September 2017 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft process for handling a community gTLD change request
by Marika Konings Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

In relation to this topic, please see ICANN Org’s initial feedback to the draft process for handling a community gTLD change request: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/weinstein-to-schwartz-…. Best regards, Marika From: <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 08:22 To: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "'craig(a)ftld.com'" <craig(a)ftld.com>, "heather(a)ftld.com" <heather(a)ftld.com> Subject: Re: [council] Agenda Item for discussion during 20 September 2017 Council call Thank you, Donna. Council Colleagues – there is quite a bit of info here, so please take a moment to review before our call on 20 SEP. And if you can give Phil/Donna a heads up on any questions you intend to ask during the meeting, I’m sure they would be grateful for any opportunity to prep their response. Thanks, J. ------------------ James Bladel GNSO Chair From: <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Reply-To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> Date: Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 17:57 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "'craig(a)ftld.com'" <craig(a)ftld.com>, "heather(a)ftld.com" <heather(a)ftld.com> Subject: [council] Agenda Item for discussion during 20 September 2017 Council call Dear Councilors Over the past six months or so a number of community gTLD registry operators have been developing a Draft Community gTLD Change Request Process. This has been done under the guidance of GDD staff and in consultation with the RySG. Attached is a copy of the draft process for information. Craig Schwartz from fTLD Registry, and who has been leading this effort, has requested an opportunity to brief the Council on the process and this will be done during the 20 September 2017, Council call. Background In September 2016, fTLD submitted a request to ICANN to amend Specification 12 of our Registry Agreements for .BANK and .INSURANCE to add another class of regulated entities to our respective Registrant Eligibility Policies. fTLD submitted the request after following our Policy Development Process Policy available at https://www.ftld.com/policies/ [ftld.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ftld.com_policies_…>and with approval from our Advisory Council and Board of Directors, which are both comprised solely of banks, insurance companies and financial services trade associations. ICANN denied the request in September 2016, stating in part that they are “not currently in a position to approve requests to amend community restrictions in Specification 12 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement.” In follow-up discussions with ICANN GDD and Legal staff, fTLD was told that ICANN could not consider the requested changes because there was no community-developed/supported process to enable them to do so. There was a procedure discussed in the New gTLD Program Explanatory Memorandum Discussion Draft: Community gTLD change request handling, but because it had not been approved nor was it included in the Applicant Guidebook, ICANN could not use this as the basis for considering our request. As a result, ICANN asked fTLD if we would help lead the way in creating a Community gTLD Change Request process. fTLD agreed to undertake this effort and formed a working group comprised of fTLD and several community-based Registry Operators and New gTLD Applicants to develop a draft Community gTLD Change Request process. The working group also sought input from the RySG on various iterations of the proposal and the current draft incorporates the feedback provided as a result of this exercise. The working group has also been working closely with ICANN’s GDD team. Thanks Donna

1 0

Board adopts response to GAC Johannesburg Communique
by Marika Konings Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

Dear All, FYI, the ICANN Board adopted its response to the GAC Johannesburg Communique during its meeting on 23 September (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-09-23-en#1.f) It included the following response in relation to IGO Protections: The Board acknowledges the GAC’s Advice and its concerns. The Board reiterates that as part of a PDP, the Working Group has an obligation to duly consider all inputs received*. The Board notes that the GNSO Council has informed the Board that all public comments and input received by the PDP Working Group, including from the GAC and IGOs, have been extensively discussed by the Working Group. The Board notes, further, that the GNSO Council considers the upcoming ICANN60 meeting to be an opportunity for further discussions among the community. The Board will continue to facilitate these discussions and encourages participation in them by all affected parties. * From the GNSO Operating Procedures: “Public comments received as a result of a public comment forum held in relation to the activities of the WG should be carefully considered and analyzed. In addition, the WG is encouraged to explain their rationale for agreeing or disagreeing with the different comments received and, if appropriate, how these will be addressed in the report of the WG”. Best regards, Marika 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-…>.

