May 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] RE: Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifiers
by Mary Wong 09 May '16

09 May '16

Hello everyone – to add to Phil’s note, the GAC seems to have suggested that the topic of “IGO Protections” be placed in the same slot as its suggested “Bilateral Meeting with the GNSO” on Day 3 of the Helsinki meeting (Wednesday, 10.45-12 noon Helsinki time: https://community.icann.org/x/_o5CAw) While it is not clear whether that will also encompass protections for the Red Cross (who are not an IGO in any case), this may be relevant to the Council’s discussion on 12 May regarding next steps for the Red Cross, possibly separately from any next steps for IGO protections. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 03:04 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifiers Good letter, James. This point is particularly important: One point emphasized during this briefing was that the international legal basis for protections of Red Cross identifiers is significantly different from that for IGOs. This raises the possibility that permanent protection for these Red Cross identifiers could potentially be resolved independently from other IGO acronyms. The IGO CRP WG has recently received a final draft of the memo from our outside legal expert in regard to the scope of sovereign immunity for IGOs. Without getting into extensive detail, it varies widely based upon both the type of IGO, the jurisdiction in which the question is raised, and whether the activity in question implicates a core function of the IGO. Therefore, the issue of the Red Cross identifiers should be viewed as significantly different from that of other IGOs. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 10:38 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifiers Council Colleagues - Attached, please find a draft letter that was developed by Heather, Donna and myself, along with Staff, that sets out to “reboot” work on this topic. I note that this is a topic for the next GNSO Council meeting (Agenda Item #7), and therefore misses the document cutoff date. However, I expect this discussion & work to continue beyond our 12 MAY meeting, both on the list and during calls. Than you, J. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4565/12169 - Release Date: 05/05/16

2 1

Agenda - ICANN Board meeting in Amsterdam on 15 May 2016
by Bruce Tonkin 09 May '16

09 May '16

From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2016-05-15-en Agenda | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 15 May 2016 Consent Agenda * Approval of Board Meeting Minutes from March 3, 9 and 10 2016 * Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Appointment * GNSO gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Charter Amendments (2016) * Conduct at ICANN Meetings Main Agenda * Consideration of GNSO Policy Recommendations concerning the Accreditation of Privacy and Proxy Services * Report re: .HOTEL * SO/AC FY17 Additional Budget Requests Approval * October 2016 ICANN Meeting Venue Contracting * USG IANA Stewardship Transition - Additional FY16 Expenses and Funding * AOB Confidential Session Published on 8 May 2016

1 0

FW: [gnso-rpm-wg] Public warning regarding compliance with ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior
by Phil Corwin 09 May '16

09 May '16

Councilors: Over the weekend the Co-Chairs of the RPM Review WG took unanimous action to issue a Public Warning against a WG member for repeated email communications in violation of the Expected Standards of Behavior and disruptive to the WG process. The warning letter is attached and is being forwarded for your information. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 4:47 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Public warning regarding compliance with ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior This email is being sent by ICANN staff on behalf of the Co-Chairs of this Working Group, and is addressed specifically to Mr. Graham Schreiber, a member of the Working Group. It is being posted publicly for the information of all other members and observers of the group, in accordance with the procedure required by the GNSO’s Working Group Guidelines. The posting of the attached letter to Mr. Schreiber from the Working Group Co-Chairs to this mailing list constitutes the public warning required by Section 3.5 (Rules of Engagement) of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. Please refer to the attached letter for further information and details. For the text of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, please see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-16feb16-en.pdf. Thank you. Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4565/12169 - Release Date: 05/05/16

2 2

Call with ICANN Finance Team and Board Finance Committee - Tuesday 10 May at 17.00 UTC
by Marika Konings 09 May '16

09 May '16

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/msg0 0007.html). For details on how to join this meeting, please see https://community.icann.org/x/yjiAAw. Best regards, Marika

2 1

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

08 May '16

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

8 8

Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifiers
by James M. Bladel 07 May '16

07 May '16

Council Colleagues - Attached, please find a draft letter that was developed by Heather, Donna and myself, along with Staff, that sets out to "reboot" work on this topic. I note that this is a topic for the next GNSO Council meeting (Agenda Item #7), and therefore misses the document cutoff date. However, I expect this discussion & work to continue beyond our 12 MAY meeting, both on the list and during calls. Than you, J.

2 1

ICANN56, the New Meeting Format, and What that Means to You - ICANN
by Austin, Donna 07 May '16

