September 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft Motion - GNSO Representative on the Empowered Community
by James M. Bladel Sept. 22, 2016

Sept. 22, 2016

Council Colleagues - Below and attached, please find a draft motion for appointing a GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community. As you are no doubt aware, the current Bylaws Drafting Team (led by Steve DelBianco) is examining the nature of the GNSO's participation in the new Empowered Community, and we anticipate their recommendations very soon. However, as a "Decisional Participant," the GNSO must identify its representative and communicate this to ICANN's Secretary before the transition (30 SEP 2016). So we are up against a very tight deadline. As currently written, the bylaws call for the Chair of each decisional SO/AC, or another designee, to serve in this role. The text of this motion acknowledges this, but notes that this would be an "interim" appointment, pending any changes resulting from the work of the Bylaws Drafting Team. I hope that all made sense, and look forward to discussing during our next call (29 SEP). Thanks- J. Motion on the interim appointment of the GNSO Representative on the Empowered Community Administration WHEREAS As stated in Section 1.1(a) of Article 6 of the new ICANN Bylaws, concerning the composition and organization of the Empowered Community (EC), "The Empowered Community ("EC") shall be a nonprofit association formed under the laws of the State of California consisting of the ASO, the ccNSO, the GNSO, the ALAC and the GAC (each a "Decisional Participant" or "associate," and collectively, the "Decisional Participants")." The sole purpose of the EC is to exercise its rights and perform its obligations under ICANN's Articles of Incorporation and the ICANN Bylaws, and the EC shall have no other powers or rights except as expressly provided in the ICANN Bylaws. The EC may only act as provided in these Bylaws. Any act of the EC that is not in accordance with these Bylaws shall not be effective. As outlined in section 6.3 of the new ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO, as a Decisional Participant, shall act through its respective chair or such other person as may be designated by the GNSO (collectively, such persons from all communities are the "EC Administration"). Each Decisional Participant shall deliver annually a written certification from its chair or co-chairs to the ICANN Secretary designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration. The GNSO created a Drafting Team (DT) on 30 June 2016 to identify the GNSO's new rights and obligations, and work with ICANN staff to prepare an implementation plan to address any needed changes by 30 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions - 201606)<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201606)>. RESOLVED 1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms that the GNSO Chair (currently James Bladel) will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration on an interim basis. 2. The GNSO representative shall act solely as directed by the GNSO Council in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and other related GNSO Operating Procedures. 3. Following the completion of the work of the GNSO Rights & Obligations under Revised ICANN Bylaws Drafting Team and adoption of its recommendations by the GNSO Council, the GNSO is expected to finalize its decision on the appointment of the person designated to represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration and will communicate this accordingly to the ICANN Secretary. 4. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this decision to the ICANN Secretary which will serve as the required written certification from the GNSO Chair designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration.

5 8

ICNAN Board resolutions from 15 Sept in Brussels
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

