August 2017 - council - lists.icann.org

MP3, Adobe Connect Recording and AC Chat transcript/ GNSO Council Teleconference 24 August 2017
by Terri Agnew 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

Dear All, Please find the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 24 August 2017 at: Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-24aug17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p62pic8ris3/ as well as the Adobe chat transcript at : https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-24aug17-en.pdf all on page https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar# <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> Thank you. Happy listening and reading! With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator 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 -efforts.htm#newcomers> GNSO Newcomer pages

1 0

GNSO Strategic Planning Session - January 2018
by Nathalie Peregrine 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

**On behalf of Donna Austin and Heather Forrest** Dear councilors, We are pleased to inform you that the FY18 Additional Budget Request for the GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session has been accepted. This 3-day face-to-face meeting was requested for January 2018 to allow the GNSO Council to conduct a focused and dedicated strategic planning session in order to develop a work plan for the year ahead and beyond, factoring in the existing workload as well as the new responsibilities following the transition and as part of the Empowered Community. The Strategic Planning Session will be held on Monday 29th January 2018 through to Wednesday 31st January 2018, at the ICANN office in Los Angeles. One of the requirements of the pilot program is that the session be based at an ICANN office location for logistical and financial purposes. Full travel support (i.e., airfare, hotel) will be provided to all 21 GNSO councilors as well as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Meeting space as well as AV support will of course be provided, as well as GNSO Support staff for facilitation. Further details will be circulated shortly with information about travel. Kind regards, Donna Austin and Heather Forrest (GNSO Council Vice-Chairs)

10 15

Re: [council] GNSO Strategic Planning Session - January 2018
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr 23 Aug '17

23 Aug '17

Regardless of when this important F2F happens, noting that the ccNSO and ALAC Liaisons are excluded from any support to attend, will there be any opportunity for remote participation? On 24 Aug. 2017 2:49 am, "Phil Corwin" <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: That’s a viable option, Michele. The Strategic session could be Wed-Fri or Thurs-Sat of the preceding week, That would allow me and other Councilors planning to attend NamesCon to easily get to Las Vegas for the opening events on Sunday, and then get back to LA for the Thursday and Friday NCPH meeting without moving its dates. Good suggestion. Best, Philip *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* *Virtualaw LLC* *1155 F Street, NW* *Suite 1050* *Washington, DC 20004* *202-559-8597/Direct* *202-559-8750/Fax* *202-255-6172/Cell* *Twitter: @VlawDC* *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* *From:* council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso. icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Sent:* Wednesday, August 23, 2017 12:43 PM *To:* Rubens Kuhl *Cc:* gnso-secs(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] GNSO Strategic Planning Session - January 2018 I'm in a similar position. However if this GNSO session were the week before would that resolve the issue? Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Aug 2017, at 17:40, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br> wrote: While I don't have a personal preference or need to avoid this conflict, I think it needs to be considered if it affects that many councillors. I'm planning to attend the session whether it conflicts with NamesCon or not. Rubens Em 23 de ago de 2017, à(s) 11:47:000, James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> escreveu: Thanks, Phil. I anticipate some/all of the CPH Councilors will be affected by this conflict, and perhaps some NCPH as well. Can folks please weigh in on this point? Ideally we would discuss this on the list and ask Staff to explore options, rather than adding it to AOB on Thursday. Thanks— J. *From: *<council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin < psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> *Date: *Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:42 *To: *Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, Nathalie Peregrine < nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> *Cc: *"'gnso-secs(a)icann.org'" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, GNSO Council List < council(a)gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] GNSO Strategic Planning Session - January 2018 *Following up on my email of last night, I am now formally requesting that the dates of this Council meeting be reconsidered and that it be rescheduled to eliminate this conflict, and that this topic be added to the AOB portion of tomorrow’s call.* I realize that it is late to add to the agenda but this matter came to our attention only six hours ago. For those unfamiliar with NamesCon Global, it has become the premier domain industry conference held in North America each year. More than a thousand people attended in 2017; past speakers included ICANN senior executives, and some Board members have attended. I have attended every NamesCon since its inception and have always had one or more speaking roles on the program. My clients expect me to be available to meet with industry members and speak at NamesCon. Similarly, the BC expects me to be able to participate in this important Strategic Planning event for Council. There is no way to reconcile those obligations if we stick to holding our session on exactly the same days as NamesCon. No Councilor should be forced to make such a choice between competing obligations when the planned event is five months away and the conflict can be eliminated by simply rescheduling our meeting to start a few days later. The NamesCon schedule can be found at http://namescon.com/namescon-2018/ . It ends late morning on Wednesday, January 31. As it is being held in Las Vegas, it is just a very short plane ride away from Los Angeles. If we simply shift our meeting’s starting date to two days later, on Wednesday the 31st, it would allow Council members to attend the bulk of NamesCon and still participate fully in the Council’s Strategic Planning session. Thank you for your consideration. *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* *Virtualaw LLC* *1155 F Street, NW* *Suite 1050* *Washington, DC 20004* *202-559-8597/Direct* *202-559-8750/Fax* *202-255-6172/Cell* *Twitter: @VlawDC* *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* *From:* council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso. icann.org <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Phil Corwin *Sent:* Wednesday, August 23, 2017 5:18 AM *To:* Nathalie Peregrine *Cc:* gnso-secs(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] GNSO Strategic Planning Session - January 2018 The chosen dates conflict directly with those of NamesCon Global 2018, the largest domain industry conference of the year. That's a major problem for some Councilors. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Aug 23, 2017, at 3:54 AM, Nathalie Peregrine < nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> wrote: **On behalf of Donna Austin and Heather Forrest** Dear councilors, We are pleased to inform you that the FY18 Additional Budget Request for the GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session has been accepted. This 3-day face-to-face meeting was requested for January 2018 to allow the GNSO Council to conduct a focused and dedicated strategic planning session in order to develop a work plan for the year ahead and beyond, factoring in the existing workload as well as the new responsibilities following the transition and as part of the Empowered Community. The Strategic Planning Session will be held on *Monday 29th January 2018 through to Wednesday 31st January 2018, at the ICANN office in Los Angeles.* One of the requirements of the pilot program is that the session be based at an ICANN office location for logistical and financial purposes. Full travel support (i.e., airfare, hotel) will be provided to all 21 GNSO councilors as well as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Meeting space as well as AV support will of course be provided, as well as GNSO Support staff for facilitation. Further details will be circulated shortly with information about travel. Kind regards, Donna Austin and Heather Forrest (GNSO Council Vice-Chairs) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

