April 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Action Item - GNSO/SSAC Liaison(s)
by James M. Bladel 08 May '16

08 May '16

Council Colleagues - Continuing with the "spring cleaning" of our Action Item list, here's another item that has been in a pending state for quite some time. Yesterday I was able to meet with Patrik (Chairs, SSAC) to discuss ideas to strengthen coordination between our two organizations, up to and including a formal exchange of liaisons. As we've noted previously, the SSAC's rules require that any of its members (including a potential liaison) would need to meet the general membership requirements, which include a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Patrik and I also discussed alternatives to a formal liaison that would keep the two groups mutually informed. We both agreed that the standard SSAC presentation/Q&A sessions at ICANN meetings had limited value, and we should revise the format to specifically address topics where either or both sides had specific questions or asks. Furthermore, Patrik noted that some PDPs could benefit from existing or planned SSAC research, and we should reinforce the availability of the SSAC as a resource for new PDPs. We also observed that there is significant membership overlap between some individuals and groups, and that this should be leveraged to enhance cooperation. Finally, ICANN Staff can help facilitate communication between the GNSO (Council & PDPs) and SSAC, if they flag topics that have potentially shared interests, and raise this with leadership of all groups. Possible action items / paths forward: 1. Continue to pursue formal exchange of liaisons between the GNSO & SSAC, noting the constraints listed above. 2. Modify the SSAC/GNSO sessions at ICANN meetings to be a more free-flowing conversation about topics that share mutual interests. 3. Encourage PDPs and other GNSO groups to consider the utility & applicability of SSAC research in their work. 4. Ask Staff to help facilitate information exchange between the two groups. I look forward to your thoughts & comments on this subject. Thanks- J.

