March 2017 - council - lists.icann.org

UPDATED: GNSO Block Schedule for ICANN58
by Mary Wong 03 Mar '17

03 Mar '17

Dear Councilors, Following some additional tweaks necessitated by logistics, meeting times and community requests (among other things), please find attached an updated ICANN58 Block Schedule for the GNSO. Please note the following: · Saturday – the start time and duration for the GAC-GNSO facilitated discussion has been changed, to now run from 0830 – 1000 in the GNSO room. The topic will be Red Cross protections. This is an open session so anyone who is interested may attend – it will shortly be published as such on the public meeting agenda (this has already been done for the Sunday evening session that will focus on IGO acronyms). · Sunday – please note the allocation of the various available 30-minute slots for the four ongoing PDPs (Curative Rights, RDS, New gTLDs and RPMs), an update from the most recent Implementation Review Team (IRT) for the recently-approved Privacy/Proxy Accreditation PDP recommendations, and a meeting with the Customer Standing Committee (CSC). · Monday – the Cross Community Discussion Topic originally slated to cover SO/AC/PDP Updates has been canceled. · Tuesday – as agreed by the Council, the informal evening session will remain open only to Councilors and invited attendees (e.g. SG/C leaders) but will be recorded and transcribed. · Wednesday – the Council’s Public Meeting is unchanged, and remains scheduled for 2 hours from 11.00 – 13.00. You may also wish to note the various WG, CCWG, IRT and Drafting Team sessions taking place that day. · Thursday – the GNSO wrap up is scheduled for 11.00 – 12.30. The attachment does not include all the various SG/C meetings, for which we kindly request that you consult the full ICANN meeting schedule: https://schedule.icann.org/. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Draft Motion: Preliminary Adoption of the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Charter
by James M. Bladel 03 Mar '17

03 Mar '17

Councilors – Attached and copied below, please find a Draft Motion for the adoption of the Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Draft Charter (also attached, but unchanged since our call). Note that we still have yet to address some open questions on the SSC charter, in particular how the SSC is comprised (SGs or Cs), how it reaches its decisions, and whether or not to require it to rotate selected candidates. Please continue discussions on our list in order to make the most of our time together in Copenhagen. Thank you, J. Motion – Preliminary Adoption of GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Charter Whereas, 1. The GNSO Council expressed the desire to develop a set of criteria and a uniform process for the selection of GNSO representatives to future Review Teams, including for the various reviews mandated by the ICANN Bylaws, and other ICANN structures for which the GNSO will need to appoint, nominate or endorse candidates 2. A small team of Council members worked on such a set of criteria and a uniform process which resulted in a proposed Charter to create a GNSO Standing Selection Committee that will conduct future selections based on agreed, uniform criteria and a documented process (see [include link]. 3. The Council reviewed the charter and discussed that as this is a new entity and approach, it would be desirable to test out the process and criteria outlined in the charter by: 1) Preliminarily adopting the charter, 2) Form the SSC, 3) Task the SSC to at a minimum carry out 2 selection / nomination processes, 4) Review the results as well as the selection / nomination process on the basis of input provided by the SSC, 5) Confirm the GNSO SSC Charter as is, or, as modified based on the review. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council preliminarily adopts the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Charter (see [include link] and instructs the GNSO Secretariat to launch a call for volunteers per the membership criteria outlined in the SSC Charter as soon as possible. 2. The GNSO Council instructs the SSC to begin the review of GNSO endorsed candidates for the RDS Review Team, and propose its recommended slate of selected Members, along with any Alternates, for Council consideration at the latest by its 20 April 2017 meeting. 3. The GNSO Council instructs the SSC to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council consideration by its June 2017 meeting, and following the approval by the GNSO Council, carry out the selection process for this role. 4. At the completion of these two tasks, the GNSO Council requests the SSC to report back to the GNSO Council with its assessment of whether the charter provides sufficient guidance and flexibility to carry out its work, and/or whether any modifications should be considered. 5. The GNSO Council thanks the small group of volunteers, Susan Kawaguchi, Ed Morris, Valerie Tan, and the GNSO Council leadership team, for its work on the charter.

