April 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Meeting B [Policy Forum] Helsinki - topics for discussion
by Austin, Donna April 11, 2016

April 11, 2016

Hi All Following on from my earlier request to Council to identify topics for discussion in Helsinki, I will be informing Tanzie that the Council would like the following topics to be part of discussions in Helsinki. · PDP New gTLD Subsequent Procedures · PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in all gTLDs · PDP on Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service · GNSO Implementation Thick WHOIS Review Team · Draft Framework of Principles for Future Cross Community Working Groups ICANN has established a wiki page which currently provides an outline or framework of a draft schedule. https://community.icann.org/display/ccmeetschedplan/Meeting+Schedule+Planni…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> I expect that once ICANN has a better understanding of the topics for discussion they will start to provide more detail to the schedule. 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.

4 5

Fw: GNSO Review WP Feasibility&Prioritization Motion
by WUKnoben April 9, 2016

April 9, 2016

All, I was just informed that this motion was not deferred but was withdrawn at the public council meeting in Marrekech. As such, it should have been submitted by 4 April to be considered during the 14 April meeting. In order to provide the council the chance to discuss the motion next week as well as to be in line with the GNSO Operating Procedures (see below) I herewith submit the motion according to para 3.3.2 and request to consider it despite submission after the submission deadline. In particular, following the briefing session on 12 April the Council may find a position on whether to vote on this motion. Sorry for the confusion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich __________________________________________________________________________________________________ GNSO Operating Procedures >From section 3.3.2 Submission of Reports and Motions If a motion is submitted after the Submission Deadline, the GNSO Council shall consider the motion if the following requirements are met: a. The motion (including any report or other supporting documentation) is submitted to the GNSO Council at least 24 hours in advance of the GNSO Council meeting; b. The motion is accompanied by a request to consider the motion despite submission after the Submission Deadline (a “Request for Consideration”); c. A vote on the Request for Consideration shall be called as the first order of business for the agenda item that deals with the motion. The vote on the Request for Consideration must be unanimous (i.e., all Councilors or their proxies must vote and all votes cast must be in favor of considering the motion at such GNSO Council meeting) for the motion to be considered at such GNSO Council meeting. If these requirements are not met, the motion shall not be considered submitted for the next Council meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, if the motion is proposed again for a subsequent Council meeting, it shall not be considered a resubmitted motion under the rules for Resubmission of a Motion in these Operating Procedures. From: WUKnoben Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:27 PM To: GNSO council Subject: GNSO Review WP Feasibility&Prioritization Motion Dear council colleagues, I hope you’ve returned safely and could take some rest from the Marrakech meeting. I’d like to call to your mind that on the occasion of the public council meeting I’ve withdrawn the motion on the GNSO Review WP Feasibility&Prioritization since from the discussion it became obvious that more SG/C-internal information exchange was needed before submitting the material to the OEC of the Board. The next council call where the motion could be discussed is scheduled on 14 April with the motion submission deadline on 04 April. This counts a bit more than 2 weeks from now – with the Easter holidays in between. Therefore I would highly appreciate you initiating talks in your related SG/C. Please enter any question/comment to the list you may have regarding the (see attached) a.. feasibility assessment and prioritization of the GNSO review WP b.. draft motion Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

3 2

Briefing Note on the status of protections for Red Cross names and acronyms
by Mary Wong April 9, 2016

April 9, 2016

Dear all, Per proposed agenda item #4, staff has contacted the Red Cross representatives who met with Heather and James in Marrakech, to invite them to participate on the Council’s April call (as noted below). Given the fact that many current Council members may be new to this topic as well as the fullness of the April agenda, staff has also prepared the attached Briefing Note for the Council. The Briefing Note is essentially a summary of the current state of protections (both interim and permanent) for different Red Cross names and acronyms, and includes notes on the timelines of the GNSO work, GAC advice and Board action on the topic. We hope you will find the Briefing Note helpful in your preparation for the April call and in considering potential next steps for the Council on the matter. 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 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, March 30, 2016 at 09:52 To: "GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC 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/>

