February 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

DRAFT Weekend GNSO Marrakech schedule for review
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 18, 2016

Feb. 18, 2016

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the Council meeting on Thursday 18 February, attached please find the DRAFT Weekend GNSO Marrakech schedule. Changes are very likely to be made to the draft weekend schedule after the Council discussion and input. For the other GNSO related meetings on the schedule please consult the published schedule on page https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule-full Among others, discussion is needed on the following item Open and substantial strategic discussion/ Educational update from CPH and NCPH intersessionals Discuss with GNSO Leadership team whether to keep this slot in this format. Originally used to review objectives set during GNSO Development Session and determine progress / next steps.Possible Educatiuonal update from CPH and NCPH intersessionals The slots on Sunday morning still need to be worked on and discussed. It would appear that there is a possibility that the new CEO may be able to attend our meeting on Sunday Looking forward to your feedback at the meeting Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Updated proposed GNSO Council Teleconference Agenda 18 February 2016 at 12:00 UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 17, 2016

Feb. 17, 2016

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference on 18 February 2016 at 12:00 UTC. Please note the updates relate to a change in order of the items, that is, the update on the Marrakech meeting planning appears after the motion and more time has been allotted to Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 minutes) This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures,<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> approved and updated on 24 June 2015. For convenience: · An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. · An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/zz9uf5m 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 23:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 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: Draft minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18053.html> of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 21 January 2016 were posted as approved<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-21jan16-en.htm> on 4 February 2016. Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Item 3: Consent agenda (5 minutes) 3.1 - Approve Recommendations Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/council-board-ppsai-recommendations-09feb16…> to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group 3.2 - Approve appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chairs for the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services PDP Working Group Item 4: COUNCIL ACTION - Vote on Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) for the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs, and Discussion of Proposed Charter for the PDP Working Group (30 minutes) In December 2011 the GNSO Council requested a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS). The Final Issue Report was published on 11 January 2015 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf) Based on public comments received in response to the publication of the Preliminary Issue Report, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP), with the first phase focused on a review of the RPMs developed for the New gTLD Program and, the subsequent, second phase on a review of the UDRP. Here the Council will review the report and vote on whether or not to initiate the recommended PDP. The Council will also discuss the proposed draft Charter for the PDP Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf) 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+February…> (James Bladel) 4.2 - Discussion of the motion 4.3 - Council vote on the motion (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) 4.4 - Council review and discussion of draft charter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf) 4.5 - Next steps Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Marrakech Meeting Planning (10 minutes) During the Dublin meeting, Susan Kawaguchi and Amr Elsadr volunteered to work with the GNSO Council Leadership on the development of the proposed agenda for the GNSO Weekend Session in Marrakech. Here the Council will receive a status update on the planning for Marrakech and any action that may be required from the GNSO Council. 5.1 - Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr / Donna Austin) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Next steps Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (30 minutes) In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As the US government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en…> of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization. In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. This second proposal included significant changes to the initial document, arising from feedback received in the first public comment period. Following community input, including from the ICANN Board, and discussions at several sessions during ICANN54, the CCWG-Accountability made further adjustments to its draft recommendations, resulting in its Third Draft Proposal that was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20…> for public comment on 30 November 2015. Concurrently, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) - the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue - announced<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en> after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it will first have to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN…>) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. In this regard, the CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment to the CCWG-Accountability which, while noting that several of the CCWG-Accountability's latest recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, nevertheless highlighted a number of points that in its view merited further attention. In order to meet the CCWG-Accountability's planned timeline, the GNSO Council had agreed at its December 2015 meeting to form a Sub Team to review all the public comments from the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The GNSO Council held a special meeting on 14 January 2016 to discuss the proposed responses provided by the Sub Team, and, following updates made as a result and further discussion at the 21 January Council meeting, the Council approved a letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-ccwg-accountability…> setting out its response to the recommendations in the Third Draft Proposal that was sent to the CCWG-Accountability on 22 January. The CCWG-Accountability is currently expected to circulate a Supplemental Proposal, following which the GNSO Council will hold a Special Meeting on 29 February to discuss the updated proposals in detail. Here the Council will discuss its timeline and necessary actions for approval of the CCWG-Accountability's final recommendations , which is scheduled to take place at ICANN55. 