2 2

Reminder: Document and Motion deadline Sunday, 5 March 2017 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 15 March 2017 at 10:00 UTC/ 11:00 local time
by Nathalie Peregrine 03 Mar '17

03 Mar '17

Dear Councilors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. SUNDAY, 5 March 2017 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 March 2017 at 10:00 UTC, 11:00 local time. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/lJvRAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you very much. Kind regards, Nathalie -- Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Fwd: Thick WHOIS Legal Review Memorandum
by Erika Mann 02 Mar '17

02 Mar '17

Dear James, dear GNSO colleagues - below is a draft approach to request a legal update from ICANN concerning the existing legal review memorandum which was submitted to the Thick WHOIS IRT on 8 June 2015. We discussed this at our last call. I hope you may find the draft request below helpful. First part (1) covers the reasoning. And, second part (2) highlights the relevant parts for this debate from the original 2015 legal memo. Thanks, Erika * 1) Draft text for request * GNSO request from ICANN legal an updated review of the existing legal review memorandum which was submitted to the Thick WHOIS IRT on 8 June 2015. We recommend to coordinate with appropriate subject matter experts and outside counsel to ensure the GNSO Council receives updated fact-based and independent advice, like this was done with the existing legal review memorandum from 2015. We like to see a full review of applicable law(s) and a list of recommendations as to what extent existing policies the GNSO should consider changing. FOR EXAMPLE: Since June 2015 the legal data privacy/protection/retention landscape changed drastically in many countries but in In particular in the European Union. It is therefore key to understand how these changes might impact ICANN registries, registrars, users and contractual arrangements in general. Certain national laws have additional extraterritorial implications. These impacts were not captured in the 2015 legal review memorandum. Why is such a review needed? A good example are the changes that were introduced in the European Union and between the EU and the US since June 2015. EXPLANATION: The 'General Data Protection Regulation' in the European Union came into force May 2016 and will apply across Europe in May 2018. The core element of the data protection reform is a general data protection regulation that will replace and equal existing data protection laws across the European Union countries. This new regulation updates and modernises the principles of the 1995 Data Protection Directive that the existing ICANN legal review memorandum from 2015 covers. It sets out the rights of the individual and establishes the obligations of those processing and those responsible for the processing of the data. It also establishes the methods for ensuring compliance as well as the scope of sanctions for those in breach of the rules. In addition, certain aspects of this law, will be interpreted by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) in the near future. Law enforcement related aspects of this law are regulated in a separate legal framework. The GDRP is insofar unique as it's a law with far reaching extraterritorial implications, this aspect is not captured in ICANNs 2015 legal memo neither. Since 2015 the transfer of personal data requirements from EU to the US changed as well. In 2015 the Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) was in place, in 2016 a new Privacy Shield Agreement came into force, replacing the SHA, implementing new adequacy requirements for the transfer of date between EU and US. ICANNs legal memo from 2015 does not cover these developments. In addition, we may see new legal challenges arising that might question the SHA because of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order on domestic safety, released on January 26th, 2017. "Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information." * 2) Key exert from the existing legal review memorandum which was submitted to the Thick WHOIS IRT on 8 June 2015* To the extent that a contracted party finds that it is unable to comply with the Thick Whois policy requirements due to a conflict with its obligations under local privacy laws, such conflicts may be dealt with by exception through use of the Whois Conflicts Procedure, or requests to ICANN for an amendment to or waiver of certain provisions in the Registry Agreement or Registrar Accreditation Agreement. (page 1) As further detailed below, to address the concerns previously highlighted in the EWG Memo, this memorandum provides practical recommendations about the move to Thick Whois and also notes that ICANN’s Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law is available to contracted parties to address specific cases where Thick Whois requirements may be inconsistent with the parties’ obligations under local privacy laws. (page 2) Additionally, contracted