1 0

NCA's and information flow
by Johan Helsingius Sept. 25, 2017

Sept. 25, 2017

Dear council members, I have often expressed my concern over how NCA's tend to be left out of the constituency-based communications of the GNSO. It is purely by accident that I today found out that nominations for GNSO Council Chair are solicited and due on 2 October. Not that this one affects me personally, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to highlight the gap in information flow. Julf

5 8

Reminder: GNSO Chair election timeline and incoming councilors
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 25, 2017

Sept. 25, 2017

Dear all, As a reminder, please see attached the GNSO Chair nomination timeline. This will be circulated once again to the SGs and Cs shortly. Kind regards, Nathalie From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 1:15 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: GNSO Chair election timeline and incoming councilors Dear all, Please see attached the timeline for the GNSO Chair nomination open date and election. Please remember that new councilors are eligible for nomination as Council chair so the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies’ elections should be over by the date of nominations. New councilors are to be announced on the 1st September 2017. 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<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Document and Motion deadline Monday 2 October 2017 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 12 October 2017 at 12:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 25, 2017

Sept. 25, 2017

Dear Councilors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. Monday 2 October 2017 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council Meeting on 12 October 2017 at 12:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/0iIhB Thank you very much. With kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations 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<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Action Items: GNSO Council meeting 20 September 2017
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 25, 2017

Sept. 25, 2017

Dear Councilors, Please find the action items as stated during the meeting, below and as attachment arising from the GNSO Council meeting held on Wednesday 20 September 2017. Please take note of the action items coming out of the Council sessions and the proposed timing for delivering on these actions. ACTION ITEMS FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL MEETING OF 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE – Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all gTLDs data request Action Items: * ICANN policy staff to forward the RPM PDP WG’s DMPM request to the appropriate department of ICANN Organization for the requisite budget and resource approvals. * RPMs PDP WG to provide follow-up report on the progress and outcomes of its DMPM request in time for the GNSO Council’s meeting scheduled for 21 December 2017, and a regular written report thereafter, at intervals of no less frequently than monthly, followed by a detailed status report on the Working Group’s view of the utility of the data collection exercise on the progress and timeline of Phase One of the PDP by ICANN61. Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names Action item: * GNSO Secretariat to communicate the related resolutions (available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+20+Septembe…) to the ccNSO Council, as co-chartering organization of the CWG UCTN. * Staff to communicate the related resolutions to CWG UCTN WG mailing list * Heather, as co-chair of CWG UCTN, to communicate the related resolutions to SO/AC leadership and ICANN Board Item 6. COUNCIL VOTE – GNSO members for the ICANN Accountability and Transparency (ATRT3) Review Team Action Items: * GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 (“The GNSO Council nominates, ranked in order: Brian Cute (RySG), Wolfgang Kleinwächter (NCSG), Stéphane Van Gelder (RySG) as its primary three candidates for the ATRT3. Furthermore, the GNSO nominates, in ranked order: Tatiana Tropina (NCSG), Michael Karanicolas (NCSG), Adetola Sogbesan (BC), Erica Varlese (RySG) to be considered for inclusion in the ATRT3 by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available that need to be filled.”) to the staff supporting the ATRT3. * GNSO Secretariat to inform the endorsed candidates that the GNSO Council expects that if selected for the ATRT3, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the ATRT3, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the ATRT3, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team members. (to be completed after meeting with other SO/ACs to determine final Review Team membership) * Staff supporting the ATRT3 and application process to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement for this Review Team, thanking them for their interest and note their importance in the event an alternate is needed in the future. The response should encourage them to follow the ATRT3 work, participate in Public Comments and community discussions, and to apply for future opportunities within the GNSO Community as they arise. (to be completed after meeting with other SO/ACs to determine final Review Team membership) Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Revised GNSO Operating Procedures and ICANN Bylaws Action Item: * Council leadership to put forth recommendation on how Council can better consider topic and determine next steps (e.g., webinar, review red-line of GNSO Operating Procedures/ICANN Bylaws, etc.) Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Community gTLD Change Request Process Action Items: * Councilors to review draft process and presentation shared by Craig Schwartz. Councilors to also socialize with their respective SG/Cs to attempt to try and come to agreement in October on which direction Council should go for this item (e.g., consistent with existing policy and can be treated as implementation, needs additional policy work via existing PDP, new PDP, GGP). Please note that all Action Items have been posted on the Action Item wiki page here[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. Please refer to this page for the recent status updates on the Action items. Thank you, Kind regards, Nathalie -- Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations 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<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Fwd: [soac-chairs] Update on GDPR and Next Steps
by James M. Bladel Sept. 22, 2017

