May 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 12 May 2016 at 12:00 UTC.
by Rubens Kuhl 05 May '16

05 May '16

Although more of an implementation issue, I though it was worthwhile to bring to the Council information uncovered by a registry that ICANN has known since December 2014 and still have not acted upon, regarding flaws in the Red Cross identifiers list, which is discussion item 7. >From a policy management perspective, the question at hand is if the currently available review processes are enough for both registries and RC/RC organizations for signaling implementation mistakes are adequate, or if a more formal process is warranted. Rubens >>> Item 7: DISCUSSION – Next Steps in Resolving the Issue of Permanent Protection of Certain Red Cross Identifiers (15 minutes) > > I found few mistakes in the list of Red Cross names > (ICANN is aware of it, but did nothing) > thus the real names (without mistakes) are not protected =] > > As I understand it is all because of ICANN blind processing of all incoming info from > Red Cross without sanity checks (in the first case they effectively blocked russian word for society , > without any kind of right to do so - across all new gTLDs). > > here are the info bits: > >> ICANN provided list of Reserved names (requirement of RA, Spec 5, Art 5 & 6) >> >> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedN… > > > This one on mistake caused by someone pushed ENTER in the middle of the name > (known to ICANN since dec 2014) > >> We have found the generic term which was added, most probably by mistake into >> the addition to the last version (2014-12-10) of the list of the Reserved names: >> International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement - International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Names >> >> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedN… >> >> the string: >> общество >> xn--90aci8adqh7c >> >> One of the meanings is a generic term for 'society' in russian language (also 'public' in it's broad meaning … like entire society). >> >> And it would be seen like a cybersquatting from the Red Cross with the help of powerful lobby (the situation which was most feared by IPC) and most probably, will hit news. >> >> The reasons to believe it was typo mistake and that there are two strings (mentioned later in 4.) fell >> out of the protection due to this mistake: >> >> 1. The website of the http://www.redcrescent.uz/indexe.html >> Red Crescent Society of Uzbekistan >> in English >> or >> Ўзбекистон Қизил Ярим Ой жамияти >> in Uzbek >> or >> Общество Красного Полумесяца Узбекистана >> in Russian >> >> >> has reference to full name with 'society' in all 3 languages: >> (also in documents, laws under which it was established in 1992) >> >> 2. string >> окпу >> xn--j1aheq >> is an abbreviation of Общество Красного Полумесяца Узбекистана >> with first letter о for Общество (Society in Russian) >> >> 3. If we look at the strings from Tadzhikistan Red Cross Society >> we can see еру pattern: >> (2 strings in Russian, Russian abbreviation, 2 strings in Tadzhikistan language) >> >> So we could come to the conclusion that Uzbekistan Red Cross Society might have wanted the set of strings >> designed the same way. >> >> 4. Thus we come to the conclusion that >> during the preparation of the document, >> 'enter' was pressed on the keyboard in the wrong place and >> the first word from >> общество-красного-полумесяца-узбекистана >> & >> обществокрасногополумесяцаузбекистана >> became a separate string >> and as a result we see >> 3 wrong strings and missed 2 actual strings meant for protection >> (also we avoid cybersquatting scandal with involvement of Red Cross) >> >> proposed changes >> ====== >> Strings a1,a2,a3 from bellow >> Should be replaced with strings b1,b2. Strings a1,a2,a3 should be released from the obligatory reserved list. >> >> a1. >> общество xn--90aci8adqh7c >> a2. >> красного-полумесяца-узбекистана >> xn-----6kcbbafmtduoqjiqnnfbbvqzkh1aqf1g5n >> a3. >> красногополумесяцаузбекистана >> xn--80aaaadkocqmohhomlfbatpxjgzpe6f0n >> >> should be replaced with >> b1. >> общество-красного-полумесяца-узбекистана >> xn------6cdbbabfenufd2asyjmurncdebb1awzgkhi0ayf5i5dwm >> and >> b2. >> обществокрасногополумесяцаузбекистана >> xn—80aaaabcejpdcwpuhkrplcddbayuxfjgixwe7h1d7l >> > > and this one is Mixed script: > (known to ICANN since jun 2015) >> >> tчху >> (xn--t-cubfh) >> >> instead of first letter to be from cyrillyc script it is from latin 't' >> >> if you check two lines which are right above it >> >> товариство-червоного-хреста-україни >> xn------5cdcbibbkud6ak2a6bhcedbb9afhejoigp8a0d2cz1b >> 4 letter abbreviation should be >> тчху >> (xn--r1acfh) >>

