May 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#204]
by Glen de Saint Géry May 12, 2016

May 12, 2016

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : jeudi 12 mai 2016 10:19 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#204] Name of Officer: * Michele Neylon Officer Email Address: * michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com> Date Prepared: * Thursday, May 12, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Registrars Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Volker cannot attend. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Any and all Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Saturday, May 14, 2016 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Jennifer Standiford

1 0

Updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 12 May 2016 at 12:00UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry May 12, 2016

May 12, 2016

Dear Councillors, Please find the updated proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 12 May 2016 The updates are 4 links that have been added in the following items: Item 1. Link to posted Minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-14apr16-en.htm>, Item 5.1 - Introduction<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-ccwg-ig-report-06may16-en.pdf> and summary (Carlos Raul Gutierrez) Item 6.2 - Update<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-overview-obligations-post-transition-…> on CSC implementation and discussion (Donna Austin) Item 8.1 - Update<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/memo-merge-transliteration-contact-…> (Francisco Arias / Cyrus Namazi) 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: 12:00 UTC: http://tinyurl.com/haro7hn 05:00 Los Angeles; 08:00 Washington; 13:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 22:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.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:<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-16feb16-en.pdf> GNSO Council meeting Minutes<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-14apr16-en.htm>, 14 April 2016 are posted as approved on 29 April 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 (5 minutes) 3.1 - Council confirmation of Kathy Kleiman, Philip Corwin and J. Scott Evans as co-chairs for the RPM Review PDP Working Group Item 4: DISCUSSION - "Meeting B" (ICANN Policy Forum) Scheduling (15 Minutes) Specific concerns had been raised at ICANN55 about the need to build in sufficient time for substantive policy work and opportunities for the Board and different SO/AC/Board groups to interact with one another at the upcoming Helsinki meeting. The GNSO had held several discussions, including with the ICANN Board, concerning the focus, duration and meeting schedule for this first designated ICANN Policy Forum (i.e. the initial so-called "Meeting B"). Following ICANN55, a small group of SO/AC volunteers was formed to address these concerns and to provide input on behalf of their SO/ACs on an updated Meeting B schedule. 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. 4.1 - Update (Donna Austin) 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Next steps Item 5: DISCUSSION - Status of Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (15 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. Having deferred further discussion on this topic from its April meeting for lack of time, the GNSO Council will continue that discussion here, with a view toward agreeing on the appropriate next steps for the CCWG on Internet Governance. 5.1 - Introduction<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-ccwg-ig-report-06may16-en.pdf> and summary (Carlos Raul Gutierrez) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Next steps Item 6: DISCUSSION - Implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan (30 minutes) There had been community discussions at ICANN55 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 participation in the Cross Community Working Group for Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg)>) to work on implementation of the CCWG's adopted Work Stream 1 recommendations and on developing recommendations for Work Stream 2. On 21 April, proposed revised Bylaws for ICANN intended to reflect the recommendations from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the CCWG-Accountability were published for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-04-21-en) The public comment period closes on 21 May 2016. ICANN staff have been providing status updates<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation> on implementation planning for the transition, and Council representatives have also been working with staff to identify specific likely areas of work for the GNSO, particularly in relation to the establishment of the Customer Standing Committee as part of the transition. Here the Council will determine whether or not the amended Bylaws accurately reflect the ICG and CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and consequently whether a public comment from the Council is warranted. The Council will also discuss any concerns that have been identified relating to the establishment of the CSC, and begin deliberations over broader issues arising from the implementation of the transition plan, including the possible need to develop mechanisms that will facilitate the GNSO's participation in the new Empowered Community to be created. 6.1 - Discussion of possible Council comment on the proposed amended Bylaws (Heather Forrest) 6.2 - Update<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-overview-obligations-post-transition-…> on CSC implementation and discussion (Donna Austin) 6.3 - Next steps Item 7: DISCUSSION - Next Steps in Resolving the Issue of Permanent Protection of Certain Red Cross Identifiers (15 minutes) Representatives of the Red Cross had briefed<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/curtet-to-gnso-council-14apr16-en.p…> the GNSO Council at the Council meeting in April 2016 on the status and nature of the movement's continuing request for permanent protections for those of its national society and international movement identifiers not currently covered by those of the GNSO's adopted policy recommendations that were approved<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-04-30-en#2.a> by the ICANN Board in April 2014. ICANN staff had previously circulated a Briefing Note<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/red-cross-protections-status-30mar16-en.pdf> describing the inconsistencies<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-a-30apr14…> between GAC advice and those GNSO policy recommendations that had not been adopted by the Board as well as possible procedural steps the Council can take to amend previously-adopted policy recommendations. The Board-approved recommendations currently cover 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 had 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. Here the Council will discuss next steps it may wish to take to resolve this issue. 7.1 - Introduction (Heather Forrest) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: DISCUSSION - Possible Integration of the Pending Implementation of the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data PDP Recommendations with the implementation of Thick WHOIS (15 minutes) ICANN operations staff have requested that the GNSO Council consider this option, as they are of the view that there are certain synergies that would benefit from such a bundling (especially in relation to consistent labelling and display). Input has been requested from the ongoing Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT) on this proposal. As the Council had directed<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20150624-3> the creation of an IRT for the implementation of the Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data PDP recommendations when they adopted the policy, staff is of the view that it would require an affirmative decision by the GNSO Council to integrate the implementation of this policy into the work of the Thick WHOIS IRT. Here the Council will discuss whether or not to adopt the suggested integrated approach or pursue two different IRTs. 8.1 - Update<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/memo-merge-transliteration-contact-…> (Francisco Arias / Cyrus Namazi) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: Call for volunteers for Council liaisons (5 minutes) With the stepping down of the current Council liaison to become one of the three new co-chairs of the new Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs PDP Working Group, a new Council liaison will be needed for that Working Group. In addition, the following IRTs also do not currently have Council liaisons: IRTP-C, IRTP-D, and IGO-INGO Protections in All gTLDs. Here the Council will call for volunteers from among the current Councilors to fill these vacant positions. Item 12: Any Other Business (10 minutes) _________________________________ 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 12:00 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 05:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST 07:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-5+0DST 07:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 08:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 13:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 14:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 15:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 20:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 20:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEST) UTC+10+0DST 22:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/haro7hn 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] Call with ICANN Finance Team and Board Finance Committee - Tuesday 10 May at 17.00 UTC
by Marika Konings May 11, 2016