8 8

DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 02 May '16

02 May '16

Dear All, Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC. http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-14apr16-en.htm https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+April+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: 21:00 UTC: http://tinyurl.com/gn4sy7u 14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington; 22:00 London; 00:00 Istanbul; 07:00 Hobart Please be aware that the clocks will have changed in some parts of the world, so refer to the other times below to ensure you join the meeting at the correct time. UTC time remains the same for Council meetings, local time changes. 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 of the meeting of the GNSO Council Meeting Minutes, 29 February and 9 March 2016 will be posted as approved on xxxx 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 (0 minutes) Item 4: PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION - Possible Next Steps in Resolving the Issue of Permanent Protection of Certain Red Cross Identifiers (20 minutes) In November 2013, the GNSO Council approved<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> the final recommendations from its Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs. Subsequently, in April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-04-30-en#2.a> those of the GNSO's PDP recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-a-30apr14…> received on the topic. For the Red Cross movement, the protections adopted were for the full names Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun at the top and second levels, in the 6 official languages of the United Nations, with an Exception Procedure to be designed during the implementation phase for the affected organizations. However, with respect to the names and acronyms of the 189 national Red Cross societies and the names of the International Red Cross Movement (as noted by the GAC in its Singapore Communique<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/34373692/Final%20Communique%2…)>), the Board requested more time to consider the GNSO's recommendations as these are inconsistent with GAC advice<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-b-30apr14-en.…> received on the topic. In the interim period, the Board adopted<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-10…> temporary protections for the Red Cross national society and international movement names noted in the GAC's Singapore Communique. At ICANN55, representatives of the Red Cross met with the GNSO Council leadership to discuss possible next steps. Here the Red Cross representatives will brief the Council on the scope of the Red Cross' continuing request for permanent protections for those of its national society and international movement identifiers that are not currently covered by the policy recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. 4.1 - Introduction (James Bladel) 4.2 - Presentation by representatives of the Red Cross (by invitation) 4.3 - Q&A / next steps Item 5: 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<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 Feasibility Analysis, and vote on its adoption as well as agree on next steps in the process. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016> (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of Procedures Governing the Selection of the GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (10 minutes) As part of a two-year pilot program initiated in June 2014, the GNSO Council and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) agreed, through its joint GAC-GNSO Consultation Group<https://community.icann.org/x/phPRAg>, to appoint a GNSO Liaison to the GAC. The purpose of the Liaison role was to facilitate more effective early engagement by the GAC in GNSO policy activities and to contribute toward better information flow between the two bodies. Following Consultation Group review<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-liaison-gac-pilot-29feb16-en.pdf> of the pilot program, the Consultation Group recommended that the Liaison role be made a permanent one in March 2016. Here the Council will review and approve the scope of such a permanent Liaison role as well as the application, selection and confirmation process. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+20…> 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of GNSO Input to the ICANN Board on the GAC's Marrakech Communique (20 minutes) Beginning in mid-2015 with the GAC's Buenos Aires Communique, the GNSO Council developed a mechanism for reviewing and commenting on aspects of that Communique that are relevant to gTLD policy. The resulting GNSO input on both the GAC's Buenos Aires and Dublin Communiques were approved by the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board and the GAC Chair (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/robinson-to-icann-boar… and http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-gac-review-31dec15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the draft response to the GAC's Marrakech Communique, drafted by a volunteer group of Councillors, and, if appropriate, approve its being forwarded to the ICANN Board and GAC Chair. 7.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+20…> (Proposer name: Susan Kawaguchi /Jennifer Gore / Rubens Kuhl) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8: COUNCIL APPROVAL - Public Comment on ICANN's FY17 Proposed Budget (15 minutes) On 5 March 2016, the draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan and Budget was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/op-budget-fy17-five-year-2016-03-04-en> for public comment (closing on 30 April). The GNSO Council had previously provided public comments<https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-op-budget-fy16-18mar15/pdfWW7Sy3WTwV…> to the FY16 Operating Plan and Budget. At ICANN55, a small group of Councillors had volunteered to work on possible Council comments to the draft FY17 budget. Here the Council will review and, if appropriate, agree to send in the proposed comments. 8.1 - Update and summary of comments (Keith Drazek / Edward Morris / Carlos Raul Gutierrez) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION - Implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan (10 minutes) At ICANN55, community discussions were held concerning the upcoming implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan, including at a session on 7 March<https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-imp…>. Several GNSO community members voiced concerns about whether the proposed implementation plan would meet the requirements of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Proposal on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg>). On 25 March a Call for Volunteers<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en> was issued for additional CCWG participation, including for implementation of the adopted Work Stream 1 recommendations. Here the Council will discuss the community concerns that have been raised, and review possible next steps in relation to the CWG-Stewardship and ICANN staff that have been charged with developing the implementation plan. 9.1 - Summary & update (James Bladel) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: DISCUSSION - Planning for "Meeting B" (ICANN Policy Forum) (10 Minutes) At ICANN55, the GNSO held several discussions, including with the ICANN Board, concerning the focus, duration and meeting schedule for the first designated ICANN Policy Forum, to take place in Helsinki as ICANN56 (i.e. the initial so-called "Meeting B"). Specific concerns were raised about the apparent lack of time for actual policy work in the overall Meeting B schedule when all the current draft SO/AC/Board proposals were put together, and about the lack of opportunity for different SO/AC/Board groups to interact with one another. A small group of SO/AC volunteers has been formed to address these concerns. Here the Council will hear from its representatives to this group, and discuss further plans for finalizing the GNSO's schedule for ICANN56 so as to maximize the policy focus for Meeting B. This includes confirmation of the PDP Working Group(s) to be invited to consider conducting a face-to-face working meeting in Helsinki, on a day either precedent or subsequent to the ICANN56 schedule. 10.1 - Update (Donna Austin / Volker Greimann) 10.2 - Discussion 10.3 - Next steps Item 11: DISCUSSION - Status of Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (10 minutes) The Charter<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888213/Charter%20ccWG%20…> for this Cross Community Working Group was ratified<https://community.icann.org/x/oQInAw> by the ccNSO Council (September 2014), the GNSO Council (October 2014), and the ALAC (April 2015). The CCWG Charter states its scope as doing "whatever it deems relevant and necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes", with regular updates to be provided to its Chartering Organizations and a periodic Progress Paper where appropriate. The Charter also provides that the Chartering Organizations should review the Charter and CCWG deliverables in order to determine whether the group should continue or be dissolved, with the proviso that the CCWG will continue if at least two of its Chartering Organizations extend the Charter and notify the other Chartering Organizations accordingly. During the CCWG co-chairs' update to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils at ICANN55, there was some discussion over whether a CCWG format or other arrangement might be the most appropriate form for SO/AC interaction on Internet governance matters, especially given the expected forthcoming finalization<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-…> of a Uniform Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs by the CCWG-Principles. Here the GNSO Council will continue that discussion, with a view toward agreeing on the appropriate next steps for the CCWG on Internet Governance. 11.1 - Introduction and summary (Carlos Raul Gutierrez) 11.2 - Discussion 11.3 - Next steps Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 12.1 - Proposed approach to Expert Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Final Report _________________________________ 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 21:00 Local time between March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+0DST 14:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST 16:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 17:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 22:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 23:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 next day Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 07:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 05:00 next day Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 07:00 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/gn4sy7u Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