See below for the resolutions of the Board meeting held during the recent Board workshop in Brussels. Regards, Bruce Tonkin https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-09-15-en Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 15 Sep 2016 1.Consent Agenda: a. Implementation of RSSAC 003 Recommendations for the KSK signature validity Whereas, on 16 September 2015, the ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) published RSSAC0003: Report on Root Zone TTLs. Whereas, in RSSAC003, the report recommends that the Root Zone Management partners increase the signature validity periods for signatures generated by both the Key Signing Key (KSK) and the Zone Signing Key (ZSK). The report furthers recommends that the KSK signature validity should be increased to at least 21 days, ZSK signature validity should be increased to at least 13 days, and no further changes to Root Zone TTLs be made at this time. Whereas, upon receiving RSSAC003, ICANN staff conducted a feasibility and cost analysis of increasing the KSK signature validity, and created an KSK implementation plan for review by the Board. Whereas, the Board has considered the advice of the RSSAC in RSSAC003, in addition to the feasibility and costs of implementing the advice related to the KSK. The Board understands the Root Zone Maintainer is also considering the recommendations in RSSAC003 related to the ZSK. Resolved (2016.09.15.01), the Board adopts the RSSAC advice for the KSK signature validity in RSSAC 003, and directs ICANN's President and CEO, or his designee, to proceed with implementing the KSK recommendations in RSSAC 003 in collaboration with the root zone management partners. b. Delegation of the .বাংলা ("bangla") domain representing Bangladesh in Bengali script Resolved (2016.09.15.02), as part of the exercise of its responsibilities under the IANA Functions Contract, ICANN has reviewed and evaluated the request to delegate the .বাংলা country-code top-level domain to the Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology, Posts and Telecommunications Division of Bangladesh. The documentation demonstrates that the proper procedures were followed in evaluating the request. Resolved (2016.09.15.03), the Board directs that pursuant to Article III, Section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws, that certain portions of the rationale not appropriate for public distribution within the resolutions, preliminary report or minutes at this time due to contractual obligations, shall be withheld until public release is allowed pursuant to those contractual obligations. c. October 2018 ICANN Meeting Venue and Location Contracting Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its third Public Meeting of 2018 in the Europe region. Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of the proposed venues in Europe and finds the one in Barcelona, Spain to be the most suitable. Resolved (2016.09.15.04), the Board authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to engage in and facilitate all necessary contracting and disbursements for the host Convention Centre for the October 2018 ICANN Public Meeting in Barcelona, Spain, in an amount not to exceed [AMOUNT REDACTED FOR NEGOTIATION PURPOSES], and that the October 2018 ICANN Public Meeting be designated as the 2018 Annual General Meeting. Resolved (2016.09.15.05), specific items within this resolution shall remain confidential for negotiation purposes pursuant to Article III, section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws until the President and CEO determines that the confidential information may be released. d. Appointment of 2017 Nominating Committee Chair and Chair-Elect Whereas, the BGC reviewed the Expressions of Interest from candidates for the 2017 Nominating Committee ("NomCom") Chair and Chair-Elect, considered the results of a 360-degree evaluation of the 2016 NomCom leadership, and conducted interviews of candidates. Whereas, the BGC has recommended that Hans Petter Holen be appointed as the 2017 NomCom Chair and Zahid Jamil be appointed as the 2017 NomCom Chair-Elect. Resolved (2016.09.15.06), the Board hereby appoints Hans Petter Holen as the 2017 Nominating Committee Chair and Zahid Jamil as the 2017 Nominating Committee Chair-Elect. 2. Main Agenda: a. IANA Naming Function Contract between ICANN and PTI Whereas, completion of the Naming Function Contract <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-iana-naming-function-a…> [PDF, 283 KB] fulfills a requirement from the package of proposals that the Board approved on 10 March 2016 to transition NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community. Whereas, the Naming Function Contract was drafted to meet the requirements of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. Whereas, through the Naming Function Contract, ICANN will contract with Public Technical Identifiers to serve as the IANA Naming Function operator and perform the IANA naming-related functions. Whereas, ICANN solicited public comment on the proposed Naming Function