May 11, 2016

Yes, it looks like the recording for these meetings is made available on the same wiki page after the meeting. Best regards, Marika On 09/05/16 16:13, "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan(a)EUI.eu> wrote: >Same here. A recording would be very helpful >Stefania > > >________________________________________ >Da: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> per conto >di Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> >Inviato: lunedì 9 maggio 2016 16.06.40 >A: Marika Konings; GNSO Council List >Oggetto: Re: [council] Call with ICANN Finance Team and Board Finance >Committee - Tuesday 10 May at 17.00 UTC > >Dear Marika, > >Will a recording or transcript be available afterwards? >I a, very interested in this discussion, but unfortunately >I have a scheduling conflict for tomorrow. > > Julf > >On 09-05-16 15:21, Marika Konings wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> As a reminder, the ICANN Finance Team together with the Board Finance >> Committee has scheduled a call tomorrow (Tuesday 10 May) at 17.00 UTC to >> discuss the input that has been submitted by the GNSO Council (see >> >>https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-op-budget-fy17-five-year-05mar16/m >>sg00007.html). >> For details on how to join this meeting, please >> see https://community.icann.org/x/yjiAAw. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika > > >The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to >which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged >material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, >forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, >this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient >is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you >received this communication in error, please contact the sender and >delete the material from any computer.

