February 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
by James M. Bladel Feb. 11, 2016

Feb. 11, 2016

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 Council agreed 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; 5. 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) 6. 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 7. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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.

3 2

Proposed GNSO Council Teleconference Agenda 18 February 2016 at 12:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 10, 2016

Feb. 10, 2016

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council teleconference on 18 February 2016 at 12:00 UTC. 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 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 Working Group. Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Initiation of Policy Development Process (PDP) and Approval of Charter for a PDP Working Group to review all RPMs in all gTLDs (20 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 UDRP and 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, including the draft Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf) setting out the proposed scope of the PDP, and vote on whether to initiate the PDP. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+February…> (James Bladel) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Council vote (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 - Review of draft charter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf) 4.5 - Next steps Item 5: UPDATE & 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. Here the Council will receive an update on the subsequent discussions of the CCWG-Accountability and discuss next steps toward possible approval of the final recommendations that are expected shortly from the group. 5.1 - Update (James Bladel) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Next steps ITEM 6: 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. 6.1 - Update (Jen Wolfe) 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Next steps Item 7: BRIEFING & DISCUSSION - RDAP Implementation (25 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 receive a briefing from ICANN's Global Domains Division staff overseeing the RDAP implementation, describing the policy bases for RDAP, the linkage to Thick WHOIS, and the RDAP Operational Profile requirements (including timeline). 7.1 - Briefing (Cyrus Namazi / Francisco Arias) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Marrakesh 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 Marrakesh and any action that may be required from the GNSO Council. 8.1 - Status update (Susan Kawaguchi / Amr Elsadr / Donna Austin) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - 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

FW: CWG-Stewardship Notification to GNSO Council concerning conditionality requirements
by Marika Konings Feb. 9, 2016

Feb. 9, 2016

For your information. From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 9 February 2016 at 13:39 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, Lise Fuhr <Fuhr(a)etno.eu<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest(a)acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: CWG-Stewardship Notification to GNSO Council concerning conditionality requirements Dear Jonathan, Lise, Please find attached for your attention a letter from the GNSO Council leadership concerning the CWG-Stewardship notification to the GNSO Council concerning the conditionality requirements in the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Proposal. Best regards, Marika

2 1

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated
by James M. Bladel Feb. 9, 2016

Feb. 9, 2016

Thanks for the heads up Phil. Here's the statement from ICANN. J. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. Begin forwarded message: From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: February 5, 2016 at 16:53:47 CST To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated Please see the recent announcement regarding ICANN 56: ** https://meetings.icann.org/en/ ICANN56 to be Relocated ICANN56, scheduled to be held in Panama in June 2016, will be moved to another location due to the severity of the Zika Virus outbreak in the Latin America region. A search is currently underway to identify an alternate location where the Zika Virus is not a concern. We look forward to returning to Panama for a future ICANN Meeting. David A. Olive Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters -Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 Email: david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

8 14

Re: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
by Mary Wong Feb. 9, 2016

Feb. 9, 2016

Dear all, Further to James’ email below and to facilitate your review of the proposed Charter, here are some notes that we hope are helpful. They are based on our (staff) understanding of some of the points raised in discussions about the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Charter as well as the scope of this proposed RPM PDP: (1) This draft RPM Charter contains the following references to the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP: "In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or otherwise provide useful input to this PDP. Especially, this PDP Working Group shall maintain a close working relationship with the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT) and the PDP Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures”. "In addition, the GNSO Council, as the manager of the policy development process, should be kept informed at all times about coordination efforts with the CCT Review Team and the PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. It is thus the Council who, in case of conflict between these groups, is to take appropriate action to align work processes if and when necessary.” There is also a specific reference to the appointment of a liaison between the two PDP Working Groups (mirroring what is in the Charter that was approved for the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP). However, because that Charter explicitly notes that RPM review is beyond its remit, being more appropriate for the RPM PDP, we did not repeat that language in the RPM draft Charter. (2) There is now an Attachment to the Charter that comprises a list of the community-identified issues that were raised in various public comment forums regarding RPM review. The Attachment is based on the list originally included in the Final Issue Report as Annex B, updated to include additional issues noted by various community groups in the public comment forum. We thought also that specifically creating this attachment to be part of the Charter would make it easier for the WG, Council and community to see the scope of the RPM PDP “at a glance”. Please let us know if you have any questions about the updated draft Charter. 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 Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 17:12 To: "GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] TR: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs Dear All, The updated draft charter has been posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/drafts<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-09feb16-en.pdf<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnuFT4taHix-2FWC…> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen De : owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] De la part de James M. Bladel Envoyé : lundi 8 février 2016 22:24 À : GNSO Council List Objet : [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.

