February 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] For your information - latest version of the GNSO Marrakech Public Schedule
by James M. Bladel March 1, 2016

March 1, 2016

Thank you, Marika. Councilors - Please provide any additional topics or issues you'd like to discuss for the following sessions: * Update from GDD Staff (agenda, including additions from Jennifer, attached) Sunday 0900 * Meeting with Fadi (confirmed) Sunday 1030 * Meeting with New CEO (Gören Marby) Sunday 1145 * Meeting with the Board. Sunday 1300 * Meeting with the GAC. Sunday 1600 * Joint meeting with the ccNSO Monday 1200 If possible, let's try to collect these over the next 24-48 hours, with an emphasis on topics for the Board and New CEO. Thank you - J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 14:54 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] For your information - latest version of the GNSO Marrakech Public Schedule Dear All, Please find attached the latest version of the GNSO Schedule for Marrakech. Please note that we are still in the process of confirming some of these meetings, so further changes may occur. We will, of course, up date you as soon as possible should there be any further changes. Best regards, Marika

5 6

Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG
by Phil Corwin March 1, 2016

March 1, 2016

Councilors: On behalf of the subgroup which met twice this past week to discuss the best way to conduct a PDP on the review of all RPMs in all gTLDs, I am pleased to forward for your consideration updated versions of the Motion and draft Charter for same. I am hereby proposing them in order to meet the deadline for items to be considered by the Council in Marrakech. The Motion has been altered since the version that we adopted at the last Council meeting to include a reference to our subgroup. The Charter has been altered to include a new clause in the second sentence of the first paragraph under "Background", as follows (new language in Bold): As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace, which included certain safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names: the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs). That language was offered by Amr and was deemed non-controversial by members of the subgroup. The subgroup was unable to reach consensus to include draft Charter language proposed by Amr to subsection (a) of the Mission and Scope portion of the Charter. That language would have delegated to the WG the decision as to whether the two-phased approach should start first with review of new gTLD RPMs or of the UDRP. However, there was general consensus among subgroup members that, as the rationale for such delegation of decision-making was that some public comments had taken positions not included within the three staff options contained in the Preliminary Issues Report, the WG should, if Council does not decide scope and priorities, be free to consider any public comment suggestions beyond the staff options - which would include the comments of WIPO and INTA that the UDRP should not undergo any review at all. It will be up to Amr and other supporters of altering the Charter to decide whether they wish to offer such a decisional delegation amendment to the draft Charter when we meet in Marrakech. Let me know if any of you have questions. Safe travel to Marrakech, and 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

2 2

Updated GNSO Marrakech Public Schedule
by Marika Konings Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

Dear All, Please note that some updates have been made to the schedule as a result of changes in availability of presenters. Please see the changes in red. As the IETF representatives were not available at the suggested time on Saturday and there is very little flexibility in the rest of the schedule, the Council may want to explore inviting them to one of the upcoming Council meetings instead for an exchange of views of how to facilitate communicating between the two groups? Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thursday 25 February 2016 at 14:54 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] For your information - latest version of the GNSO Marrakech Public Schedule Dear All, Please find attached the latest version of the GNSO Schedule for Marrakech. Please note that we are still in the process of confirming some of these meetings, so further changes may occur. We will, of course, up date you as soon as possible should there be any further changes. Best regards, Marika

1 0

FW: Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship
by James M. Bladel Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

Councilors - Please note the letter below from the CWG - Stewardship co-Chairs, to the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs. Recall that our approval of the CWG-Stewardshp proposal in Dublin was contingent on the CCWG-Accountability satisfying the concerns of CWG-Stewardship. Now that the Accountability proposal is complete, the CWG-Stewardship confirms that these dependencies have been met. We can discuss further during our call later today, if desired. Thank you, J. From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 at 4:19 To: 'Grace Abuhamad' <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, 'Patrik Fältström' <patrik(a)frobbit.se<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>>, "byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>" <byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>>, "thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch>" <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, "alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: 'Lise Fuhr' <fuhr(a)etno.eu<mailto:fuhr@etno.eu>>, 'Robert Hoggarth' <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org<mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org>>, 'Heidi Ullrich' <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org<mailto:Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org>>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, 'Bart Boswinkel' <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, 'Steve Sheng' <steve.sheng(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org>>, "glen.gery(a)icann.org<mailto:glen.gery@icann.org>" <glen.gery(a)icann.org<mailto:glen.gery@icann.org>>, 'Olof Nordling' <olof.nordling(a)icann.org<mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org>> Subject: Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship Dear CCWG-Accountability members, participants, and co-chairs, Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship Final Transition Proposal We write in response to your group's recent publication of the Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations (the "Final Proposal"). We have prepared this in our capacities as co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). Please see our full response attached to this email. The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal submitted for approval to the chartering organizations on 11 June 2015 is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the CCWG-Accountability. Specifically, as recognized in the Final Proposal, the CWG-Stewardship Final Transition Proposal sets forth ICANN accountability requirements regarding Community Empowerment Mechanism, IANA Functions Budget, IANA Function Reviews, Customer Standing Committee ("CSC"), Separation Process, Appeals Mechanism, and Post-Transition IANA ("PTI"), as well as Fundamental Bylaws. This document is and should be viewed as an element of the agreed-upon working methods of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. Thank you for resolving each of the issues raised in our comment letter relating to your group's publication of its third draft proposal (the "Third Draft Proposal") and for all your hard work in reaching consensus. As you know, we rely on your work and our trust in the work of your group is vital in permitting us to focus on the essential aspects of our work on the stewardship transition. In summary, we confirm that the Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal. Congratulations on your Final Proposal and thank-you again all for your collaboration and cooperation throughout this extended period of intense work. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship

1 0

Leadership for the Subsequent Procedures PDP
by Paul McGrady (Policy) Feb. 28, 2016

Feb. 28, 2016

Dear Fellow Councilors: I am thrilled to report that the WG has chosen three co-chairs to lead the work. The three are Jeff Neuman, Avri Doria, and Stephen Coates. Please let me know what, if anything, we need to do to make this official. However, due to the outstanding caliber of the leadership and the need to hold a meeting this Monday to get ready for their F2F in Marrakech, the three will be taking the helm presently. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy(a)paulmcgrady.com +1-312-558-5963

2 1

FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration
by James M. Bladel Feb. 28, 2016

Feb. 28, 2016

Right on cue -- Thanks- J. From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 17:20 To: James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Thomas Schneider <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Tripti Sinha <tsinha(a)umd.edu<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>>, Brad Verd <bverd(a)verisign.com<mailto:bverd@verisign.com>>, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se<mailto:paf@frobbit.se>>, Lise Fuhr <fuhr(a)etno.eu<mailto:fuhr@etno.eu>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org<mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org>>, Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen(a)icann.org<mailto:julia.charvolen@icann.org>>, Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>, Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes(a)icann.org<mailto:carlos.reyes@icann.org>>, "Kimberly Carlson (kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org<mailto:kimberly.carlson@icann.org>)" <kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org<mailto:kimberly.carlson@icann.org>>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org<mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>>, Fadi Chehadé <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org<mailto:fadi.chehade@icann.org>> Subject: CCWG Final report for your consideration Dear Chartering Organizations, The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) is pleased to provide its Chartering Organizations with its report on Work Stream 1 recommendations. You can download the full report here: https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw. As per the CCWG-Accountability's Charter, we now seek your approval to submit this final report to the ICANN Board and ask you to consider this approval in accordance with your respective SO or AC rules and procedures by 9 March 2016 to meet the overall timing requirements, which would allow the IANA Stewardship Transition (as a whole) to proceed. The report is the result of extensive work by the CCWG-Accountability's 28 members, 175 participants and a team of highly qualified legal advisors since December 2014, which included over 221 calls or meetings, 3 public consultations and more than 13,900 email messages. It represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, specific legal advice, and significant compromises by all who participated and includes diligent attention to the input received through the Public Comment proceedings. The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability with five minority statements from members recorded for Chartering Organization consideration (see Appendix A). Please note that we are publishing our report today with the minority statements delivered by the original 19 February deadline, but we have given our members a final opportunity to revise, retract or add minority statements based on our compromise reached this morning. We will send you a revised Appendix A on 25 February. As noted in the CCWG-Accountability report, the group worked to meet both NTIA requirements for the overall IANA Stewardship Transition (Annex 14), and the CWG-Stewardship dependencies for the naming community on ICANN accountability enhancements (Annex 13). The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts. The CWG-Stewardship will deliver a letter to you confirming that its dependencies have been met, thus allowing the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to move forward. We will make ourselves together with or other key contributors available to you before and during the ICANN 55 meeting in Marrakech to answer any questions you may have and explain any details of the report. For your information, further background documents as well as the slides, recordings and transcripts of recent webinars explain the details of the final proposal are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg. Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you very much for your continued support. Thomas Rickert, Mathieu Weill and Leon Sanchez CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs

8 14

Draft motion on GNSO Review Working Party Recommendations
by WUKnoben Feb. 28, 2016

