April 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] Request for volunteers - Council Liaison to Implementation Review Teams
by Marika Konings April 27, 2016

April 27, 2016

A small correction, the Thick WHOIS IRT does already have a Council liaison, namely Amr Elsadr who was appointed by the Council back in July 2014 to this role. Apologies for the oversight. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday 27 April 2016 at 11:17 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Request for volunteers - Council Liaison to Implementation Review Teams Dear All, With the adoption and implementation of the Policy & Implementation Working Group recommendations and more specifically the Implementation Review Team (IRT) principles and guidelines, the GNSO Council is expected to designate a GNSO Council liaison to each IRT to ensure a direct link to the GNSO Council if/when needed. To date, none of the IRTs in operation have a liaison and as such the GNSO Council Leadership would like to call for volunteers with the intent to confirm these appointments during the May meeting. According to the project list, the following IRTs are currently in operation: * IRTP Part C (near completion) * Thick WHOIS IRT * Protection of International Organisation Names in all gTLDs * IRTP Part D For further details on the current status of these IRTs, please review the GNSO project list (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project) and/or https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation. For a description of the role the liaison is expected to fulfil in the IRT, please see below. If you are interested to volunteer for the role of liaison, please share your interest with the list, indicating which IRT you are volunteering for. Thanks, Marika >From the IRT Principles and Guidelines: * In the event of disagreement between ICANN Staff and the IRT or any of its members on the implementation approach proposed by ICANN Staff, the GDD Project Manager, in consultation with the GNSO Council liaison if appropriate, shall exercise all reasonable efforts to resolve the disagreement. Should the disagreement prove irreconcilable despite such efforts, the GNSO Council liaison in consultation with the IRT is expected to make an assessment as to the level of consensus within the IRT on whether to raise the issue with the GNSO Council for consideration, using the standard decision making methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If the GNSO Council liaison makes the determination that there is consensus for such consideration, the liaison will inform the GNSO Council accordingly which will deliberate on the issue and then make a determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff on how to proceed. This process also applies to cases in which there is agreement between the IRT and GDD staff concerning the need for further guidance from the GNSO Council and/or when issues arise that may require possible policy discussion. * Any IRT member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the IRT or GDD Staff should first discuss the circumstances with the GNSO Council liaison to the IRT. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the IRT member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the GNSO Council or their designated representative. In addition, an IRT member always has the option to involve the ombudsman (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/ombudsman-en <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource s_pages_accountability_ombudsman-2Den&d=CwQFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A 3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=9F1rc4VgwmG8UlcRUW8a-fLXDnbyYHni ze76fozAwGE&s=3VaInlJ72T472_inxhrLn69evM13zKtvvx626eCYr0o&e=> for further details).

1 0

Request for volunteers - Council Liaison to Implementation Review Teams
by Marika Konings April 27, 2016

April 27, 2016

Dear All, With the adoption and implementation of the Policy & Implementation Working Group recommendations and more specifically the Implementation Review Team (IRT) principles and guidelines, the GNSO Council is expected to designate a GNSO Council liaison to each IRT to ensure a direct link to the GNSO Council if/when needed. To date, none of the IRTs in operation have a liaison and as such the GNSO Council Leadership would like to call for volunteers with the intent to confirm these appointments during the May meeting. According to the project list, the following IRTs are currently in operation: * IRTP Part C (near completion) * Thick WHOIS IRT * Protection of International Organisation Names in all gTLDs * IRTP Part D For further details on the current status of these IRTs, please review the GNSO project list (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project) and/or https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation. For a description of the role the liaison is expected to fulfil in the IRT, please see below. If you are interested to volunteer for the role of liaison, please share your interest with the list, indicating which IRT you are volunteering for. Thanks, Marika >From the IRT Principles and Guidelines: * In the event of disagreement between ICANN Staff and the IRT or any of its members on the implementation approach proposed by ICANN Staff, the GDD Project Manager, in consultation with the GNSO Council liaison if appropriate, shall exercise all reasonable efforts to resolve the disagreement. Should the disagreement prove irreconcilable despite such efforts, the GNSO Council liaison in consultation with the IRT is expected to make an assessment as to the level of consensus within the IRT on whether to raise the issue with the GNSO Council for consideration, using the standard decision making methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If the GNSO Council liaison makes the determination that there is consensus for such consideration, the liaison will inform the GNSO Council accordingly which will deliberate on the issue and then make a determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff on how to proceed. This process also applies to cases in which there is agreement between the IRT and GDD staff concerning the need for further guidance from the GNSO Council and/or when issues arise that may require possible policy discussion. * Any IRT member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the IRT or GDD Staff should first discuss the circumstances with the GNSO Council liaison to the IRT. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the IRT member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the GNSO Council or their designated representative. In addition, an IRT member always has the option to involve the ombudsman (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/ombudsman-en <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource s_pages_accountability_ombudsman-2Den&d=CwQFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A 3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=9F1rc4VgwmG8UlcRUW8a-fLXDnbyYHni ze76fozAwGE&s=3VaInlJ72T472_inxhrLn69evM13zKtvvx626eCYr0o&e=> for further details).