3 3

Please review Project List in preparation for Council meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry May 11, 2016

May 11, 2016

Dear Councillors, Attached, please find the updated GNSO Project List in both red-line and clean version. The updated GNSO Project List has also been published to: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project 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

Fwd: Memo to GNSO re: bundling Translation and Transliteration into Thick WHOIS IRT
by Amr Elsadr May 11, 2016

May 11, 2016

Hi, In preparation for item 8 on Thursday’s Council meeting agenda, I am forwarding a memo developed by GDD staff, and addressed to the GNSO Council, outlining the rationale and preliminary community feedback to the proposal of merging the implementation of the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP recommendations with the Consistent Labelling and Display track of the “thick” WHOIS implementation process currently underway. I hope you will find this informative. I can take any questions or comments from the Council back to the IRT. Of course, you can also direct those to Cyrus and Francisco during their briefing to us on the topic in two days. Thanks. Amr > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Brian Aitchison <brian.aitchison(a)icann.org> > Subject: Memo to GNSO re: bundling Translation and Transliteration into Thick WHOIS IRT > Date: May 10, 2016 at 9:04:29 PM GMT+2 > To: "aelsadr(a)egyptig.org" <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org> > Cc: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux(a)icann.org>, Francisco Arias <francisco.arias(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Karen Lentz" <karen.lentz(a)icann.org>, Krista Papac <krista.papac(a)icann.org>, "Lars Hoffmann" <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> > > Dear Amr, > > I am the GDD lead for the Translation and Transliteration implementation project, and am sending you the attached memo on behalf of Fabien Betremieux to forward to the GNSO Council for their consideration at their meeting on Thursday, 12 May. > > As you have discussed with him, the memo concerns the proposal to merge the implementation of the T/T project into the work stream of the Thick WHOIS IRT. > > You can find all the relevant details in the memo itself. Please let me know if you have any questions. Otherwise, on behalf of GDD Staff, we thank you for forwarding it to the GNSO Council ahead of their Thursday meeting. > > Best, > > Brian Aitchison > > > Brian Aitchison, PhD > Lead Researcher > Operations & Policy Research > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > p. 310.301.8688 > m. 424.353.9041 > e. brian.aitchison(a)icann.org <mailto:brian.aitchison@icann.org> > w. www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> > > linkedin.com/in/baitchison <http://linkedin.com/in/baitchison> > > twitter.com/BrianAitch <http://twitter.com/BrianAitch> > > > >

3 3

Re: [council] IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 2)
by Julie Hedlund May 11, 2016