6.1 - Update (James Bladel) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Next steps ITEM 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - GNSO Review (10 minutes) As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (now known as the Organizational Effectiveness Committee) appointed Westlake Governance as the independent examiner to conduct the current review of the performance and operations of the GNSO. A GNSO Working Party, chaired by former Councillor Jennifer Wolfe and comprising representatives of all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, was formed to consult with Westlake over the design and conduct of the review. Westlake's Draft Report was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en> for public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including from the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf> on 15 September. The Working Party has been reviewing the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board's consideration in relation to the implementability and prioritization of these recommendations. The Council received a written update from the Working Party chair on 29 January. Here the Council will receive a further update, following the Working Party's meeting in early February where it is expected to finalize its recommendations that are to be sent to the GNSO Council for approval and submission to the Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee for its consideration. 7.1 - Update<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-gnso-council-update-21…> (Jen Wolfe) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: BRIEFING & DISCUSSION - RDAP Implementation (10 minutes) Building on previous advisories, ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) had recommended the replacement of the longstanding WHOIS protocol in SAC051 (see https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf) In October 2011, the ICANN Board directed<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-28oct11-en.htm#5> staff to produce, in consultation with the community, a roadmap for the coordination of the technical and policy discussions necessary to implement the recommendations outlined in SAC 051. The Roadmap was published in 2012 (see https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-roadmap-04jun12-en.p…) Also in 2012, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) chartered the WEIRDS (Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Services) working group, which concluded its work in early 2015 with the publication of several specifications defining the behavior of the Registry Data Access Protocol (RDAP), a standardized replacement for WHOIS. ICANN-accredited registrars subject to the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), registry operators from the 2012 New gTLD round and several other gTLD registries are contractually obligated to deploy RDAP. In February 2014 the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO Council's recommendations for a new Consensus Policy that would require the provision of "thick" WHOIS services for all gTLD registries. The GNSO Implementation Review Team that was formed for the Thick Whois Policy Implementation agreed with the proposal of ICANN staff to synchronize implementation of the policy with the adoption of RDAP. On 3 December 2015 ICANN staff published a draft RDAP Operational Profile for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en) Public comments will be received through 15 February 2015. Some concern has been expressed as to the policy implications of adopting RDAP in view of a number of other parallel efforts with potential cross-cutting impact, such as the recent initiation by the GNSO Council of a PDP for a Next-Generation Registration Directory Service to Replace WHOIS (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201511) Here the Council will discuss the concerns that have been raised, in preparation for a discussion with GDD staff at ICANN55 about the policy bases for RDAP, the linkage to Thick WHOIS, and the RDAP Operational Profile requirements (including timeline). 8.1 - Discussion 8.2 - Next steps Item 9: Any Other Business (5 Minutes) _________________________________ 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<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): 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<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 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) UTC 12:00 Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 04:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 06:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 10:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 14:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 20:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 20:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/zz9uf5m Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Next-RDS PDP WG leadership team
by Susan Kawaguchi Feb. 17, 2016

Feb. 17, 2016

Hello All, The RDS PDP WG has held several meetings and have decided on the leadership team. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the GNSO Council is expected to confirm the Chair(s) of a PDP Working Group. The RDS PDP Working Group has selected Chuck Gomes as the proposed Chair and Michele Neylon, Susan Kawaguchi (myself) and David Cake, as the vice-chairs for this efforts, the PDP WG is requesting confirmation of its leadership team by the GNSO Council. As the current GNSO council Liaison to the Next-RDS PDP WG I am resigning as Liaison to ensure that there is no conflict with my work on the leadership team. Best regards, Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#197]
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 17, 2016

Feb. 17, 2016

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mercredi 17 février 2016 14:07 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#197] Name of Officer: * Tapani Tarvainen Officer Email Address: * ncsg(a)tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, February 17, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Stefania Milan is unable to attend to the GNSO council meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Stephanie Perrin will submit Stefania's proxy for the motions to be approved, and any other matters needing 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] * Thursday, February 18, 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: * Stephanie Perrin