1 0

Updated Motion on the CCWG-IG
by Drazek, Keith 23 Aug '17

23 Aug '17

Hi all, To prepare for our vote on the CCWG-IG motion this Thursday, here's where we stand. I'd like to thank both Rafik and Wolf-Ulrich for their input last week. Rafik and I exchanged emails again this week and I believe we are in sync. As the maker of the motion: 1. I accept the proposed change of the withdrawal deadline from ICANN 60 to ICANN 61. 2. I agree that we need some additional clarity about the expected timeline leading up to ICANN 61, so the transition can be as seamless as possible. I suggest we target a GNSO Council meeting mid-way between ICANN 60 and ICANN 61 as the opportunity for the GNSO Council to review the proposed replacement structure. I'm also support acknowledging further that the GNSO Council expects a replacement to be created by ICANN 61. 3. With the extension, ICANN 61 needs to be the clear date for withdrawal. If we leave wiggle room in the motion, then the work of finding a replacement will not have the urgency or attention it requires. We are extending the date to allow for the necessary work, but I think that new date needs to be firm. We have all seen how, at ICANN, "work fills the time and space provided." We need to avoid further slippage and set clear expectations for ourselves and for the other Chartering Organizations. As such, I've attached updated motion language that I believe addresses the points raised to date. James, as the seconder of the motion, do you concur or have any concerns? Regards, Keith

3 2

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#254]
by ICANN 23 Aug '17

23 Aug '17

1 0

Fwd: Notification Regarding GNSO PDP Working Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Work Track 4 Request for Clarifying Questions and Answers
by Rubens Kuhl 23 Aug '17