May 11, 2016

Dear All, Pursuant to Marika’s message below, please see the attached overview that Mary Wong and I have drafted as an introductory aid to the 12 May initial discussion on agenda item 6. I will be happy to outline the document on the call should the Council need a quick summary at that time about what’s in store for the transition. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 4:10 AM To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 2) Dear All, For your information, please find below the latest IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update which may be helpful in your preparation for agenda item 6 (Implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan). Heather, who will be chairing Thursday’s meeting, requests that you focus in addressing Item 6 on the 'how" rather than the "what" - in other words, use Thursday's meeting to think about the mechanics of how the Council go about answering the questions articulated in the agenda (From the agenda: "Here the Council will determine whether or not the amended Bylaws accurately reflect the ICG and CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and consequently whether a public comment from the Council is warranted. The Council will also discuss any concerns that have been identified relating to the establishment of the CSC, and begin deliberations over broader issues arising from the implementation of the transition plan, including the possible need to develop mechanisms that will facilitate the GNSO's participation in the new Empowered Community to be created”). Best regards, Marika From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Hillary Jett <hillary.jett(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 10 May 2016 at 23:33 To: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] [blog] IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 2) Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update… IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 2) · Previous update (27 April 2016) Root Zone Management The Root Zone Management implementation planning track contains projects relating to changes to the Root Zone Management System (RZMS) to remove NTIA's authorization role, parallel testing of the production and parallel test RZMS systems; and the development, and execution of an agreement with Verisign as the root zone maintainer. Root Zone Management System (RZMS) Parallel Testing Status update: It has been one month since the start of the parallel testing period and everything continues to go smoothly. Click here to view Verisign’s daily Parallel Operations Root Zone Management System Comparison Reports of all the root zone files generated. In addition to Verisign’s daily reports, ICANN has posted the first of three Monthly Reports on RZMS Parallel Testing Progress during the testing period. The report is available on ICANN’s dedicated Parallel Testing landing page. In the event that no unexplained differences in root zone files are identified between the production RZMS and the parallel test RZMS, the testing period will end successfully on 5 July 2016. Documents/announcements posted: · Monthly Report on RZMS Parallel Testing Progress · Verisign’s daily Parallel Operations Root Zone Management System Comparison Reports Mailing list: · None. Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) Status update: Discussions between ICANN and Verisign to finalize details of the RZMA are continuing. The two parties have coalesced around many key elements of the agreement and hope to have a final draft by the end of the month. Once the draft RZMA is finalized it will be made publicly available on icann.org. Documents/announcements posted: · None. Mailing list(s): · None. Stewardship Transition The Stewardship Transition planning track contains projects to prepare relationship documentation with the operational communities, creation of a Post-Transition IANA (PTI) entity, establishment of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) and a Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC), operationalizing the IANA customer service escalation mechanisms and Service Level Agreements (SLAs). Post-Transition IANA (PTI) Status update: ICANN has been working with the Implementation Oversight Task Force (IOTF) on various activities relating to the PTI. Summaries of PTI formation documents (Bylaws, articles of incorporation) as well as the conflict of interest policy have been shared with the IOTF. ICANN continues to work with the IOTF to finalize the process and timing of review for these documents as well as for the ICANN-PTI contracts. Documents/announcements posted this week: · None. Mailing list(s): · http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ · http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/ Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Status update: In the CWG-Stewardship proposal, the Domain Names community recommended that a CSC be formed to replace NTIA’s role as it relates to monitoring performance of the IANA naming function. The composition of the CSC will include members and liaisons from all ICANN Supporting Organizations(SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs). A Request for Appointment is expected to be sent to SOs and ACs this month to appoint members and liaisons to the CSC using their internal processes. Documents/announcements posted this week: · None. Mailing list(s): · http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Status update: The RZERC Charter (v4) was circulated to the CWG-Stewardship on 4 May 2016. The CWG-Stewardship will discuss the Charter on their 12 May 2016 call, and members and participants of the group are encouraged to provide any comment by 23:59 UTC on 17 May 2016. Following analysis and incorporation of any input received from the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN will post the Charter for a 30-day public comment period. Documents/announcements: · Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Charter (v4) Mailing list(s): · http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/ · http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ Accountability Enhancements The Accountability Enhancements track contains plans to implement enhancements to ICANN’s Independent Review and Reconsideration Request processes, to update ICANN’s governance documents, and to operationalize new community powers defined by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). ICANN's Bylaws Status update: ICANN and the community are in the middle of a 30-day public comment period on the new draft ICANNBylaws. Any interested party can submit comments to the public comment forum until 23:59 UTC on 21 May 2016. · Public Comment Page · Submit Comment to Forum · Comments Forum Adoption of the new Bylaws by the ICANN Board is anticipated for on or around 27 May 2016. Once new ICANN Bylaws have been adopted, ICANN will notify NTIA so they can complete their anticipated 90-day review of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. Documents/announcements: · Draft New ICANN Bylaws · Comparison of Draft New ICANN Bylaws to Current Bylaws Mailing list(s): · http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/ · http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/ · http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/ · http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/