2 2

Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 12 May 2016 at 12:00 UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry 05 May '16

05 May '16

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 12 May 2016 at 12:00 UTC. 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. 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 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 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 (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

FW: [gnso-rpm-wg] GNSO RPM Working Group note on leadership team proposal
by Phil Corwin 04 May '16

04 May '16

Fellow Councilors: Now that I have been confirmed as one of the three Co-Chairs of the RPM WG, the Council will need to appoint a new Liaison to the WG. Councilors who are participating in its work may wish to volunteer for that reporting position. Best to all, 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 Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 12:42 AM To: J. Scott Evans; David Tait; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] GNSO RPM Working Group note on leadership team proposal Dear all, A quick follow-up to David's email re no objections, FYI, it is on our GNSO Council consent agenda for next week's meeting to confirm the co-chairs. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 3:30:39 AM To: David Tait; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] GNSO RPM Working Group note on leadership team proposal Thanks David. J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, Domains & Marketing | Adobe 345 Park Avenue San Jose, CA 95110 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 10:22 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] GNSO RPM Working Group note on leadership team proposal Dear All In advance of tomorrow's webinar for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Review+of+all+Rights+Prote…> (scheduled for Wednesday, 4 May 2016 at 22:30 UTC for 60 minutes) staff wish to note that we have received no objections to the proposed leadership team of co-Chairs Phil Corwin, Kathy Kleiman and J. Scott Evans. Kind regards, David Tait David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> ________________________________ <ACL> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4563/12137 - Release Date: 04/30/16

1 0

FW: Conduct at ICANN Meetings
by James M. Bladel 04 May '16

04 May '16

Council Colleagues - Please see the note below from David Olive, regarding conduct / harassment at ICANN events. Thanks to all who worked on this, either via the Council or your SG/C contributions. I expect there will be a need for additional volunteers as this process moves forward. Thanks- J. From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 8:47 Subject: Conduct at ICANN Meetings Dear Community Leaders: Thank you for continuing to provide ICANN with your and your respective group's (SO/AC/SG/Constituency/RALO) input concerning the appropriate approach for ICANN's development of standards, policies and processes regarding allegations of harassment at future ICANN meetings. It would seem that most community groups prefer the third option that I had suggested following our last call on 12 April, i.e.: "Do not convene a formal group, but leave it to each community (SO/AC/SG/Constituency/RALO) and individual participants to provide suggestions to, and comment on possible recommendations from, the Board as a result of further Board discussions and expert consultations on the topic." The Business Constituency (BC), in supporting this option, nevertheless suggested refining it such that the process will be for ICANN staff, in consultation with experts, to draft recommendations that are posted for public comments. Following a review of public comments received, the proposal will be sent to the Board for its approval. If there are no objections, ICANN will proceed along the lines of the third option as refined by the BC. We will also inform the Board that this is the community's preference. A number of specific exemplars that can be looked at by ICANN in drafting the proposal has been provided by various Community leaders and members, either as part of group calls on the topic or individually. These include: · The Ada Initiative: https://adainitiative.org/continue-our-work/ada-initiative-event-anti-haras… · The IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force): https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html · The Internet Governance Forum: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/aboutigf/igf-code-of-conduct · The NTEN (Nonprofit Technology Network) : http://www.nten.org/ntc/about-the-ntc/code-of-conduct/ · RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens): https://ripe72.ripe.net/on-site/code-of-conduct/ · The United Nations and its specialized agencies' anti-harassment staff policies (some of these are collected here: http://www.ficsa.org/component/sobipro/?task=download.file&fid=37.1329&sid=… In addition, the GNSO Chair and Vice Chairs sent a letter on behalf of the GNSO Council to Akram Atallah, our President and CEO, on 27 April 2016. The letter suggested a number of considerations to be taken into account in developing an anti-harassment policy and procedure for the Community. A copy of the letter can be viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-atallah-25apr16-en.pdf. I expect that these, and other similar resources, will provide a starting point for ICANN to begin work on a draft proposal, for which we will seek expert advice as recommended by the Community, as well as Community input. The Board is expected to discuss this matter during its workshop in Amsterdam on 13-15 May 2016. In addition, and in parallel, the Board is looking at enhancements to the language in ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior, so as to ensure an overall awareness that ICANN does not condone harassment or other inappropriate conduct by or directed at members of the Community. Thank you. With best regards, David 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