Contract from 10 August 2016 to 09 September 2016 <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/iana-naming-function-agreement-2016-0…>. Whereas, the public comment forum for the proposed Naming Function Contract closed on 9 September 2016, with ICANN receiving eight of comments, both by individuals and organizations/groups. A summary and analysis of the comments was published <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-iana-naming-fun…> [PDF, 497 KB] and provided to the Board. Resolved (2016.09.15.07), the proposed Naming Function Contract is approved, and the President and CEO, or his designee(s) is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to finalize and execute the Agreement. b. Services Agreement between ICANN and PTI Whereas, completion of the Services Agreement <https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/111-services-agreement-v-14sep16> [DOCX, 47 KB] fulfills a requirement from the package of proposals that the Board approved on 10 March 2016 to transition NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community. Whereas, the Services Agreement was drafted to meet the requirements of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and the obligations that ICANN has under the Naming Function Contract. Whereas, ICANN consulted with the CWG-Stewardship, its outside counsel, the IETF, and the RIRs to address any concerns and finalize the Agreement. Resolved (2016.09.15.08), the proposed Services Agreement is approved, and the President and CEO, or his designee(s) is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to finalize and execute the Agreement. c. .COM Registry Agreement Amendment Whereas, ICANN and Verisign engaged in discussions on a proposed amendment to the 1 December 2012 .COM Registry Agreement ("Amendment") and agreed to extend the term of the Agreement to 30 November 2024 to coincide with the term of the Root Zone Maintainer Services Agreement in order to enhance the security, stability and resiliency of root zone operations. Whereas, the proposed Amendment also requires Verisign and ICANN to cooperate and negotiate in good faith to: (1) amend the .COM Registry Agreement by the second anniversary date of the proposed Amendment in order to preserve and enhance the security of the Internet or the TLD; and (2) as may be necessary for consistency with changes to the Cooperative Agreement between Verisign and the U.S. Department of Commerce. All other terms and conditions in the existing Registry Agreement remain unchanged. Whereas, ICANN commenced a public comment period from 30 June 2016 to 12 August 2016 <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/com-amendment-2016-06-30-en> on the proposed Amendment. Ninety-nine (99) comment submissions were posted by both individuals and organizations/groups. Whereas, the Board carefully considered the comments and the staff summary and analysis of comments. Whereas, ICANN conducted a review of Verisign's recent performance under the current .COM Registry Agreement and found that Verisign substantially met its contractual requirements. Resolved (2016.09.15.09), the proposed amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/com/com-amend-1-pdf-30jun16-…> [PDF, 100 KB] is approved, subject to the RZMA being executed, and the President and CEO, or his designee(s), is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to finalize and execute the Amendment. d. PTI Governance Items – Adoption of PTI Bylaws; Appointment of PTI Board Initial Directors; Appointment of PTI President PTI Bylaws Whereas, it is deemed to be in the best interest of PTI, as a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, that bylaws be adopted. Whereas, these initial Bylaws of PTI were developed to be consistent with the requirements of the ICG Proposal as received by the ICANN Board on 10 March 2016, including through coordination with the CWG-Stewardship and its external counsel. Whereas, the initial Bylaws of PTI were subject to a 30-day public comment period, from 12 July 2016 through 11 August 2016, with four comments received. ICANN staff developed a summary analysis and report identifying how each comment was considered and addressed, and ICANN coordinated with CWG-Stewardship's external counsel on the revisions. Whereas, ICANN's General Counsel has asserted that the proposed PTI Bylaws remain consistent with the ICG Proposal and recommends that ICANN, as PTI's sole member, proceed with approval. Whereas, the PTI Bylaws will not go into effect until approved by both the PTI Board and ICANN as the sole member. Resolved (2016.09.15.10), the ICANN Board, in its role as sole member of PTI, approves the Bylaws available here <https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/109-revised-pti-bylaws_18aug16-v-v1> [DOCX, 72 KB] as the initial Bylaws for PTI. PTI President Whereas, pursuant to Section 7.2 of the PTI Bylaws, ICANN as the sole member is authorized to appoint a President of PTI. Resolved (2016.09.15.11), the ICANN Board, in its role as sole member of PTI, hereby appoints