March 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Project List for your review
by Glen de Saint Géry March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the updated Project list, both redlined and clean version for your review. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry Manager Supporting Organisations Advisory Committees Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers - ICANN glen(a)icann.org<mailto:glen@icann.org> http://www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Updated GNSO Public Council 9 March 2016 at 13:30 in Toubkal
by Glen de Saint Géry March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated agenda for the GNSO Public Council meeting today, 9 March 2016. The main changes are in the order of the items and the time allotted for each item. Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Marrakech 9 March 2016 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: 13:30 UTC 05:30 Los Angeles; 08:30 Washington; 13:30 London; 15:30 Istanbul; 00:30 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: Minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-18feb16-en.htm> of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 18 February 2016 were posted as approved on 6 March 2016. Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 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 appointment of co-chairs for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group (co-chairs: Stephen Coates, Avri Doria, Jeff Neuman; Council liaison: Paul McGrady) Item 4: VOTE - Approval of Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations from the GNSO Review (5 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 reviewed all the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board in relation to the implementability and prioritization of the recommendations. The Council received a written update<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-gnso-council-update-21…> from the Working Party chair on 29 January, and the Working Party's proposed Implementation and Feasibility Analysis<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-e…> was sent to the Council on 28 February. Here the Council will review the Working Party's Implementation and Feasbility Analysis, and vote on its adoption as well as agree on next steps in the process. 4.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016> (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of Charter for a PDP Working Group to review all RPMs in all gTLDs (15 minutes) On 18 February 2016, the GNSO Council voted unanimously to initiate a new Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160218-3) At that meeting, a small group of Councilors volunteered to review the draft Charter for the PDP Working Group, with a view to submitting an updated Charter for the Council's review and approval at the Marrakech meeting. The draft Charter had been based substantially on the approach recommended in the Final Issue Report, published on 11 January 2015 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf) This recommended that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased 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 longstanding Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). A Working Group Charter typically also sets out the scope of work for the PDP Working Group and includes a list of topics identified previously by the community for the Working Group to consider including as part of its work. Here the Council will consider the updated draft Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-26feb16-en.pdf> and vote on its adoption. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016> (Phil Corwin) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - 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) Item 6: VOTE - Approval of Recommendations from the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (55 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 for public comment. Following significant changes made as a result of feedback received, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment in August 2015. With the assistance of further 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 needs confirmation from 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. Following a Special Meeting on 14 January 2016, the GNSO Council had 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. This was sent to the CCWG-Accountability on 22 January. In response to the community input to its Third Draft Proposal, the CCWG-Accountability reworked some of its draft recommendations, resulting in a Final Supplemental Proposal that was sent to all its Chartering Organizations on 23 February (see https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-delivers-report-to-char… Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations<https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw> has the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability, and contains five minority statements (see revised Appendix A, circulated to all Chartering Organizations on 25 February). On 29 February, the GNSO Council held a Special Meeting that included all the GNSO representatives to the CCWG-Accountability. The purpose of the meeting was to receive initial feedback from all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and to identify any remaining issues of concern that may require further discussion amongst the GNSO community. For its discussions on whether and how to adopt the Supplemental Final Proposal, the GNSO Council followed a specific agreed approach [INSERT LINK]. Here the Council will review the final comments from of all its SG/Cs, and, taking into account further discussions occurring during ICANN55, vote on whether or not to adopt the recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability as set forth in the Supplemental Final Proposal. 6.1 - Update (Thomas Rickert, GNSO co-chair of the CCWG-Accountability) 6.2 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016> (James Bladel) 6.3 - Discussion 6.4 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7: DISCUSSION - RDAP Implementation (15 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) Following an expected discussion with ICANN's Global Domains Division staff overseeing the RDAP implementation during the GNSO Weekend Sessions at ICANN55 on the policy bases for RDAP, the linkage to Thick WHOIS, and the RDAP Operational Profile requirements, the Council will now consider next steps and any further actions that may be advisable at this time. 7.1 - Update (James Bladel) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: Open Microphone (10 minutes) 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 13:30 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 05:30 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 07:30 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 07:30 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 08:30 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 10:30 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 10:30 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 13:30 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 14:30 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 15:30 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 15:30 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 21:30 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 21:30 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 00:30 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/jzasfwr Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry

4 3

Re: [council] For your review - draft transmittal letter
by James M. Bladel March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

Thanks Marika. Great work, no edits. Councilors - please review and comment with your edits as soon as you can. Also, if you intend to submit a Statement, please post those to the list as soon as they are finalized, to ensure inclusion with this letter to the CCWG Co-Chairs. Thank you, J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:00 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] For your review - draft transmittal letter 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

1 0

Motion on the Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations from the GNSO Review
by WUKnoben March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

Dear council colleagues, after the GNSO preparatory discussion on the GNSO review over the last weekend in Marrakech I intend to withdraw the respective motion at the council meeting on Wednesday. This is attached to the expectation that you’ll immediately start the discussion about the approach suggested by the Review Working Party within your community. On the basis of the input given by the SGs/Cs the council should then develop a common position on the proposal that the motion can be resubmitted, preferably to the next council meeting on 14 April. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 7:04 PM To: WUKnoben ; Marika Konings Subject: Re: Motion on GNSO review Wolf-Ulrich, that sounds perfect – assuming you intend to withdraw AT the meeting rather than BEFORE. Thanks and cheers Mary From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 18:51 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: Motion on GNSO review Ladies, is there anything to be put forward formally at the council meeting rather than just saying: “I withdraw”? Adding that the discussion on SG/C-level should start immediately and it is expected that a common position can be achieved to submit a motion to the next council meeting Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC Response to CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal
by James M. Bladel March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

Councilors- Please see note below from CCWG co-Chairs, regarding GAC approval of the Supplemental Report. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy Begin forwarded message: From: Le?n Felipe S?nchez Amb?a <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: March 9, 2016 at 00:20:03 GMT To: CCWG ACCT <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Accountability Staff <accountability-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: GAC Response to CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal Dear all, It is with great pleasure that I am forwarding this GAC letter received minutes ago. Best regards, Le?n Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>> Asunto: GAC Response to CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal Fecha: 9 de marzo de 2016, 12:17:19 a.m. GMT Para: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Le?n Felipe S?nchez Amb?a <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Cc: "gac-leadership(a)icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org>" <gac-leadership(a)icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org>> Dear Co-Chairs Attached please find a letter from the Chair of the GAC, Thomas Schneider, concerning the GAC's response to the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal. Regards Tom Dale ACIG GAC Secretariat

1 0

AC Room for Prep Session, Tuesday 6-7pm.
by Lars Hoffmann March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

Councillors, please log into the COuncil’s AC room for tomorrow’s agenda. https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnsocouncil Best. Lars

1 0

FW: [council] Proposed GNSO Council Public Meeting Agenda Marrakech 9 March 2016 UTC;WET.
by Glen de Saint Géry March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

