March 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Fwd: GAC Empowerment in Post-Transition ICANN
by Phil Corwin 26 Mar '16

26 Mar '16

FYI. 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 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: March 25, 2016 at 7:26:59 PM EDT To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Subject: GAC Empowerment in Post-Transition ICANN http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160326_gac_empowerment_in_post_transition_i… 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 Sent from my iPad

1 0

FW: [Soac-infoalert] Conduct at ICANN Meetings - ICANN
by James M. Bladel 25 Mar '16

25 Mar '16

Fellow Councilors - If you have a moment, please check out Akram's recent blog post. 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: Friday, March 25, 2016 at 7:56 To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett(a)icann.org<mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org<mailto:duncan.burns@icann.org>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Conduct at ICANN Meetings - ICANN https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings * ICANN Blog * Author: Akram Atallah * 25 Mar 2016 Conduct at ICANN Meetings <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings#> During and after ICANN55 the issue of certain community-member conduct toward one another has been raised in various sessions and lists. I wanted to re-confirm that ICANN's staff and Board takes the issue of harassment or other improper conduct at its meetings very seriously. We do not condone any such conduct, and there should be zero tolerance for it within the community. As an organization, ICANN has robust internal policies regarding the issue, including mandatory training for staff and Board members. However, ICANN community members are not bound to the same policies and rules. We do require all community members to adhere to the Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2012-05-15-en>. While we understand that the language of these Standards does not specifically address harassment, these Standards do provide our global, diverse multistakeholder community with a set of high-level guidelines for interacting with one another, which encompasses harassment and other improper treatment of others. As the Board previously committed, we are looking at whether it makes sense to enhance this language. Both staff and the Board are committed to starting a discussion with the community on a possible path forward as well. This is an area where we feel it most appropriate that the community should lead any policy development to look into a process for handling harassment complaints. ICANN staff and Board will support as appropriate. While the ICANN Ombudsman appropriately continues with his confidential investigation into specific matters, we ask that everyone read the Expected Standards of Behavior and conduct themselves with respect toward others. This includes: Treat all members of the ICANN community equally, irrespective of nationality, gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age, or sexual orientation; members of the ICANN community should treat each other with civility both face to face and online. 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

CCT-RT - Schedule of Calls
by Glen de Saint Géry 23 Mar '16

23 Mar '16

FYI As you know, Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Chair - Jonathan Zuck – delivered an update to the GNSO at ICANN 55. Interest was expressed in listening to the CCT-RT calls. Staff was asked to share the schedule for interested GNSO members to join. Attached to this email, you will find the schedule the CCT–RT will refer to for its next calls. Useful links: * Adobe Connect https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cctreview-observers * Wiki https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56135383 Thanks, Best Alice

1 0

FW: [Correspondence from Steve Crocker] PICs and Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs
by James M. Bladel 22 Mar '16

22 Mar '16

Council Colleagues - For your review, please see the attached letter from Steve Crocker to the chairs of the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT), and the PDP WG on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. Thank you, J. From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org<mailto:wendy.profit@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 13:47 To: "zuck(a)ACTonline.org<mailto:zuck@ACTonline.org>" <zuck(a)ACTonline.org<mailto:zuck@ACTonline.org>>, "avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "scoates(a)twitter.com<mailto:scoates@twitter.com>" <scoates(a)twitter.com<mailto:scoates@twitter.com>>, "jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>" <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>, Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org<mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org>>, "alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>, "Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>" <Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>>, "gacsec(a)icann.org<mailto:gacsec@icann.org>" <gacsec(a)icann.org<mailto:gacsec@icann.org>>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org<mailto:Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org>> Subject: [Correspondence from Steve Crocker] PICs and Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs Dear Jonathan, Avri, Stephen, and Jeff, Please find the attached letter from Steve Crocker on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding concerns raised by the ALAC and GAC around the effectiveness of the contracted PICs for the GAC Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs ("Safeguard PICs"). With warm regards, Wendy Profit ICANN Board Operations Specialist 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Mobile: 1-310-773-6811 Office: 1-310-578-8695 [cid:59401D5B-D2E1-42DB-8268-74570C10D99C]

1 0

Call for Volunteers: New GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry 21 Mar '16