Elise Gerich as the President of PTI. PTI Board – Initial Directors Whereas, ICANN, in its role as sole member of PTI, has the obligation to appoint all members of the PTI Board in accordance with Article 5 of the PTI Bylaws. Whereas, the PTI Bylaws, at Section 5.2.1, authorize the PTI Board to have five Directors. Whereas, ICANN, as the sole member of PTI, must appoint four Initial Directors to the PTI Board, with two Initial Directors being employees of ICANN or PTI, and two Initial Directors being the candidates identified by the Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Proposal for Naming Related Functions, pursuant to Section 5.2.2.2 of the PTI Bylaws. Whereas, ICANN, as the sole member of PTI, must appoint the President of PTI to the PTI Board. Elise Gerich has been appointed as President of PTI. The President of PTI serves on the PTI Board in an ex officio capacity, with a term that coincides with her service as President of PTI. Whereas, ICANN recommends that Akram Atallah, ICANN's President, Global Domains Division and David Conrad, ICANN's Chief Technology Officer, serve as the two Initial Directors that are employees of ICANN or PTI. Whereas, the CWG-Stewardship recommends that Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson serve as Initial Directors. Resolved (2016.09.15.12), ICANN, in its role as sole member of PTI, appoints Akram Atallah, David Conrad, Lise Fuhr, and Jonathan Robinson as Initial Directors of PTI with terms to end as specified at Section 5.5 of the PTI Bylaws. Incorporator Whereas, on 9 August 2016, the ICANN Board approved the filing of Articles of Incorporation for Public Technical Identifiers (or PTI) with the California Secretary of State. Whereas, to complete that filing, ICANN identified Akram Atallah to serve as the incorporator for PTI for the purposes of signing and filing the PTI Articles of Incorporation. Whereas, the PTI Articles of Incorporation were received by the California Secretary of State on 10 August 2016. Whereas, Akram Atallah has taken no other acts as the incorporator of PTI, and has submitted a letter of resignation as the incorporator of PTI. Resolved (2016.09.15.13), that any or all actions heretofore taken by any Authorized Officer to effectuate or evidence the purpose and intent of the foregoing resolutions be, and hereby are, approved, ratified and confirmed as the act and deed of the Company or such affiliate and the act and deed of the Board. Resolved (2016.09.15.14), the ICANN Board, in its role as sole member of PTI, accepts the resignation of Akram Atallah as incorporator of PTI, effective on the above election of the Initial Directors of PTI. e. Further Consideration of the Dot Registry IRP Final Declaration Whereas, upon adopting the Panel majority's findings that Dot Registry LLC is the prevailing party in the Dot Registry v. ICANN Independent Review Process (IRP) proceedings (Dot Registry IRP), the Board resolved to consider next steps in relation to Dot Registry's Reconsideration Requests or the relevant new gTLDs before the Board takes any further action. (See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en - 2.g.) Whereas, the Board has noted that the Panel majority in the Dot Registry IRP did not make any specific recommendations to the Board as to next steps. Whereas, the Board has also taken note of the various correspondence and input received from Dot Registry and others with respect to this matter. Whereas, the Panel majority in the Dot Registry IRP declared that the Board Governance Committee (BGC) acted in a manner inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws in evaluating Reconsideration Requests 14-30, 14-32 and 14-33. (See Final Declaration, ¶ 151, available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-dot-registry-final-declarat… [PDF, 12.9 MB].) Whereas, specifically, the Panel majority declared that "the Board (acting through the BGC) failed to exercise due diligence and care in having a reasonable amount of facts in front of them and failed to fulfill its transparency obligations including both the failure to make available the research on which the EIU and ICANN staff purportedly relied and the failure to make publically available the ICANN staff work on which the BGC relied). The Panel majority further concludes that the evidence before it does not support a determination that the Board (acting through the BGC) exercised independent judgment in reaching the reconsideration decisions." See id., at ¶ 152. Resolved (2016.09.15.15), the Board directs the Board Governance Committee to re-evaluate Dot Registry's Reconsideration Requests 14-30, 14-32 and 14-33 in light of the Panel majority's Final Declaration in the Dot Registry IRP and the issues it identified with respect to the BGC's actions in evaluating these Reconsideration Requests. f. Consideration of Ombudsman Report Regarding dotgay, LLC's application for .GAY No resolution taken. g. Reconsideration Request 16-3 (dotgay LLC) No resolution taken. h. AOB No resolution taken. Published on 19 September 2016

