April 2017 - council - lists.icann.org

Please review: GNSO Council motions 20 April 2017
by Nathalie Peregrine April 21, 2017

April 21, 2017

Dear Councilors, Ahead of the official minutes, the following resolutions were passed by the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday, 20 April 2017. These will be posted to the website shortly. Consent agenda 3.1 – Confirming of Council liaison appointments At the Council’s Wrap Up Session at ICANN58 in Copenhagen in March 2017, it was noted that several Cross Community Working Groups, GNSO Working Groups and Implementation Review Teams no longer had Council liaisons, due either to a Councilor’s resignation or the ending of a Councilor’s term on the Council. In response to a Call for Volunteers, the following Councilors volunteered to serve as Council liaisons to the respective groups noted against their names: Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT): Susan Kawaguchi Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Registration Data IRT: Rubens Kuhl GNSO Rights & Obligations under the Revised ICANN Bylaws Drafting Team: Ed Morris Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance: Julf Helsingius Vote results<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-20apr17-en.…> Motion: Adoption of the GNSO Council Comment on FY18 Budget and Operating Plan Submitted by: James Bladel Seconded: Michele Neylon, Donna Austin Whereas, 1. Following initial community review, a revised proposed Budget and Operating Plan for FY2018 was published for public comments on 13 March 2017 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-budget-2017-03-08-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…>). 2. At its Wrap Up Session at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, the GNSO Council agreed to form a small team of volunteers to draft comments on the revised Budget for Council consideration (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-budget-2017-03-08-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…>). 3. At the Council’s request, ICANN’s Finance Team conducted a webinar on 4 April 2017 covering those aspects of the proposed Budget of interest to the GNSO community (https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/presentation-gnso-update-04apr17-en.pdf[…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meet…>). 4. A draft of the proposed Council comments was circulated to the GNSO Council on 10 April (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-April/019868.html) 5. The GNSO is a Decisional Participant within the new Empowered Community, and the GNSO Council recognizes (a) that the Empowered Community’s powers as contained in the revised ICANN Bylaws includes the ability to veto budgets adopted by the ICANN Board; and (b) the importance of fully understanding the funding and expenses of ICANN’s operations. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council approves the FY18 Draft Budget comments prepared on behalf of the GNSO Council (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-comments-plan-budget-20apr17-en.pdf[…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…>), and instructs ICANN staff to formally submit the approved comment to the Public Comment Forum. 2. The GNSO Council thanks the volunteers who prepared the comments and ICANN staff who provided invaluable assistance to the volunteers in the drafting of the comments. Vote results<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-20apr17-en.…> Motion - Nomination of GNSO Candidates for the Registration Directory Service (formerly WHOIS) Review Team Submitted by: Johan Helsingius (revised version sent in on 19th April 2017) Seconded: James Bladel, Michele Neylon Whereas, 1. On 22 February 2017, ICANN launched a call for volunteers seeking individuals interested in serving as a Volunteer Review Team Member on the RDS-RT (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-02-22-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…>). 2. Under the new Bylaws, each SO/AC participating in the Specific Review may nominate up to 7 members to the review team, for consideration by the SO/AC leadership, for a review team of no more than 21 members. Any SO/AC nominating up to 3 individuals are entitled to have those nominees selected as members to the review team, so long as the nominees meet the applicable criteria for service on the team. 3. The GNSO Council tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ‘to carry out the review and selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20 April 2017 meeting’. 4. The SSC reviewed the candidates that requested GNSO endorsement (see https://community.icann.org/x/gYfDAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>) taking into account the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers as well as the desire to ensure a RT that is balanced for diversity and expertise. The SSC submitted its full consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council on 19 April 2017 which confirmed the ranking of the 1-7 candidates as well as the expectation that, at a minimum, the 1-4 candidates would be considered primary candidates with a guaranteed seat for the RDS-RT, instead of only 1-3, recognizing the importance and relevance of the topics under consideration for the GNSO community as well as noting that a number of SO/ACs will not be making nominations for this specific review team . 5. The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council nominates, ranked in order: Susan Kawaguchi, Erika Mann Stephanie Perrin and Volker Greimann as its primary four candidates for the RDS-RT. Furthermore, the GNSO nominates, in ranked order: Marc Anderson, Stefania Milan and Timothy Chen to be considered for inclusion in the RDS-RT by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available. 2. The GNSO Council expects the GNSO Chair to communicate to the SO-AC Chairs the importance of considering the four candidates as primary as well as respecting the ranking of the additional candidates in the discussion with the other SO-AC Chairs concerning potential additions to the RDS-RT, unless for reasons of diversity/skills it becomes necessary to deviate from the indicated ranking. In such a case, the GNSO Chair is expected to communicate the rationale for such a deviation back to the GNSO Council. 3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to the staff supporting the RDS-RT. 4. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the applicants that have received endorsement that the GNSO Council expects that, if selected for the RDS-RT, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the RDS-RT, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the RDS-RT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team Members. 5. The GNSO Council requests staff supporting the RDS-RT and application process to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement (if any) for this RDS-RT, thanking them for their interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the RDS RT work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions and to apply for future opportunities within the GNSO Community as they arise. Vote results<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-20apr17-en.…> Thank you very much for your time and feedback. Nathalie

