August 2018 - council - lists.icann.org

RrSG Feedback to GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper
by Darcy Southwell 15 Aug '18

15 Aug '18

Council, Please see the comments below from the RrRSG regarding the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. Thank you, Darcy The Registrar Stakeholder Group appreciates the opportunity to comment on the GNSO PDP 3.0 document and offers the following: 4.1 Working Group Dynamics – Incremental Improvements #1. Terms of participation for WG members The RrSG supports outlining commitment expectations for WG members, so long as it doesn’t adversely impact the ability to coordinate volunteers and solicit appropriate representation for a PDP based on its charter and specified structure. To ensure volunteers understand what will be asked of them, the RrSG suggests any call for volunteers include some basic commitments/expectations, such as: - anticipated duration of the PDP, meeting commitment (e.g., weekly meetings of 90 minutes) and expected availability to attend [the majority of] meetings and devote sufficient time to prepare for meetings (e.g., require reading); - recommended expertise, if necessary, for the subject matter of the PDP; - knowledge of and respect for the GNSO policy development process; and - good faith commitment to working to build consensus. PDP participants should be appropriately trained on how to use ICANN’s remote meeting tools, including AdobeConnect, to ensure that PDP work is not disrupted due to user challenges with the technology. #2. Consider alternatives to open WG model The RrSG supports balanced representation when it comes to policy development. However, a one-size-fits-all approach to PDP team structures is not appropriate. The RrSG encourages the Council to consider team make up specific to each PDP, just as it does with drafting the scope, to ensure that the team make up is fit for purpose. The RrSG believes the Council’s approach to the recent EPDP is a good example of considering the uniqueness of the issue and creating a suitable team model. #3. Limitations to joining of new members after a certain time The RrSG cautions the Council to remember that, at times, a PDP participant withdraws due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., job change, medical issue, etc.). Rather than prohibiting new members in such cases, an expectation should be made of replacement members to come up to speed on what has transpired, understand where consensus has been reached, etc., to avoid any delay in the PDP’s work or the rehashing of previously decided issues as a result of the new member’s concern. 4.2 WG Leadership – Incremental Improvements #4. Capture vs. Consensus Playbook The RrSG supports the idea of a “playbook” or expanded guidelines to assist WG leaders, but we are also concerned that there may be a more systemic issue. Groups seem ever more willing to “lay down on the tracks” for almost any issue. The community as a whole needs to determine a way to replenish its “lake of goodwill” which appears in a severe drought. #5. Active role for and clear description of Council liaison to PDP WGs The RrSG supports the idea of the Council liaison having a more active role in PDP WGs, including the ability to actively be involved in leadership/preparatory meetings. #6. Document expectations for WG leaders that outlines role & responsibilities as well as minimum skills/expertise required No strong position here. 4.3 Complexity of Subject Matter – Incremental Improvements #7. Creation of Cooperative Teams Effective policy development requires participation from the PDP team members, especially active members responsible for responding to calls for consensus. ICANN staff ensures that meetings are recorded with audio recordings and written transcripts available to participants. The RrSG strongly disagrees that any subset of members should be preparing summaries for “observers / less active” members to utilize in place of the recordings and transcripts. That information is already available without interpretation by others that could alter the message. #8. PDP Plenary or Model PDP Since there are no limitations on observers in most PDPs, the RrSG has no objections to allowing individuals to observe to learn more about the subject matter. However, given the demand already placed on PDP leadership and participants, it is an unnecessary burden to ask PDP leadership to hold plenary sessions specifically to educate newcomers on PDP subjects. Further, ICANN already offers a number of methods of education on the GNSO policy development process. These tools are already available, and the RrSG questions the need for further resources to be developed in that arena. 4.4 Consensus Building – Incremental Improvements #9. Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 (Standard Methodology for decision making) The RrSG supports this improvement. We would suggest that Council and staff meet with PDP leadership at the outset to discuss the consensus categories outlined in each PDP charter and acceptable methods for identifying consensus status. We also suggest providing a basic training to PDP team members on the same. #10. Document positions at the outset The RrSG generally supports using surveys or other methods to try to find middle ground on issues in order to make the policy development process more efficient. However, the RrSG is concerned that limitations on restating positions be carefully considered and outlined. It would undermine the policy development process to refuse to allow a participant to restate a position during a formal call for consensus when that participant’s knowledge and understanding of the full scope of the issue has changed, based on PDP discussions, since the initial survey on middle ground. 4.5 Role of Council as Manager of the PDP – Incremental Improvements #11. Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces Adequate, narrow PDP scoping is critical to creating an attainable, realistic work plan. The RrSG recommends that each PDP leadership team engage with Council in a PDP evaluation process following PDP completion. Similar to #16 below, we recommend a standardized summary template be created to provide Council with data to indicate the effectiveness and efficiency the PDP had in achieving its work plan, meeting the scope of the PDP, etc. #12. Notification to Council of changes in work plan Not only is it important that PDP leadership communicate changes to the work plan and the rationale for such changes, but both the PDP leadership and the Council should be sure to consider the effect the change may have on the totality of the PDP and how do accommodate for the changes. Continually extending a PDP because of work plan changes isn’t acceptable. Further, if work plan changes are necessitated by challenges with the PDP scope, the Council should consider whether the original scope was appropriate and, if not, review the scope for necessary changes in order to ensure the PDP accomplishes the necessary goal(s). #13. Review of Chair(s) The RrSG is concerned that an anonymous survey could easily be gamed or abused. Instead of an anonymous survey, the RrSG suggests using the monthly reporting (comparing performance to the work plan) in #16 as a better means to ascertain if potential issues exist. Council would then be able to speak with the PDP leadership to determine what has gone off track and why. #14. Make better use of existing flexibility in PDP to allow for data gathering, chartering and termination when it is clear that no consensus can be achieved. Data and metrics are vitally important and should be a stand-alone item, instead of being lumped with chartering and termination. The DMPM WG made the following observations in its Final Report, which seem still relevant today (see pages 12 & 13, https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_48169/dmpm-final-09oct… .pdf): - Lacking baseline data hampers the understanding of problems which should be a primary rationale for making changes to policy. Therefore, ensuring relevant baseline data as one element guiding the policy process is critical and should be mandated by WGs. - ... ideally, data gathering and analysis should occur prior to and/or while scoping the issue with the policy development process to follow. Note however, at the working group phase, a group should not be limited in seeking further data and metrics should additional analysis be required, especially when new forms of data may become available. - When a WG makes recommendations, it should include a policy impact assessment, and recommend suitable metrics to measure the impact. Specifically, implementation of Consensus Policies should ensure post- implementation data is collected to analyze whether or not policy goals are achieved using defined metrics. The RrSG, however, also believes that it is important to ensure that WGs do not engage in data gathering exercises for the sake of gathering data. Data gathering should not be used as a fishing expedition. We are concerned, for example, that some in the RPM PDP have used the “date gathering” requirement as an exercise to try to either 1) delay the progress or the group or 2) test hypotheses that have yet to have any supporting detail. In other words, a data gathering exercise should not be used to test academic or philosophical theories, but rather should be used only where there is at least some evidence or reliable anecdotal data that support the notion of a more comprehensive data collection exercise. #15. Independent conflict resolution Possible implementation: ICANN org put out a call for expressions of interests seeking volunteer mediators to form a standing panel that could be called upon by PDP WGs if and when needed. #16. Criteria for PDP WG Updates The RrSG encourages the Council to set the parameters (e.g., timing, content) for PDP WG updates to ensure reporting provides the Council with the information needed to effectively management the policy development process. For example, request monthly data that indicates: (a) which issues contained in the scope are complete and which are not; (b) whether or not the PDP is on track to the work plan; (c) identify roadblocks causing the PDP to miss work plan deadlines; (d) identify resource concerns. Providing such regular reporting will allow the Council to more effectively manage policy development, evaluate timelines and issues, and ensure overall policy work is efficient and effective. #17. Resource reporting for PDP WGs The RrSG understands that ICANN has not done any sort of resourcing data collection or analysis in the past, but that is expected from the EPDP. The RrSG encourages such reporting and analysis. In order for the Council to effectively prioritize policy development work, one component it needs to understand is the resourcing efforts involved. Further general comments/suggestions: - The RrSG asks that Council consider the limitations of the PDP process, and its utility in making decisions, versus finding compromise. The PDP excels at identifying issues, convening diverse stakeholders and perspectives, and conducting an analysis of potential solutions. The PDP fails, however, when it is tasked with an either-or proposition, where the implications and views are known and well-established, and where the solutions are not suited for private contracts (unenforceable). In these situations, the Council should prevent SGs and Cs from proposing or initiating PDPs, and instead look for other avenues to advance the work. - The RrSG encourages the Council to consider how to determine the right timing for policy development. For example, at times policy development has begun while technical analysis may have been the more appropriate first step (e.g., IRTP-C (Change of Registrant), Across Field Validation (AFAV)). We encourage the Council to consider what issues or information are necessary prior to policy development, and engage those avenues first to ensure policy development is as effective as possible. In addition, there have been times when multiple PDPs are underway and competing for resources. Sometimes PDPs are working on similar issues but working separately and are, therefore, somewhat out of alignment. We encourage the Council to consider competing resources, timing, etc., to ensure that policy development is getting the attention it deserves, is adequately resourced, and is aligned with other ICANN community work to avoid duplication of efforts or competing results. __________ *Darcy Southwell *| Compliance Officer M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart

1 0

RPM Working Group status report on its Council-approved data collection exercise
by Mary Wong 15 Aug '18

15 Aug '18

Dear Councilors, Please find attached the first report from the RPM Review PDP Working Group, summarizing where things stand with the extensive data collection effort that the Council approved in September 2017, for the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs. You may recall that the Council’s approval also expressly requested monthly reports beginning in January 2018. As the Request for Proposal was issued at the end of January, with interested potential vendors beginning to engage in February, the report consolidates the January and February activities. It also includes the full RFP timeline. Please let staff or the current Working Group chairs (Kathy Kleiman and Phil Corwin, cc’d on this email) know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you! Cheers Mary

3 2

For your review: Project List
by Nathalie Peregrine 10 Aug '18

10 Aug '18

Dear Councilors, Attached please find the updated Project List in both red-line and clean version for your review before the Council meeting. If there are no comments, the list will be posted on the website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc…> and be directly viewed at :http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_meetings…> Thanks so much, Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

Fwd: [Board-Ops-Team] [CORRESPONDENCE] Letter from Cherine Chalaby to the GNSO Council Leadership on the Request of EPDP Resources
by Heather Forrest 09 Aug '18

09 Aug '18

Dear Council colleagues, Kurt, Please find below and attached a positive reply to the GNSO Council's request for additional resources in support of the EPDP. Best wishes, Heather ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Ops-Team] [CORRESPONDENCE] Letter from Cherine Chalaby to the GNSO Council Leadership on the Request of EPDP Resources To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Cc: Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, Correspondence < Correspondence(a)icann.org>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team(a)icann.org>, " gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, David Olive < david.olive(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, " gnso-chairs(a)icann.org" <gnso-chairs(a)icann.org>, Cherine Chalaby < cherine.chalaby(a)board.icann.org> Resending, with attachment! *From: *Board-Ops-Team <board-ops-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 5:30 PM *To: *Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> *Cc: *Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, Correspondence < Correspondence(a)icann.org>, ICANN Board Ops <board-ops-team(a)icann.org>, " gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, David Olive < david.olive(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, " gnso-chairs(a)icann.org" <gnso-chairs(a)icann.org>, Cherine Chalaby < cherine.chalaby(a)board.icann.org> *Subject: *[Board-Ops-Team] [CORRESPONDENCE] Letter from Cherine Chalaby to the GNSO Council Leadership on the Request of EPDP Resources Dear GNSO Council Leadership, Please find the attached letter from Cherine Chalaby with regard to the request for EPDP resources. You may expect the letter to be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence. Best regards, Wendy Profit ICANN – Senior Manager, Board Operations 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094

3 2

Fwd: [Ext] Fwd: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG on IFRC/ICRC Protections - Agenda - 2 August 2018 @ 14:00 UTC
by Heather Forrest 08 Aug '18

08 Aug '18

Dear Council colleagues, Please find here on behalf of the Reconvened Red Cross PDP and Thomas Rickert, PDP Chair, a motion for our August Council agenda. Best wishes, Heather

3 3

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#282]
by ICANN 07 Aug '18

07 Aug '18

1 0

Final Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meeting - 16 August 2018 at 21:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 06 Aug '18