11 24

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#202]
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : jeudi 28 avril 2016 18:20 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#202] Name of Officer: * Michele Neylon Officer Email Address: * michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com> Date Prepared: * Thursday, April 28, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Registrars Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * James Bladel will be unable to attend the next meeting Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any and all Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, May 13, 2016 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Donna Austin

1 0

TR: [Effectiveness-comm] GNSO Review Working Party Analysis transmittal letter
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

FYI De : Rinalia Abdulrahim Envoyé : jeudi 28 avril 2016 19:00 Thank you, Glen. The OEC will discuss this matter at its next meeting in May. The Committee will consider the Recommendations of the Independent Examiner and factor the GNSO Review Working Party Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of the Recommendations by the Independent Examiner together with the feedback from the GNSO Council. Jen Wolfe will be invited to participate in the meeting to address questions from the Committee and to provide clarification. I will get back to the GNSO Council on next steps after the meeting. Best regards, Rinalia Rinalia Abdul Rahim Member, ICANN Board of Directors Chair, Organizational Effectiveness Committee On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:43 PM, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Rinalia, Please find the attached correspondence from James Bladel, GNSO Council chair, regarding the feasibility and prioritization analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations. The letter has been posted to GNSO Correspondence: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-abdul-rahim-27apr16-en.pdf The GNSO Review Working Party Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations by Independent Examiner has been posted to: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-e… Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org <Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - FINAL 27 April 2016.pdf> <GNSO Review Rec Feasibility Prioritization (FINAL)MK.pdf> _______________________________________________ Effectiveness-comm mailing list Effectiveness-comm(a)icann.org<mailto:Effectiveness-comm@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/effectiveness-comm

1 0

Re: [council] Update on planning for Helsinki
by James M. Bladel 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

Donna - Thank you for taking the lead on this. In the last few weeks, planning for Meeting B has become almost as controversial as most policy topics. You've outlined a solid foundation for the GNSO to focus on Policy Work in Helsinki, and please keep us updated as the afternoon cross-community topics are finalized. Council Colleagues- It would be good to know if any SGs/Cs are planning break-out sessions of their own, like an abbreviated Constituency Day. If you like we can ask that these be included in the general calendar. Also, Ed has volunteered (thanks!) to work with Glen on planning a dinner for our group in Helsinki, with the most likely candidates being Sunday (26 JUN) or Monday (27 JUN). My personal preference would be to gather on Sunday evening, but not if it means we are missing several Councilors. Therefore, could everyone please indicate whether your travel schedules will allow dinner on Sunday, or wether we should try for Monday? Thanks- J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>> Date: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 10:55 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Update on planning for Helsinki All A quick update on planning for Helsinki. A Planning Committee has been established to primarily develop the schedule for the meeting in Helsinki 27-30 June 2016. Attached is the current draft schedule including for the GNSO. Given Meeting B is intended to be an opportunity to progress policy development efforts, most of the GNSO schedule has been carved out for four policy efforts, namely: · Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (4 hours); · New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (3.25 hours); · Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in New gTLDs (2 hours); and · IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (2 hours). You'll also see that time has been allocated for a Council Meeting, a Council Prep Session, Council Bilateral Meeting Requests, and a Council Wrap Up session. There is also time set aside for the discussion of other topics on Monday-once the full agenda is locked down we can review to understand what topics will require attention. It may also be possible/necessary to schedule some of these topics in parallel; however, they would not conflict with PDP or Council sessions. The topics are consistent with those previously identified by the Council. The Planning Committee is in the process of trying to decide what topics should be Cross-Community Discussions, and I provided input on behalf of the GNSO Council on a number of topics that Councilors had identified. There were 12 topics identified in total and it is not clear at this time what topics will be selected. It is hoped that some of the PDP efforts will become topics identified for Cross Community Discussion and in that event the GNSO Schedule will be adjusted accordingly. This is a work in progress with still a ways to go. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Donna Donna Austin:Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell:+1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

7 7

Re: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 2 May 2016 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 12 May 2016 at 12:00 UTC.
by James M. Bladel 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