parties may consider requesting amendments to or waivers from specific Thick Whois requirements in agreements with ICANN that may be inconsistent with contracted parties' obligations under local privacy laws. (page 2) The present analysis is neither a detailed nor complete analysis of data protection laws within any particular jurisdiction. Instead, ICANN performed a general survey of EU data protection laws as the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC embodies international principles which serve as a basis for many data protection laws around the world. (page 3) As an example of the latter, see Russia’s Federal Law 242-FZ (“Localization Law”) which requires compliance by 1 September 2015, but is still the subject of significant uncertainty as to its scope, applicability and requirements.(page 4) It is true that in some countries there are some important and legitimate questions relating to data protection obligations under local law that must be addressed as implementation of Thick Whois across all gTLDs is considered. (page 5) ICANN recognizes that two of those principles trigger particular attention in relation to the transition to Thick Whois: the need for registrars in some countries to establish a 'lawful basis' (i) for the disclosure of registrants' personal data to the relevant registry and (ii) for the transfer of such data to another country (in this case, the U.S., where all three relevant registries are located). “Transfer” generally covers any sharing, transmission or disclosure of, providing access to, or otherwise making available, personal information to third parties. The EU Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) (“EU Directive”), for example, requires that personal information may only be transferred to third countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA) if the receiving countries provide an “adequate” level of protection, as determined by the European Commission or the transfer satisfies one of the exceptions permitted by the EU Directive. One of the two most viable “exceptions” to permit lawful transfer is the consent of the data subjects. However, utilizing this “exception” does entail some challenge that the registrar and registry must ensure are addressed. (page 6/7) Consent in some form and degree is of significant importance across most jurisdictions as it relates to implementation of thick Whois. For example, consent is one way in which organisations can meet one of the ‘conditions’ for processing of personal data throughout the EEA. It also serves to justify transfers outside the EEA - the EU Directive clearly specifies consent9 as a lawful ground for these purposes. In Russia, transfer is permitted provided that (1) consent of the data subject is properly obtained and (2) the transfer is as legally prescribed.10 If proper consent is obtained, such data may be collected, stored, published and/or transferred in the manner consistent with the specific consent provided. Other data protection requirements will still need to be met– for example, proportionality, data quality and security considerations still apply even where consent has been obtained. (page 7) However, in certain jurisdictions there exists the right to revoke consent. In such instance, the registry or registrar must determine the effect on the registration and the corresponding registration data. The EU Directive does not contain any procedural guidance around withdrawal of consent (e.g. time periods for acting on this). The Article 29 Working Party11 requires that consent should be possible to be withdrawn at any time with effect for the future. It regards consent to be deficient if no effective withdrawal is provided.12 The Article 29 Working Party itself has made clear that withdrawal of consent is not retroactive13. Accordingly, if a registrant withdrew consent, this would not affect the lawfulness of data which had already been transferred from an EU registrar to a relevant registry. (page 8) Apart from the possibility to revoke consent, there may also be doubts as to whether the consent of registrants granted as a condition for the transfer of the registrant data to the registry under the thick Whois should be regarded as “freely given,” in particular if all registrars "require" registrants to grant consent in a similar form. However, ICANN notes that this concern can actually be addressed via the provision of privacy/proxy services by the relevant registrars, as these do provide effective choice to the registrant. (page 8) In any case and especially for the application of the thick Whois in the EU, ICANN considers it is important that the data processing under thick Whois and the transition thereto can also be based upon the legitimate interests of a party (including ICANN, registries, and registrants). Legitimate interests can be an alternative basis for EU registrars to justify processing of personal data, as long as the processing is not unwarranted because of the (privacy) interests of the individuals whose data is