1 0

Re: [council] Re: For your review: Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
by Mary Wong Feb. 9, 2016

Feb. 9, 2016

Hello Heather and everyone, I apologize for not being as clear as I should have been. As I understand it, the agenda for the next Council meeting will include Council approval of this Report as one of the items, possibly as part of the consent agenda. However, as the agenda has not yet been finalized, I thought it might be better to note this as an expectation rather than as a “done deal”. 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 Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest(a)acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:40 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: For your review: Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Dear Mary, I would be very grateful if you could clarify please your statement at the end of the email below ("It is anticipated that approval of this Recommendations Report will be on the Council’s agenda for the 18 February meeting."). Is some affirmative step needed to put this item on the February Council agenda? It's the phrase "it is anticipated" that I'm not clear on, and given the deadline for 18 February agenda items, I'd be grateful to hear back from you as soon as possible. Many thanks and best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 4:54 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] For your review: Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Dear Councilors, Please find attached for your review a Recommendations Report from the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board concerning the recently-adopted PDP recommendations on privacy and proxy services accreditation issues. As you’ll recall, this Report is mandated by the ICANN Bylaws, and upon your approval it will be transmitted to the ICANN Board along with the Final Report (containing in full all the recommendations) from the PDP Working Group. You may be interested also to know that, again as mandated by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum has just been opened to give the public a reasonable opportunity to comment on the recommendations prior to any action by the ICANN Board: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ppsai-recommendations-2016-02-05-en. GNSO Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Policy Development Process Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration - ICANN<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ppsai-recommendations-2016-02-05-en> www.icann.org name= It is anticipated that approval of this Recommendations Report will be on the Council’s agenda for the 18 February meeting. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

For your review: Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
by Mary Wong Feb. 8, 2016

Feb. 8, 2016

Dear Councilors, Please find attached for your review a Recommendations Report from the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board concerning the recently-adopted PDP recommendations on privacy and proxy services accreditation issues. As you’ll recall, this Report is mandated by the ICANN Bylaws, and upon your approval it will be transmitted to the ICANN Board along with the Final Report (containing in full all the recommendations) from the PDP Working Group. You may be interested also to know that, again as mandated by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum has just been opened to give the public a reasonable opportunity to comment on the recommendations prior to any action by the ICANN Board: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ppsai-recommendations-2016-02-05-en. It is anticipated that approval of this Recommendations Report will be on the Council’s agenda for the 18 February meeting. 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

2 1

FW: [Soac-infoalert] Competition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice (CCT) - Methods for Community Participation
by Marika Konings Feb. 8, 2016

Feb. 8, 2016

For your information. From: <soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org<mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org>> Date: Monday 8 February 2016 at 11:35 To: "'soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:'soac-infoalert(a)icann.org>'" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Competition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice (CCT) - Methods for Community Participation Dear SO/AC Leaders, As you know, the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCTRT) was selected<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-12-23-en> in December 2015. With two conference calls completed, and their first two-day working session scheduled in Los Angeles on 22-23 February, the team is already off to a productive start . The CCTRT has set up several ways for community members to participate as observers in the Review: * Attend as an Observer and listen to the CCTRT's scheduled conference calls<https://community.icann.org/display/CCT/Conference+Calls+and+Meetings> via Adobe Connect<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cctreview-observers> or by dialing in using conference ID 413 741 8307 to one of the dial-in numbers<http://tinyurl.com/znmddbh>. The next conference call is scheduled for 10 February at 14:00-16:00 UTC. * Provide input to the CCT at input-to-ccrt(a)icann.org<mailto:input-to-ccrt@icann.org>. All emails sent to this mailing list are archived and may be viewed on this page<https://community.icann.org/display/CCT/Email+Archives>. * Attend the "Confer with Competition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice Review Team" session at ICANN55. This session is currently scheduled on Wednesday, 16 March at 17:15-18:30. * Attend the CCTRT all-day working sessions at ICANN55 on 16 and 17 March. We look forward to active discussions with the community during this Review. Please feel free to encourage your members to observe the call proceedings and participate in the open meetings. For more information on the CCTRT, please visit the wiki pages here<https://community.icann.org/display/CCT/CCT+Review>, where you can find recordings of past meetings, archives of the Review Team's email list, and document drafts. Sincerely, Margie Milam Senior Director Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives ICANN

