May 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Note from the Red Cross on the proposed GNSO Council letter to the ICANN Board
by Mary Wong May 24, 2016

May 24, 2016

Dear Councilors, Please see the message below that was sent by the Red Cross representatives yesterday. On behalf of the Council and the chairs, staff have acknowledged receipt of the note. 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: Salah Mathlouthi <smathlouthi(a)icrc.org> Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 23:59 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson(a)icann.org>, Charlotte Lindsey Curtet <clindsey(a)icrc.org>, Stephane Hankins <shankins(a)icrc.org> Subject: Draft GNSO Communication to the Board - Red Cross and Red Crescent protections Dear Mary, We hope this message finds you well. (1) We have received a copy of the GNSO Council’s intended letter to ICANN’s Board seeking an update from the Board on next steps in regard to the dual issues of the protections of “Red Cross and Red Crescent identifiers” and “International Government organizations acronyms”, and suggesting that both sets of issues be addressed “in tandem”. We also note that the draft letter refers to the issues of the protections of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and names and to IGO acronyms in the singular (“as one”), and thus, in disregard of the distinct legal regimes and policy issues at stake. We would like herewith to express our deep concern in this regard and to request, in line with the consistent positions and representations made by the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations to the Board and to ICANN constituencies in the last years, including the GNSO, that the protections that are due to the red cross and red crescent designations and names require to be considered in their own right and distinctiveness. (2) As you will no doubt recall, and as reminded by the ICRC during its meeting with the GNSO’s leadership members in Marrakesh and in its oral intervention during the GNSO Council session held on 14 April 2016, the protections due to the red cross and red crescent designations and names find their source in - universally agreed and compulsory norms of international humanitarian law and in the domestic laws in force in multiple national jurisdictions; as well as in - the distinct global public interest in ensuring respect and protection for these designations and names from improper or unauthorised use (including in situations of humanitarian emergencies in which the Red Cross and Red Crescent identifiers are at particular risk of fraudulent use on the Internet). This makes up a unique and sui generis case for the permanent and unconditional reservation of these designations and names from registration as top and second domain names. This has been recognized by the Board and the NGPC in particular in its past determinations which have confirmed that the Red Cross and Red Crescent protections as distinct. This also conforms to the GAC’s consistent advice on this matter as outlined in recent GAC Communiqués and that address the Red Cross and Red Crescent protections in stand-alone and separate paragraphs. (3) While the initial GNSO recommendations regarding the protections of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and names may have indeed been developed in the context of a broader PDP (“On the protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLD’s”), the question of the Red Cross and Red Crescent reservations have since remained separate from the IGO/INGO issues and must continue to merit a distinct treatment and consideration. We are hence of the view that any suggestion that the Red Cross and Red Crescent protections could or should be re-coupled, or be addressed “in tandem”, with the protections called for in regard to IGO’s and their acronyms, would represent an undue retreat on ICANN’s most recent determinations, approaches and processes. We would like to thank the GNSO for its kind attention to the above concerns. We remain available to support and/or to attend any future consultations in this matter to be held, for instance, during ICANN 57 in Helsinki. Sincerely yours, Stéphane Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and Coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross Direct line: ++0041 22 730 24 19 -----Transféré par Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC le 23/05/2016 16:31 ----- A : Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC@ICRC De : Daiana Barbancho Savage/CIM_DIR/GVA/ICRC Date : 23/05/2016 14:03 Cc : Charlotte Lindsey Curtet/CIM_DIR/GVA/ICRC@ICRC Objet : Letter (See attached file: docxKk10U26N6N.docx) Re: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> • Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier • From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> • Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 04:22:37 +0000 • Accept-language: en-US • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx • Thread-index: AQHRsk89sbH/K1NLyEimzyoyZLHunQ== • Thread-topic: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.16.0.160506 Dear Councilors, Following further consultations between the Council chairs and staff on this matter, the chairs would like to provide the attached letter for your final review before it is sent to the ICANN Board. Essentially, this is the version suggested by the RySG (per Donna’s earlier note, below) but with a single revision at the end of the second paragraph, to clarify that the GNSO’s IGO and Red Cross recommendations originated in a single PDP. Please indicate any objections or concerns you may have with this proposed final version of the letter to the Board by COB in your time zone on Monday 23 May if at all possible, following which we will transmit the final letter to the Board shortly thereafter on behalf of Donna, Heather, James and the Council. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 05:44 To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier James, all Following on from the discussion on the Council call yesterday about next steps in resolving the issue of permanent protection of certain Red Cross identifiers, the RySG has requested that the letter to the Board be amended to request an update/resolution of the outstanding issues related to the permanent protection of certain Red Cross identifiers and IGO acronyms. These issues have not previously been decoupled and we are concerned that if the Council suggests this as a path forward at this point it may be at the expense of resolving the remaining issues associated with IGO acronyms. Proposed amendments to the letter are provided for consideration. Thanks Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx> ________________________________ 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: [id:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [id:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [id:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Attachment: Updated Draft letter to ICANN Board on Red Cross protections - 20 May.docx<https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/docxKk10U26N6N.docx> Description: Updated Draft letter to ICANN Board on Red Cross protections - 20 May.docx • Follow-Ups: • Re: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier<https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18647.html> • From: David Cake =============================================================================== The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient (s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. ===============================================================================