Feb. 28, 2016

All, the GNSO Review Working Party is finalizing its review of the recommendations of the Independent Examiner. As part of that process, this review is herewith submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration during the ICANN meeting in Marrakech. I’m happy to also submit a draft motion that will allow formal consideration and adoption of this review by the GNSO Council so it can be passed on the Board subsequently. Best regards, Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

fw: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
by Edward Morris Feb. 27, 2016

Feb. 27, 2016

Fellow Councillors, I am forwarding an e-mail Keith has just submitted on behalf of a few of us in the GNSO to the CCWG-Accountability list. Thanks Keith for your proactive leadership on this very important issues. Kind Regards, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 8:06 PM To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue Hi Thomas, Mathieu and Leon. I'm submitting the following on behalf of the undersigned members/participants from the GNSO: --------------------------------------------- Dear CCWG-Accountability Chairs, We are very concerned with the response of the Board to the request for clarification regarding the need to adjust the thresholds for the Empowered Community to exercise its powers if the number of decisional participants is less than 5 SOACs. Currently the text in Annex 1 and 2 regarding this possibility is ambiguous: "The thresholds presented in this document were determined based on this assessment. If fewer than five of ICANN's SOs and ACs agree to be decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support may be adjusted. Thresholds may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs." In our view, there is no question that the thresholds must be adjusted if there are fewer than five decisional participants. We have acknowledged repeatedly and operated under the assumption that there should not be a requirement of unanimous support for the Empowered Community to exercise its powers. Yet, if there are less than five decisional participants, unless the thresholds are adjusted it would require unanimous support for the Empowered Community to: · Reject a proposed Operating Plan/Strategic Plan/Budget; · Recall the entire Board of Directors; and · Reject an ICANN Board decision relating to reviews of IANA functions, including the triggering of any PTI separation process. These powers are central to ensuring that ICANN remains accountable to the Empowered Community. This matter is too critical to the primary purpose of the CCWG-Accountability proposal to remain unclear. As the Board has noted in its own formal comments, "Leaving this issue for future consideration raises the potential for renegotiation of the community thresholds. This potential for renegotiation adds a level of instability and a lack of predictability." Although it has a superficial resemblance to the recent debate over thresholds in the GAC carve-out, we believe it is fundamentally different. There is a great distinction between an SO or AC choosing to not participate, and an SO or AC being blocked from participation in a specific instance, as was the case in the case of the GAC carve-out. We were willing to accept a unanimous threshold for Board recall in the unique circumstances of the GAC carve-out, where the GAC was blocked from participation, but we believe firmly that if any SO or AC elects, whether through a conscious decision or an inability to decide, to not participate, then the non-unanimity principle must be upheld. However, as we saw with the debate over the thresholds in the GAC carve-out, this could be a contentious issue. It is far better to resolve this matter now (and during the drafting of bylaws), prior to the official transfer of the proposal to NTIA, than to delay it when it could have significant negative ramifications on the transition through a failure to resolve it during the implementation phase. Therefore, we respectfully request that the current text in Annex 1 and Annex 2 be edited to replace "may" with "shall" and add an additional explanatory clause: "The thresholds presented in this document were determined based on this assessment. If fewer than five of ICANN's SOs and ACs agree to be decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support shall be adjusted to prevent the need for unanimous support among the decisional Participants to exercise any of the seven Community powers. Thresholds may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs." Signed, Phil Corwin Steve DelBianco Keith Drazek James Gannon Robin Gross Ed Morris Brett Schaefer Greg Shatan Matthew Shears

1 0

For your review - draft motion and approach CCWG-Accountability
by James M. Bladel Feb. 27, 2016

Feb. 27, 2016

Colleagues - After working with Donna, Heather and the GNSO Council Staff, I'm pleased to present a Draft Motion for the GNSO Council to consider Work Stream 1 Recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Report (attached). Additionally, we have developed a framework outlining the Council's approach when it ultimately moves to vote on this motion (also attached). While there is only one motion, the Council also has the option to conduct a vote on each of the 12 recommendations separately. If we go this route, each recommendation will include a discussion / statements by Councilors / SGs /Cs, and finally a vote. Once the vote is completed, we will report the results, along with any written statements from Councilors, to the co-chairs of the CCWG-Accountability. Please review and provide feedback. We can discuss in depth during our next session on 29 FEB. Thank you-- J.

4 7

Agenda for ICANN Board meeting on Thursday 3 March 2016 in Marrakech, Morocco
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 26, 2016

Feb. 26, 2016

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2016-03-03-en Agenda | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 03 Mar 2016 Main Agenda * .AFRICA Update * Consideration of Re-evaluation of the Vistaprint Limited String Confusion Objection Expert Determination * AOB

1 0