1 0

REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday, 2 May 2016 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 12 May 2016 at 12:00 UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry 02 May '16

02 May '16

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 2 MAY 2016 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 12 May 2016 at 12:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+12+May+2016 Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 02 May '16

02 May '16

Dear All, Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC. http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-14apr16-en.htm https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+April+2016 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures,<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> approved and updated on 24 June 2015. For convenience: · An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. · An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC: http://tinyurl.com/gn4sy7u 14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington; 22:00 London; 00:00 Istanbul; 07:00 Hobart Please be aware that the clocks will have changed in some parts of the world, so refer to the other times below to ensure you join the meeting at the correct time. UTC time remains the same for Council meetings, local time changes. GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review/amend agenda. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council Meeting Minutes, 29 February and 9 March 2016 will be posted as approved on xxxx 2016. Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes) Item 4: PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION - Possible Next Steps in Resolving the Issue of Permanent Protection of Certain Red Cross Identifiers (20 minutes) In November 2013, the GNSO Council approved<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> the final recommendations from its Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs. Subsequently, in April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-04-30-en#2.a> those of the GNSO's PDP recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-a-30apr14…> received on the topic. For the Red Cross movement, the protections adopted were for the full names Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun at the top and second levels, in the 6 official languages of the United Nations, with an Exception Procedure to be designed during the implementation phase for the affected organizations. However, with respect to the names and acronyms of the 189 national Red Cross societies and the names of the International Red Cross Movement (as noted by the GAC in its Singapore Communique<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/34373692/Final%20Communique%2…)>), the Board requested more time to consider the GNSO's recommendations as these are inconsistent with GAC advice<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-b-30apr14-en.…> received on the topic. In the interim period, the Board adopted<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-10…> temporary protections for the Red Cross national society and international movement names noted in the GAC's Singapore Communique. At ICANN55, representatives of the Red Cross met with the GNSO Council leadership to discuss possible next steps. Here the Red Cross representatives will brief the Council on the scope of the Red Cross' continuing request for permanent protections for those of its national society and international movement identifiers that are not currently covered by the policy recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. 4.1 - Introduction (James Bladel) 4.2 - Presentation by representatives of the Red Cross (by invitation) 4.3 - Q&A / next steps Item 5: VOTE - Approval of Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations from the GNSO Review (10 minutes) As part of ICANN's Bylaws-mandated periodic review of its structures, the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee (now known as the Organizational Effectiveness Committee) appointed Westlake Governance as the independent examiner to conduct the current review of the performance and operations of the GNSO. A GNSO Working Party, chaired by former Councillor Jennifer Wolfe and comprising representatives of all the GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, was formed to consult with Westlake over the design and conduct of the review. Westlake's Draft Report was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en> for public comment on 1 June 2015. Following feedback received, including from the GNSO Working Party, Westlake published its Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf> on 15 September. The Working Party reviewed all the recommendations to develop guidance for the GNSO Council and ICANN Board in relation to the implementability and prioritization of the recommendations. The Council received a written update<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-gnso-council-update-21…> from the Working Party chair on 29 January, and the Working Party's proposed Implementation and Feasibility Analysis<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-e…> was sent to the Council on 28 February. Here the Council will review the Working Party's Implementation and Feasibility Analysis, and vote on its adoption as well as agree on next steps in the process. 5.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016> (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of Procedures Governing the Selection of the GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (10 minutes) As part of a two-year pilot program initiated in June 2014, the GNSO Council and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) agreed, through its joint GAC-GNSO Consultation Group<https://community.icann.org/x/phPRAg>, to appoint a GNSO Liaison to the GAC. The purpose of the Liaison role was to facilitate more effective early engagement by the GAC in GNSO policy activities and to contribute toward better information flow between the two bodies. Following Consultation Group review<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-liaison-gac-pilot-29feb16-en.pdf> of the pilot program, the Consultation Group recommended that the Liaison role be made a permanent one in March 2016. Here the Council will review and approve the scope of such a permanent Liaison role as well as the application, selection and confirmation process. 6.