1 0

For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis
by Marika Konings April 27, 2016

April 27, 2016

Dear All, Please find attached for your review, the proposed transmittal letter to the Board¹s Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) concerning the adoption by the GNSO Council of the GNSO Review Working Party¹s Feasibility and Prioritisation Analysis of the GNSO Review recommendations. As you will note, placeholder language has been included to accommodate any additional comments GNSO Council members may want to include concerning the feasibility and priority of the GNSO Review recommendations, as discussed during the Council meeting. If you want to add any comments in relation to the feasibility and prioritisation of the recommendations, please provide those at the latest by Friday 22 April. As noted during the Council meeting as well as pointed out in the draft letter, the next phase of work will focus on the development of the implementation plan so any comments related to that aspect of the process should be reserved for the next phase. Thanks, Marika

4 19

RE: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com April 27, 2016

April 27, 2016

3 4

Document and Motion deadline Monday, 2 May 2016 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 12 May 2016 at 12:00 UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry April 27, 2016

April 27, 2016

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

1 0

Council/Councilor action items from 14 April GNSO Council meeting
by Mary Wong April 26, 2016

April 26, 2016

Dear all, Please find attached the now-customary list of specific Council or individual Councilor’s action items stemming from the Council’s discussions at its last meeting. We have taken the liberty of updating those that have either been completed or that are in process, and will continue to update the status of each item accordingly. Please do not hesitate to let us know if there are any inaccuracies in the document or if you have any questions. 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

Letter from GNSO Council Chair and Vice Chairs to Akram Atallah re Conduct at ICANN Meetings
by Glen de Saint Géry April 25, 2016

April 25, 2016

Dear All, The following letter was sent from the GNSO Council Chair and Vice Chairs to Akram Atallah regarding Conduct at ICANN Meetings http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-atallah-25apr16-en.pdf Thank you Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

RE: [council] Update on planning for Helsinki
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com April 25, 2016

April 25, 2016

2 1

Update on planning for Helsinki
by Austin, Donna April 25, 2016

April 25, 2016

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.

2 1

Board resolutions from the ICANN Board meeting held by teleconference on 19 April 2016
by Bruce Tonkin April 23, 2016