processed. Acknowledged legitimate interests include increased security, stability and resiliency in the Internet. However, from an EU perspective, if the data processing under thick Whois is based upon legitimate interests, instruments to provide for an adequate level of data protection on part of the data recipient located outside of the EEA will also become relevant (e.g., Standard Contract Clauses, Safe Harbor, approval from the relevant data protection authorities, etc.14). This is because while sharing of data within the EEA may be justified on this basis, there are additional restrictions on transfers of data outside the EEA. Those instruments contain restrictions on onward transfers (to be imposed on third parties wishing to look up EU Whois data) and contracted parties will need to assess whether and in which form it is practically feasible to implement those restrictions; these restrictions are likely to mean that consent is the most suitable approach, notwithstanding the difficulties outlined above. Furthermore, in addition to consent, (i) privacy/proxy services, and perhaps (ii) thick Whois services where the data stays in the region subject to restrictions to avoid data transfer limitations remain as options available to address transfer of the data. (page 9) The Whois Conflicts Procedure is the implementation of GNSO consensus policy adopted “in order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD Whois service.” The Whois Conflicts Procedure is designed to ensure regulatory obstacles on the collection, processing, transfer and display of gTLD registration data can be dealt with by exception in instances where a registry or registrar can demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national data protection laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its contract. ICANN has commenced a review of the Whois Conflicts Procedure to determine whether modifications to that procedure might be considered. (page 10) The most common complaint of ICANN contracted parties is that the Whois Conflicts Procedure requires 15 http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/whois-privacy-c onflictsprocedure-17jan08- en.htm <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/whois-privacy-conflictsprocedu…> 11 “notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action . . .” as its trigger. To the extent any proposed changes to implementation of the Whois Conflicts Procedure are recommended, they would be presented to the GNSO Council, which would determine next steps. (page 10/11) In other cases, ICANN has granted limited waivers from compliance with specific terms and conditions in the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement regarding data retention requirements in cases where registrars requests such change because they believe the requirements violate their countries’ data retention laws. (page 12) Additionally, contracted parties may wish to consider requesting amendments to or waivers from specific contractual requirements in connection with the transition from a thin to a thick Whois model to the extent the contracted parties’ obligations conflict with its local laws. Historically, ICANN has granted amendments to specific Whois provisions in the Registry Agreement when requested by registry operators with support of relevant Data Protection Authorities to comply local privacy laws. (page 11) Where a conflict is proven to exist by a registrar or registry by way of the Whois Conflicts Procedure, or an amendment or waiver from certain Whois requirements is granted by ICANN, the Registration Data Access Protocol, or RDAP, could be a means to mitigating such conflict without eliminating entirely the benefits of thick WHOIS (e.g. an end-user looking up Whois data would see “thick” data, even though the underlying data is not be stored with the registry). Because RDAP would only permit registry-level access to thick Whois output by redirect to the registrar’s own portal, meaning such data would not be “thick” in the sense of existing also at the registry level, there are questions as to whether its implementation would be consistent with policy recommendation #1 and the identified benefits of the thick Whois model outlined in the Thick Whois Final Report. (page 12) (To assist with the legal analysis reflected in this Section, ICANN engaged Bird & Bird, a leading international law firm with over 1100 lawyers in 27 offices across Europe, the Middle East and Asia with a highly regarded International Privacy & Data Protection Group that advises clients throughout the world. (page 6) On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > As requested during the call today, please find attached the legal review memorandum which was submitted to the Thick WHOIS IRT on 8 June 2015. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > Marika Konings > > Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org > > > > Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council(a)gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >

3 2

Re: [council] FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL: Draft letter on proposed limited scope of ATRT3
by Mary Wong 02 Mar '17

02 Mar '17

Hello everyone – just a brief reminder to provide any suggested edits or other comments to this letter today (or super-early tomorrow for APAC). We plan to send out the final version by the end of this week. I’ve reattached the draft for your easy reference. Thank you. Mary From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 23:38 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL: Draft letter on proposed limited scope of ATRT3 Thanks, Mary & Staff, for putting this together. I’m good with this letter, but if folks could please weigh in with their edits/comments no later than EOD Thursday, 2 MAR, that would be great. We will then post the letter to the leadership of other SOs and ACs, along with RT staff. Thanks— J. From: <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 at 12:44 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL: Draft letter on proposed limited scope of ATRT3 Dear Councilors, As requested on the last Council call, staff has prepared a draft letter response to the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs regarding the proposal to limit the scope of the upcoming ATRT-3. The draft is attached for your review and approval. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

1 0

FW: CCWG-Accountability Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP IOT)
by James M. Bladel 02 Mar '17

02 Mar '17

Councilors – See announcement below, regarding the formation of an IRP Implementation Oversight Team as part of the new bylaws associated with the IANA transition. There’s quite a bit of info here, but at a summary level the GNSO will soon be asked to name (a) panelist(s) to a group that will oversee the implementation of the new IRP. I recommend that we assign this task to the SSC, once that group is chartered. Thank you, J. From: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 15:39 Subject: CCWG-Accountability Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP IOT) Dear Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to ICANN: We write to you in our capacity as members of the CCWG-Accountability Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP IOT<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59643726>). As you know, as part of the IANA transition ICANN reconstituted the IRP in the recently enacted Bylaw Article 4, Section 4.3. As the IRP IOT works to develop recommendations to the CCWG-Accountability on implementing the newly constituted IRP, we note that there are a number of provisions within Section 4.3 that anticipate input/activity from SOs and ACs along the way. This correspondence is intended: (1) to bring these matters to your attention; and (2) to mention an additional right you have (in conjunction with others) if you are a direct customer of the IANA naming functions. This correspondence is not about the public comment period (recently closed) regarding the Updated Supplementary Procedures for IRP, which is being managed separately. As for the first matter, please note that Section 4.3(j)(ii) requires that ICANN in consultation with the SOs and ACs initiate a four-step process to establish a standing panel of not less than seven IRP panelists. Section 4.3(j)(ii) anticipates the following actions: A. ICANN in consultation with the SOs and ACs shall initiate a tender process for an organization to provide admin support to the IRP, beginning by consulting with the IRP IOT on a draft tender document. [The current admin support organization for ICANN IRP’s is the International Centre for Dispute Resolution<https://www.icdr.org/icdr/faces/home?_afrLoop=366877148548956&_afrWindowMod…>.] B. ICANN shall issue a call for expressions of interest from potential panelists and work with the SOs and ACs and the Board to identify and solicit well-qualified applications, and to conduct an initial review/vetting of applications. C. The SOs and ACs shall nominate a slate of proposed panel members identified in such process. D. Final selection is subject to Board confirmation. The qualifications for IRP panelists are set forth in Section 4.3(j). We expect that in the first part of 2017 you will be called on by ICANN to participate in these endeavors. The sooner these steps are taken, the sooner the newly constituted IRP will be able to function in complete accordance with the new bylaws. We stand ready to help as appropriate. As for the second matter, to the extent your group (in whole or in part) is a direct customer of the IANA naming function, please note that Section 4.3(n)(ii) is of particular interest to “direct customers” of the IANA naming functions, stating in part: Specialized Rules of Procedure may be designed for reviews of PTI service complaints that are asserted by direct customers of the IANA naming functions and are not resolved through mediation. The Rules of Procedure shall be published and subject to a period of public comment that complies with the designated practice for public comment periods within ICANN, and take effect upon approval by the Board, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. Direct customers of the IANA naming functions should have an opportunity to inform us of your views on the matter. We urge you to review the provisions of Section 4.3(n) generally on IRP rules of procedure and let the IRP IOT know of any requests along these lines. Sincerely yours, The IRP IOT

1 0

REMINDER: Ethos Award Nomination
by Terri Agnew 02 Mar '17

02 Mar '17

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-03-01-en Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form <https://goo.gl/forms/sKJcUjdA5gT50Dl72> ICANN is pleased to remind community members that the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award will be open until 20 March 2017. The ideal recipient(s) will have served in roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees and collaborated with more than one Supporting Organization and/or Advisory Committee in a significant capacity. Candidates for the award will demonstrate at least five years of participation in the ICANN Community. Candidates will be evaluated by a panel of community members appointed by the Chairs of each Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees using a merit-based point system evaluated against three criteria: 1. Demonstrated ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANNStakeholders with the aim of consensus building and collaboration that substantiate ICANN's multistakeholder model; 2. Facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner, through the spirit of collaboration as shown through empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests; and 3. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. Please submit your nominations via this Nomination Form <https://goo.gl/forms/sKJcUjdA5gT50Dl72> including detailed information outlining why the nominee meets the award criteria. Any additional information in support of nominations and/or questions about the award process may be submitted via email at ethosaward2017(a)icann.org <mailto:ethosaward2017@icann.org> . Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2017 at ICANN59 Johannesburg. For more insights on the award program, please consult the ICANN <https://community.icann.org/x/YyOAAw> Community Wiki. Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form <https://goo.gl/forms/sKJcUjdA5gT50Dl72>

1 0

Call for volunteers - GNSO Co-Chair to CCWG-Auction Proceeds
by Marika Konings 01 Mar '17