4 3

Re: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier
by Mary Wong May 24, 2016

May 24, 2016

Dear Councilors, Following further consultations between the Council chairs and staff on this matter, the chairs would like to provide the attached letter for your final review before it is sent to the ICANN Board. Essentially, this is the version suggested by the RySG (per Donna’s earlier note, below) but with a single revision at the end of the second paragraph, to clarify that the GNSO’s IGO and Red Cross recommendations originated in a single PDP. Please indicate any objections or concerns you may have with this proposed final version of the letter to the Board by COB in your time zone on Monday 23 May if at all possible, following which we will transmit the final letter to the Board shortly thereafter on behalf of Donna, Heather, James and the Council. 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> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 05:44 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier James, all Following on from the discussion on the Council call yesterday about next steps in resolving the issue of permanent protection of certain Red Cross identifiers, the RySG has requested that the letter to the Board be amended to request an update/resolution of the outstanding issues related to the permanent protection of certain Red Cross identifiers and IGO acronyms. These issues have not previously been decoupled and we are concerned that if the Council suggests this as a path forward at this point it may be at the expense of resolving the remaining issues associated with IGO acronyms. Proposed amendments to the letter are provided for consideration. 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: [id:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [id:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [id:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

6 6

GAC / GNSO: Consultation Group (CG) Survey now live!
by Terri Agnew May 23, 2016

May 23, 2016

Dear All, The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) jointly established a consultation group (CG) to explore ways for the GAC to engage early in the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) and to improve overall cooperation between the two bodies. The work of the CG is divided into two work streams, the first concentrating on Mechanisms for day to day co-operation and the second on the options for GAC engagement in the GNSO policy development process (PDP). Since the ICANN meeting in Dublin, the CG has worked on the review of the GNSO Liaison to the GAC pilot project, the review of the Quick Look Mechanism which was introduced as a pilot to facilitate GAC input in the early stages of the PDP and explored additional opportunities for early engagement as part of the other stages of the PDP. In order to move forward on this latter part, the opportunities for early engagement of the GAC in GNSO Policy Development, the CG has developed this survey to obtain your input on the experiences to date with the Quick Look Mechanism as well as additional suggestions and ideas for opportunities for early engagement in the other phases of the PDP. Please provide your input by 6 June 2016 at the latest by completing the survey at https://s.zoomerang.com/r/GACGNSOCGSurvey. Thank you. Kind regards, SOAC Support (GNSO)