Sept. 22, 2017

Colleagues, see below. The Brussels Roundtable idea is off, but may be revisited after Abu Dhabi. Folks gathering in Brussels for the RDS F2F may hold a separate session. Thank you, J. ----------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Sep 22, 2017, 16:18 -0500 To: soac-chairs(a)icann.org <soac-chairs(a)icann.org> Cc: Goran Marby <goran.marby(a)icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org> Subject: [soac-chairs] Update on GDPR and Next Steps Dear SO/AC Chairs: I wanted to follow up to my email of September 13th 2017. As I mentioned, we have been exploring organizing a roundtable for the first week of October. Unfortunately, we need to postpone until after ICANN60 due to stakeholder commitments and other meetings in Brussels at the same time. We will come back to you with a proposed date for this meeting as soon as possible. I understand that many of our community are in Brussels anyway the first week in October. I appreciate that some of you may wish to use this opportunity to get together for an “open house” style meeting, allowing you to discuss GDPR and share your updates and new perspectives. If that’s the case, please let us know and ICANN will organize this at our offices on October 5th 2017, including providing some limited funding for the meeting. Please let Diana Middleton (diana.middleton(a)icann.org)<mailto:diana.middleton@icann.org)> know as soon as possible if you plan to be in Brussels that week anyway and would find such a meeting useful so that we can plan accordingly. In addition, we plan to hold an open webinar for the SO/ACs before ICANN60. The intent of this webinar will be to get your input on the scope of the ICANN organization’s facilitation efforts on GDPR. We are pulling together details on the webinar now and will share more information shortly. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your communities on facilitating a community discussion about GDPR – including the cross-community session at ICANN60. Please communicate your feedback regarding this session to Cyrus Namazi (cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org)<mailto:cyrus.namazi@icann.org)> who is the senior staff coordinator for this session at ICANN60. Best regards, David David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 2:34 PM To: "soac-chairs(a)icann.org" <soac-chairs(a)icann.org> Cc: Goran Marby <goran.marby(a)icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org> Subject: IMPORTANT REQUEST: Update on GDPR and Next Steps Dear SO/AC Chairs: As you know, the topic of the GDPR is an important one, in particular to the relationship of WHOIS and the GDPR. We’ve undertaken much work to receive input on the user stories, which have been published together with a blog updating on progress to date and next steps. As we engage on the topic and share the user stories, and possible implications of the legislation on existing WHOIS policy, we would like to give the opportunity to the SO and ACs to engage and join in meetings to provide their perspectives. With this, Göran has asked me to invite SO/AC representatives to a roundtable in Brussels to share your perspectives on the topic, and have a direct dialogue with the EC and available DPAs. We are still determining the date for this roundtable in the first week of October. ICANN organization will facilitate but not participate in the roundtable. In preparation, we’d like to invite you, should you wish, to identify 2 representatives from your SO and AC’s, for which we can provide limited travel support, to join for this roundtable. We are also exploring remote participation so others in the ICANN Community can listen to the roundtable discussion. Related, the latest postings including the updated user stories/summary document are listed below and may be of interest: * New blog: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-and-privacy-progress-update… * Updated user stories/summary document https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-dataflow-matrix-whois-11se… (Posted on the gTLD Registration Dataflow Matrix and Information page<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-dataflow-matrix-201…>) Please contact me or Theresa Swinehart, and we look forward to following up with you. Best regards, David David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Fwd: Draft motion on RPM Working Group data request for submission to GNSO Council
by Heather Forrest Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Dear GNSO Secretariat and Council colleagues, Please find attached a motion and supporting documentation which I request be added to the Council's September agenda. I put this motion as Council liaison to the RPM PDP WG, after discussion with the three co-chairs and policy staff. I may ask fellow Councilor (and RPM PDP co-chair Phil Corwin) to field specific questions at the Council meeting. Best wishes, Heather Forrest

4 6

Fwd: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] Message from Göran Marby on the EC Cybersecurity Strategy
by James M. Bladel Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Councilors, FYI. Thanks - J. -------------- James Bladel GoDaddy ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Sep 14, 2017, 15:55 -0700 Subject: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] Message from Göran Marby on the EC Cybersecurity Strategy Dear Community Leaders: You are maybe aware of this already but if you are not, maybe this is good for you to know. The EC has published a paper about their Cybersecurity strategy. The interesting thing for us is that they mention ICANN: promoting measures to prevent the abuse of domain names for the distribution of unsolicited messages or phishing attacks. To this end, the Commission will work to improve the functioning of and the availability and accuracy of information in the Domain Name and IP WHOIS[1]<applewebdata://4BE57DBB-CB2E-4413-AC92-433087470CAA/#_ftn1> systems in line with the efforts of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.’ I honestly do not know if this could have an effect on the DPAs' further work on WHOIS (in relationship to GDPR) as the DPAs are independent in their decision making but I thought this could be interesting to know (if you did not know already). Regards Göran