1 0

FW: ICANN57 - High Interest Topics - Next Steps
by James M. Bladel Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Councilors - Please see the note below from ICANN Meetings Staff regarding High Interest sessions. The deadline was yesterday, but I have asked for an extension. Please respond to the request for input, and feel free to circulate among your SG/C membership, if this hasn't already been done. Thanks- J. From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 17:34 Subject: ICANN57 - High Interest Topics - Next Steps A message from the Meetings team asking for your inputs. Regards David --------------------------------------------------------------- Dear SO-AC Leaders: A total of 15 potential topics for high-interest session slots have been identified by your groups for ICANN57 in Hyderabad. With just seven slots available for these, we'd like to invite you to take one more step towards finalizing topics for the meeting. Please see details for the potential topics at https://meetings.icann.org/en/hitreviews and a corresponding review form at https://icann.wufoo.com/forms/icann57-hit-proposal-review-form/. As noted on the form, please use the following high-interest session criteria to support your selections: - Topic has potential to attract a large audience (200+) and be of interest across most, if not all SO/ACs. - Proposed format allows for adequate audience participation within a 75-90 minute session slot. - Topic has clear goals and objectives which are closely aligned with ICANN's mission and core values. Your responses will be used to identify seven (7) topics for the main meeting room high-interest session slots. Please submit your reviews as soon as possible but no later than EOD 18 September. Tanzanica S. King Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design ICANN Office +1 310 301 5800 Mobile +1 310 995 3038 Email king(a)icann.org<mailto:king@icann.org> www.icann.org

1 1

Document and Motion deadline Monday, 19 September 2016 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 29 September 2016 at 21:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 19 September 2016 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council Meeting on 29 September 2016 at 21:00UTC 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+29+Septembe… 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<http://gnso.icann.org/> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

2 1

Take the At-Large Review Survey!
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 14, 2016

Sept. 14, 2016

Take the At-Large Review Survey! - and please pass on this message to your colleagues! Help make At-Large a more efficient and effective part of the ICANN community - all are invited to take part in the At-Large Review survey: http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/ The At-Large Review is conducted by the Paris-based consultancy firm, ITEMS<http://www.items.fr/> who acts as the independent examiner. Taking (no more than) 10-15min to participate in the review via the online survey<http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/> will be an invaluable contribution to the success of this important review process. IMPORTANT: If you have an interruption and cannot complete the form make sure you go to the last page and submit the form first. Your answers will then be saved and you can return at a later stage, using the same device, and complete the survey, clicking 'submit' once more. Le sondage sera disponible en français en fin de semaine. Vous recevrez davantage d'information lorsque celui-ci sera en ligne. La encuesta se encontrará posteriormente disponible esta semana en español. Mayor información será notificada tan pronto sea posible.

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Joint Note to Community Leaders about Recent Public Comment Improvements
by James M. Bladel Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Councilors- Please see below for an announcement regarding Public Comments. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. Begin forwarded message: From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: September 13, 2016 at 12:47:36 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Joint Note to Community Leaders about Recent Public Comment Improvements Dear Community Leaders: At ICANN55 in Marrakech, we received feedback during a public forum session about the public comment process at ICANN. Specifically, the speakers expressed concerns about the multitude of public comment requests and other ICANN calls to action. Requesting opinions from the community is an essential part of the multistakeholder process, and we recognize the importance of ensuring that this is an easy-to-use and streamlined process. As a result, our teams discussed this issue and subsequently created a single page that lists all opportunities for the community to provide feedback on open calls-to-action including activities that fall outside of typical public comment proceedings. This page is now live. It is also accessible from the main banner at the top of the public comment page. We encourage you to share this added functionality with your communities. The Global Domains Division will maintain this new page, and the Policy Development Support Team will continue to manage the public comment process including the opening and closing of proceedings, posting of summary reports, and updating the 'upcoming public comment proceedings' page. Public comment is an integral part of the policy development process and an important component in organizational and governance matters at ICANN as well as implementation and operational aspects of our work. We hope that consolidating all calls for community input proves useful. We are also exploring ways to further improve the user experience for everyone participating in the public comment process and will keep you informed of our progress. If you have questions or comments, please contact public-comment(a)icann.org<mailto:public-comment@icann.org>. We look forward to your feedback. Best regards, Akram Atallah and David Olive --------------- David A. Olive Senior Vice President | Policy Development Support General Manager | ICANN Regional Headquarters | Istanbul david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers | Hakki Yeten Caddesi | Selenium Plaza | No:10/C K:10 | 34349 | Fulya | Besiktas | Istanbul _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

