submitted for Council consideration. Here the Council will vote on whether or not to pass the amended motion. Following the passage of a final motion, the GNSO is expected to confirm its process for appointing its EC representative going forward. 4.1 – Presentation of the motion[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> (James Bladel) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5. COUNCIL VOTE – GNSO Council Response to the Board on gTLD Policy Matters related to the GAC Communique from Hyderabad (20 minutes) Beginning in July 2015, the GNSO Council has reviewed each GAC Communiqué for issues relating to gTLD policy, with a view toward providing feedback to the ICANN Board as well as the broader community concerning past, present or future GNSO policy activities concerning advice provided by the GAC. In the GAC Communique from ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the GAC had provided specific advice regarding protections in the domain name system for International Governmental Organization (IGO) names and acronyms as well as identifiers associated with the international Red Cross movement and its National Societies (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-icann-08nov16-e…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>. Also at ICANN57, the ICANN Board had suggested that a facilitated discussion between the GAC and the GNSO on remaining inconsistencies between GAC advice and GNSO policy recommendations on these matters be considered as a possible path forward (http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/60/I57%20HYD_Tue08Nov2016-Public%20…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schd.ws_hosted-5Ffiles_…>. A draft response [INSERT LINK] to the GAC’s Communique from ICANN57 in Hyderabad was circulated to the GNSO Council on [INSERT DATE]. Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve a response to the Board, and confirm its intended next steps with regard to reconciling its policy recommendations with GAC advice on the topic of Red Cross and IGO protections. 5.1 – Presentation of the motion[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> (Paul McGrady) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6: (may be removed from agenda pending decision on sending letter) COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Letter to the ICANN Board concerning Implementation Issues with Part C of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (10 minutes) Part C of ICANN’s Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP), aimed at combatting domain name theft, is scheduled to come into effect on 1 December 2016 (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en)[icann.…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. On 31 October 2016, the Registrar Stakeholder Group identified and raised a critical issue concerning the implementation of IRTP Part C in relation to the provision of privacy and proxy services (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19339.html)[gnso.i…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_mailing…>. At ICANN57 in Hyderabad, the GNSO Council discussed the issue with ICANN’s Global Domains Division staff in charge of policy implementation, and it was suggested that the most appropriate course of action would be to to request that the ICANN Board direct staff to remove the privacy/proxy services aspect from the IRTP and place it for evaluation and recommendation by the newly formed Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team. A draft letter to the Board was circulated to the Council on 21 November. https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-icann-board-21nov1…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_corr…> Here the Council will discuss whether or not to approve the letter for transmission to the ICANN Board. 6.1 – Presentation of the motion[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> (Darcy Southwell) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7. 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…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draft…>. On 21 July 2016 the GNSO Council chartered[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> 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…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> Here the Council will consider whether or not to approve the plan for transmission to the ICANN Board. 7.1 – Presentation of the motion[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8. 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)[gnso.i…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_mailing…>. This topic was also discussed as part of a High Interest Topics Session at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, and certain concerns with the proposal noted by the GNSO Council during its Wrap Up Session. Here the Council will discuss and confirm its feedback (if any) concerning the proposed limited scope of the RDS Review. 8.1 – Summary and update (James Bladel / Susan Kawaguchi) 8.2 – Council discussion 8.3 – Next steps 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 Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Selection of GNSO Representatives to the Security, Stability & Resiliency Review Team (10 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. 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. Here the Council will discuss the GNSO’s selection process, with a view toward developing a standard mechanism for all future Review Teams. 10.1 – Status summary (James Bladel) 10.2 – Council discussion 10.3 – Next steps Item 11: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Planning for ICANN58 (10 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. Here the Council will discuss initial suggestions for the ICANN58 meeting schedule and consider next steps. GNSO Council input on ICANN58 Council Planning Survey: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/icann58-council-planning-survey-30nov16-en… 11.1 – Status summary (GNSO Council leadership) 11.2 – Council discussion 11.3 – Next steps Item 12: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes) 12.1 – Confirmation of GNSO Council meeting calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_mailing…> for 2017 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) 21:00 UTC Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8 +0DST 13:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC--6 +0DST 15:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__fr.wikipedia.org_wiki_U…>) UTC--6 +0DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5 +0DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2 +0DST 17:00 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2 +0DST 23:00 Istanbul, Turkey (TRT) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 (2nd December 2016) Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 +0DST 05:00 (2nd December 2016) Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 06:00 (2nd December 2016) Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 08:00 (2ND December 2016) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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[timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.timeanddate.com&d=D…> http://tinyurl.com/zqkas4h[tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_zqkas4h&d=D…> 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<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>

1 0

Re: [council] Re: [council] RE: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy
by James M. Bladel Dec. 1, 2016