1 0

FW: [gnso-chairs] DMPM - Community Budget Request
by James M. Bladel Feb. 17, 2016

Feb. 17, 2016

Councilors - Donna, Heather and I had a chance to discuss this request (attached) today, and ask questions of Berry & Staff. At the conclusion of our discussions, we decided to go forward with submitting this Community Budget Request. However, given the increased scrutiny being given to costs associated with policy development work, we raised some specific issues associated with this budget request and the DMPM Pilot Program. Specifically, we examined the amount being requested ($50,000USD) and how this figure was calculated. Unfortunately, because much of this work is new, this amount is a best estimate. Also, we've asked for a mid-year check in to track actual expenditures versus the budgeted amount. But given the status of the DMPM project, and the fact that the Council previously approved this as part of its work in Dublin, we will proceed with the submission. Below is some additional context from Berry. If folks have questions or would like to discuss further, we will try to save some time on our agenda Thursday. Thank you-- J. ________________________________ Please find attached a completed Community Budget Request form as part of implementation for the DMPM recommendations passed by the GNSO Council October 2015 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201510) This will be posted COB Monday 15 February to meet the deadline (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56987383) You will recall, that one of the approved DMPM recommendations was the launch of a pilot effort whereby the GNSO community and GNSO WGs may submit requests for Data & Metrics in the deliberation of policy related issues. Part of the implementation of the recommendations is an update to the GNSO Operating Procedures containing the request process and request form. The updated procedures should be published shortly. Also as part of implementation, this budget request is an attempt to secure funds in support of the pilot and it is part of a strategy to give the GNSO Policy team the opportunity to manage future DMPM requests which will also provide an opportunity for some budget flexibility in facilitating the pilot requests. The budget request also allows the pilot to set a stake in the ground that can then be referenced later, if necessary, in a formal set of comments submitted in reaction to the overall FY17 Ops Plan and Budget proceedings. ________________________________

1 0

Migration to RDAP Briefing Paper
by Marika Konings Feb. 16, 2016

Feb. 16, 2016

Dear All, On behalf of my colleague Francisco Arias from the GGD Team, please find attached the requested briefing paper on the Registry Data Access Protocol (RDAP) to help inform you deliberations on this topic per item 7 on the GNSO Council Agenda for Thursday's meeting (Item 7: Briefing & Discussion - RDAP Implementation). Best regards, Marika

2 1

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#196]
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 16, 2016

Feb. 16, 2016

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mardi 16 février 2016 10:11 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#196] Name of Officer: * Tapani Tarvainen Officer Email Address: * ncsg(a)tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, February 16, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Edward Morris is unable to attend to the GNSO council meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Marilia Maciel will submit Edward's proxy for the motions to be approved, and any other matters needing 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] * Thursday, February 18, 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: * Marilia Maciel

1 0

CCWG - Timeline for Approval by GNSO
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 15, 2016