April 23, 2016

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-04-19-en Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 19 Apr 2016 1. Consent Agenda: a. Thank you to the ICG Secretariat Resolved (2016.04.19.01), that the Board wishes to extend its thanks to ISOC SG for providing Secretariat support to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), and in doing so played a role in contributing to the global multistakeholder community's development of the ICG proposals. Special thanks are extended to the entire Secretariat team for their service. b. Thank You to Fadi Chehadé for his service as President and Chief Executive Officer and member of the ICANN Board of Directors Whereas, Fadi Chehadé was elected by the ICANN Board as ICANN's President and Chief Executive Officer effective 14 September 2012. Whereas, Fadi concluded his term as President and Chief Executive Officer and member of the Board of Directors on 15 March 2016. Whereas, under Fadi's leadership ICANN made significant progress on strategic objectives, including affirming ICANN's purpose, ICANN's globalization, raising ICANN's level of operational excellence, and supporting the evolution of the multistakeholder model to a more effective tool to achieve stakeholder-led governance solutions. Whereas, the progress Fadi drove included the strengthening of ICANN's organizational functions to support the implementation of the New gTLD Program, leading to the introduction of the first new registries under this Program into the root zone of the DNS in February 2014. Whereas, during Fadi's term as the Chief Executive Officer, important steps were taken to bring ICANN to the world, globalizing the organization by creating ICANN's operational hubs in Singapore and Istanbul, Turkey as well as developing engagement centers across the globe. These steps toward globalization disperse ICANN's operational work across regions and time zones, and facilitates broader engagement with the global internet community. Whereas, Fadi led ICANN through its efforts to respond to National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) announcement of its intention to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community. Under Fadi's leadership, ICANN supported both the global dialogue to develop a transition proposal, as well as the community's discussion on enhancing ICANN accountability, culminating with ICANN's 10 March 2016 delivery to NTIA the community drafted proposals on both of those items. Whereas, during his term as CEO, Fadi served as a member of the ICANN Board as well as a: ◾ Member of the Board Executive Committee ◾ Member of the New gTLD Program Committee Resolved (2016.04.19.02), Fadi has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his term of service as President and CEO and a member of the Board of Directors, and the Board wishes Fadi well in all future endeavors. 2. Main Agenda: a. Discussion regarding draft new ICANN Bylaws – including ICANN Legal assessment of whether it is consistent with the proposals No resolution taken. b. Posting of Draft New ICANN Bylaws for Public Comment resulting from IANA Stewardship Transition Whereas, on 14 March 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of Commerce announced its intention to transition the stewardship of the IANA Functions to the global multistakeholder community. Whereas, on 10 March 2016, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) accepted and transmitted to the NTIA the following transition documents: (i) the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal, and (ii) the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability's Work Stream 1 Report (collectively, the "Transition Proposals"). Whereas, a Bylaws Coordination Group was formed and in conjunction with ICANN lawyers and the independent law firms hired to assist the community in the development of the Transition Proposals, worked diligently to create a new set of Bylaws ("New Draft ICANN Bylaws") which set out the various proposed changes to the ICANN's current bylaws to give effect to the Transition Proposals. Whereas, ICANN's General Counsel has asserted that the proposed New Draft ICANN Bylaws is consistent with the Transition Proposals and recommends that they be posted for a public comment period, prior to the ICANN Board's formal consideration for approval. Whereas, the independent law firms are still finalizing their review of the New Draft ICANN Bylaws for consistency with the Transition Proposals, and if there are any material changes from the current draft prior to posting, ICANN's General Counsel will note such material changes to the ICANN Board, and will return to the ICANN Board if there are concerns raised with such changes prior to posting. Resolved (2016.04.19.03), the ICANN Board approves the posting of the New Draft ICANN Bylaws for public comment on the ICANN website for a period of not less than 30 days, on 20 April 2016 or as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable. Rationale for Resolution 2016.04.19.03 The posting for public comment of these proposed Bylaws is the next required step towards planning for the implementation of the Transition Proposals. NTIA has stated that it needs to see that changes to the Bylaws have been adopted sufficient to implement the Transition Proposals before NTIA can complete its review of the Transition Proposals. Understanding that NTIA's review is likely to take approximately 90 days from the 10 March 2016 transmission of the Transition Proposals, the proposed Bylaws must be posted for comment now in order to support the global multistakeholder community's work towards a successful completion of the stewardship of the IANA functions. To meet this intensive timeline, the ICANN community, supported through the Bylaws Coordination Group as well as the CWG-Stewardship and the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, have worked very closely with their selected independent counsel and ICANN's legal team to develop the New Draft ICANN Bylaws that are being approved for posting. The posting of these Bylaws changes for public comment is in line with ICANN's commitment to accountability and transparency. All public comments will be evaluated and presented to the Board for consideration and decision. There are no fiscal impacts in submitting this document for public comment. The fiscal impact of developing the Bylaws changes are significant. The posting of these proposed Bylaws changes is not anticipated to have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment is not required. c. AOB No resolution taken.

1 0