1 1

Action Items GNSO Council Meeting 1 September 2016
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Dear Councillors, Please find the Action Items from the GNSO Council Meeting on 1 September 2016. Please provide your comments and let us know if we have missed any items. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters ACTION ITEMS: · Staff to note in meeting minutes the votes taken on 9 August, including that they were by email ballots (IN PROCESS) Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List ACTION ITEMS: · Staff to send out Doodle poll to find out if current and incoming Councilors will be present in Hyderabad (including for the Council Development Session on 10 November) (IN PROCESS) Item 3: Consent Agenda APPROVED: updated dates for selection of GNSO Liaison to the GAC Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of Recommendations from the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements VOTING RESULT: · Motion passed unanimously (NOTE: Motion as passed was amended from the motion as proposed - the sentence "The SCI is hereby disbanded" was deleted from the Resolved clauses as a friendly amendment prior to the vote) ACTION ITEMS: · Staff to confirm that the Charter for the new GNSO Review Working Group includes a mandate for the group to handle future requests to review GNSO procedures (DONE) · Staff to post updated Operating Procedures to the GNSO website (DONE) Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of Implementation Advisory Group Recommendations to Update Procedure on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws VOTING RESULT: · None; motion was withdrawn following Council discussion ACTION ITEMS: · Council leadership to initiate discussion on a proposed way forward on next steps for the GNSO concerning the Implementation Advisory Group Recommendations, including whether or not, and when, the motion should be reintroduced (IN PROCESS) Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures ACTION ITEMS: · Council leadership to request input from SG/Cs as well as new gTLD Subsequent procedures PDP Working Group on questions raised in the ICANN Board letter in time for next GNSO Council meeting in view of crafting a consensus response by the Council. Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Next Steps for the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance ACTION ITEMS: · Discussion deferred to next meeting, where it will be moved higher up in the agenda to ensure there is adequate time for deliberation with a view toward Council action at ICANN57 in Hyderabad. Council leadership to send a note to the Council providing further details in relation to the reason for this topic being on the agenda. Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Proposed Cost Control Mechanisms and Request for GNSO Council Validation of the Budget for the Cross Community Working Group on Ensuring ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) ACTION ITEMS: · Discussion to continue, with SGs and Constituencies encouraged to continue to contribute comments, with a view of concluding on the request for validation during the next Council meeting. Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Planning and Scheduling for ICANN57 ACTION ITEMS: · Councilors to contribute comments to the email thread on the Council mailing list regarding suggestions for improving planning and decision making on GNSO sessions. · Council leadership to send a note explaining the proposed process for reviewing meeting requests. · Councilors to ensure they begin the visa application process in a timely manner Item 10: Any Other Business 10.1 - Discussion of note from Chris Disspain on status of IGO acronyms protection work (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/docxwBd6RaeZsW.docx) ACTION ITEMS: · Councilors to send comments on Chris' note via email to the Council list 10.2 - Appointment of liaisons to IRTs ACTION ITEMS: · Continue discussion on the mailing list - note volunteer that has come forward for T & T IRT (Amr) as well as suggestion that appointments be made at a time when incoming Councilors will be known and thus eligible to volunteer 10.3 - GNSO Chair/Vice-Chair election timetable ACTION ITEMS: · Staff to circulate to Council mailing list (IN PROCESS) 10.4 - Proposed measures for 2-letter labels to be released ACTION ITEMS: · Continue discussion on Council list 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/> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

1 0

NCSG Councillor Election Results
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 12, 2016

Sept. 12, 2016

Dear Councillors, On behalf of Tapani Tarvainen, the Chair of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, we are pleased to inform you of NCSG Councillor election results: Rafik Dammak, Asia (term ending 2018) Edward Morris, Europe (term ending 2018) Stephanie Perrin, North America (term ending 2018) 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/> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>.