23 Aug '17

Hi all. I would like to add something at either agenda or AOB of the next GNSO Council meeting: an episode where ICANN staff deliberately guided applicants into not allowing a GNSO PDP WG to access information that was supposed to be public in the first place, by using a non-neutral language that described public information as "not foreseen to be published". Rubens > > > > >> Início da mensagem encaminhada: >> >> De: ICANN Global Support <noreply-globalsupport(a)icann.org <mailto:noreply-globalsupport@icann.org>> >> Assunto: Notification Regarding GNSO PDP Working Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Work Track 4 Request for Clarifying Questions and Answers >> Data: 17 de agosto de 2017 16:22:14 BRT >> >> >> 17 August 2017 >> >> >> >> Dear Rubens Kuhl Junior , >> >> >> >> We are writing in regards to a request for information related to your application ******. Members of Work Track 4 (WT4) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group have requested the Global Domains Division (GDD) of the ICANN Organization to provide the full text of Clarifying Questions (CQs) asked and answers provided for application questions 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30a (see here for more information on the PDP and the Working Group: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/new-gtld-subsequent-proce… <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/new-gtld-subsequent-proce…>). >> >> As you may be aware, Questions 24 through 30a are the public questions of the Technical and Operational Capability section of the New gTLD application as per the 2012 Applicant Guidebook. The initial responses to these questions were published before the evaluation period began. However, neither the CQs nor applicant responses to the CQs were published. >> >> As it was not foreseen that this information would be published and there may be sensitive data included in the CQ responses or attachments, we are writing to obtain your feedback before proceeding with fulfilling the request from WT4. >> >> We would kindly request you to please respond via ICANN’s Customer Service Portal or email globalsupport(a)icann.org <mailto:globalsupport@icann.org> with any feedback that you may have regarding the sharing and publication of the CQs and responses for application questions 24-30a. >> >> The ICANN organization is committed to supporting the efforts of WT4 and intends to publish the CQs and applicant responses for questions 24-30a pending multiple considerations, including feedback from applicants such as yourself. >> >> >> >> We thank you for your time and attention to this matter and for your continued participation in the New gTLD program. >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Christine A. Willett >> Vice President, gTLD Operations >> Global Domains Division >> ICANN >

2 2

Re: [council] Updated Motion on the CCWG-IG
by James M. Bladel 23 Aug '17

23 Aug '17

Keith & Councilors - I concur and accept the amendments from Rafik and Wolf-Ulrich as described below by Keith. Thanks— J. From: <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Reply-To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 3:18 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Updated Motion on the CCWG-IG Hi all, To prepare for our vote on the CCWG-IG motion this Thursday, here’s where we stand. I’d like to thank both Rafik and Wolf-Ulrich for their input last week. Rafik and I exchanged emails again this week and I believe we are in sync. As the maker of the motion: 1. I accept the proposed change of the withdrawal deadline from ICANN 60 to ICANN 61. 2. I agree that we need some additional clarity about the expected timeline leading up to ICANN 61, so the transition can be as seamless as possible. I suggest we target a GNSO Council meeting mid-way between ICANN 60 and ICANN 61 as the opportunity for the GNSO Council to review the proposed replacement structure. I’m also support acknowledging further that the GNSO Council expects a replacement to be created by ICANN 61. 3. With the extension, ICANN 61 needs to be the clear date for withdrawal. If we leave wiggle room in the motion, then the work of finding a replacement will not have the urgency or attention it requires. We are extending the date to allow for the necessary work, but I think that new date needs to be firm. We have all seen how, at ICANN, “work fills the time and space provided.” We need to avoid further slippage and set clear expectations for ourselves and for the other Chartering Organizations. As such, I’ve attached updated motion language that I believe addresses the points raised to date. James, as the seconder of the motion, do you concur or have any concerns? Regards, Keith

1 0

FW: 2013 RAA Privacy and Proxy Specification Extension Notice
by James M. Bladel 23 Aug '17

23 Aug '17

Councilors, FYI. ICANN GDD Staff is asking the Registrar Stakeholder Group to renew the Temporary Specification on Privacy & Proxy Services in the 2013 RAA. Given the state of work of the PPSAI IRT, it is necessary that that this specification continue beyond 31 DEC 2017. Thank you, J. From: Jennifer Gore <jennifer.gore(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 16:58 To: Graeme Bunton <gbunton(a)tucows.com>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "'gnso-secs(a)icann.org'" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org>, Amy Bivins <amy.bivins(a)icann.org> Subject: 2013 RAA Privacy and Proxy Specification Extension Notice Dear Graeme and James, In 2016, a Registrar Working Group was appointed by the Registrar Stakeholder Group to address the matter of extending the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement Specification on Privacy and Proxy Registrations<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#pri…>. Given the current status of the Privacy Proxy Implementation Review Team<https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/Privacy+and+Proxy+Services+Accredit…>, the ICANN organization kindly seeks your support to extend this expiration date again. Currently, the published extension date is 1 January 2018. Thank you in advance for your response. Best Regards, Jennifer jennifer gore icann | director of registrar engagement & service delivery phone + 1 202.340.9631 email jennifer.gore(a)icann.org<mailto:jennifer.gore@icann.org> skype jennifer.gore.icann [cid:image001.png@01D31B93.467D0FE0]

1 0

Updated Proposed Final Agenda GNSO Council Meeting 24 August 2017 at 12:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 22 Aug '17