3 3

GNSO Council Resolution 20 September 2017
by Terri Agnew Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Dear all, The following resolution was adopted by the GNSO Council at its meeting on Wednesday, 20 September 2017. These resolutions are also published on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun cil_resolutions&d=DgMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd _FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=ygCeG59ipFav -VYEGtJXBJEtU3ifRMjWTQmzalzlr_s&s=eYaHRknuS8dwnlfsWzG_MCs1m8B2j3GrXzvzw5lHDl w&e=> 20170920-1 GNSO Council Approval of Data Collection Request from RPM Review PDP Working Group Submitted by Heather Forrest Seconded by James Bladel, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben WHEREAS: 1. In October 2015, the GNSO Council adopted all the consensus recommendations from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making (DMPM) Working Group and instructed ICANN staff to commence implementation of the recommendations ( <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1) 2. The Metrics Request Decision Tree and Working Group Metrics Request Form developed by the DMPM Working Group were consequently incorporated into the GNSOs Working Group Guidelines ( <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf > https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf) ; 3. The Working Group chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct the Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs has, after extensive deliberations, developed a list of data collection tasks that it believes are critical in order for it to fulfill its Charter ( <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-15mar16-en.pdf> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-15mar16-en.pdf) 4. As part of its chartered tasks, the PDP Working Group was urged to bear in mind that a fundamental underlying objective of its work is to create a framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these [RPMs] in the future; 5. The Competition, Consumer Protection and Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team convened under the ICANN Bylaws has noted the lack of, and need for, data in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the various RPMs that were created for ICANNs 2012 New gTLD Program round ( <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en. pdf> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.p df), and 6. The PDP Working Group has developed and submitted a DMPM data request form, as required by the GNSOs Working Group Guidelines, to the GNSO Council for its approval on 16 September 2017 ( <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-sunrise-trademark-claims-07sep17-en.pd f> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-sunrise-trademark-claims-07sep17-en.pdf ) RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council approves the DMPM request as submitted by the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group. 2. The GNSO Council instructs the leadership of the RPM PDP to work with ICANN staff and any outside experts to structure the data request in such a way that the value and relevance of the data is maximised. 3. The GNSO Council directs ICANN policy staff to forward the DMPM request to the appropriate department of ICANN Organization for the requisite budget and resource approvals, with a further request that the matter be considered and approved in as timely a fashion as practicable. 4. The GNSO Council requests a follow up report from the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group on the progress and outcomes of its DMPM request in time for the GNSO Councils meeting scheduled for 21 December 2017, and a regular written report thereafter, at intervals of not less frequently than monthly, followed by a detailed status report on the Working Groups view of the utility of the data collection exercise on the progress and timeline of Phase One of the PDP by ICANN61. <https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-20sep17-en. pdf> Vote results friendly amendment <https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-20sep17-en. pdf> Vote results original request 20170920-2 GNSO Adoption of the Final Report of the Cross-Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory names as TLDs Submitted by: Heather Forrest Seconded by: James Bladel Whereas, 1. The GNSO and ccNSO chartered the Cross-community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory names as TLDs (CWG UCTN) in March, 2014 ( <https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-framework-charter-27mar14-en.pdf > https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-framework-charter-27mar14-en.pdf) . The formation of a cross-community working group to evaluate the feasibility of developing an overarching framework on the use of country and territory names as TLDs was the principal recommendation of a preceding ccNSO Study Group (Final Report of 8 September 2013: <https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-final-08sep12-en.pdf> https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-final-08sep12-en.pdf) 2. The CWG UCTN published an Interim Paper dated 9 February 2017 ( <https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ctn-interim-paper-09feb17-en.pdf > https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ctn-interim-paper-09feb17-en.pdf) setting out the history and context of ICANN policy-making on country and territory names, and proposing four recommendations, with Recommendation 3 articulated in three alternatives. A public comment period on the Interim Paper was held from 24 February 2017 to 21 April 2017, with comments summarised in a report dated 3 May 2017 ( <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-cwg-uctn-interi m-paper-03may17-en.pdf> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-cwg-uctn-interim -paper-03may17-en.pdf). 3. In addition to comments submitted by individual GNSO stakeholders, the GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group, Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency submitted comments supporting Recommendations 1, 2 and 4, as follows: 1. Close this CWG in accordance with and as foreseen in the charter. 2. Recommend that the ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. 4. Recommend that future policy development work must facilitate an all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. 4.Notably, no objections were raised in any submission during the public comment period to the above Recommendations 1, 2 and 4. 