1 0

Next steps for Bylaws drafting
by Bruce Tonkin May 23, 2016

May 23, 2016

Hello All, Here is my current understanding of the process steps towards the Board meeting on 27 May to consider the new bylaws: 25 May - Staff sends out a summary of all comments and any proposed changes to the draft Bylaws to the community and ICANN Board, 48 hours before the Board's vote. Sidley and Adler law firms have already suggested proposed changes to the draft bylaws based on the CCWG on Accountability public comments. ICANN staff are now compiling a summary of all the public comments, so that they can be reviewed with respect to possible amendments to the draft bylaws. 26 May at 21:00 UTC - ICANN Board will hold an information call to review comments received since the Board's meeting in Amsterdam, and consider any suggested changes to the draft bylaws 27 May at 13:00 UTC - ICANN Board will hold a formal meeting to vote on the Bylaws. If there are any outstanding issues identified from the summary of comments and proposed changes to the draft bylaws provided on 25 May, then the Bylaws Coordination Group will be convened to get guidance. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Agenda for ICANN Board meeting on 27 May 2016
by Bruce Tonkin May 22, 2016

May 22, 2016

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2016-05-27-en Agenda | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 27 May 2016 Main Agenda * Approval of New ICANN Bylaws for IANA Stewardship Transition * AOB Published on 20 May 2016

2 2

Blog: An Update From the May 2016 ICANN Board Workshop in Amsterdam
by Bruce Tonkin May 19, 2016

May 19, 2016

From: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-chairman-s-blog-an-update-from-our-may-… The Chairman's Blog: An Update From the May 2016 Board Workshop in Amsterdam Three times a year, between ICANN meetings, the ICANN Board meets in a workshop format. During these intensive workshops, the Board, supported by senior ICANN team members, comes together for in-depth consideration of important and timely ICANN issues. On behalf of the Board, Markus Kummer and George Sadowsky report on our recent meeting, 13-15 May in Amsterdam. This meeting took place at a critical time for ICANN and the Board. We welcomed our incoming CEO and President Göran Marby to his first workshop, as well as Becky Burr, our Board member-in-waiting who is taking over Bruce Tonkin's seat at the end of ICANN57 in October. We were delighted to have them both with us. As you can imagine, we focused on topics related to the IANA Stewardship Transition. We received an update from ICANN management on the status of the transition and all its various parts - including the status of implementation pre-planning for Post Transition IANA (PTI) and the contracts and Service Level Agreements (SLA) with our partners. We devoted one session to understanding the new Bylaws and the public comments received thus far. We've been paying careful attention to this critical area, to ensure that the Board is ready to vote on them after the Public Comment closes. While we focused on the elements leading up the transition, we also devoted time to understanding the work of the organization post-transition. How does the transition affect what we do and how we do it? How do we bring the core values into ICANN and the organization? How do we communicate and engage differently as a post-transition ICANN? This is part of an ongoing discussion that the Board takes seriously - it's our responsibility to make sure we, and the organization, are ready for the future. As part of looking to the future, we asked Göran to share his early observations about the organization, as well as his initial approach, priorities and plans. While we will leave it to Göran to talk about this once he formally takes over later this month, this discussion led us to think about the various roles and responsibilities of the ICANN Board, ICANN management, and the ICANN community in a post-Transition world. We also talked about ways to structure Board-CEO communications, to best serve the organization and the community going forward. We've all been talking about trust lately, and the workshop gave the Board an opportunity to take a hard look at what we can do to build trust between ICANN as an organization and all of its stakeholders. This is also an ongoing discussion, and one that we all have a stake in. During the workshop, we considered concrete steps that the Board could take to increase our transparency and accountability. We agreed to post the transcripts and/or recordings of our deliberative sessions and, as a result of this discussion, passed a resolution asking Göran and his team to develop a plan for the implementation of this new procedure, also making sure that we respect confidentiality, as necessary. We know there is a lot of interest in our meetings and discussions, and we look forward to reviewing Göran's proposal in Helsinki. In addition to a detailed review of the Draft FY17 Budget, we discussed the status of KSK Rollover planning and the planning underway to anticipate and mitigate associated risks. We discussed the current efforts to update ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior, and also looked at the Draft Framework of Principles for Cross Community Working Groups. Our agenda for this Workshop was ambitious, and we didn't get to everything on the agenda. For example, we had planned to discuss ICANN's volunteer model, including the volunteer pool, volunteer fatigue, and ways to help our growing community work together more effectively. We will pick this up at our next opportunity. We also held a formal Board meeting (you can find the formal details on our Board page) and a range of Committee meetings, from Audit, Risk and Finance to Governance and Organizational Effectiveness. The Board meeting included a lengthy discussion about the location of ICANN57 and the challenges we all saw in staying and in relocating. Akram sums up our collective feelings well in his blog. We are all very sorry not to be going to Puerto Rico this October, but are very much look forward to getting back there soon.