For your information From: Valerie Tan Dear Glen, Thank you for sending the GNSO Council meeting agenda for 9 March 2016. As I am unable to attend, I wish to confirm that I have appointed Rubens Kuhl as my proxy for this meeting. Rubens and I have discussed the items on the agenda and he has received my instructions on how to vote. Thank you, Rubens. Best regards, Valerie On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Marrakech 9 March 2016 UTC;WET. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+9+March+2016 http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-09mar16-en.htm 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: 13:30 UTC 05:30 Los Angeles; 08:30 Washington; 13:30 London; 15:30 Istanbul; 00:30 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/msg18151.html> of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 18 February 2016 will be posted as approved on 6 March 2016. Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 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 appointment of co-chairs for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group (co-chairs: Stephen Coates, Avri Doria, Jeff Neuman; Council liaison: Paul McGrady) Item 4: VOTE – Approval of Recommendations from the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (45 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 for public comment. Following significant changes made as a result of feedback received, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment in August 2015. With the assistance of further 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 needs confirmation from 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. Following a Special Meeting on 14 January 2016, the GNSO Council had 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. This was sent to the CCWG-Accountability on 22 January. In response to the community input to its Third Draft Proposal, the CCWG-Accountability reworked some of its draft recommendations, resulting in a Final Supplemental Proposal that was sent to all its Chartering Organizations on 23 February (see https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-delivers-report-to-char… Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations<https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw> has the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability, and contains five minority statements (see revised Appendix A, circulated to all Chartering Organizations on 25 February). On 29 February, the GNSO Council held a Special Meeting that included all the GNSO representatives to the CCWG-Accountability. The purpose of the meeting was to receive initial feedback from all the GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and to identify any remaining issues of concern that may require further discussion amongst the GNSO community. Here the Council will review the final comments from of all its SG/C, and, taking into account further discussions occurring during ICANN55, vote on whether or not to adopt the recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability as set forth in the Supplemental Final Proposal. 4.1 – Update (Thomas Rickert, GNSO co-chair of the CCWG-Accountability) 4.2 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016> (James Bladel) 4.3 – Discussion 4.4 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of Charter for a PDP Working Group to review all RPMs in all gTLDs (20 minutes) On 18 February 2016, the GNSO Council voted unanimously to initiate a new Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160218-3) At that meeting, a small group of Councilors volunteered to review the draft Charter for the PDP Working Group, with a view to submitting an updated Charter for the Council’s review and approval at the Marrakech meeting. The draft Charter had been based substantially on the approach recommended in the Final Issue Report, published on 11 January 2015 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf) This recommended that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased 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 longstanding Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). A Working Group Charter typically also sets out the scope of work for the PDP Working Group and includes a list of topics identified previously by the community for the Working Group to consider including as part of its work. Here the Council will consider the updated draft Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-26feb16-en.pdf> and vote on whether to adopt it. 5.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016> (Phil Corwin) 5.2 – Discussion 5.3 – 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) Item 6: VOTE – Approval of Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations from the 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 reviewed all the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board in relation to the implementability and prioritization of the recommendations. The Council received a written update<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-gnso-council-update-21…> from the Working Party chair on 29 January, and the Working Party’s proposed Implementation and Feasibility Analysis [INSERT LINK] was sent to the Council on 28 February. Here the Council will review the Working Party’s Implementation and Feasbility Analysis, and vote on its adoption as well as agree on next steps in the process. 6.1 – Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016> (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 6.2 – Discussion 6.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7: DISCUSSION – RDAP Implementation (15 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) Following an expected discussion with ICANN’s Global Domains Division staff overseeing the RDAP implementation during the GNSO Weekend Sessions at ICANN55 on the policy bases for RDAP, the linkage to Thick WHOIS, and the RDAP Operational Profile requirements, the Council will now consider next steps and any further actions that may be advisable at this time. 7.1 – Update (James Bladel?) 7.2 – Discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: Open Microphone (10 minutes) 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 13:30 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 05:30 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 07:30 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 07:30 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 08:30 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 10:30 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 10:30 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 13:30 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 14:30 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 15:30 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 15:30 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 21:30 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 21:30 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 00:30 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/jzasfwr Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry Manager Supporting Organisations Advisory Committees Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers - ICANN glen(a)icann.org<mailto:glen@icann.org> http://www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Re: [council] For your review - proposed approach CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal
by Marika Konings March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

Not having received any responses, please note that the process as circulated and attached here again will be used to consider the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal. As a reminder, the next deadline is: Tuesday - 18.00 - 19.00 UTC (Informal GNSO Council meeting) · Each Council member is expected to declare which of the recommendations they would like to have subject to an individual roll call vote. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Sunday 6 March 2016 at 18:04 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] For your review - proposed approach CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal Dear All, Following our conversations today, please find attached on behalf of James the proposed approach for dealing with the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal. Please take note of the deadline for comments, questions and clarifications on this proposed approach which is Monday 18.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika

3 3

Informal Council session Tuesday 8 March 2016 18:00-19:00 in Diamant
by Glen de Saint Géry March 7, 2016

March 7, 2016

Dear All, There will be the usual informal Council session on Tuesday from 18:00-19:00 in Diamant with drinks and snacks. https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/tue-gnso-council-informal Please put this in your agendas! The main topic of discussion will be CCWG Accountability and the session will be recorded and transcribed. Stakeholder Group and Constituency chairs or their appointed representative are invited to attend this meeting. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen

2 1

Joint GNSO-ccNSO Session
by James M. Bladel March 7, 2016

March 7, 2016

Councilors- Just a reminder that we have a joint session with the ccNSO at 1200, in the Diamant room (same room as this weekend). I hope you can join us! This is a working lunch. Food will be provided, so please get a plate quickly and join us at the table. The room is open at 1145, so feel free to arrive a bit sooner. Glen, please share with the ccNSO list. Thank you! J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy

5 4