5. A range of support was expressed for each of the alternative wordings of Recommendation 3, with all GNSO commenters expressing support for Alternative A, as follows: Alternative A Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANNs Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of work that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the groups work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANNs Bylaws. 6. On 24 June 2015, the GNSO adopted the Resolution on the Request for a Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds. ( <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201506> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201506) The Preliminary Issue Report, which identified the requirements around geographic names as meriting discussion, was adopted by the GNSO Council on 17 December 2015 ( <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201512> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201512) The Preliminary Issue Report notably recommended that: A potential PDP-WG on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures could consider collaborating with other parts of the ICANN community, such as the GAC or ccNSO in particular, in determining if strings described above should be allowed and if so, what requirements would be needed to govern that process. The PDP-WG should also consider the work of the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as TLDs before reaching any conclusions. (Preliminary Issue Report at page 59, <https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-iss ue-31aug15-en.pdf> https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issu e-31aug15-en.pdf) 7. The GNSO Policy Development Process on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (Subsequent Procedures PDP) was chartered on 21 January 2016 to, inter alia: Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate. ( <https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-charter-21 jan16-en.pdf> https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-charter-21j an16-en.pdf) This issue formed part of Work Track 2, covering legal issues. 8. Following two cross-community sessions led by the leadership of the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG at ICANN59 in Johannesburg on the topic of the use of geographic names, the formation of a new Work Track 5 was proposed to better facilitate broad community participation in the discussion of policy on geographic name use. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 of the Final Report of the Cross-Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory names as TLDs. 2. The GNSO Council adopts the underlying objective of Recommendation 3, and in particular supports Recommendation 3 Alternative A, recognizing that the use of geographic names as gTLDs is clearly within the GNSOs mandate as per ICANNs Bylaws, and also recognizing that this is a matter of interest for the ICANN community as a whole. 3. The GNSO Council instructs the leadership of the Subsequent Procedures PDP to consider the Final Report of the Cross-Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory names as TLDs, and to ensure continued collaboration with other parts of the ICANN community in addressing issues relating to the use of geographic names. 4. The GNSO Council recognizes the significant contribution of the CWG UCTN to the ongoing development of policy on the use of geographic names in the DNS, and thanks the members of the CWG UCTN for their Final Report, which clearly documents the history and context of policy-making in relation to geographic names. 5. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate these resolutions to the ccNSO Council, as co-chartering organization of the CWG UCTN, as soon as possible. <https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-20sep17-en. pdf> Vote results 20170920-3 Nomination of GNSO Candidates for the Third Review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency (ATRT3) Submitted by: Susan Kawaguchi Seconded: James Bladel Whereas, 1. On 31 January 2017, ICANN launched a call for volunteers seeking individuals interested in serving as a volunteer Review Team member on the ATRT3 (see <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-01-31-en> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-01-31-en) 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, plus an ICANN Board member (designated by the ICANN Board). 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 ATRT3 for Council consideration. 4. The SSC reviewed the candidates that requested GNSO endorsement (see <https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/ATRT3> https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/ATRT3) 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 13 September 2017 ( <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-September/020381.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-September/020381.html) which confirmed the ranking of the 1-7 candidates as well as the expectation that, at a minimum, the 1-3 candidates would be considered primary candidates with a guaranteed seat for the ATRT3. 5. The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council nominates, ranked in order: Brian Cute (RySG), Wolfgang Kleinwächter (NCSG), Stéphane Van Gelder (RySG) as its primary three candidates for the ATRT3. Furthermore, the GNSO nominates, in ranked order: Tatiana Tropina (NCSG), Michael Karanicolas (NCSG), Adetola Sogbesan (BC), Erica Varlese (RySG) to be considered for inclusion in the ATRT3 by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available that need to be filled. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges concerns raised by the SSC about the general lack of diversity (gender, geographic) in the pool of candidates for Review Teams, and will encourage SG/Cs to widely publicize calls for volunteers and make efforts to promote sufficient diversity in the pool of applicants for future application processes. 3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to the staff supporting the ATRT3. 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 ATRT3, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the ATRT3, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the ATRT3, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team members. 5. The GNSO Council requests staff supporting the ATRT3 and application process to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement for this Review Team, thanking them for their interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the ATRT3 work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions and to apply for future opportunities within the GNSO Community as they arise. <https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-20sep17-en. pdf> Vote results Thank you, Terri

1 0