1 0

MP3 and AC Chat transcript/ GNSO Council Teleconference 20 April 2017
by Terri Agnew April 21, 2017

April 21, 2017

Dear GNSO Council, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 20 April 2017 at: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20apr17-en.mp3 as well as the Adobe chat at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-20apr17-en.pdf And Adobe recording: https://participate.icann.org/p69sq1e81he all on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr Thank you. Happy listening and reading! With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Secretariat Services Coordinator, GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> terri.agnew(a)icann.org Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy…> GNSO Newcomer pages

1 0

FW: CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - The Diversity Sub-Group of WS2 seeks your input on Diversity
by James M. Bladel April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

Councilors and Policy Staff – See below for a message and Questionnaire (attached) from the CCWG-ACCT WS2 co-chairs, regarding Diversity within the ICANN Community. I would ask each Councilor to ensure that this is shared with their respective SO/ACs, and ask Policy Staff to work with the Chairs to determine the applicability of a separate response from the GNSO Council. Thank you, J. From: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> Date: Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 10:32 Subject: CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - The Diversity Sub-Group of WS2 seeks your input on Diversity Dear Chairman Steve Crocker, CEO Goran Marby, NomCom Chair Hans Petter Holen and SO/AC Chairs, As you are aware, the newly-adopted ICANN bylaws tasked our Cross Community Working Group to investigate several issues as part of our Work Stream 2 effort. Diversity is one of these items. As part of this effort, we have set up a subgroup, responsible for reviewing how diversity is accommodated, supported and promoted within ICANN and to make recommendations to enhance diversity efforts. As part of this work, the group intends to inform itself by an assessment of the current situation. That’s why we are turning to you to provide input and point us to any resources and documents related to diversity in your respective group or designated community, taking into account the particular or specific working modalities of each group. We would appreciate if you could provide responses to the attached questions by 1 June 23:59UTC , so that work on this important item of WS2 can proceed as quickly as possible. Responses can be provided to ws2-diversity-questionnaire(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-diversity-questionnaire@icann.org> Along with the rapporteurs of the Diversity subgroup, Fiona Asonga and Rafik Dammak, we thank you in advance and remain available for any clarification that you may need. Best regards, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu

1 0

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#245]
by ICANN April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

1 0

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#244]
by ICANN April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

1 0

FW: [community-finance] FY18 SO/AC Additional Budget Requests Decisions
by Marika Konings April 19, 2017