3 4

Project List for review
by Glen de Saint Géry April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the updated GNSO Project list in both clean and red-line version for your review in preparation for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 14 April 2016. Please let us know whether you would like any changes made before the Project list is posted on page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/projects-list.pdf<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnjfgjJp6GMAHPLM…> Thank you. Kind regards, Glen

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#201]
by Glen de Saint Géry April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

FYI From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: vendredi 8 avril 2016 14:14 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#201] Name of Officer: * Tapani Tarvainen Officer Email Address: * ncsg(a)tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> Date Prepared: * Friday, April 8, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Edward Morris can't attend the GNSO Council meeting.. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Marilia Maciel will submit Edward Morris' proxy for the motions to be approved, and any other matters needing a vote. 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] * Saturday, April 14, 2018 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: * Marilia Maciel

1 0

For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
by James M. Bladel April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Council Colleagues - Attached and copied below, please find a draft letter from the Council to Akram Atallah, in response to his recent blog post ("Conduct at ICANN Meetings" https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings) In this note, I set out to make some high-level points that support further work in this area, without weighing in on any specific indecent. Also, the letter references a statement from the NCUC ExCom ("Statement from NCUC Executive Committee" http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html) and the ICANN Harassment Policy drafted by our volunteers (attached), and urges any future effort to consider these materials. If possible, please review these documents prior to our next call on 14 APR. We can collect edits and then decide if/how we want to proceed. Thank you, J. ________________________________ Akram Atallah COO and interim CEO, ICANN Dear Akram - On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank your for your recent blog post ("Conduct at ICANN Meetings")[1]. Members of the Council, and all of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, share the goal of ensuring that all members of the community can participate in and contribute to ICANN, in an environment where harassment and discrimination are not tolerated. Without passing judgment on any specific incident, we are encouraged by the commitment from Staff and the Board to engage the community on this subject. In support of this, volunteers on the Council have prepared a draft ("ICANN Conference Harassment Policy", attached). Several questions remain open, however, including: · Whether this Policy would enhance, or be distinct from, the existing Expected Standards of Behavior policy · Whether complaints would be reported to ICANN Staff, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or some other entity or group · How the policy will be enforced, and · Other topics and questions that will arise from this work. We expect that members of the GNSO community will be engaged in this effort, and note that some have already undertaken work in their own groups ("Statement from NUCU Executive Committee"[2]). We urge this group to consider these materials in any community undertaking to develop new policy addressing this issue. Thank you Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair James Bladel, GNSO Chair Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair ________________________________ [1] https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings [2] http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html