07 May '16

All A blog from David Olive below about the Helsinki meeting. The current draft schedule for Helsinki is available at: https://community.icann.org/display/ccmeetschedplan/Meeting+Schedule+Planni…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> Let me know if you have any questions. Donna Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: May 7, 2016 at 7:50:54 AM PDT To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56, the New Meeting Format, and What that Means to You - ICANN https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann56-the-new-meeting-format-and-what-tha…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> ICANN56, the New Meeting Format, and What that Means to You <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> Next month will see our second public meeting of 2016 - ICANN56 - take place in Helsinki. This is the second meeting under the new meeting strategy, but the approach to the mid-year meeting is different from what we’re used to. Why the change? The community wanted to address the growing pains associated with the success and expansion of ICANNPublic Meetings over the years. For example, ICANN55 in Marrakech hosted over 2200 delegates and nearly 400 sessions. The rising demand for more sessions along with the increase in overall attendance has resulted in over-scheduled agendas and reduced opportunities for cross-community interaction. After a considerable amount of research and analysis, the community-led Meeting Strategy Working Group drafted a set of recommendations, which were provided for public comment and ultimately approved by the board. The new meeting strategy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__meetings.icann.org_en_…> was designed to derive the following benefits: * Enhance cross-community interaction * Increase efficient use of time by each part of the community * Increase concentrated time of policy work while reducing session conflict/overlap * Increase opportunity for issue-based and/or language-based interactions * Reduce meeting length for some groups based upon their focus and interest * Continued regional rotation for all meetings What does this mean for the upcoming ICANN56 in Helsinki? ICANN56 falls under the Meeting B (Policy Forum) structure. This means it is strictly a four-day meeting with sessions limited to “policy work and outreach,” with the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees taking the lead in organizing the program. The guiding principle is that sessions scheduled should be core to current policy development work, and involve working with other constituencies on matters that would benefit from cross-community dialogue. Session requests can only be made through SO/ACleadership. Under the Meeting B format, ICANN56 will not have an opening ceremony, high-interest topics, public forums, public board meeting or sponsor exhibition area. ICANN56 will be a first for all of us. Your feedback and input will be important to us as we review and assess the new structure to further enhance the delivery of the Meeting B strategy going forward. Please feel free to leave questions or comments below and Tanzanica King<mailto:king@icann.org>. Sent from my iPhone 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<tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550> _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

1 0

Schedule/Timing of AoC Reviews
by James M. Bladel 07 May '16

07 May '16

Council Colleagues - As discussed previously, I raised the topic of scheduled Reviews (as required under the Affirmation of Commitments) with the chairs of other SOs and ACs. The discussion was sparse, but a few other groups shared the concern that two of these (ATRT3 and WHOIS2) could potentially collide with existing CCWGs and PDPs (specifically, RDS and implementation of Work Stream 1 of CCWG-ACCT). However, there was no consensus as to what actions, if any, should be taken at this time. In the absence of unified and formal guidance from the Community, the reviews will proceed as scheduled. Any proposals to change the timing or scope would require engagement with the Board, and also likely NTIA. If I recall, there will be a few opportunities to discuss this at the Policy Forum in Helsinki. My recommendation is that we (GNSO, SGs, Cs, SO/ACs, etc.) continue to raise any remaining concerns in those sessions. Thank you, J.

2 1

Blog Post by Nick T - ICANN56
by James M. Bladel 07 May '16

07 May '16

Colleagues - If you have a few spare moments, you may find this blog post informative, in which Nick Tomasso describes the "Meeting B" format for ICANN Helskini. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann56-the-new-meeting-format-and-what-tha… Thanks you, J.

1 0

Follow up - Call between GNSO/IETF
by James M. Bladel 07 May '16

07 May '16

Colleagues - As tasked by the Council, last week I met with Warren and Paul from the IETF, IAB and Technical Liaison Group (TLG). Below are the notes captured during our conversation, along with a few points for follow-up. I've also attached the transcripts, and a link to the MP3. Thank you, J. ________________________________ * Because David C. was unable to attend, we agreed to record the meeting. * This was described as an informal discussion/brainstorming session to exchange views on how the GNSO and IETF could more closely coordinate their work. * We noted that some recent decisions (.ONION) could impact both organizations, and set concerning precedent for future topics that might be on a collision course. * Paul and Warren described their roles, and the function of the IAB and the liaison role for ICANN (currently Ionne is the IETF Liaison to the ICANN Board). * The IETF is fairly open or "flat" with no constituencies. It operates on a rough consensus model, and conducts most of its work via mailing lists, one of the most prominent being the DNS Ops list. This is the most likely forum for overlapping topics to arise. Suzanne Woolfe is chair of the DNS Ops Working Group. * IETF is also concerned about the potential for controversial or contentious issues like .ONION. They don't want to "get in to the names business", and are currently discussing ways to define & address this problem. * Note from Russ Housely from IAB to the ICANN Board on the issue of "Special Use Names": https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1351/ * Another issue is RDAP - there isn't any way to test RDAP with live data. IETF is interested in working with GNSO on proposals for a test bed. (Follow up: James and Staff to learn more, and see if we can connect them with CPH or ICANN resources?) * We also discussed ways to gain greater visibility to each others activities, and identify & raise new issues. * Leverage overlapping membership, especially from companies & organizations that participate in both GNSO/ICANN and IETF. * Consider informal meetings during ICANN events * Receive reports/updates from DNS Tech Day (occurs in conjunction with ICANN events) * Monitor & participate in the DNSOps Mailing list * More regular communication with existing IETF liaisons and leadership (Suzanne, Ionne and Andrew Sullivan) Attendance: Paul Wouters Warren Kumari James Bladel STAFF: Glen de saint Gery Marika Konings Yesim Nazlar Michelle DeSmyter MP3: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/5ksvgda4qm6trazgq3ja77zga0cmaeec.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=zZ8xDDIU4PY795Cika7Nmy-2FNugFnAwo9a…>

1 0