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+20…> 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 7: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of GNSO Input to the ICANN Board on the GAC's Marrakech Communique (20 minutes) Beginning in mid-2015 with the GAC's Buenos Aires Communique, the GNSO Council developed a mechanism for reviewing and commenting on aspects of that Communique that are relevant to gTLD policy. The resulting GNSO input on both the GAC's Buenos Aires and Dublin Communiques were approved by the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board and the GAC Chair (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/robinson-to-icann-boar… and http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-gac-review-31dec15-en.pdf). Here the Council will review the draft response to the GAC's Marrakech Communique, drafted by a volunteer group of Councillors, and, if appropriate, approve its being forwarded to the ICANN Board and GAC Chair. 7.1 - Presentation of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+April+20…> (Proposer name: Susan Kawaguchi /Jennifer Gore / Rubens Kuhl) 7.2 - Discussion 7.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 8: COUNCIL APPROVAL - Public Comment on ICANN's FY17 Proposed Budget (15 minutes) On 5 March 2016, the draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan and Budget was published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/op-budget-fy17-five-year-2016-03-04-en> for public comment (closing on 30 April). The GNSO Council had previously provided public comments<https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-op-budget-fy16-18mar15/pdfWW7Sy3WTwV…> to the FY16 Operating Plan and Budget. At ICANN55, a small group of Councillors had volunteered to work on possible Council comments to the draft FY17 budget. Here the Council will review and, if appropriate, agree to send in the proposed comments. 8.1 - Update and summary of comments (Keith Drazek / Edward Morris / Carlos Raul Gutierrez) 8.2 - Discussion 8.3 - Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION - Implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan (10 minutes) At ICANN55, community discussions were held concerning the upcoming implementation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan, including at a session on 7 March<https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-imp…>. Several GNSO community members voiced concerns about whether the proposed implementation plan would meet the requirements of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Proposal on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg>). On 25 March a Call for Volunteers<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en> was issued for additional CCWG participation, including for implementation of the adopted Work Stream 1 recommendations. Here the Council will discuss the community concerns that have been raised, and review possible next steps in relation to the CWG-Stewardship and ICANN staff that have been charged with developing the implementation plan. 9.1 - Summary & update (James Bladel) 9.2 - Discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: DISCUSSION - Planning for "Meeting B" (ICANN Policy Forum) (10 Minutes) At ICANN55, the GNSO held several discussions, including with the ICANN Board, concerning the focus, duration and meeting schedule for the first designated ICANN Policy Forum, to take place in Helsinki as ICANN56 (i.e. the initial so-called "Meeting B"). Specific concerns were raised about the apparent lack of time for actual policy work in the overall Meeting B schedule when all the current draft SO/AC/Board proposals were put together, and about the lack of opportunity for different SO/AC/Board groups to interact with one another. A small group of SO/AC volunteers has been formed to address these concerns. Here the Council will hear from its representatives to this group, and discuss further plans for finalizing the GNSO's schedule for ICANN56 so as to maximize the policy focus for Meeting B. This includes confirmation of the PDP Working Group(s) to be invited to consider conducting a face-to-face working meeting in Helsinki, on a day either precedent or subsequent to the ICANN56 schedule. 10.1 - Update (Donna Austin / Volker Greimann) 10.2 - Discussion 10.3 - Next steps Item 11: DISCUSSION - Status of Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (10 minutes) The Charter<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888213/Charter%20ccWG%20…> for this Cross Community Working Group was ratified<https://community.icann.org/x/oQInAw> by the ccNSO Council (September 2014), the GNSO Council (October 2014), and the ALAC (April 2015). The CCWG Charter states its scope as doing "whatever it deems relevant and necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes", with regular updates to be provided to its Chartering Organizations and a periodic Progress Paper where appropriate. The Charter also provides that the Chartering Organizations should review the Charter and CCWG deliverables in order to determine whether the group should continue or be dissolved, with the proviso that the CCWG will continue if at least two of its Chartering Organizations extend the Charter and notify the other Chartering Organizations accordingly. During the CCWG co-chairs' update to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils at ICANN55, there was some discussion over whether a CCWG format or other arrangement might be the most appropriate form for SO/AC interaction on Internet governance matters, especially given the expected forthcoming finalization<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-…> of a Uniform Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs by the CCWG-Principles. Here the GNSO Council will continue that discussion, with a view toward agreeing on the appropriate next steps for the CCWG on Internet Governance. 11.1 - Introduction and summary (Carlos Raul Gutierrez) 11.2 - Discussion 11.3 - Next steps Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 12.1 - Proposed approach to Expert Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) Final Report _________________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21:00 Local time between March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+0DST 14:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-5+0DST 16:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+0DST 17:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 22:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 23:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 next day Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 07:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 05:00 next day Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 07:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/gn4sy7u Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

11 24