21 Mar '16

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-21-en Call for Volunteers: New GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers for a new Working Group that will conduct a Policy Development Process (PDP) to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs). The GNSO Council approved the PDP Working Group's Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-26feb16-en.pdf> [PDF, 510 KB] on 9 March 2016<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016>. What This Team Will Do 1. Conduct the PDP in two phases This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases as defined in the approved charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/whois-ng-gtld-rds-charter-07oct15-en.pdf> [PDF, 524 KB]: Phase One will focus on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program (i.e. the Trademark Clearinghouse and associated notification and sunrise mechanisms, the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure, and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures), and Phase Two will focus on a review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). At a minimum, in each Phase of this PDP, the Working Group will be expected to first assess the effectiveness of the relevant RPM(s), for which it should seek the input of experienced online dispute resolution providers and other subject matter experts, as appropriate. The Working Group is also expected to look at the interplay between and complementary roles of each RPM in seeking to more fully understand their overall functioning and effectiveness. Ultimately, the goal is for the Working Group to consider the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals. In public comments to the UDRP Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.69 MB], the RPM Staff Paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/rpm-review-11sep15-en.pdf> [PDF 2.5 MB], and the Preliminary Issue Report<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en> for this PDP, various community groups and participants had identified a number of issues that they considered appropriate for review in a PDP. As such, the Working Group is expected to consider these community suggestions, which have been listed in the Working Group Charter, with further modifications, additions and deletions to be determined by consensus of the Working Group. 2. Coordinate its work with other parallel efforts The Working Group will 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. These other efforts include the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team, the Trademark Clearinghouse Independent Review and the GNSO's PDP Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures. In this regard, the GNSO Council directed that a GNSO community liaison be appointed by the two GNSO PDP Working Groups. Further, as the manager of the policy development process, the GNSO Council is to be kept informed about the various coordination efforts so that in case of conflict between these groups, the Council may take the appropriate action to align the different work processes. At the conclusion of Phase One of its work, the Working Group is expected to assess the need for modification to its Charter and, if appropriate, submit a request to the GNSO Council accordingly for the subsequent phase(s) of its work. How This Team Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this PDP Working Group will be recorded and transcribed, and the recordings and transcriptions will be available to the public. The mailing list for the Working Group will be archived publicly. The group will collaborate using a public workspace for draft materials and all final work products and milestones will be documented on the WG's wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Review+of+all+Rights+Prote…>. The PDP WG is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> [PDF, 350 KB] as well as the GNSO PDP Manual<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16feb16-en.pdf> [PDF, 300 KB]. How to participate There are two ways to volunteer: * Individual Members - anyone interested can volunteer to join the PDP Working Group as a member, regardless of whether they are members of the ICANN community. Members are expected to actively contribute to mailing list conversations as well as meetings - it is anticipated that the Working Group will at a minimum meet on a weekly basis via teleconference. Members are expected to provide essential input to the process. Members will be required to provide a Statement of Interest (SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>). * Mailing list observers - for those who are merely interested in monitoring the Working Group's deliberations, it is possible to sign up as a mailing list "observer" which offers read-only access to the mailing list. Mailing list observers will not be permitted to post, will not receive invitations to the meetings of the Working Group and will not have to complete a Statement of Interest. At any point in time, a mailing list observer can join the WG as a member simply by informing the GNSO Secretariat<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org?subject=Call%20for%20volunteers>. In addition, there will be opportunities to provide input through public consultations and public comment processes that the PDP Working Group is expected to organize. How to Join If you are interested in joining the Working Group either as an individual participant or mailing list observer, please fill in the sign up form<http://goo.gl/forms/sMAaNujZdB> or send the Word document<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58729953/Review%20of%20all…> [DOCX, 72 KB], filled in, to the GNSO Secretariat<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org?subject=Call%20for%20volunteers>. All members and observers will be listed on the PDP Working Group's wiki page. Next steps The GNSO Council directed that this call for volunteers be circulated as widely as possible in order to ensure broad representation and participation in the Working Group. it is anticipated that the Working Group will convene online for the first time in early April 2016. Following that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with the Working Group's work plan, which it is expected to develop as one of its first tasks. Further information and preparation For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are strongly encouraged to review the following materials prior to the first meeting of the PDP WG: * The Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf> [PDF, 1 MB] * The approved charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-26feb16-en.pdf> [PDF, 510 KB] * Materials available at the Working Group's online wiki workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Review+of+all+Rights+Prote…> Background The question of who legally has rights to, or is the legitimate holder of, a domain name can be open to dispute. In relation to domain name disputes concerning the registration and use of legally protected trademarks, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en> is the longest standing alternative dispute resolution procedure. As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace, which included certain safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names: the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/urs-2014-01-09-en>; the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse> and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tm-pddrp-2013-10-31-en>. Prior to the launch of the New gTLD Program, on 3 October 2011 ICANN staff had published a Final Issue Report on the current state of the UDRP. The recommended course of action in that UDRP Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.69 MB] was not to initiate a PDP at the time, but to hold off launching any such PDP until after the new URS had been in operation for at least eighteen (18) months. In addition, the September 2015 revised RPM Staff Paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/rpm-review-11sep15-en.pdf> [PDF 2.5 MB] had explicitly noted that some of the concerns identified by the community for consideration as part of a review of the RPMs might be appropriate topics for policy development work. The UDRP has not been subject to comprehensive review. There has also not been a full review of all the RPMs developed to date by ICANN, to consider whether or not they are collectively achieving the objectives for which they were created. In preparation for this PDP, a new Preliminary Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-prelim-issue-09oct15-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.4 MB] was published for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en> on 9 October 2015. A Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.2 MB] was subsequently published on 7 October 2015, including links to all public comments received, along with a draft charter for the PDP WG<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-26feb16-en.pdf> [PDF, 510 KB]. The final charter was approved by the GNSO Council on 9 March 2016<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016>, enabling the formation of a GNSO working group of community volunteers to conduct this PDP. More information can be found on the activities webpage for GNSO PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/rpm> and the Working Group's online wiki workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Review+of+all+Rights+Prote…>, which includes the charter, community input provided during the public comment period, and an extensive library of foundational materials to inform the Working Group's deliberations. As this will be a complex multi-phase PDP, anyone interested in helping to shape the review of all RPMs in all gTLDs are encouraged to volunteer for this Working Group ________________________________ 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