1 0

Re: [council] RE: Relocating ICANN57 - Blog by Akram Atallah
by Mary Wong May 18, 2016

May 18, 2016

Hello Phil and everyone, As the ICANN57 meeting in Hyderabad will be the first iteration of “Meeting C” under the new ICANN meeting strategy, incorporating (among other things) two Public Forums and spanning 7 days, presumably the Council will need to begin discussions on how and when best to schedule the GNSO working sessions and the Council meeting and wrap up so as to maximize the opportunities for interaction presented by the Meeting C format. As such, staff will make a note to ensure that this topic is included on the agenda of one of the forthcoming Council meetings. Thanks for highlighting the possible change! 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> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 04:44 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Relocating ICANN57 - Blog by Akram Atallah Councilors: November 3rd is a Thursday, rather than the usual Opening Ceremony day of Monday. I am guessing this means that the usual advance Council meeting will occur Tuesday-Wednesday. Best, 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(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 3:26 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Fwd: Relocating ICANN57 - Blog by Akram Atallah Councilors, FYI. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. Begin forwarded message: From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: May 17, 2016 at 21:13:35 GMT+2 To: "jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, "katrina(a)nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>" <katrina(a)nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>, "oscar(a)lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>" <oscar(a)lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>>, "louie(a)louie.net<mailto:louie@louie.net>" <louie(a)louie.net<mailto:louie@louie.net>>, "patrik(a)frobbit.se<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>" <patrik(a)frobbit.se<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>>, "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>, "alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "tsinha(a)umd.edu<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>" <tsinha(a)umd.edu<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>>, "bverd(a)verisign.com<mailto:bverd@verisign.com>" <bverd(a)verisign.com<mailto:bverd@verisign.com>>, "gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "Michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:Michele@blacknight.com>" <Michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:Michele@blacknight.com>>, "pdiaz(a)pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>" <pdiaz(a)pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>>, "ncsg(a)tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info>" <ncsg(a)tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info>>, "rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>" <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>>, "rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be<mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>" <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be<mailto:rudi.vansnick@isoc.be>>, "tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>>, "cwilson(a)21cf.com<mailto:cwilson@21cf.com>" <cwilson(a)21cf.com<mailto:cwilson@21cf.com>>, "mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com<mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com>" <mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com<mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com>>, "hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr<mailto:hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr>" <hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr<mailto:hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr>>, "hcarrascob(a)gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>" <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>>, "ocl(a)gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>" <ocl(a)gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>>, "siranush_vardanyan(a)hotmail.com<mailto:siranush_vardanyan@hotmail.com>" <siranush_vardanyan(a)hotmail.com<mailto:siranush_vardanyan@hotmail.com>> Cc: Global Leadership <global_leadership(a)icann.org<mailto:global_leadership@icann.org>>, Melissa King <melissa.king(a)icann.org<mailto:melissa.king@icann.org>>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org<mailto:duncan.burns@icann.org>>, Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org<mailto:nick.tomasso@icann.org>> Subject: Relocating ICANN57 - Blog by Akram Atallah Dear Community Leaders: This blog will be posted to the ICANN website in a few hours. We are sharing this note with you in advance of the public announcement. Please