Feb. 15, 2016

Dear Councillors, In anticipation of meeting this deadline, a special GNSO Meeting has been scheduled on 29 February 2016 at 21:00 UTC. Please get this onto your calendars as soon as possible so that you are prepared in case this meeting is needed. http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb 19 February Motions and Documents Due for Special GNSO Council Meeting 29 February 29 February Special GNSO Council Teleconference 21:00 UTC Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 18:40 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] CCWG - Timeline for Approval by GNSO Council Colleagues - Earlier this week, the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs updated the timeline for delivery of their Final / Supplemental report, which is now expected to be delivered to Chartering Organizations (GNSO) on 18 FEB. And yesterday, the community received an update from Theresa Swinehart on how the Community would deliver the final proposal to the ICANN Board for review, approval, and submission to NTIA (attached). The Board is scheduled to complete this task at their Thursday session at ICANN 55 in Marrakesh on 10 MAR. The period bookended by these two dates - 18 FEB through 10 MAR-represents the time frame in which the ICANN Community must review and approve (or reject) the CCWG report and recommendations. In our case, this work includes confirming that the pre-requisites established by the CWG-Stewardship have been satisfied (see: letter from GNSO Chairs to CWG-Stewardship Chairs, http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-robinson-fuhr-09feb16-en.…<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…>). It goes without saying that this is a very tight schedule, even if everything goes exactly according to plan. And there are only a few chances for the Council to gather, discuss the views of our Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and ultimately vote on the CCWG report. To give ourselves the best opportunity to deliver, I propose that we augment our meeting schedule between now and the deadline by one or more of these options: (1) Hold a Special Session of the GNSO Council on 29 FEB @ 2100UTC - Our procedures require 7 day advance notice to convene an off-calendar meeting of the GNSO Council. This date would be available following our next call and delivery of the CCWG report on 18 FEB, and completing this work before Marrakesh would be a huge win. Downside: This will only allow 11 days for SGs/Cs to review & discuss the report, and many of us will be departing for Marrakesh shortly thereafter. (2) Re-purpose some or all of the time on Saturday 4 MAR as a Special Session - This is already on everyone's calendar, and would be an excellent time to discuss the CCWG and conduct a vote, and would provide another week or so for SG/C review. Downside: We would need to sacrifice some portion of our "usual" Saturday agenda. For example, we could ask for Working Group updates via email, rather than in person. (3) Re-purpose some or all of the time on Tuesday, 8 MAR as a Special Session - This meeting is also already on the calendar. Typically it has been an informal discussion among the Council to prepare for the Wednesday Public Meeting, so we would sacrifice some or all of that. And with another meeting the next day, there wouldn't be much time to work out any last minute issues. Regardless of which option(s) we choose, we must consider the Public Meeting on 9 MAR as a can't-miss deadline for our approval (or reaction) of the CCWG. Also, we should look for opportunities to parallelize work streams, for example, by initiating the SG/C processes to review the CCWG as soon as possible. This is what I propose for discussion on our next call. There may be other options as well, so please bring your ideas next Thursday. Thanks for reading this far, and looking forward to our time together next week. J.

1 0

CCWG - Timeline for Approval by GNSO
by James M. Bladel Feb. 13, 2016

Feb. 13, 2016

Council Colleagues - Earlier this week, the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs updated the timeline for delivery of their Final / Supplemental report, which is now expected to be delivered to Chartering Organizations (GNSO) on 18 FEB. And yesterday, the community received an update from Theresa Swinehart on how the Community would deliver the final proposal to the ICANN Board for review, approval, and submission to NTIA (attached). The Board is scheduled to complete this task at their Thursday session at ICANN 55 in Marrakesh on 10 MAR. The period bookended by these two dates - 18 FEB through 10 MAR-represents the time frame in which the ICANN Community must review and approve (or reject) the CCWG report and recommendations. In our case, this work includes confirming that the pre-requisites established by the CWG-Stewardship have been satisfied (see: letter from GNSO Chairs to CWG-Stewardship Chairs, http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-robinson-fuhr-09feb16-en.…<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…>). It goes without saying that this is a very tight schedule, even if everything goes exactly according to plan. And there are only a few chances for the Council to gather, discuss the views of our Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and ultimately vote on the CCWG report. To give ourselves the best opportunity to deliver, I propose that we augment our meeting schedule between now and the deadline by one or more of these options: (1) Hold a Special Session of the GNSO Council on 29 FEB @ 2100UTC - Our procedures require 7 day advance notice to convene an off-calendar meeting of the GNSO Council. This date would be available following our next call and delivery of the CCWG report on 18 FEB, and completing this work before Marrakesh would be a huge win. Downside: This will only allow 11 days for SGs/Cs to review & discuss the report, and many of us will be departing for Marrakesh shortly thereafter. (2) Re-purpose some or all of the time on Saturday 4 MAR as a Special Session - This is already on everyone's calendar, and would be an excellent time to discuss the CCWG and conduct a vote, and would provide another week or so for SG/C review. Downside: We would need to sacrifice some portion of our "usual" Saturday agenda. For example, we could ask for Working Group updates via email, rather than in person. (3) Re-purpose some or all of the time on Tuesday, 8 MAR as a Special Session - This meeting is also already on the calendar. Typically it has been an informal discussion among the Council to prepare for the Wednesday Public Meeting, so we would sacrifice some or all of that. And with another meeting the next day, there wouldn't be much time to work out any last minute issues. Regardless of which option(s) we choose, we must consider the Public Meeting on 9 MAR as a can't-miss deadline for our approval (or reaction) of the CCWG. Also, we should look for opportunities to parallelize work streams, for example, by initiating the SG/C processes to review the CCWG as soon as possible. This is what I propose for discussion on our next call. There may be other options as well, so please bring your ideas next Thursday. Thanks for reading this far, and looking forward to our time together next week. J.