Council action items from Public Meeting in Marrakech
by Mary Wong 18 Mar '16

18 Mar '16

Dear Councilors, Please find attached the usual note on Council-related action items stemming from the Council’s public session in Marrakech on Wednesday 9 March. Please also note that the list does not include additional follow up and action items arising from other discussions that were held in Marrakech, e.g. possible Council action with regard to the FY17 Budget, response to the GAC Communique, response to Dr. Crocker on the Board letter regarding the New gTLD Auction Proceeds, etc. As discussed during the GNSO Wrap-Up session on Thursday 10 March, some of these additional items have been slated to be on the Council’s meeting agenda for 14 April, so hopefully those Councilors who volunteered to lead the relevant items can take note of the document deadline for that meeting, which is 4 April. 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

1 0

RE: [council] Voting Statements
by Paul McGrady (Policy) 18 Mar '16

18 Mar '16

Thanks Thomas. Looking forward to seeing the letter. Best, Paul From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:thomas@rickert.net] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 11:13 AM To: Paul McGrady (Policy) Cc: James M. Bladel; Marika Konings; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Voting Statements Hello Paul, thanks for your note. I will send the CCWG letter, which was sent to the Board directly to Larry Strickling drawing his attention to the statements made by the Chartering Organizations and add that there is an expactation that these statements will be passed on to Congress with the report. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net eco.de Am 18.03.2016 um 17:03 schrieb Paul McGrady (Policy) <policy(a)paulmcgrady.com>: Thanks Thomas. This is a bit less robust than advertised. Can you please do more for us to ensure that what was sent to NTIA (which presumably reaches Congress) actually contained these statements? I don't think it is reasonable to assume that NTIA users of the CCWG will automatically attach our voting statements to whatever they communicate to Congress and others in Washington. If we can't get certainty on that, then I may need to go back to my constituency and get permission to take a more direct route. Thanks in advance for your anticipated follow through on the promise that our statements would be included in the package sent to the NTIA. Regards, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:thomas@rickert.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:51 AM To: James M. Bladel; Marika Konings; Paul McGrady; GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org) Subject: Re: [council] Voting Statements Hi James, I can confirm that we have referenced to all papers form the Chartering Organizations and the GNSO repsonse includes the IPC statement, amongst others. While I have not seen (but it may just be me) reference to the Chartering Organizations' letters in the Board submission to NTIA, I should mention that NTIA representatives are on the CCWG list and have therefore taken note of the Chartering Orgs statements. I hope this helps. Thomas Am 14.03.2016 um 20:57 schrieb James M. Bladel: Thanks, Marika. If I¹m understanding your message, we sent all materials to CCWG-ACCT, and these were references in their submission to the Board...but we have no confirmation that the Board included these materials in their submission to NTIA. Is this correct? If so, then perhaps we could raise this question with Thomas. And I presume there is nothing to prevent us from submitting these directly to the folks at NTIA. Thank you, J. On 3/14/16, 11:00 , "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: Paul, for your information, please find attached the transmittal message from the CCWG-Accountability to the ICANN Board, which includes a link to the message that James sent which included the transmittal letter and attachments with statements as well as voting record. The transmittal message from the ICANN Board to NTIA can be found here http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-Mar ch/01 1 720.html. As far as I can tell, the ICANN Board transmittal does not seem to include the details of the consideration by the different chartering organisations, but I may have missed it as there are a number of attachments that have been provided. Best regards, Marika On 14/03/16 09:00, "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Paul McGrady" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of policy(a)paulmcgrady.com> wrote: James, Can you confirm that, as promised, the CCWG-ACCT passed along the various voting statements to the Board and the Board, in turn, has passed them along to the NTIA? These are an important part of the record and we were assured they would end up in the hands of the NTIA. Hopefully, that happened as advertised. Thanks for checking and getting back to the List with news. Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone --

1 0

RE: [council] Voting Statements
by Paul McGrady (Policy) 18 Mar '16

18 Mar '16

Thanks Thomas. This is a bit less robust than advertised. Can you please do more for us to ensure that what was sent to NTIA (which presumably reaches Congress) actually contained these statements? I don't think it is reasonable to assume that NTIA users of the CCWG will automatically attach our voting statements to whatever they communicate to Congress and others in Washington. If we can't get certainty on that, then I may need to go back to my constituency and get permission to take a more direct route. Thanks in advance for your anticipated follow through on the promise that our statements would be included in the package sent to the NTIA. Regards, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:thomas@rickert.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:51 AM To: James M. Bladel; Marika Konings; Paul McGrady; GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org) Subject: Re: [council] Voting Statements Hi James, I can confirm that we have referenced to all papers form the Chartering Organizations and the GNSO repsonse includes the IPC statement, amongst others. While I have not seen (but it may just be me) reference to the Chartering Organizations' letters in the Board submission to NTIA, I should mention that NTIA representatives are on the CCWG list and have therefore taken note of the Chartering Orgs statements. I hope this helps. Thomas Am 14.03.2016 um 20:57 schrieb James M. Bladel: > Thanks, Marika. > > If I¹m understanding your message, we sent all materials to CCWG-ACCT, > and these were references in their submission to the Board...but we > have no confirmation that the Board included these materials in their > submission to NTIA. Is this correct? > > If so, then perhaps we could raise this question with Thomas. And I > presume there is nothing to prevent us from submitting these directly > to the folks at NTIA. > > Thank you, > > J. > > > On 3/14/16, 11:00 , "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Marika > Konings" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of > marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > >> Paul, for your information, please find attached the transmittal >> message > >from the CCWG-Accountability to the ICANN Board, which includes a > >link to >> the message that James sent which included the transmittal letter and >> attachments with statements as well as voting record. The transmittal >> message from the ICANN Board to NTIA can be found here >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-Mar >> ch/01 >> 1 >> 720.html. As far as I can tell, the ICANN Board transmittal does not >> seem to include the details of the consideration by the different >> chartering organisations, but I may have missed it as there are a >> number of attachments that have been provided. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 14/03/16 09:00, "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Paul >> McGrady" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of >> policy(a)paulmcgrady.com> wrote: >> >>> James, >>> >>> Can you confirm that, as promised, the CCWG-ACCT passed along the >>> various voting statements to the Board and the Board, in turn, has >>> passed them along to the NTIA? These are an important part of the >>> record and we were assured they would end up in the hands of the >>> NTIA. Hopefully, that happened as advertised. Thanks for checking >>> and getting back to the List with news. >>> >>> Best, >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone > --

2 2

Voting Statements
by Paul McGrady 16 Mar '16

16 Mar '16

James, Can you confirm that, as promised, the CCWG-ACCT passed along the various voting statements to the Board and the Board, in turn, has passed them along to the NTIA? These are an important part of the record and we were assured they would end up in the hands of the NTIA. Hopefully, that happened as advertised. Thanks for checking and getting back to the List with news. Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone

4 6

Re: [council] Call for Volunteers for RPM/UDRP WG?
by Marika Konings 15 Mar '16

15 Mar '16

Dear Phil, all, The timeline in the motion related to when the call for volunteers would be initiated not the duration of the call for volunteers, i.e. the call for volunteers should go out no later than 21 days after the adoption of the motion. I do anticipate that the call for volunteers will go out well before the 21-day deadline and of course, we'll make sure that sufficient opportunity is provided to interested parties to sign up before the first meeting is scheduled. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Monday 14 March 2016 at 15:08 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Call for Volunteers for RPM/UDRP WG? 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

4 9