06 Aug '18

Dear all, Please below find the updated final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 16 August 2018 at 21:00 UTC. Final Proposed Agenda 16 August 2018 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/jwVpBQ> https://community.icann.org/x/jwVpBQ This agenda was established according to the <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf> GNSO Operating Procedures v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018 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: 21:00 UTC: <https://tinyurl.com/y82s88vu> https://tinyurl.com/y77sb7h6 14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington; 22:00 London; (Friday) 02:00 Islamabad; 06:00 Tokyo; 07:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast Listen in browser: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 Listen in application such as iTunes: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.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: <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/minutes-c…> Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 27 June 2018 were posted on the 16 July 2018 Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on the 19 July 2018 were posted on the XXXXXXXX Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (15 minutes) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> Projects List and <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> Action Item List Item 3. Consent Agenda (5 minutes) * Motion to adopt the GNSO Council response to the <https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann62-panama-communique> GAC Communique already submitted in draft form to the ICANN Board. Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of the Final Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in All gTLDs Policy Amendment Process (10 minutes) Following discussions around possible ways of reconciling inconsistent GAC advice and GNSO policy recommendations relating to National Society names of the Red Cross Movement and the two names of the international components of the Movement ( <http://sched.co/9xr2)> http://sched.co/9xr2), the ICANN Board passed a resolution requesting that the GNSO Council initiate the process outlined in Section 16 of the GNSO’s Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual, which sets forth the requisite steps for amending policy recommendations that have been approved by the GNSO Council but not yet approved by the ICANN Board ( <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/prelim-report-2017-03-16-en#…)> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/prelim-report-2017-03-16-en#…). The Board’s request related to the 190 Red Cross National Society names and the two international movement names and a limited defined set of their variants. On 03 May 2017, the Council <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201705> resolved to initiate the Section 16 process as requested by the Board, which resulted in the limited reconvening of the original PDP on Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs. The Reconvened WG began its deliberations on 14 June 2017 and published its Initial Report on 21 June 2018. After considering comments received, the WG made changes as applicable and completed its Final Report, which it delivered to the GNSO Council on [date]. Here, the Council will vote to adopt the Final Report of the Reconvened WG. 4.1 – Presentation of motion (Heather Forrest) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: Supermajority) Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as outlined in ICANN’s Bylaws as the GNSO ‘shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws’ (Art.11.1). Furthermore, this action complies with the requirements set out in Annex A-1 GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process of the ICANN Bylaws and Section 16 of the GNSO’s PDP Manual. Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – Adoption of the Final GNSO2 Review Implementation Report (15 minutes) Along with the ICANN Board’s adoption in June 2016 of certain recommendations from the 2014 GNSO Review, the GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper outlining the possible options for implementation, taking into account past implementation of previous GNSO Reviews as well as existing mechanisms. At ICANN56 in Helsinki in June 2016, the GNSO Council discussed the options outlined in the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discu…> staff discussion paper. On 21 July 2016 the GNSO Council <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-21jul16-en.pdf> chartered the GNSO Review Working Group, which submitted its proposed <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-plan…> implementation plan to the Council on 21 November. At its 15 December 2016 meeting, the Council adopted the proposed plan. The WG has since worked to implement the 30 recommendations, expecting to complete its work no later than September 2018. Here, the Council will vote to adopt the Final GNSO2 Review Implementation Report. 5.1 – Presentation of the motion (Rafik Dammak) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (15 minutes) The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG had been working to resolve a final recommendation relating to IGO jurisdictional immunity and registrants’ rights to file court proceedings. The WG has sought to determine consensus on a set of options for this final recommendation, as well as for all other recommendations. The WG Chair has proposed his determination of consensus levels for all recommendations, which the WG has affirmed. On 27 June 2018, the GNSO Council passed a <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201806> resolution, thanking the PDP WG for its efforts and requesting that it submit its <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-…> Final Report in time for the 19 July 2018 Council meeting. After having agreed on consensus levels for its final recommendations, the WG has considered the text of its <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-…> Final Report. On 9 July 2018, the PDP WG submitted its <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-…> Final Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus recommendations and in which several Working Group members had indicated their intentions to file minority statements documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-…> Final Report. There remain several inconsistencies between GAC advice and consensus recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP WG, which have yet to be reconciled, including on the topic of appropriate protections for IGO acronyms (both preventative and curative). On its 19 July Council meeting, the Council resolved accept the <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-…> Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group and has begun considering the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers. Here, the Council will discuss a possible path forward to consider the Final Report and also seek to resolve the inconsistencies between GAC Advice and prior GNSO policy recommendations on the overall scope of IGO protections. 6.1 – Status update (Council leadership/liaison) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 –Next steps Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Consideration of CCWG-Accountability WS2 Final Report (15 minutes) The Cross Community Working Group on Accountability, Work Stream 2 (CCWG-Accountability WS2), focused on addressing accountability topics that may be resolved after the IANA Stewardship Transition. In March of 2018, the CCWG-Accountability WS2 completed its <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-final-27mar18-en.