1 0

FW: CWG on Internet Governance - status update
by Marika Konings May 11, 2016

May 11, 2016

Dear All, Please find below a message from Olivier Crépin-Leblond concerning the CWG on Internet Governance. Best regards, Marika From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Date: Wednesday 11 May 2016 at 16:52 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, Young-eum Lee <yesunhoo(a)gmail.com>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson(a)icann.org>, Desiree Cabrera <desiree.cabrera(a)icann.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, "Carlos Raúl G." <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> Subject: Fwd: Re: CWG on Internet Governance - status update Dear Marika, please be so kind to find my personal response to Carlos's report to the GNSO Council which I would kindly ask you to share with the Council ahead of tomorrow's Council call. Although I would have the ability to post it myself directly, this ability is granted on the basis of my involvement as ALAC Liaison and I do not wish to mix roles/responsibilities. I believe that the explanation I provide below might help with deliberations and indeed shorten them so we can focus on questions from Councillors and not the initial explanation on the usefulness of the CCWG-IG. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Co-Chair CCWG-IG -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: CWG on Internet Governance - status update Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:39:51 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> <mailto:ocl@gih.com> To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> , Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> CC: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> <mailto:ocl@gih.com> Dear Carlos, thanks for the follow-up. I'll add Rafik to my response as I think it is important that we are all on the same page. I'll quote from the ALAC Statement in response to the Public Consultation by the CCWG on CCWGs. "At present, several apparently less formal structures exist: * Cross Community Working Party: The Cross Community Working Party on ICANN's Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights (CCWP-HR) uses this type of structure. It does not require chartering by any SO/AC and serves as a good platform for discussion, but the nature of its relationship with SOs/ACs is undefined. For example, the CCWP-HR is supported by the GNSO. * Cross Community Committee: The Cross Community Committee on Accessibility uses this type of structure, but the nature of its relationship with SOs/ACs is also undefined. * Other Review Groups, like the Geographic Regions Working Group and IDN Variant TLD Issues Project, etc. The nature of relationship with SOs & ACs is undefined as they are related directly to an ICANN-wide process that is often Board or Staff driven (in the case of an implementation project). In the above cases where the structure is not chartered by SOs and ACs, how each structure makes formal recommendations to SOs, ACs and/or the ICANN Board is not specifically defined." That's exactly the problem I have with redifining the CCWG-IG into another structure that has no formal relationship with chartering organisations. The CCWG-IG is working on pretty high level topics and has acted outside of ICANN on several occasions: - submission of a Statement at NetMundial - organisation of a workshop at WSIS Forum 2015 - organisation of a workshop at IGF 2015 - organisation of a workshop at WSIS Forum 2016 Working Group members have also advised Staff on ICANN's contributions to ITU, WSIS+10, CSTD, IGF MAG and other wider Internet Governance issues. So far, the modus operandi was that Staff drafts the text and working group members provide a response, comments and suggestions. Timelines have always been so short (we are sometimes looking a 15 day turnover for a consultation, giving the CCWG-IG members at most 4 or 5 days to provide input). It is very likely in the foreseeable future that the CCWG-IG members could draft a longer statement to be submitted outside of ICANN, in line with Staff input into the processes. This is very likely to require ratification of the CCWG-IG chartering organisations. I am specifically speaking of the forthcoming big challenge of the year, WTSA16. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/wtsa16/Pages/default.aspx Signals are coming from several directions that irrespective of the ITU's recommendations at plenipotentiary last year, irrespective of the NetMundial Principles, irrespective of the collapse of the WCIT-12, the same group of nations that caused a clash in the past on topics of multi-stakeholder vs. multilateral governance, Country Internet Registries, Jurisdiction of the Root and having Governments and the ITU take a bigger active role in the running of Critical Internet Resources, are coming back with the same agenda. More than just a case of "wash, rince, repeat", there are stronger and stronger arguments for Country Internet Registries thus abolishing the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and allocating IP addresses via a UN process on a per country basis, such allocation being done by a country's government regulation agency, in-line with what used to be done in the times of Telecommunication Monopolies. When coupled with the discussions on Root jurisdiction and cases for re-centering of policy from being multistakeholder back to National Government agencies in a multi-lateral way, we are looking at a very significant threat to the IANA functions and other functions that ICANN is currently assuming. It is my belief that any Statement which ICANN is practically guaranteed to have to submit (this is not a case of "if we cross the bridge", but "when we cross the bridge"), will carry much more weight for the defenders of the multi-stakeholder model if the Statement is not only submitted by ICANN Staff, but is also ratified and supported by the ICANN Communities in a multi-stakeholder manner. At present, a CCWG structure provides for an easy channel to solicit support from its chartering organisations. Any other structure is a big unknown. I hope this helps with your understanding of the critical challenges we face today. The CCWG-IG is not just some empty shell, it is a grouping of the best minds we have at ICANN when it comes to Internet Governance, and it would be unwise to turn our backs on it. Kindest regards, Olivier