do not circulate this information until after it is posted ( 0100 UTC 18 May /1800 PST, 17 May) Best regards, David —————————————————————- Relocating ICANN57 By Akram Atallah Earlier this year, we announced that ICANN56 was going to be relocated from Panama City, Panama, to Helsinki, Finland, due to concerns related to the Zika virus. Following a great deal of internal debate and discussion, and taking into consideration the continued spread of Zika, we have decided that we will be relocating ICANN57 from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Hyderabad, India. Due to highly limited space availabilities, this relocation has necessitated changing the date of the meeting from 29 October – 4 November 2016, to 3 – 9 November 2016. We did not arrive at this decision easily. We would much rather remain in Puerto Rico – the excellent location we had originally chosen. Moving the meeting venue creates a lot of additional work and challenges, and we understand and recognize that moving an ICANN meeting affects many groups within the community. However, we have come to the conclusion that we must postpone going to Puerto Rico after a lengthy discussion with and feedback from SO/AC leaders, the Board, and within our management team. This decision was based on available research and information and the fact that Puerto Rico has declared a state of emergency due to the ongoing Zika virus outbreak. We believe that the Zika virus poses a significant enough threat that we need to postpone going to Puerto Rico for the health and safety of our community and our ICANN team, just as we had to postpone ICANN52 and relocate from Marrakech to Singapore due to the Ebola virus outbreak in 2014. Choosing a location for an ICANN meeting that meets the needs of the community is an incredibly complex task. Few venues in the world are able to satisfy all of our requirements<https://meetings.icann.org/en/host>, especially as the community continues to grow and more and more sessions are held in parallel. San Juan offered outstanding facilities capable of hosting a successful ICANN meeting, which is why we originally selected it as the location for ICANN57. In choosing an alternate location for ICANN57, we explored options all around the globe. A North American venue would have been our preference given our meeting rotation schedule, but due to the time of the year, a very busy conference season and our extremely demanding requirements, we weren’t presented with any ideal options. Fortunately, the Government of India offered to host ICANN57. We are very grateful for their proposal and their willingness to meet our extensive requirements in such a short amount of time. We are therefore pleased to announce that ICANN57 will be held at the Hyderabad International Convention Centre<http://www.hicc.com/>, a state-of-the-art convention center capable of handling an ICANN meeting’s extensive conference space and network infrastructure requirements. Hyderabad itself is home to a booming tech sector, earning itself the nickname “Cyberabad,” and we’re looking forward to hosting a successful ICANN meeting in this wonderful city. We fully understand that by relocating ICANN57, regional organizations and stakeholders will miss out on an opportunity to meet with their communities, as well as a chance to reach out to new community members. We are postponing not cancelling this meeting and we will return to the region as soon as possible. ICANN’s Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) team will be working closely with the leaders of the different stakeholder groups in the region to try to mitigate the impact of this decision. We will be providing our increased support to meetings and events scheduled in the region, remote hubs in the region’s strategic points during the next two ICANN meetings, read-out sessions, capacity building webinars, activities in our Montevideo engagement center, support for our community to attend relevant regional and global events, and providing as much senior management and Board support on the ground as required. I want to stress again that the decision to relocate ICANN57 was not made lightly, and that we feel it is extremely unfortunate the situation required us to postpone the meeting in San Juan. We understand how important it is to maintain the global rotation of ICANN meetings, as it allows local and regional communities to attend and participate, and we are committed to returning to Puerto Rico and Panama City as soon as possible, however the welfare of community members and staff is our top priority. We thank you all for understanding this difficult situation and the choice we have had to make. ——————————————— David A. Olive Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 Email: david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12245 - Release Date: 05/16/16