Thank you, Glen. On another note: I recently learned that I will be in the air (International flight) at exactly the same time as our 12 MAY Council meeting. As a result, Heather has graciously agreed to chair the 12 MAY GNSO Council call. Additionally, Donna will have my proxy vote. Please accept my sincere apologies for missing this call, but I will review the transcripts/recordings and follow up with Marika on any action items. And I hope to see you all in person at the following meeting in Helsinki. Thank you, J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 4:22 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 2 May 2016 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 12 May 2016 at 12:00 UTC. Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 2 MAY 2016 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 12 May 2016 at 12:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+12+May+2016 Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

4 3

TR: GNSO Review Working Party Analysis transmittal letter
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

FYI De : gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> Envoyé : jeudi 28 avril 2016 16:44 À : Effectiveness-comm(a)icann.org<mailto:Effectiveness-comm@icann.org> Cc : Board-ops-team(a)icann.org; - Dear Rinalia, Please find the attached correspondence from James Bladel, GNSO Council chair, regarding the feasibility and prioritization analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations. The letter has been posted to GNSO Correspondence: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-abdul-rahim-27apr16-en.pdf The GNSO Review Working Party Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations by Independent Examiner has been posted to: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-e… Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds
by James M. Bladel 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

Council Colleagues - Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of "spring cleaning" on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds. The default voting threshold for the GNSO is a simple majority, >50% of each House. Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different voting threshold such as, for example, a "supermajority" threshold or an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board. Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a supermajority. Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren't otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability work. Some suggested that these topics warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was born. The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked "pending" for several months. But I'd like to disposition the action item one way or the other. So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR. Otherwise, if there's no further interest, we'll close out the action item. Thanks- J.

7 9

TR: GNSO Review of the GAC Communique transmittal letter
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

FYI De : gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> Envoyé : jeudi 28 avril 2016 10:25 Objet : GNSO Review of the GAC Communique transmittal letter Dear Board Support, Please be so kind as to submit the attached correspondence from James Bladel, GNSO Council chair, to Dr. Steve Crocker and members of the ICANN Board regarding the GNSO Council Review of the Marrakesh GAC Communiqué. The letter has been posted to GNSO Correspondence: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-crocker-27apr16-en.pdf<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> The Review attachment has been posted to: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/drafts http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-11mar16-en.pdf Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. Thank you Respectfully submitted. Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 1)
by Marika Konings 27 Apr '16