22 Aug '17

Dear councilors, Please find the updated Proposed Final Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 24 August 2017 at 12:00 UTC. Red lines have been left intentionally to highlight the changes made. Final Proposed Agenda 24 August 2017 Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/igwhB This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> v3.2, updated on 01 September 2016. For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC: http://tinyurl.com/y8tmfkkd 05:00 Los Angeles; 08:00 Washington; 13:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 22:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________ Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins) 1.1 - Roll Call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-28jun17-en.pdf> of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 28 June 2017, posted on 20 July 2017. Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-13jul17-en.pdf> of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 13 July 2017, posted on 03 August 2017. Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List<https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> 2.2 - Report results of e-vote on the Council response to the GAC Communique. Item 3. Consent Agenda (0 min) None Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Updated Charter for the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (20 minutes) At ICANN57 in Hyderabad in November 2016, the GNSO Council approved a motion conditioning the future participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization of the CCWG on Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) upon a comprehensive review of the group’s Charter by the CCWG-IG, in accordance with the Framework of Uniform Principles for CCWGs that had been adopted recently by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendation…). In its resolution, the GNSO Council had noted that the CCWG-IG’s future work is expected to be subject to a clear work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables, and had requested that, by ICANN58, the CCWG-IG was to report on its findings, which report may include a revised charter, and the CCWG-IG was to also consider whether it will be preferable to reconstitute the group under a new structure (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions - 20161107-3<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161107-3>). The CCWG-IG provided a written report on its 2016 activity and a draft revised Charter for the GNSO Council’s consideration on 10th March 2017 (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019816.html) At its Public Meeting at ICANN58 in Copenhagen on 15 March 2017 and its joint meeting with the ccNSO Council on 13 March 2017, the Council engaged in a discussion with the CCWG-IG co-chairs regarding the group’s reports. At the GNSO Council’s call on 18 May 2017, the Council continued its discussion of the topic as well as during ICANN59 during which it became clear that although there is strong support to continue the GNSO’s involvement in Internet Governance, a CCWG is not considered the appropriate vehicle for such involvement. The Council discussed this motion on its 13 July 2017 call, where the vote was deferred. Here the Council will consider the motion that has been submitted in relation to this topic. 4.1 – Presentation of motion<https://community.icann.org/x/kAwhB> (Keith Drazek) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5. COUNCIL VOTE – Replacement for GNSO member for the Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR2) Review Team (15 minutes) On 19 January 2017, the GNSO Council voted to approve its three primary candidates for the Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency Review Team (SSR2-RT). Emily Taylor, one of those three candidates, has since resigned from the SSR2-RT. The Standing Selection Committee (SSC) has been tasked with recommending a replacement candidate to be considered by the GNSO Council. Taking into account the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers, the SSC has performed its review process and selected Norm Ritchie to replace Emily Taylor on the SSR2-RT. Here, the Council will vote to approve Norm Ritchie as the replacement for Emily Taylor on the SSR2-RT. 5.1 – Presentation of motion<https://community.icann.org/x/kAwhB> (Johan Helsingus) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Changing the Name of the GNSO (15 minutes) Some in the community have noted that as domain name are available globally, the term “generic” has certain meanings to different parts of the ICANN community, that the usage of “generic” to describe a .brand is potentially confusing, and among other reasons, that it might make sense to substitute the word “Generic” for “Global” in Generic Names Supporting Organization. To consider this change, some on the GNSO Council have suggested that a narrowly scoped Drafting Team should be formed to determine whether a change of this nature is recommended and if so, develop a proposed implementation plan to effectuate that change. Here, the Council will discuss whether it supports the premise of changing the name of the GNSO and if so, what next steps might be. 6.1 – Presentation of discussion topic (Paul McGrady) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next Steps Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Report from GNSO chairs on call with Subsequent Procedures (“SubPro”) PDP co-chairs, regarding the creation of Work Track 5 (WT5) (15 minutes) The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG has the topic of geographic names at the top-level within its charter. The PDP WG has recently begun to consider the topic, along with the wider community interested in the topic. The PDP WG first convened a pair of webinars<https://community.icann.org/x/p77RAw> in April, where anyone in the community was invite to share their input on the subject. Following the webinars, the PDP WG held a pair of cross community sessions <https://community.icann.org/x/jVPwAw> at ICANN59 to further discuss the subject. The PDP WG co-chairs have suggested the creation of a new Work Track 5, dedicated to the topic of geographic names at the top-level. The leadership is expected to be shared equally amongst a leader from each of the ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, and GNSO. In early August, the PDP WG co-chairs sent letters to the chairs of each of the four community groups, seeking the identification of a Work Track 5 leader for their respective group. Here, the Council will receive an update from the GNSO leadership on its recent conversations with the PDP WG co-chairs, as well as discuss possible next steps. 6.1 – Presentation of discussion topic (GNSO Council chairs) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next Steps Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Review of the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law (20 minutes) As a result of community input and the work of the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG), ICANN made effective the revised Whois Procedure<https://whois.icann.org/en/revised-icann-procedure-handling-whois-conflicts…> on 18 April 2017 to better accommodate issues where Whois requirements conflict with applicable laws. As requested by this GNSO Council, ICANN published a paper<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/whois-privacy-conflicts-procedu…> for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-privacy-law-2017-05-03-en> to provide analysis and solicit community input on the practicality and feasibility of the triggers identified in the revised Whois procedure. The public comment period was also intended to collect suggestions for moving forward with the review. The public comment period closed on 7 July 2017 and the staff report of public comments<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-whois-privacy-l…> was published on 28 July 2017. On 1 August 2017, the Council received a letter<https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/atallah-to-bladel-et-al-01aug17-en…> from Akram Attalah, providing a collection of possible options for proceeding with the review, and offering to discuss those options or others identified by Council. Here, the Council will receive an update from GDD staff and discuss options for moving forward with the review of the Whois Procedure. 7.1 – Update on current status (GDD, GNSO Council chairs) 7.2 – Council Discussion 7.3 – Next Steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – PLANNING FOR ICANN60 (10 minutes) During ICANN59, the proposed block schedule for ICANN60 was shared (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/icann60-draft-prelim-block-schedule-27jun1…) – note that further updates have been made as a result of the SO/AC Planning Committee and the resulting cross-community session selections. Based on requests received to date from the different GNSO PDP WGs, CCWGs WGs, and cross community session landscape, the Council leadership has revised its draft GNSO schedule for Council input and review, available here. Following Council review, this draft GNSO schedule will again be shared with the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies to facilitate their planning and scheduling. 8.1 - Update on planning for ICANN60 (Council leadership) 8.2 – Council discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes) 9.1 – Report from chairs on our call with Subsequent Procedures (“SubPro”) PDP co-chairs, regarding the creation of Work Track 5 (WT5) 9.1 – Update from CCWG-ACCT WS2 9.2 - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 4 data request - Clarifying Questions ________________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 11.3(i)) See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11. Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 4.4) See https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf. References for Coordinated Universal Time of 12:00 UTC Local time between March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 05:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6 06:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT) UTC-5 07:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 08:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 09:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3 09::00 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+1 13:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+2 14:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (TRT) UTC+3 15:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 20:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9 21:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11 22:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2017, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> and http://tinyurl.com/y8tmfkkd