3 2

Approved Board Resolutions from the Board meeting in Amsterdam on 15 May 2016
by Bruce Tonkin May 18, 2016

May 18, 2016

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 15 May 2016 1.Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes Resolved (2016.05.15.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 3, 9 and 10 March 2016 Meetings of the ICANN Board. b. Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Appointment Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) reviews its membership and makes adjustments from time-to-time. Whereas, the SSAC Membership Committee, on behalf of the SSAC, requested that the Board should appoint John R. Levine to the SSAC for a three-year term beginning immediately upon approval by the Board and ending on 31 December 2019. Resolved (2016.05.15.02), the Board appoints John R. Levine to the SSAC for a three-year term beginning immediately and ending on 31 December 2019. c. GNSO gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Charter Amendments (2016) Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws (Article X, Section 5.3) state, "Each [GNSO] Stakeholder Group shall maintain recognition with the ICANN Board." Whereas, the Board has established a Process For Amending GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters (the "Process"). Whereas, the GNSO gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), ICANN staff, and the Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) have completed all steps identified in the Process. Whereas, the amendments appear to address a number of matters the Board directed to the RySG's attention in previous Board Resolution Number 2015.10.22.14. Resolved (2016.05.15.03), the ICANN Board approves the RySG Charter Amendments as documented in the briefing materials submitted to the Board The RySG and ICANN staff are directed to provide access to the new governing document on the appropriate web pages for the RySG. The Board directs the RySG to review the changes within one year to determine if they are having the intended impacts. ICANN staff is further directed to share this resolution with the leadership of the RySG. d. Conduct at ICANN Meetings Whereas, during and after ICANN55, the issue of certain community-member conduct toward one another has been raised in various sessions and lists. Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has reviewed proposed revisions to the language of the Expected Standards of Behavior that align with generally accepted broad standards for areas of protection, and recommended that the Board authorize the revised version be posted for public comment. Whereas, the BGC also has recommended that the Board direct the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to retain an expert, as appropriate, with experience in drafting and implementing relevant anti-harassment policies to assist in the development of a Community anti-harassment policy/procedure to be followed at ICANN Public Meetings. Resolved (2016.05.15.04), the Board hereby authorizes the posting for public comment of the proposed revised Expected Standards of Behavior. Resolved (2016.05.15.05), the Board hereby directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to retain an expert, as appropriate, with experience in drafting and implementing relevant anti-harassment policies to assist in the development of a Community anti-harassment policy/procedure to be followed at ICANN Public Meetings, which could include items such as complaints handling and resolution and enforcement processes. e. Board Working Group on Internet Governance (BWG-IG) Whereas, the Internet governance landscape continues to evolve, and ICANN's role within the Internet governance ecosystem will also continue to evolve and will benefit from an enhanced dialogue between the Board and management working on Internet governance issues. Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has recommended that the Board form a Board Working Group on Internet Governance (BWG-IG) to provide consultation and advice on ICANN's efforts related to involvement in Internet governance work, as appropriate within ICANN's mission and in service of ICANN's strategic plan, which includes providing consultation with ICANN staff on collaboration and engagement in Internet governance activities. Whereas, the BGC has recommended that the Board appoint the following Board members to the BWG-IG: Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Ron da Silva, Chris Disspain, Markus Kummer (Chair), Erika Mann, George Sadowsky and Lousewies van der Laan. Resolved (2016.05.15.06), the Board hereby approves the establishment of a Board Working Group on Internet Governance (BWG-IG) in accordance with the Charter recommended by the BGC with the following membership: Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Ron da Silva, Chris Disspain, Markus Kummer (Chair), Erika Mann, George Sadowsky and Lousewies van der Laan. 2. Main Agenda: a. Consideration of GNSO Policy Recommendations concerning the Accreditation of Privacy and Proxy Services Whereas, on 31 October 2013, the GNSO Council approved the charter for a Working Group to conduct a Policy Development Process that had been requested by the ICANN Board concerning the accreditation by ICANN of privacy and proxy domain name registration service providers, as further described at http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 463 KB]. Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the ICANN Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report being delivered to the GNSO Council on 8 December 2015. Whereas, the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (WG) reached Full Consensus on all its final recommendations (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf) [PDF, 1.2 MB]. Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the final recommendations of the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG, and adopted the recommendations on 21 January 2016 by a unanimous vote (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201601) Whereas, the GNSO Council vote met and exceeded the required voting threshold (i.e. supermajority) to impose new obligations on ICANN contracted parties. Whereas, in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment period was opened on the approved recommendations to provide the community with a reasonable opportunity to comment on their adoption prior to action by the ICANN Board, and the comments received have been summarized and reported (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ppsai-recommend…) [PDF, 299 KB]. Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws provide that the Board is to request the GAC's opinion regarding "any policies that are being considered by the Board for adoption that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties, including the imposition of any fees or charges" and "take duly into account any advice timely presented" as a result. Whereas, the Board notified the GAC of the publication of the GNSO's final recommendations for public comment on 19 February 2016 (see https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27492514/2016-02-19-Steve-Cro…) [PDF, 819 KB]. Whereas, in its Marrakech Communique issued on 9 March 2016 the GAC advised the ICANN Board that it needed more time to consider potential public policy concerns relating to the adoption of the final PDP recommendations, and identifying that the June 2016 ICANN56 meeting would be an appropriate opportunity to further consider these items (see https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/GAC%20Morocco%2055%2…) [PDF, 567 KB]. Resolved (2016.05.15.07), the Board thanks the GNSO for completing the Board-requested Policy Development Process (PDP) and acknowledges receipt of the PDP Final Report and the GNSO Council's Recommendations Report concerning the final PDP recommendations. Resolved (2016.05.15.08), the Board identifies that more time is required to consider the final PDP recommendations, including time for the provision and consideration of GAC advice, if any will be provided. The Board anticipates taking further action on the recommendations at the first Board meeting following the ICANN56 Public Meeting in Helsinki, Finland. b. Report re: .HOTEL No resolution taken. C. SO/AC FY17 Additional Budget Requests Approval Whereas, prior discussions between community members and ICANN staff members identified the need for an earlier decision on the funding of additional budget requests from ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SO) and Advisory Committees (AC). Whereas, the staff created an SO/AC additional budget requests process, to collect, review and submit for Board approval funding requests from the SOs and ACs. Whereas, requests were submitted by the ICANN community by the set deadline, and were reviewed by a panel of staff members representing the Policy, Stakeholder Engagement and Finance departments. Whereas, the review panel recommended the approval of requests representing $643,700 for approval. Whereas the Board Finance Committee, reviewed the process followed and the staff proposal, and has recommended that the Board approve the staff recommendation. Resolved (2016.05.15.09), the Board approves committing $643,700 during Fiscal Year 2017 to cover the costs associated with the adopted SO/AC additional budget requests. d. October 2016 ICANN Meeting Venue Contracting Whereas, ICANN intended to hold its third Public Meeting of 2016 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in the North America region. Whereas, the Zika Virus outbreak in Puerto Rico has caused the need for a relocation of the Public Meeting. Whereas, ICANN must identify an alternative venue. Resolved (2016.05.15.10), the Board authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to engage in and facilitate all necessary contracting and disbursements for ICANN 57 in an amount [REDACTED FOR NEGOTIATION PURPOSES]. Resolved (2016.05.15.11), specific items within this resolution shall remain confidential for negotiation purposes pursuant to Article III, section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws until the President and CEO determines that the confidential information may be released. e. USG IANA Stewardship Transition - Additional FY16 Expenses and Funding Whereas, the Board has approved expense budget envelopes to support the IANA Stewardship Transition Project ("Project") during FY15 and FY16, and all approved budget envelopes will have been used after the ICANN Meeting 55 in Marrakech. Whereas, a Project Cost Support Team was implemented to produce Project expense estimates for the remainder of FY16 and for FY17 for the Project. Whereas, Project Cost Support Team produced expense estimates for the Project expenses of up to approximately US$5.4 million to be incurred through the remainder of FY16. Whereas, the Board Finance Committee met on 3 March 2016 and has approved to recommend to the Board to approve an additional Project expense budget envelope of up US$5.4 million to cover Project expenses through the remainder of FY16. Resolved (2016.05.15.12), the Board approves a budget envelope of up to US$5.4 million to cover the costs of the Project to be incurred through the remainder of FY16 to be funded through a fund release from the Reserve Fund. f. AOB i. Enhancing Openness and Transparency - Board Deliberations Whereas, the Board believes that providing increased access to Board deliberations is important, and that increased openness is an important means of working toward that goal. Whereas, the ICANN Board discussed at its Amsterdam workshop how to improve its functioning and agreed that enhancing the visibility into the Board deliberations and decision-making processes was an important part of becoming more accountable and more transparent. Whereas, the Board noted the call from the community for increased openness and transparency. Whereas, the Board believes that a positive first step towards increased openness is publicly posting transcripts and/or recordings of its deliberative sessions to the extent that such information or dialogue is not subject to confidentiality restrictions or privilege. Resolved (2016.05.15.13), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to work with the Board to develop a proposed plan for the publication of transcripts and/or recordings of Board deliberative sessions, with such plan to include an assessment of possible resources costs and fiscal impact, and draft processes to: (i) ensure the accuracy of the transcript; and (ii) for redaction of portions of the transcript that should be maintained as confidential or privileged. Resolved (2016.05.15.14), the Board expects to evaluate the plan in Helsinki, and if satisfactory to begin testing of the proposed processes relating to publication of transcripts and/or recordings of the Board's deliberative sessions as soon as practicable after Helsinki. 3. Executive Session - CONFIDENTIAL The Board held a confidential portion of the session relating to employment matters.