Dec. 1, 2016

Thanks all. As Mary noted, this item is list listed as a motion for vote on our agenda for tomorrow. If there are no objections, we’ll send the letter tomorrow and strike that agenda item. Thank you, J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 4:28 To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com>, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris(a)gmail.com> Subject: [council] Re: [council] RE: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy Darcy I support the amended version. Regards Michele -- 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 Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com> Date: Wednesday 30 November 2016 at 02:48 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com>, Philip Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [council] RE: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy All, I appreciate the support for James’ suggestion. Based on concerns expressed by some, I’ve revised the last two paragraphs of the letter slightly (they are redlined so you can easily see the changes) and offer this friendly amendment (so to speak) to the draft letter that goes with this motion. For those of you who already expressed support for James’ suggestion and the prior draft, is this new draft still agreeable to you? I believe this new draft captures the same spirit, but opens up the possibility of solutions to what could end up being something more appropriate than the PPSAI IRT. Please let me know if you have questions. I’m happy to answer. Best, Darcy From: Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris(a)gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 5:10 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] RE: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy I also agree with the letter being sent to the Board Tony On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Concurring with my BC colleague. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 6:11 PM To: Darcy Southwell; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy Hello, I agree with the letter being sent to the Board instead of a formal motion. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook, Inc. Legal Dept. 1601 Willow Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> Date: Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 3:41 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy All, Attached is the Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy along with a proposed draft communication. You will recall from our meetings in Hyderabad that ICANN GDD staff advised us that Council would need to submit this issue to the Board for consideration and further direction to ICANN staff. This motion and the draft communication were prepared based on that advice, and I’d appreciate this being heard at our December 1 meeting. Best, Darcy __________ Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart [mage removed by sender. ps://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/tjCmzaF_7ZGN] ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13314 - Release Date: 10/30/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

Re: [council] RE: Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning
by James M. Bladel Dec. 1, 2016

Dec. 1, 2016

Thanks, Phil, and to everyone who weighed in. I’ll be sure to communicate this information during tomorrow’s call with ICANN’s meeting planning staff. Thanks – J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 11:36 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning Weighing in for the BC: 1. Prefer single Constituency Day 2. One HIT that the community has broad agreement on, and no more than 3 maximum for entire meeting. 3. Staff should create a process for requests for HIT’s that makes it fair and equitable for all who have requested topics and that looks toward achieving SO/AC consensus; and ICANN staff should moderate any HIT and should select panelists to ensure opportunity for each SOAC to be represented. 4. Conflicts will be substantially minimized via early review of draft schedule and limiting HIT sessions to no more than 1-3. We did not discuss whether the A meeting should look more like the B or C. Hope that is useful. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:54 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Consolidated input on ICANN58 planning Dear Councilors, Item 11 on the agenda of the December 1 Council meeting is a discussion on planning for ICANN58. On November 23, James sent an email the Council list requesting feedback on several questions related to meeting planning. The attached document provides an overview of responses to the following questions: (1) Do we prefer a Single or Split Constituency Day? (2) What is the right number of High Interest Topics (HIT)? The current Block Schedule drafts contain five HIT sessions. (3) Any thoughts on the best way to solicit topics for HIT sessions, and how to choose the top 5? (4) Similarly, any thoughts on how to address the inevitable conflicts between working sessions and HITs? (5) Any other specific feedback you’d like us to bring to the SO/AC meeting Rubens, Michele, Donna, Rafik, Ed and Carlos provided responses to the above questions. Please reference the attached for full text of the comments, but staff notes a few common threads in the responses that may feed into further discussion in the Council: - There were several responses supporting a single constituency day. Rubens, Michele, and Rafik supported a single constituency day. - Several responses supported either reducing the number of HIT sessions or rethinking the HIT concept. Ed suggested having a single HIT. Rubens supported having 1 or 2 at most. Rafik suggested 3. Michele and Donna recommended taking a step back to look more broadly at goals around the HIT concept and then planning accordingly. - Rubens, Ed, and Carlos all supported the notion that when in doubt, make meeting A more like meeting B than meeting C. The issue of scheduling was also raised in the Council session in Hyderabad (transcript here: http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/c8/I57%20HYD_Mon07Nov2016-GNSO%20Pu…) Several themes came up in the discussion, including: - Improving communication during the planning process - Revisiting the rubric used for scheduling: take a step back, clarify and prioritize objectives for ICANN meetings, develop schedule based on priorities to use the time effectively - Focusing meetings on ICANN’s core, substantive work - Managing and (to the extent possible) avoiding critical scheduling conflicts - Avoiding duplication of content across sessions - Scheduling sessions in a way that maximizes productivity and does not overload participants Please note that the above is not intended to be a full summary. It highlights some of the points that have been raised to support further discussion. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13314 - Release Date: 10/30/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

Re: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 5 December 2016 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 December 2016 at 12:00 UTC
by James M. Bladel Dec. 1, 2016

Dec. 1, 2016

Thanks, Nathalie. Folks, please be aware that due to a quirk in our calendar, the document & motions cut off for our next meeting is Monday, just a few days following our meeting on Thursday. Thank you J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 0:33 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "'gnso-secs(a)icann.org'" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 5 December 2016 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 December 2016 at 12:00 UTC Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 5 December 2016 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 December 2016 at 12:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+15+December… 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%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>

1 0