…> Final Report, for which it sought <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-acct-ws2-final-2018-03-30-en> public comment. Comment received did not result in any substantive changes to the Final Report. On 24 June 2018, at ICANN62, the CCWG-Accountability WS2 held its final meeting, thus concluding its work. The CCWG-Accountability WS2 anticipates that all of the chartering organizations must consider the recommendations and approve them prior to ICANN Board consideration and possible adoption. During its July 2018 meeting, the GNSO Council received an update from Co-Chair Thomas Rickert, who indicated that the CCWG-Accountability hopes that Chartering Organizations will adopt the Final Report prior to the ICANN63 meeting. Here, the Council will discuss if there are any challenges anticipated in adopting the Final Report at its September Council meeting. 7.1 – Update (Council Leadership) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0 (10 minutes) In January 2018, the GNSO Council held an inaugural three-day Strategic Planning Session. On Day 3 of this meeting, the GNSO Council reviewed the workload for the year ahead and identified potential milestones, noting that the current average timeline for delivery of an Initial Report has increased at least 2-4 times compared to previous PDPs. In addition to noting the increased duration of the PDP lifecycle, the Council began to identify challenges being encountered in PDPs, informed by a staff <https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WbL79RXpkisfAnKOtxpuy_sf466_3XIT> discussion paper on optimizing increased engagement and participation while ensuring efficient and effective policy development. The effort to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO PDP process has since been called “GNSO PDP 3.0”. On 11 May 2018, a <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-discussion-paper-11may18-en.pdf> summary paper was shared with the Council, summarizing input received to date, as well as some proposed incremental improvements. The Council members and their respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies were invited to provide input by 15 August 2018, after which it was anticipated that an implementation plan could be developed for Council consideration. Durings its July 2018 meeting, the Council discussed anticipated next steps once all input has been received, and agreed that the Council leadership should develop a proposal leading up to presentation of the results of the PDP 3.0 effort at ICANN63 in Barcelona. Here, Council leadership will present proposed next steps for the Council’s consideration. 8.1 – Update (Council Leadership) 8.2 – Council discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Next steps related to the ICANN Procedure of Handling WHOIS conflicts with Privacy Law (10 minutes) As a result of community input and the work of the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG), ICANN made effective the revised <https://whois.icann.org/en/revised-icann-procedure-handling-whois-conflicts…> WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law Procedure on 18 April 2017 to better accommodate issues where WHOIS requirements conflict with applicable laws. As requested by this GNSO Council, ICANN published a <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/whois-privacy-conflicts-procedu…> paper for <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-privacy-law-2017-05-03-en> public comment to provide analysis and solicit community input on the practicality and feasibility of the triggers identified in the revised WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law 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 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-whois-privacy-l…> report of public comments was published on 28 July 2017. On 1 August 2017, the Council received a <https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/atallah-to-bladel-et-al-01aug17-en…> letter from Akram Atallah providing a collection of possible options for proceeding with the review, and offering to discuss those options or others identified by Council. On 24 August 2017, the Council received an update from GDD staff and discussed possible options for moving forward with the review of the Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law. A small group of Councilors prepared a <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-icann-procedure-whois-conflicts-iag-…> Charter (including guidelines and parameters around scope, deliverables, composition, operating procedures, etc.) that a subsequent group will operate under as it deliberates and provides suggested next steps and/or recommendations. On 22 February 2018, the Council <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201802> adopted the Charter, requesting that staff circulate the call for volunteers on or after June 1, 2018. WIth uncertainty and time commitment from the adoption of the Temporary Specification on Registration Data Services, the Council determined it would wait until the EPDP on the Temporary Specification was launched. Here, the Council will discuss timing and next steps for this effort. 9.1 – Update (Council leadership) 9.2 – Council Discussion 9.3 – Next steps Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Report from funded leaders under the PDP leadership travel support pilot (10 minutes) In FY18, the GNSO Council successfully requested an additional budget request item for a GNSO PDP leadership travel support pilot. Starting with ICANN60 (Oct 2017), the Council is able to fund up to four PDP leaders per ICANN meeting. Noting the success of the pilot in FY18, the Council asked and received an additional budget request in FY19, though the number of supported travelers per meeting was reduced to three. As part of the additional budget request process, the GNSO Council is to receive updates from supported travelers after each meeting, to help the Council determine the effectiveness of the pilot. Here, the Council will receive an update from the travelers funded to attend ICANN62. 10.1 – Update (Robin Gross, Christa Taylor) 10.2 – Council Discussion 10.3 – Next steps Item 11: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes) 10.1 – Council Liaison update on Expedited PDP (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification 10.2 - ICANN63 planning - update from Production Call 1. ________________________________ 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> 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/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-proced…> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-proced… References for Coordinated Universal Time of 21:00 UTC Local time between March and October Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 14:00 San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 17:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 18:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3 18:00 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+1 22:00 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 22:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+2 23:00 Islamabad, Pakistan (PKT) UTC+5 (+1 day) 02:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 (+1 day) 05:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9 (+1 day) 06:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+10 (+1 day) 07:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on Sunday 28 of October 2018, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 4 of November 2018 for the US. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see <http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://www.timeanddate.com and <https://tinyurl.com/y82s88vu> https://tinyurl.com/y82s88vu