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Revisions to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors - ICANN
by James M. Bladel May 18, 2016

May 18, 2016

Council Colleagues - Please see the announcement & link from David (below). Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel Begin forwarded message: From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: May 18, 2016 at 08:16:13 GMT+2 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Revisions to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors - ICANN This is to let you know that the Public Comment on the 'Revisions to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors' has now gone live: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-…. Public comment will end on 25 June 2016 23:59 UTC<x-apple-data-detectors://1>. During this period, anyone can submit comment via comments-expected-standards-revisions-16may16(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-expected-standards-revisions-16may16@icann.org>. https://www.icann.org/public-comments/expected-standards-revisions-2016-05-… Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support

1 0

FW: House Appropriations Bill Extends IANA Freeze into FY 17
by Phil Corwin May 17, 2016

May 17, 2016

This afternoon I received a call from a journalist who informed me that the Commerce Department Appropriations bill being considered in the House extends the freeze on transfer of the IANA functions into FY 17, which starts on October 1, 2016. (I took the call while driving and am not sure if this is just the Committee mark, or whether the bill has been reported out.) Asked for a reaction, I told him that I was somewhat surprised given the rather friendly reception that the House Commerce Committee accorded the transition and accountability measures at its hearing last month. On the other hand, the appropriators have their own views and priorities and don't defer to the authorizing committees. Speaking further, I observed that if the Senate appropriators went along with this it would seem to set up a confrontation between Congress and the Administration. Secretary Strickling has previously stated in public that the current freeze prevented NTIA from completing the IANA transition. However, this White House is well known for taking Executive action in defiance of Congressional restrictions. As the news is just breaking there is no telling how it will be received by, or impact the ongoing implementation work going on within, the ICANN community. That's all I have at the moment. Best, 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12245 - Release Date: 05/16/16

1 0