27 Apr '16

For your information. Here below is the first implementation update from Trang Nguyen. Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update- volume-1. IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 1) <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-updat e-volume-1#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update -volume-1#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update -volume-1#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update -volume-1#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update -volume-1#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update -volume-1#> This update marks the beginning of an initiative mentioned by Akram Atallah in his 12 April 2016 blog, aimed at keeping interested stakeholders up to date on the latest developments and progress relating to implementation planning for the IANA Stewardship Transition, the proposal for which is currently under review by NTIA. These updates will detail what work has been identified based on the proposals of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), and provide insight into what is happening on a week-to-week basis. Our goal is to provide consistent, structured updates that give any interested party access to latest information, documents and announcements. We will also post direct links to the mailing lists where conversations are taking place on each of the planning elements. ICANN has identified work that must be completed for the transition to occur successfully. The planned work has been mapped across 14 projects and grouped into 3 tracks. You can find more information on the ICANN website here <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation> . - Trang Nguyen, Senior Director of Strategic Programs Root Zone Management The Root Zone Management implementation planning track contains projects relating to changes to the Root ZoneManagement System (RZMS) to remove NTIA's authorization role, parallel testing of the production and parallel test RZMS systems; and the development, and execution of an agreement with Verisign as the root zone maintainer. Root Zone Management System (RZMS) Parallel Testing Status update: In accordance with the plan <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pr oposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf> submitted to NTIA, ICANN and Verisign completed system code changes and began a 90-day ³parallel testing² period on Wednesday, 6 April 2016. This is a key planning step to ensure the continued security and stability of the Root Zone Management System (RZMS) operation after the successful completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition, currently projected for September 30, 2016. It has been almost 3 weeks since the start of parallel testing and everything is going smoothly. Click here to view Verisign¹s daily Parallel Operations Root Zone Management System Comparisons <http://www.verisign.com/rzms-parallel-ops/index.html> reports of all the root zone files generated. In the event that no unexplained differences in root zone files are identified between the production RZMS and the parallel test RZMS, the testing period will end successfully on 5 July 2016. Documents/announcements posted: % ICANN and Verisign Announce Start of 90-day Root Zone Management System ³Parallel Testing² Period <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-04-08-en> 2 Verisign Daily Parallel Operations Root Zone Management System Comparisons <http://www.verisign.com/rzms-parallel-ops/index.html> Mailing list(s): None. Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) Status update: ICANN and Verisign continue to engage in discussion to prepare for a RZMA. The current plan for completion of a draft RZMA is the end of this month. Documents/announcements posted: None. Mailing list(s): None. Stewardship Transition The Stewardship Transition planning track contains projects to prepare relationship documentation with the operational communities, creation of a Post-Transition IANA (PTI) entity, establishment of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) and a Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC), operationalizing the IANA customer service escalation mechanisms and Service Level Agreements (SLAs). Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the IANA Numbering Services Status update: On Wednesday, 20 April 2016, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) published an announcement <https://www.nro.net/news/updated-5-1-and-signature-version-of-the-sla-for-t he-iana-numbering-services> regarding version 5.1 of the SLA document. The SLA will be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration and adoption when the NRO andICANN establish a mutually agreed upon date. Documents/announcements posted: % Updated 5.1 and Signature Version of the SLA for the IANA Numbering Services <https://www.nro.net/news/updated-5-1-and-signature-version-of-the-sla-for-t he-iana-numbering-services> 2 Service Level Agreement for IANA Numbering Services (v5.1) <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/SLAv5-proposedfinal-clean.pdf> Mailing list(s): + https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/ <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/> Post-Transition IANA (PTI) Status update: ICANN continues to work on the plan for PTI implementation that the Implementation Oversight Task Force (IOTF) requested, as well as the ICANN-PTI contract. What is the IOTF? The IOTF was formed following ICANN55 in Marrakech. The IOTF offers a channel for ICANN to request insights or clarifications to ensure that ICANN and the community remain aligned on ICANN¹s implementation planning efforts of the ICG Proposal. The group was formed to include the co-Chairs and Design Team leads of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship), and has since grown to also include representatives from the ICG, Numbering Resources community and Protocol Parameters community. Documents/announcements posted this week: None. Mailing list: + http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/> Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Status update: ICANN continues to work with the IOTF to finalize the terms of the RZERC Charter. A revised charter <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/attachments/20160426/405cdac1/DRAFTRZERC Charter-V3-CLEAN-0001.docx> was circulated to the IOTF on 25 April 2016. Documents/announcements: 2 Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Charter (v3) <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/attachments/20160426/405cdac1/DRAFTRZERC Charter-V3-CLEAN-0001.docx> Mailing list: + http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/> IANA Customer Service Escalation Mechanism Status update: ICANN received clarification <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/2016-April/000056.html> from the IOTF regarding the IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process for Naming Related Functions and IANA Problem Resolution Process (for IANA naming services only) referenced in Annex I and J of the CWG-Stewardship proposal <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816> . As next step, ICANN will update relevant process documentations for these processes. Documents/announcements: None. Mailing list: + http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/> Accountability Enhancements The Accountability Enhancements track contains plans to implement enhancements to ICANN¹s Independent Review and Reconsideration Request processes, to update ICANN¹s governance documents, and to operationalize new community powers defined by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability (CCWG-Accountability). ICANN's Bylaws Status update: ICANN has posted proposed draft new Bylaws for a 30-day public comment from 21 April - 21 May 2016 to allow any interested party to review and provide feedback. 2 Public Comment Page <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-new-bylaws-2016-04-21-en> + Submit Comment to Forum <http://comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16@icann.org/> + Comments Forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/> The proposed draft of the new ICANN Bylaws was developed collaboratively by the ICANN legal team and the independent counsel hired to advise the CCWG-Accountability and the CWG-Stewardship. In developing the draft new ICANN Bylaws, the attorneys consulted a Bylaws Coordination Group populated with both community and Board members, as well as with the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. Adoption of the new Bylaws by the ICANN Board is anticipated for on or around 27 May 2016. Once new ICANN Bylaws have been adopted, ICANN will notify NTIA. Once adopted, the Bylaws are expected to go into effect if NTIA approves of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and the IANA Functions Contract expires. Documents/announcements: 2 Draft New ICANN Bylaws <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-new-bylaws-20apr16-en. pdf> 2 Comparison of Draft New ICANN Bylaws to Current Bylaws <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-new-bylaws-redline-20a pr16-en.pdf> Mailing list(s): + http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/> + http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/> + http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/> + http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/ <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/>

1 0