March 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Sent to NTIA: IANA Stewardship Transition and the Affirmation of Commitments
by Bruce Tonkin March 15, 2016

March 15, 2016

Attached are the actual documents sent to the NTIA From: Steve Crocker Date: March 10, 2016 at 6:20:58 PM GMT Subject: IANA Stewardship Transition and the Affirmation of Commitments The Honorable Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information and Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration United States Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20230 Re: IANA Stewardship Transition and the Affirmation of Commitments Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling: On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors it gives me great pleasure to transmit to you the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal, which outlines the transition of NTIA’s stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community. I am also pleased to transmit the CCWG Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. In its 14 March 2014 announcement, NTIA asked ICANN to convene an inclusive, global discussion to determine a process for transitioning the stewardship of these functions to the multistakeholder community. It specifically stated that the transition proposal must have broad community support and address the following four principles: 1. Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; 2. Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS; 3. Meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and, 4. Maintain the openness of the Internet. NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that replaces NTIA’s role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Thirty individuals, representing the broad range of Internet stakeholder interests, were nominated by their respective communities to become a part of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). The ICG assembled input from three global multistakeholder communities with direct operational relationships with the IANA functions – Domain Names, Numbering Resources, and Protocol Parameters – to develop one single, cohesive proposal to facilitate the succession of NTIA’s stewardship of the IANA functions. The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), made up of members from ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and over 200 participants, developed a separate proposal for enhancing ICANN’s accountability in light of the changing historical relationship with the U.S. Government. The proposals underwent extensive discussion and enjoy broad global community support. The relevant multistakeholder communities held over 600 calls and meetings with more than 32,000 mailing list exchanges over the past two years . The ICG proposal was finalized after the three operational communities of the IANA functions indicated consensus support for the proposal. The CCWG-Accountability proposal received consensus support from its members and was subsequently approved by the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees which chartered the group. The proposals themselves describe at great length how their recommendations meet all of NTIA’s criteria. The ICANN Board agrees with the community that the proposals do in fact meet each of NTIA’s criteria. The ICANN Board resolutions for the package address each of the proposals. As you conduct your review of the package of proposals, please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. , The ICANN multistakeholder community eagerly awaits the results of your review. Sincerely, Dr. Stephen Crocker Enclosures: • Cover Page for IANA Stewardship Transition Package • Cover Note from Dr. Stephen Crocker • ICANN Board Resolution on IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal • ICANN Board Resolution on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Recommendations • IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Proposal • Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG- Accountability) Proposal • IANA Stewardship Transition Timeline • Diversity and Statistics on Development of IANA Stewardship Transition Package

1 0

Call for Volunteers for RPM/UDRP WG?
by Phil Corwin March 14, 2016

March 14, 2016

Fellow Councilors and staff: As GNSO Liaison to and Interim Chair for this new WG, may I inquire when the Call for Volunteers will be sent out? In Marrakech we extended the usual 14-day period to 21 days, but that was 5 days ago. This will be a highly complex 2-pahse PDP that I expect to consume at least 2-3 years, so we want to amass a group of knowledgeable and dedicated volunteers who understand the time commitment that accompanies engagement with this effort. So it would be best to cast the net as early and wide as possible. Great to see all of you last week. All my best, Philip http://gnso.icann.org/en/news/news-flash-09mar16-en.htm Date: 9 March 2016 In Brief During the face-to-face Council Meeting at ICANN55, the GNSO Council voted - with one opposing vote - to adopt the Charter of the recently initiated PDP to Review all Rights Protections Mechanisms in all generic top-level domains. A call for volunteers will be send out to all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies within the next two weeks; the same call will also go out to all of ICANN's Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. Links http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-26feb16-en.pdf 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

1 0

Extra day
by Rubens Kuhl March 11, 2016

March 11, 2016

Since there was not enough time during our wrap-session to discuss this, I'll write my thoughts on this for Donna, Volker and the council to consider I fully support Donna's position that we should reject this idea and focus most days of a B meeting on policy. If ICANN is also doing outreach, those tracks could run side-by-side instead of outreach taking an amount of days (even if only 1) and leaving the others day to policy. I also have to take exception with adding extra days; for those traveling from distant regions, travel affordability is tied to booking flights and hotels many months in advance. When days are added before or after a meeting, what happens is that those that already booked end up either incurring in costs or missing the added sessions. One of the good outcomes of the new meeting strategy was we committing to a fixed schedule, and this is now at risk. Rubens