6 12

Re: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
by Mary Wong Feb. 13, 2016

Feb. 13, 2016

Hello Phil and everyone, As noted in the email I sent to the Council following James’ proposing of this motion, this draft Charter tries to address (among other things) two specific topics – minimizing overlap with the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures and ensuring that the full list of issues identified by the community is considered by the WG. In respect of the first, this arose from the Council’s discussion of the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures charter at both the December and January meetings. The updated draft RPM charter tries to reflect that discussion, and what was agreed as to scope of this versus the RPM PDP. In respect of the second, staff had included a list of issues as an Annex to the Final Issue Report. This had not been intended to be an exhaustive list of all the issues that had been identified by the community, as the intention was to have the WG go through all the issues at the appropriate time. As such, the Annex that was provided was to be a starting point and thus a non-exhaustive list. We thought this necessary since the public comment invitation had not specifically requested that the community come forward with all the issues it thought needed addressing. The intention – of not “boxing in” the WG by limiting the number of issues for their eventual consideration – has not changed. However, the updated draft Charter now includes all the issues that have been identified to date as an express attachment, to make it easier to use as a reference tool both in regard to the scope of the PDP and the task of the WG. I hope this helps. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 22:51 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs James: Thanks for the update. In regard to this— Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding. -- can you provide further information regarding which SG/C’s have raised concerns and what they are? Even if we are not seeking to adopt the Charter next week, we should at least be informed of specific concerns before we vote on the Motion. Thanks in advance, 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> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 4:24 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs Colleagues - Attached and below, please find a Motion to initiate a PDP to review Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs. According to the rules set out in the PDP Manual / GNSO Operating Procedures, we are expected to discuss and consider the initiation of a PDP at the next Council meeting following publication of the Initial Issues Report. Furthermore, the second part of this process—adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter—is not bound by this requirement and still requires discussion amongst the Council. Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding. For this reason, I am not advancing the second motion (Adoption of the PDP WG Charter) at this time, but it can be a point of discussion during our meeting. Finally, please take a few moments to review the updated Draft Charter (also attached), and be ready to discuss during our call on 18 FEB. Thank you, J. ________________________________ Motion to Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) WHEREAS: 1. In December 2011 the GNSO Council had requested that an Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), be delivered to the GNSO Council no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first gTLD in ICANN’s New gTLD Program; 2. In January 2014 the GNSO Councilagreed to extend the timeline for delivery of the Issue Report by six (6) months; 3. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs for public comment on 9 October 2015, with the public comment forum closing on 30 November 2015; 4. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments on 10 December 2015 and updated the Issue Report accordingly; 1. The Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs was delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 January 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf) The Final Issue Report includes a recommendation that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) that will first review the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, followed by a subsequent second phase that will review the UDRP, with the overall goal of developing a uniform and consistent framework for any future review of RPMs; and The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated that the topics recommended for review are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council hereby initiates a two-phased PDP to review all RPMs in all gTLDs, to review and determine whether modifications to the existing RPMs (including but not limited to the UDRP) are needed and, if so, what they should be. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amendments or replacement of existing policies, principles or procedures; (ii) the development of new or additional policy recommendations; and/or (iii) the creation of new implementation guidance to supplement existing policies or procedures. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

3 4