1 0

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG newsletter - August 2018
by Emily Barabas 06 Aug '18

06 Aug '18

Dear all, On behalf of the leadership team of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, I am writing to share the latest edition of the Working Group newsletter: http://go.icann.org/SubPro [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_SubPro&d=D…>. Please feel free to share this newsletter with individuals and groups who may be interested in the Working Group’s activities. An archive of previous editions of the newsletter is available on the WG wiki [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa…> and on the GNSO website [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_news…>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Fwd: [Ext] Re: GNSO Review of the GAC Communique
by Martin Pablo Silva Valent 06 Aug '18

06 Aug '18

Dear Council colleagues, Please find attached a motion submitted for our August Council agenda regarding the GNSO Review of the GAC Communique. Best of all, Martín Silva

3 3

Re: [council] Fwd: GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper
by Corwin, Philip 06 Aug '18

06 Aug '18

Dear Heather, Marika, and Councilors: In response to Heather’s request, I have attached my Minority Statement that was incorporated into the Final Report of the IGO CRP WG; I am aware that you will be considering the substance of that Report at your August meeting. At pp.13-18 of my Statement you will find “Appendix: Observations on Implications of this WG’s Experience for the GNSO Policy Development Process 3.0”. In addition to those Observations, and based upon recent developments within the RPM Review WG concerning an allegation of an Expected Standards of Behavior violation , I am increasingly of the personal view that the GNSO WG Guidelines should be amended, and that in the future WG disciplinary matters should be taken out of the jurisdiction of co-chairs and handled by a dedicated subcommittee of Councilors following clear procedural guidelines and able to create and follow reliable precedent. I hope that this input is useful to your consideration of PDP 3.0 improvements and I would of course be pleased to respond to any inquiries. Regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Heather Forrest [mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 2:18 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; Petter Rindforth, LL M Rindforth <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper Dear Phil, Petter, I write on behalf of Council leadership to encourage you to contribute your thoughts to the PDP 3.0 project. Your experiences as co-chairs of the IGO/INGO Curative Rights PDP, and particular with the 3.7 appeal mechanism, are invaluable as we seek to improve upon the PDP WG Guidelines and seize upon existing flexibilities available to PDP leadership and working groups. In particular, if you spot anything missing in the recommendations in the attached PDP 3.0 report, or find recommendations that could be amended to better align with your experiences, it would be very helpful to hear from you, so that these things can be taken into account as the report is finalised. We welcome any comments from you, whether together or individually, and in any format that is easiest for you. Comments received by 15 August will be incorporated in the final version for consideration by the Council in its September meeting. With best wishes, Heather Forrest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Sat, May 12, 2018 at 7:23 AM Subject: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Sending on behalf of the Council leadership Dear colleagues, Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities’ consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 – potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. Best regards, GNSO Council leadership team 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-…>. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

2 1