5 6

Proposed topics for wrap up session
by Marika Konings March 10, 2016

March 10, 2016

Dear All, Please find below the proposed topics for today's wrap up session which is scheduled from 12.00 - 13.00 in Diamant. Best regards, Marika Proposed topics for today's wrap up session * Lead for GNSO Schedule Development for Helsinki (Donna, Volker?) * Letter to Board on meeting B? * Request F2F PDP WG meetings day before official start * Volunteer for review of GAC Communiqué * Letter to GAC re. PPSAI (PPSAI WG Chairs to draft?) * Council Leadership participation in new gTLD Safeguards meeting * Letter to Board on reviews schedule? * Statement at public forum re. adoption of CCWG-Accountability Proposal * Ideas for on boarding new CEO (e.g. Invite to upcoming Council meeting) * Statements made during meeting with Board / CEO * Response to Board on auction proceeds * GNSO Liaison to the GAC - confirm permanent role * Next steps Red Cross Protections * CWG-Internet Governance

1 0

GNSO NewsFlash http://gnso.icann.org/en/news
by Lars Hoffmann March 10, 2016

March 10, 2016

Dear Councillors, You might recall that the Policy Update newsletter was recently retired and replaced by policy news features in ICANN’s regional newsletter (you and subscribe here). In response to this and to assure that the GNSO and wider ICANN community stays as informed as possible about ongoing developments, the GNSO support team has created a ‘NewsFlash’ page on the GNSO website http://gnso.icann.org/en/news. The aim is to provide concise and timely updates on relevant information such as: passing of Council resolutions, publication of WG and other relevant reports, call for volunteers, etc. We encourage you to bookmark the page. Please also note that we are in the process of adding a RSS feed function to this page. All information published on NewsFlash site will also be promoted via twitter (@icann_gnso and @icann) to assure the widest possible dissemination. If you have any feedback on this new initiative, ideas how we can improve it, or can think of other ways we can assure the community stays informed and up-to-date, please get in touch with me or any of my GNSO support team colleagues. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars

1 0

FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability Transmittal Letter
by Marika Konings March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

For your information. Von: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Betreff: CCWG-Accountability Transmittal Letter Datum: 9. März 2016 um 18:53:40 WEZ An: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>" <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Kopie: "Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>" <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>, "Heather.Forrest(a)acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>" <Heather.Forrest(a)acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>>, "marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>" <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "glen(a)icann.org<mailto:glen@icann.org>" <glen(a)icann.org<mailto:glen@icann.org>> Dear Leon, Thomas and Mathieu: Please see the attached letter, conveying the GNSO approval of the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal. Congratulations, and thank you all for your hard work. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GNSO Chair

1 0

NCSG councillors' statements
by Marilia Maciel March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