April 19, 2017

For your information. In relation to the GNSO Council Additional Budget Requests, please note: FY18-22- GNSO - GNSO PDP WG Chairs (Leadership Team) Support Pilot Project GNSO request for PDP Working Group Chair travel funding pilot program at ICANN Public Meetings (Yes)(32,400)(Marika Konings) In an effort to test the effectiveness of furthering face-to-face working group deliberations at ICANN public meetings, four travelers from GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) leadership teams are approved on a pilot basis per each ICANN public meeting in FY18 (ICANN60, 61 and 62). The GNSO Council is expected to develop clear and transparent guidelines for how candidates can apply and how selections are made, in keeping with the criteria outlined in the request. A report is to be submitted by the GNSO Council evaluating the value of attendance to the meeting against the metrics included in the request to sbr-outcomes(a)icann.org<mailto:sbr-outcomes@icann.org> within 60 days of attending each meeting. Due to substantial traveler support increases across the organization, meeting space planning and hotel room blocks arrangements, the community will not have the flexibility to reallocate unused slots to other public meetings throughout the year. Unused slots cannot be carried forward to future meetings and will remain unused. Approved travel: economy airfare + hotel + per diem. Number of hotel nights limited to the number of days relevant to the PDP-WG meeting. If this pilot proves successful, permanent travel slot increases will need to be approved through the normal operating plan and budget development process. FY18-23- GNSO - GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session GNSO request for Intersessional GNSO Council strategy session face-to-face for FY18 (Yes)(75,000)(Marika Konings) This meeting concept has proven useful for other parts of the ICANN community and merits a pilot effort in FY18 to see if it could improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO Council's operations. ICANN office location is required, with preference for Los Angeles due to available physical conference facilities. Granting of support is contingent on the submission of a written report to be submitted within 45 days of the meeting which addresses each itemized metric as per request. Report to be submitted to sbr-outcomes(a)icann.org<mailto:sbr-outcomes@icann.org> and is a condition of future resource allocations. Collaboration with ICANN's meetings team and Constituency travel team is required, with detailed and finalized information submitted a minimum of five months prior to the proposed meeting dates (including full list of travelers, office location and meeting space requirements). Travel approved for 21 GNSO Council Members and the GNSO Liaison to the GAC for a three-day face-to-face meeting. The piloting of this meeting in FY18 could have impacts on planning for other community intersessional meeting activities. Best regards, Marika From: <community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Taryn S. Presley" <taryn.presley(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:40 To: "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org> Cc: Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org> Subject: [community-finance] FY18 SO/AC Additional Budget Requests Decisions Dear Community Leaders and Members: The FY18 SO/AC additional budget requests were adopted by the ICANN Board on 19 April 2017. The decisions can be found on the community wiki[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…> and attached. FY18 SO-AC Additional Budget Requests Explanations Adopted Final.docx[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…> FY18 SO-AC Additional Budget Requests Explanations Adopted Final.pdf[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do…> If you have any questions, please contact ICANN staff at controller(a)icann.org.<mailto:controller@icann.org.> Regards, ICANN Staff [id:image003.jpg@01D20310.BC821F10] 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Telephone Main: 310) 301-5800 Information contained in this e-mail transmission is privileged, confidential and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, distribute or reproduce this transmission. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please notify sender immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete the message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

2 1

Amended motion - Nomination of GNSO candidates for the RDS RT
by Johan Helsingius April 19, 2017

April 19, 2017

Dear council members, With regards to my motion for item 7 on the agenda for our meeting on 20 April 2017 - "Approval of GNSO Nominees for the Registration Directory Services Review Team", I hereby submit a revised motion based on the consensus of the SSC. The SSC was tasked to select the top three candidates, with up to four additional candidates for positions to be filled if other SO/ACs didn't take up their full number. Unfortunately selecting the top three candidates would result in a lack of balance in representation of constituencies. Recognizing this, the group would like to recommend that the GNSO Council consider the top four recommended candidates as primary with guaranteed seats. This is based on our understanding that some other SO/ACs are not taking up their full number on the RDS RT, and we believe the GNSO has a strong case in asking to be able to fill one of the places that are available due to this. Julf

1 0

FW: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN News Alert -- Updated ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Laws Now Available
by Marika Konings April 19, 2017