01 Mar '17

Dear All, Please recall from our last teleconference that Jonathan Robinson has asked to be replaced as the GNSO appointed co-chair to the Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds. As a result, the GNSO Council hereby requests community volunteers who wish to be considered for this role. As a reminder: · The New Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Program established auctions as a mechanism of last resort to resolve the competition sets between identical or similar terms (strings) for new gTLDs – known as string contention. Most string contentions (approximately 90% of sets scheduled for auction) have been resolved through other means before reaching an auction conducted using ICANN's authorized auction service provider, Power Auctions LLC. However, it was recognized from the outset that significant funds could accrue as a result of several successful auctions conducted by ICANN. · Following the ICANN Board’s commitment to do so, the auction proceeds derived from such auctions have been reserved and earmarked within ICANN until such time as the ICANN Board authorizes a plan for the appropriate use of the funds. These proceeds are to be considered as an exceptional, one-time source of revenue. · A CCWG has now been chartered by the Address Supporting Organization (ASO), the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), and the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) to propose the mechanism that should be developed in order to allocate the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. Following approval of the proposal(s) by the Chartering Organizations, it will be submitted to the ICANN Board for its consideration. · For clarification, please note that this CCWG is not dispositioning or spending auction proceeds. Its purpose is to propose the mechanism and structure(s) that will perform this function. In relation to the co-chair position, the CCWG Charter specifies that: · The proposed chair / co-chair has the necessary experience to manage an effort of this nature. o For example, having actively participated as a member in at least one CCWG or ICANN Working Group throughout its lifecycle in order to have relevant or related experience of the different tasks that come with chairing a CCWG. · Prior leadership experience (chair / co-chair / vice-chair) is desirable. · Overall familiarity with the functioning of a CCWG is important to understand the various leadership skills that are necessary to be employed during a CCWG’s lifecycle. o For example, a chair has to ensure that debates are conducted in an open and transparent matter and that all interests are equally represented within the CCWG’s discussions as well as the final deliverables/outcomes from the process. · Those accepting leadership positions in the CCWG will be taking on substantially higher levels of commitment than that of Members and Participants. · The GNSO Council considers familiarity with this CCWG or the previous drafting team a definite plus. · The GNSO Council furthermore expects that anyone volunteering for this position is able and aware of the commitment that is expected leading this effort, noting that the only other co-chair is currently appointed on an interim basis. Co-Chairs are expected to attend all teleconferences and any in person meetings which may be held in conjunction with scheduled ICANN meetings. Travel support is not provided, so candidates should either have another source of funding to attend ICANN meetings or be prepared to chair remotely. · Finally, the nature of this topic requires that prospective volunteers, including co-chairs, carefully consider any potential conflicts of interest, real or perceived, that could arise from their work on this group. You are requested to share this call for volunteers with your respective groups with the objective to be in a position to consider candidates and confirm a replacement during the GNSO Council meeting in Copenhagen. On behalf of James Bladel, Heather Forrest and Donna Austin Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@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

FW: [Soac-infoalert] SSR2 sessions at ICANN58
by James M. Bladel 01 Mar '17

01 Mar '17

Councilors – FYI. Thank you, J. From: <soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, February 27, 2017 at 18:21 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] SSR2 sessions at ICANN58 Dear SO/AC Leaders, I wanted to bring to your attention two SSR2 sessions being held during ICANN58 that might be of interest to your communities. March 12 | 13:45 – 15:00 | Hall A3 SSR2 Public Consultation with the second Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR2) This is your opportunity to raise issues you see facing the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS and to provide vital input into the what the SSR2 Review Team should consider as it develops the focus of its review. March 15 | 08:30 – 16:30 | MR3 SSR2 Review Team first plenary meeting of the newly selected members of the second Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR2) review team. This will be the start of discussions on the SSR2 review team’s scope and work plan in keeping with the SSR2 mandate from the ICANN Bylaws which require a periodic review of ICANN’s execution of its commitment to enhance the operational stability, reliability, resiliency, security, and global interoperability of the systems and processes, both internal and external, that directly affect and/or are affected by the Internet’s system of unique identifiers that ICANN coordinates. There is also an opportunity for interested community members to follow the work of the SSR2 Review Team by becoming a Review Team Observer. Information on being an Observer is located at https://community.icann.org/display/SSR/Observers I hope that members from your community will be able to participate in these important sessions at ICANN58. Sincerely, Karen Mulberry Director, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) ICANN

1 0