1 0

IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 2)
by Marika Konings May 11, 2016

May 11, 2016

Dear All, For your information, please find below the latest IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update which may be helpful in your preparation for agenda item 6 (Implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan). Heather, who will be chairing Thursday¹s meeting, requests that you focus in addressing Item 6 on the 'how" rather than the "what" - in other words, use Thursday's meeting to think about the mechanics of how the Council go about answering the questions articulated in the agenda (From the agenda: "Here the Council will determine whether or not the amended Bylaws accurately reflect the ICG and CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and consequently whether a public comment from the Council is warranted. The Council will also discuss any concerns that have been identified relating to the establishment of the CSC, and begin deliberations over broader issues arising from the implementation of the transition plan, including the possible need to develop mechanisms that will facilitate the GNSO's participation in the new Empowered Community to be created²). Best regards, Marika From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Hillary Jett <hillary.jett(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 10 May 2016 at 23:33 To: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] [blog] IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 2) Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update- volume-2 IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 2) <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-updat e-volume-2#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update -volume-2#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update -volume-2#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update -volume-2#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update -volume-2#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update -volume-2#> * Previous update (27 April 2016) <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-planning-update -volume-1> Root Zone Management The Root Zone Management implementation planning track contains projects relating to changes to the Root Zone Management System (RZMS) to remove NTIA's authorization role, parallel testing of the production and parallel test RZMS systems; and the development, and execution of an agreement with Verisign as the root zone maintainer. Root Zone Management System (RZMS) Parallel Testing Status update: It has been one month since the start of the parallel testing period and everything continues to go smoothly. Click here to view Verisign¹s daily Parallel Operations Root Zone Management System Comparison Reports <http://www.verisign.com/rzms-parallel-ops/index.html> of all the root zone files generated. In addition to Verisign¹s daily reports, ICANN has posted the first of three Monthly Reports on RZMS Parallel Testing Progress <https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/23-1st-rzms-parallel-testing-monthly-re port-v-06may16> during the testing period. The report is available on ICANN¹s dedicated Parallel Testing landing page <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation/root-zone-management-syste m-parallel-testing> . In the event that no unexplained differences in root zone files are identified between the production RZMS and the parallel test RZMS, the testing period will end successfully on 5 July 2016. Documents/announcements posted: * Monthly Report on RZMS Parallel Testing Progress <https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/23-1st-rzms-parallel-testing-monthly-re port-v-06may16> * Verisign¹s daily Parallel Operations Root Zone Management System Comparison Reports <http://www.verisign.com/rzms-parallel-ops/index.html> Mailing list: * None. Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) Status update: Discussions between ICANN and Verisign to finalize details of the RZMA are continuing. The two parties have coalesced around many key elements of the agreement and hope to have a final draft by the end of the month. Once the draft RZMA is finalized it will be made publicly available on icann.org. Documents/announcements posted: * None. Mailing list(s): * None. Stewardship Transition The Stewardship Transition planning track contains projects to prepare relationship documentation with the operational communities, creation of a Post-Transition IANA (PTI) entity, establishment of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) and a Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC), operationalizing the IANA customer service escalation mechanisms and Service Level Agreements (SLAs). Post-Transition IANA (PTI) Status update: ICANN has been working with the Implementation Oversight Task Force (IOTF) on various activities relating to the PTI. Summaries of PTI formation documents (Bylaws, articles of incorporation) as well as the conflict