April 19, 2017

For your information. Best regards, Marika From: <soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 23:25 To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN News Alert -- Updated ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Laws Now Available [CANN][icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFAg…> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-04-18-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> ________________________________ Updated ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Laws Now Available 18 April 2017 LOS ANGELES – 18 April 2017 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today published the updated Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Laws (WHOIS Procedure), which is effective immediately. Read the Revised WHOIS Procedure[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The WHOIS Procedure has been revised to incorporate an alternative trigger to invoke the WHOIS Procedure. The current trigger in the WHOIS Procedure allows a registry operator or ICANN-accredited registrar to invoke the procedure if the contracted party is in receipt of a notification of an action that its compliance with WHOIS obligations is prevented by local laws. With the additional trigger, a registry operator or ICANN-accredited registrar may now also invoke the WHOIS Procedure by providing ICANN with a written statement from the applicable government agency responsible for enforcing its data privacy laws and indicating that a WHOIS obligation in an ICANN contract conflicts with such applicable national law. The modification to the WHOIS Procedure is based on input from the community and the work of an Implementation Advisory Group (IAG), which was tasked with reviewing possible changes to the WHOIS Procedure and providing the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) with recommendations to facilitate resolution of issues where WHOIS requirements conflict with applicable laws. In May 2016, the IAG submitted its final report[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> [PDF, 155 KB] and recommendation to the GNSO Council. In February 2017, the GNSO Council passed a resolution[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> adopting IAG's recommendation and confirmed that the modification to the WHOIS Procedure does not change the intent of the original GNSO policy recommendations. Background In November 2005, the GNSO concluded a policy development process (PDP)[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu…> establishing a Procedure to allow gTLD registry operators and registrars to demonstrate when they are prevented by local laws from fully complying with the provisions of their respective ICANN contracts regarding personal data in WHOIS. The ICANN Board of Directors adopted the recommendations in May 2006 and directed staff to develop such a procedure. A contracted party that credibly demonstrates that it is legally prevented from complying with its WHOIS obligations can invoke the procedure, which became effective in January 2008. To date, the procedure has never been invoked. ICANN launched a review[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> of the procedure in May 2014 and has concluded this review with this update to the WHOIS Procedure. Following a Call for Volunteers[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> addressed to all interested parties, an IAG was formed to review the implementation of the policy recommendations and began its work in January 2015. The IAG devoted most of its time to discussing whether additional triggers to invoke the Procedure should be incorporated and, if so, how to ensure that they remain consistent with the existing policy. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation and a community with participants from all over the world. ICANN and its community help keep the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It also promotes competition and develops policy for the top-level of the Internet's naming system and facilitates the use of other unique Internet identifiers. For more information please visit: www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFA…>.

1 0

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#243]
by ICANN April 19, 2017

April 19, 2017

1 0

FW: Draft GNSO Council Resolution
by James M. Bladel April 18, 2017

April 18, 2017

Councilors – Please see below and attached for a message from Stephane Hankins of the ICRC, in which he provides some comments/feedback on our motion on amending the PDP regarding RC names. A few notes: · There is no mechanism for a non-Councilor to propose edits to a pending motion that is under consideration by the Council. Therefore, Mr. Hankins’ proposed changes would need to be raised via a Councilor, if we are to consider them at all. · I have reviewed Mr. Hankins’ comments on the language of the motion , and most appear to be cosmetic in nature, with the exception of his edits to Resolved 1(a). Because I believe this change could be read as expanding the scope of protected strings, and as the maker of the motion, I would not accept this change as “friendly”, should it be tabled by a Councilor. · Finally, please note Mr. Hankins’ additional request regarding protections for Red Cross acronyms. Because this topic was not included in our discussions at Copenhagen, I do not recommend we try to address it as a component of this motion. Rather, I would like to raise it as a point of discussion during our meeting, including possible next steps (e.g., referral to the active PDP). Thank you, J. ------------------ James Bladel GNSO Chair From: Stephane Hankins <shankins(a)icrc.org> Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:27 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Cc: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch>, "mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk" <mark.carvell(a)culture.gov.uk>, "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, Charlotte Lindsey Curtet <clindsey(a)icrc.org> Subject: Draft GNSO Council Resolution Dear James and GNSO Council members, We have been copied on the draft GNSO Council Resolution on the initiation of a policy amendment process on specific Red Cross names, to be considered by the GNSO Council on 20 April. We would like to propose that several minor revisions be brought to the draft Resolution, and in particular that the title of the Resolution refer to the protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent names and identifiers. Other minor suggestions are included in the attachment to this message. We also had a question to you whether the resumed PDP should not be proposed to address the question of the ICRC and Federation acronyms/initials. While this was not discussed during the Working Group discussion in Copenhagen, the 2013 PDP and the subsequent GNSO Recommendations to the Board included a recommendation that the ICRC and IFRC acronyms be placed under the 90-days Trademark Clearinghouse Claims Notice protection. The GAC's Durban Communiqué of July 2013 recommended on its part that the acronyms be accorded [t]he same complementary cost neutral mechanisms to be worked out for the protection of acronyms of IGOs. This is hence another area where the GNSO’s 2013 consensus recommendations are not consistent with GAC advice. Is the assumption that this issue will be referred to the ongoing PDP on curative protections for IGO's? If not, should this question not be referenced in the operative paragraphs of the draft GNSO Council Resolution as an additional issue for review by the resumed PDP. We would appreciate your thoughts on this. We remain available to take part and to support the resumed PDP process to be decided. With thanks and kind regards, Stéphane Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19 =============================================================================== The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient (s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. ===============================================================================

3 2