Dear James, dear colleagues, I would like to convey to you the statements that the NCSG councillors would like to see included in the records of today's approval of the CCWG Accountability proposal. Thank you Marília These comments are submitted by the councillors identified under each of the recommendations to either clarify our understanding of the recommendations, or put some concerns associated with them on the record. They are not meant, in any way, to either renegotiate the substance of the recommendations, nor provide any instructions regarding their implementation. It is also important to be clear that the councillors identified with each of the comments have supported these recommendations, and have voted in favor of the GNSO adopting them as one of the chartering organizations from the ICANN names community. Recommendation #2: Empowering the Community through Consensus: Engagement, Escalation, and Enforcement Statement presented on behalf of Amr Elsadr, David Cake, Stephanie Perrin and Marília Maciel. The aforementioned NCSG representatives in the GNSO council support Recommendation 2 with the understanding that bylaws will reflect the CCWG's requirement that the exercise of community powers should not require unanimity of participating AC/SOs, and that no single AC/SO could block exercise of any power. Statement presented by Stefania Milan A number of members of the NCSG are concerned about providing governments with the new powers contained in the Empowered Community and the impact of changing the fundamental nature of governments at ICANN by allowing GAC to be a Decisional Participant. Recommendation #7: Strengthening ICANN’s Independent Review Process Statement presented on behalf of: Amr Elsadr, David Cake, Stephanie Perrin, Marília Maciel, Stefania Milan The following NCSG representatives in the GNSO council support Recommendation 7 with the understanding that the revised Cooperative Engagement Procedure and the IRP processes will : 1) allow any person, group, or entity “materially affected” by an ICANN action or inaction in violation of ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and/or Bylaws to have the right to equal participation in CEP and IRP proceedings on par with the original IRP filer; 2) require timely notification at filing to all parties known to be materially affected by the process or decision being challenged; 3) require ICANN to provide prompt and timely publication to the larger community of the filing so that other interested and materially affected parties can come forward to participate; and 4) enable and support the timely, full and equal participation of all materially affected parties in an IRP proceeding. It is our understanding that reform of the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) is included in the IRP implementation plan. Recommendation #8: Improving ICANN’s Request for Reconsideration Process Statement presented on behalf of: Amr Elsadr, David Cake, Stephanie Perrin, Marília Maciel, Stefania Milan The following NCSG representatives in the GNSO council support Recommendation 8, but emphasise that the Ombudsman may not be the proper office to evaluate a RFR and make an initial recommendation to the BGC. We encourage WS2 to consider whether another office or official should be granted this authority instead. We want to emphasize that this responsibility should be independent or at a minimum neutral and insulated from pressure from the ICANN Board and staff. Under no circumstances should ICANN's Office of the General Counsel assume this responsibility. Recommendation #10: Enhancing the Accountability of Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees Statement presented on behalf of: Amr Elsadr, David Cake, Stephanie Perrin, Stefania Milan The following NCSG representatives in the GNSO council support Recommendation 10, but are concerned that Recommendation 10 would allow the Board too much control over SO/AC reviews that could undermine the bottom-up structure of ICANN. Therefore, implementation of Recommendation 10 should ensure that the terms of reference of a review should be developed in a cooperative manner between the Board and the AC/SO under review. The GNSO also believes as a matter of fairness that the GAC, if it becomes a decisional participant in ICANN, should also be subject to some manner of review as with the other AC/SOs. Recommendation #11: Board Obligations with Regard to Governmental Advisory Committee Advice Statement presented on behalf of: Amr Elsadr, David Cake, Stephanie Perrin, Marília Maciel The following NCSG representatives in the GNSO council support Recommendation welcome the important accountability reform of locking-in the definition of “consensus advice” for the Governmental Advisory Committee, which triggers the board’s obligation to consider that advice and reach a mutually agreeable solution. Nonetheless we remain concerned because it raises the threshold by which the board can refuse to follow GAC advice. Statement presented by Stefania Milan A number of NCSG members remain concerned about providing GAC enhanced power over the ICANN Board of Directors, and about the Board’s ability to refuse to follow GAC advice, particularly when said advice contradicts policy developed through the bottom-up policy development process by the ICANN community. Recommendation #12: Committing to Further Accountability Work in Work Stream 2 Statement presented on behalf of: Amr Elsadr, David Cake, Stephanie Perrin, Marília Maciel, Stefania Milan The following NCSG representatives in the GNSO council support Recommendation 12 with the understanding that WS2 issues, while not necessary for the transition to occur, remain vitally important and must be budgeted and supported at a level sufficient to ensure their development and implementation. -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en

2 1

my statement on Rec 1
by David Cake March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

A number of members of NCSG remain concerned about the impact of changing the traditional role of the GAC from an advisory committee to a decional participant in the empowered community. Julf also indicated he assented to this statement. David

2 2

Fw: Statement of IPC
by Heather Forrest March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

Dear GNSO Council colleagues, I am pleased to provide, attached, the statement of the IPC in connection with our vote on CCWG-Accountability. Best wishes, Heather

4 3

For your review - draft transmittal letter
by Marika Konings March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the draft transmittal letter to the CCWG-Accountability Chairs which would be sent following the vote later this afternoon. Best regards, Marika

6 7