of interest policy have been shared with the IOTF. ICANN continues to work with the IOTF to finalize the process and timing of review for these documents as well as for the ICANN-PTI contracts. Documents/announcements posted this week: * None. Mailing list(s): * http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ * http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/ Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Status update: In the CWG-Stewardship proposal, the Domain Names community recommended that a CSC be formed to replace NTIA¹s role as it relates to monitoring performance of the IANA naming function. The composition of the CSC will include members and liaisons from all ICANN Supporting Organizations(SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs). A Request for Appointment is expected to be sent to SOs and ACs this month to appoint members and liaisons to the CSC using their internal processes. Documents/announcements posted this week: * None. Mailing list(s): * http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Status update: The RZERC Charter (v4) <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160503/c35e40d7 /DRAFTRZERCCharter-V4_Clean-0001.docx> was circulated <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-May/004977.html> to the CWG-Stewardship on 4 May 2016. The CWG-Stewardship will discuss the Charter on their 12 May 2016 call, and members and participants of the group are encouraged to provide any comment by 23:59 UTC on 17 May 2016. Following analysis and incorporation of any input received from the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN will post the Charter for a 30-day public comment period. Documents/announcements: * Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Charter (v4) <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160503/c35e40d7 /DRAFTRZERCCharter-V4_Clean-0001.docx> Mailing list(s): * http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/ * http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/ Accountability Enhancements The Accountability Enhancements track contains plans to implement enhancements to ICANN¹s Independent Review and Reconsideration Request processes, to update ICANN¹s governance documents, and to operationalize new community powers defined by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). ICANN's Bylaws Status update: ICANN and the community are in the middle of a 30-day public comment period on the new draft ICANNBylaws. Any interested party can submit comments to the public comment forum until 23:59 UTC on 21 May 2016. * Public Comment Page <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-new-bylaws-2016-04-21-en> * Submit Comment to Forum <http://comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16@icann.org/> * Comments Forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/> Adoption of the new Bylaws by the ICANN Board is anticipated for on or around 27 May 2016. Once new ICANN Bylaws have been adopted, ICANN will notify NTIA so they can complete their anticipated 90-day review of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. Documents/announcements: * Draft New ICANN Bylaws <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-new-bylaws-20apr16-en. pdf> * Comparison of Draft New ICANN Bylaws to Current Bylaws <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-new-bylaws-redline-20a pr16-en.pdf> Mailing list(s): * http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/ * http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/ * http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/ * http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/

1 0

CWG on Internet Governance
by Marika Konings May 10, 2016

May 10, 2016

Dear All, In preparation for Thursday¹s meeting where the Council will discuss the status of the CWG on Internet Governance, please find attached a report prepared by Carlos Gutierrez concerning this CWG. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Fwd: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#203]
by Glen de Saint Géry May 10, 2016

May 10, 2016

FYI Début du message transféré : Expéditeur: "ICANN" <no-reply(a)wufoo.com<mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com>> Date: 10 mai 2016 08:45:53 UTC+2 Destinataire: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org>, council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Objet: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#203] Répondre à: <no-reply(a)wufoo.com<mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com>> Name of Officer: * Tapani Tarvainen Officer Email Address: * ncsg(a)tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, May 10, 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: * Stefania Milan 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: * Stephanie Perrin will submit Stefania Milan's 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] * Thursday, May 12, 2016 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Stephanie Perrin

1 0