6 13

Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
by Mary Wong April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Hello Donna and everyone, My understanding is that the Board is subject to a Code of Conduct which supplements the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior and which requires the Board to adhere to a high standard of ethical conduct. In addition, in line with California law, all Board members and corporate officers undergo training and certification each year on anti-harassment and other management functions and issues. 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 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: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 13:35 To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Hi Phil It’s a good point and also raises another one for me. Are Dr Crocker and the other Board members covered under the ICANN staff policy on Sexual Harassment or would they be covered under a community ICANN attendee policy? Donna From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Wednesday, 6 April 2016 9:33 AM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>; GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Thinking about this a bit more – how would this incident be treated under any proposed Harassment Policy? http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches-with-risky-caitlyn-jenner-j…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18772-…> Some found it offensive, and an apology was issued by Chairman Crocker. Is that sufficient or would reporting and investigation be required? 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 From: Phil Corwin Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 12:07 PM To: 'James M. Bladel'; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Colleagues: I support in principle sending a letter to Akram on this subject and establishing clearer, enforceable policies regarding sexual and other forms of harassment that may take place at ICANN meetings. However, while I am strongly opposed to any form of such harassment, I have some concerns about the proposed draft Harassment Policy, relating to: · This very extensive list of potential offenses being non-exclusive (indicated by the words “At a minimum” that start the document) · The use of the modifier “Offensive” at the start of sections 1-4, in that this subjective standard inevitably raises the question “offensive to whom”? In this regard, I think there must be some element of intent to harass or demean in the behavior subject to sanction, and that any policy should recognize that the cultural diversity of ICANN meeting attendees may lead to situations where remarks that are not intended to offend may nonetheless do so. · A need to strictly define, and limit, the “prompt, appropriate remedial action” that ICANN staff may take if they determine that harassment has occurred (as well as whether ICANN staff are the appropriate parties to undertake such investigations, and whether the investigatory and judgmental/sanctioning roles should be separate). · Contradictory language regarding whether an individual who believes that he/she has witnessed harassment should report it, or must report it. I look forward to engaging in a discussion of these matters on our call of April 14th. Best regards, Philip 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 From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 7:46 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Council Colleagues — Attached and copied below, please find a draft letter from the Council to Akram Atallah, in response to his recent blog post (“Conduct at ICANN Meetings” https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…>). In this note, I set out to make some high-level points that support further work in this area, without weighing in on any specific indecent. Also, the letter references a statement from the NCUC ExCom (“Statement from NCUC Executive Committee” http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ncuc.org_pipermai…>) and the ICANN Harassment Policy drafted by our volunteers (attached), and urges any future effort to consider these materials. If possible, please review these documents prior to our next call on 14 APR. We can collect edits and then decide if/how we want to proceed. Thank you, J. ________________________________ Akram Atallah COO and interim CEO, ICANN Dear Akram – On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank your for your recent blog post (“Conduct at ICANN Meetings”). Members of the Council, and all of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, share the goal of ensuring that all members of the community can participate in and contribute to ICANN, in an environment where harassment and discrimination are not tolerated. Without passing judgment on any specific incident, we are encouraged by the commitment from Staff and the Board to engage the community on this subject. In support of this, volunteers on the Council have prepared a draft (“ICANN Conference Harassment Policy”, attached). Several questions remain open, however, including: ? Whether this Policy would enhance, or be distinct from, the existing Expected Standards of Behavior policy ? Whether complaints would be reported to ICANN Staff, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or some other entity or group ? How the policy will be enforced, and ? Other topics and questions that will arise from this work. We expect that members of the GNSO community will be engaged in this effort, and note that some have already undertaken work in their own groups (“Statement from NUCU Executive Committee”). We urge this group to consider these materials in any community undertaking to develop new policy addressing this issue. Thank you Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair James Bladel, GNSO Chair Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ncuc.org_pipermai…> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFAg&c=…> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11942 - Release Date: 04/02/16

3 2

Re: [council] Problems with the Reply All functionality
by Nathalie Peregrine April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Dear all, Following up on Donna's email below, I would like to confirm that there have been issues with the Reply to All function on some newly created mailing lists hosted on Mailman and IT are looking into this. However, the Council list is not one which has been affected by these issues. If you are concerned that you may be having issues, please try to reply to all, if the "To" slot does not populate, please, as Donna said, copy and paste the mailing list url, and the issue will be temporarily solved, but also, please raise this to gnso-secs(a)icann.org as soon as possible so we can assist you Kind regards, Nathalie 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: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:47 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Problems with the Reply All functionality All I understand there is a problem with the Reply All functionality across a number of ICANN mailing lists, which ICANN is aware of an trying to fix. I'm not sure if folks are aware of the problem, but I just wanted to let you all know. In order to make sure your mail hits the Council list, to be safe at this point, rather than use 'Reply All' its best to type in the email address council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> in the to line. 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.

1 0

GNSO Review of the GAC Communique
by Susan Kawaguchi April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Hello All, Please see the attached review of the GAC Communique and the motion for consideration at the April Council meeting. Best regards, Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.

5 5

Problems with the Reply All functionality
by Austin, Donna April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

All I understand there is a problem with the Reply All functionality across a number of ICANN mailing lists, which ICANN is aware of an trying to fix. I'm not sure if folks are aware of the problem, but I just wanted to let you all know. In order to make sure your mail hits the Council list, to be safe at this point, rather than use 'Reply All' its best to type in the email address council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> in the to line. 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.

1 0