7 6

Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff on the IANA stewardship transition
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 10, 2016

Sept. 10, 2016

From https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions Answering some of your questions on the stewardship transition By delivering the IANA stewardship transition proposal<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-ntia-transmissions-2016-06-13-en> to the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in March, the global Internet community executed the largest multistakeholder process<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-accountability-participation-sta…> ever undertaken in Internet governance. The transition proposal achieved the broad support thousands of Internet stakeholders by reinforcing the current multistakeholder system and making ICANN more accountable to Internet users around the world. The proposal also garnered support from global representatives of industry, the technical community, civil society groups, academics, governments and end users. The timely completion of the transition will help preserve the continued openness of the Internet by entrusting its oversight with those who have made the greatest investments in its extraordinary success so far – the volunteer-based multistakeholder community. Still, some questions remain about the nature of the IANA functions, ICANN, and the likely impacts of the transition and we wanted to answer them for you in one place. 1. Does the transition threaten Internet freedom? No. The United States Government's contract with ICANN does not give the U.S. any power to regulate or protect speech on the Internet. The IANA functions are technical – not content – based. The freedom of any person to express his or herself on the globally interoperable Internet is in fact enhanced by the transition moving forward. ICANN is not, has not been, and by its Bylaws cannot become, a place for regulation of content. Ensuring that the Internet remains open, interoperable and stable in the long-term helps protect Internet freedom. Some believe that extending the contract may actually lead to the loss of Internet freedom because it could fuel efforts to move Internet governance decisions to the United Nations (U.N.). Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and retired Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright stated<http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/keep-internet-free-and-open-ic…> that, "rejecting or even delaying the transition would be a gift to those governments threatened by a free and open Internet." 2. Will countries be able to censor speech on the Internet after the transition? No more so than they can today. Right now, there is nothing about ICANN or its contract with the U.S. Government that prevents a country from censoring or blocking content within its own borders. ICANN is a technical organization and does not have the remit or ability to regulate content on the Internet. That is true under the current contract with the U.S. Government and will remain true without the contract with the U.S. Government. The transition will not empower or prohibit sovereign states from censoring speech. Many leading civil society and advocacy groups<https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2016/05/CSstatementonIANAtrans…> [PDF, 106 KB] actually argue that the transition will enhance free speech on the Internet. Human Rights Watch, Access Now, Article19, Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge, support the transition because "executing upon the IANA transition is the best way to ensure the continued functionality of the global internet and to protect the free flow of information so essential to human rights protection." 3. Will ICANN be more susceptible to capture by a single entity after the transition? No. ICANN's multistakeholder model is designed to ensure that no single entity, whether country, business or interest group, can capture ICANN or exclude other parties from decision-making processes. Features of this model include open processes where anyone can participate, decisions made by consensus, established appeals mechanisms, and transparent and public meetings. These elements are all reinforced in the community transition proposal<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-ntia-transmissions-2016-06-13-en> and have been building blocks for the free and open Internet we see today. NTIA, along with other U.S. Government agencies and a panel of corporate governance experts, conducted a thorough review of the transition proposal<https://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2016/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-a…>. NTIA confirmed that the proposal mitigated the risk of a government or third-party capture of ICANN after the transition. Columbia University's John Coffee also concluded that<http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202762978409/Adventures-in-Corporate-G…>, "ICANN has been given so many checks and balances that it is difficult to imagine a hostile takeover," after the transition. 4. Will ICANN seek oversight by the U.N. to maintain its antitrust exemption after the transition? No. ICANN is not, and never has been exempted from antitrust laws. ICANN has not been granted an antitrust exemption through any of its contracts with NTIA or the U.S. Department of Commerce. No court ruling in favor of ICANN has ever cited an antitrust exemption to support its ruling. This past July, NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling addressed the concerns<https://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2016/remarks-assistant-secretary-s…> about the possible antitrust liability of a post-transition ICANN and reaffirmed that "ICANN always has and will continue to be subject to antitrust laws." After the transition, ICANN will have no mandate, need or reason to seek to be overseen by another governmental or inter-governmental group for protection. NTIA also would not allow the transition to occur if ICANN were to replace the role of the U.S. Government with another government or inter-governmental organization. 