1 0

FW: [Soac-infoalert] Experienced Technology Leader Named as ICANN President and CEO
by James M. Bladel Feb. 8, 2016

Feb. 8, 2016

Councilors - In the event you hadn’t heard via other channels, new ICANN CEO announced. Thanks— J. From: <soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 10:29 To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Experienced Technology Leader Named as ICANN President and CEO Experienced Technology Leader Named as ICANN President and CEO Göran Marby, currently Director-General of the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority (PTS) to start at ICANN May 2016 This page is available in: * English * العربية<http://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2016-02-08-ar> * Español<http://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2016-02-08-es> * Français<http://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2016-02-08-fr> * Português<http://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2016-02-08-pt> * Pусский<http://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2016-02-08-ru> * 中文<http://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2016-02-08-zh> 08 Feb 2016 Los Angeles, California… Göran Marby, an experienced business executive and government leader has been named the next President and Chief Executive Officer of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). "I'm delighted to announce Göran as the new head of ICANN," said Dr. Stephen Crocker, Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors. "His leadership experience as a technology CEO and start up founder as well as his current experience as Director-General of the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority will be invaluable as ICANN moves towards the next chapter in its history. We conducted an extensive, global search and Göran impressed us all throughout with his shared values, operational experience and understanding of the Internet ecosystem. I'm looking forward to working with him and what I know will be his substantial contribution to ICANN and to helping ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet." Marby is a Swedish citizen, currently living in Stockholm. He and his family will be relocating to Los Angeles, California the location of one of ICANN's three global hubs. "I am very excited to be joining ICANN and joining at the start of a new era for the organization and the community," said Marby. "While I know there is much for me to learn, I am eager to work with ICANN's multistakeholder community to continue all the good work that ICANN has been doing and am very committed to implementing the community's decisions – both with respect to the IANA Stewardship Transition, but also in the myriad important areas of ICANN policy development as it fulfills its mission." Marby will succeed current President and CEO Fadi Chehadé whose term finishes on March 15, 2016. Marby will join ICANN in May 2016. During this time, Akram Atallah, President of ICANN's Global Domains Division will serve as acting CEO. "I am very grateful to Akram for agreeing to step into this role and providing the continuity and leadership ICANN needs at such an important time," said Dr Crocker. Göran Marby has more than 20 years of experience in the Internet and technology sectors. Prior to joining PTS he co-founded AppGate Network Security AB a security software company where he served as CEO between 2002 and 2009 with a focus on international customers and operations. He has held several other leadership roles in the Internet and technology sectors including as CEO of Cygate a network services company, Country Manager for Cisco in Sweden and as CEO of Unisource Business Networks in Sweden. Marby holds a Bachelor of Science from the University of Gothenburg School Economics. https://www.icann.org/ https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2016-02-08-en David A. Olive Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 Email: david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org

1 0

FW: [CSG_NCPHI] NCPH Intercessional Lunch Session, Day 2: Meeting Strategy Presentation slides
by Phil Corwin Feb. 8, 2016

Feb. 8, 2016

Council members not attending the NCPH meeting in LA may find the attached preliminary schedule for this year's B meeting of interest. We will need to consider how to structure Council's work within the meeting as it draws closer. Also, David Olive announced at the meeting that the Board just determined that the B meeting will NOT take place in Panama City due to the Zika virus situation. The effort to identify an alternative venue has just been initiated. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: csg_ncphi-bounces(a)icann.org [csg_ncphi-bounces(a)icann.org] on behalf of Chantelle Doerksen via CSG_NCPHI [csg_ncphi(a)icann.org] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 5:24 PM To: csg_ncphi(a)icann.org Subject: [CSG_NCPHI] NCPH Intercessional Lunch Session, Day 2: Meeting Strategy Presentation slides Dear Delegates, Attached is the Lunch session’s PowerPoint presentation on the Meeting Strategy. Kind regards, Chantelle —— Chantelle Doerksen CSG Secretariat Support- BC, IPC, ISPCP ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: chantelle.doerksen(a)icann.org<mailto:chantelle.doerksen@icann.org> Skype: chantelle.doerksen.icann Tel.: +1.775.253.5756 ________________________________ 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.

2 1