1 1

CSC report PTI performance July 2017
by James Gannon 21 Aug '17

21 Aug '17

Councillors, Please find below the July 2017 CSC Report, as always I am available to answer any questions or queries Council may have. -James Gannon (GNSO non-RySG Liaison to the CSC) From: icann-csc-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:icann-csc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 21 August 2017 16:19 To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Cc: icann-csc(a)icann.org Subject: [ICANN-CSC] CSC report PTI performance July 2017 Dear all, On behalf of the chair of the CSC (Byron Holland), please find included following message and the latest CSC report. Kind regards, Bart Boswinkel ---------------------------- 21 August 2017 Dear Community Members, As chair of the Customer Standing Committee I am pleased to provide you with our monthly report on the performance of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) over July 2017. You will see that the CSC has concluded that, overall, PTI’s performance in July 2017 was “Excellent”- PTI met the service level agreement at 100% for the month of July 2017. The CSC was informed that no complaints were received in July 2017 and the two complaints received in June 2017 were closed. The July 2017 PTI report to the CSC, listing the individual service level metrics along with their actual and historical performance, can be found at: https://www.iana.org/performance/csc-reports/201707 . In addition to its review of the PTI report, the CSC together with PTI continued its productive discussion on the development of the Remedial Action Procedure as foreseen in it the CSC charter. The CSC and PTI further discussed the procedure and timeline to change the agreed Service Level Expectations as documented in Annex A section 2 of the IANA Naming Functions Contract. The CSC has regular meetings: Every month at or around the 15th. The CSC report on the PTI performance is send out shortly after each meeting. If you would like to be informed of upcoming meetings or receive CSC reports directly, you may want to subscribe to our announce list at https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-announce . Any comments on our reporting to you is welcome. The CSC was formed effective October 1, 2016. Background information on the committee along with transcripts of our meetings and other useful information can be found at https://www.icann.org/csc[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_csc&d=Dg…> . Kind regards, Byron Holland Chair CSC

1 0