5. Will governments have more control over the Internet after the transition? No. The transition proposal does not increase the role of governments over the Internet or ICANN as an organization. The multistakeholder model appropriately limits the influence of governments and intergovernmental organizations to an advisory role in policy development. More than 160 governments actively participate as a single committee and must come to a consensus before policy advice can be issued. After the transition, there will be times where the ICANN Board must give special consideration to the public policy advice of governments. However, this will only happen when there is no objection from any government in the committee – which includes the United States. This is a stricter requirement than is currently in place for government advice. In a March testimony before Congress<http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20160317/104682/HHRG-114-IF16-Wstate…> [PDF, 103 KB], Intel Corporation stated that the transition proposal "strikes the right balance of including governments in a true multistakeholder community, while not giving them increased influence over ICANN's decisions," after the transition. 6. Does delaying the transition by one or two years have any negative consequences? Yes, any delay of the transition could have significant global consequences. The Internet is a voluntary, trust-based system. A delay would introduce uncertainty, for businesses and other stakeholders, which could have long-term business, social, cultural, political and economic impacts. This past March, U.S. Ambassador David Gross testified<http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=418B1D81-1F0B-4…> that, "the clearest impact [of a delay] is on the broader, global community. It will signal that the U.S. has changed its position and no longer believes in a private-sector led internet and that governments will play a primary role in making the final decision. Russia, China, and others will welcome such a decision." In addition, the Centre for International Governance Innovation added<https://www.ourinternet.org/press/statement-by-gcig-regarding-iana-transiti…> to this sentiment by expressing that "[A delay will] increase distrust, and will likely encourage some governments to pursue their own national or even regional Internets." 7. Will ICANN relocate its headquarters outside of the United States after the transition? No. ICANN will not relocate its corporate headquarters location after the transition. The transition proposal clearly states<https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-final.p…> [PDF, 2.32 MB] that "the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged." California law is the basis for the new mechanisms created to empower the ICANN community and hold ICANN the organization, Board and community, accountable. In addition, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation are filed under California law, and its Bylaws state that ICANN's headquarters are in California. 8. Is it illegal to allow the transition to move forward without congressional approval because it is a transfer of U.S. property? No. ICANN is not aware of any U.S. Government property that would be transferred as a result of the transition. In a letter to Chairman Grassley and Chairman Goodlatte<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/20160810_-_ntia_response_to…> [PDF, 1.25 MB] last month, NTIA stated that the Department of Commerce Office of General Counsel conducted a legal review of this issue and advised NTIA that transition would not result in the transfer of U.S. Government property, and that, in the view of the Department, the authoritative root zone file is not U.S. Government property. 9. Will Verisign have the ability to raise prices of.com domain names on 1 October 2016 as a result of the transition? No. The cost of .com domains is capped at $7.85 until 30 November 2018. The current pricing of the .com registry is defined by two separate contracts (1) the .com Registry Agreement between Verisign and ICANN; and (2) the Cooperative Agreement between Verisign and the Department of Commerce. After 2018, Verisign and NTIA will have to negotiate to change the terms for the Cooperative Agreement or agree to end the Cooperative Agreement before discussing new pricing of the .com domain with ICANN. In letters<https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/2016-8-31_doj_response_to_…> [PDF, 851 KB] to Chairman Cruz, Chairman Lee, and Chairman Duffy last week, the Assistant Attorney General stated that, consistent with past practices, it is expected that NTIA will seek the advice of the U.S. Department of Justice on any competition issues implicated by the extension of these two contracts. 10. Do the recent independent review process (IRP) decisions regarding applications for new generic top level domains prove that ICANN is not sufficiently transparent or accountable enough for the transition? No. An IRP is an accountability mechanism used to review and resolve a concern raised by the community over a policy decision made by ICANN. Any result from an IRP, whether positive or negative, demonstrates that the system of checks and balances built into the ICANN multistakeholder model works. The IRP has been enhanced to strengthen ICANN's commitment to employ open, transparent, bottom-up, multistakeholder processes after the transition. 11. Does ICANN have an operational relationship with the Chinese government? No. ICANN does not have any operational relationship with the Chinese Government. ICANN's engagement center in China is one of seven around the world. The presence of an ICANN engagement center or operational hub within a country does not imply any level of support for the nation's government or its policies.

1 0

ICANN57 Hyderabad Slide Deck
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear all, As per James' request, please find attached the ICANN57 Hyderabad webinar slide deck used in the presentation held yesterday on the 7 September 2016 Kind regards Nathalie

1 0