December 2019 - council - lists.icann.org

Confirmation of GNSO Representative on the Empowered Community Administration
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 20, 2022

Oct. 20, 2022

Dear John, Please find the attached a letter with the motion passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 29 November 2018. The Council confirmed the appointment of the GNSO Chair, currently Keith Drazek, representing the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration until the end of his term at ICANN66. The letter will be published on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> Thank you. Respectfully submitted. 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 4

Council Strategic Planning Session (SPS) 2020
by Steve Chan Dec. 24, 2019

Dec. 24, 2019

Sent on behalf of Council Leadership Dear Councilors, In preparation for the Council Strategic Planning Session (SPS) 2020, the planning committee which consists of Council leadership, Heather Forrest, former GNSO Chair, and the staff support team, has been working diligently on putting together the program and supporting materials for the SPS which takes place from 22-24 January 2020 in Los Angeles. In order to give you a preview and allow you to start your own preparations you will find a high-level agenda attached. As you can see, as part of the orientation for this meeting, a webinar has been scheduled for 8 January (you should have received an invitation) to help address any questions you may have in relation to: The role of the GNSO Role and responsibilities of the GNSO as a member of the Empowered Community What is the GNSO Council and what does it do, including review of ICANN Bylaws Article 11 and GNSO Operating Procedures? Role of Council leadership Role of the Council liaison GNSO Policy Development Process, including ‘picket fence’ In preparation for this webinar and the Council SPS 2020, you are required to review the materials that will be posted on a Google drive (the link will shared as soon as possible), as we want to make sure that everyone has the same level of understanding as we go into our discussions. You are encouraged to share any questions or observations you may have after your review of these materials in advance of the webinar with gnso-secs(a)icann.org so that these can be used by the planning committee to prepare the webinar. We expect the Council SPS 2020 to be highly interactive and an important milestone in setting the Council agenda and priorities for the year to come so we are counting on all of you to come prepared and make this meeting as productive as possible. Best regards, Keith, Pam, and Rafik Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar

2 1

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 19 December 2019
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 23, 2019

Dec. 23, 2019

Dear Councilors, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday 19 December 2019 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 2nd January 2020. Thank you very much. Kind Regards, Nathalie

1 0

Action Items: GNSO Council meeting 19 December 2019
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 23, 2019

Dec. 23, 2019

Dear Councilors, Please find the action items, as stated during the meeting, below arising from the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday 19 December 2019. Please take note of the action items coming out of the Council meeting and the proposed timing for delivering on these actions. Please ensure your wiki logins are up to date as all Action Items have been assigned to councilors and/or staff and posted on the Action Item wiki page here<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items>. If you are logged into the wiki when you go to that page, your name will be highlighted alongside the action item assigned to you. Please refer to this page for the recent status updates on the Action items. Please note that actions for all councilors are highlighted below. The action item with upcoming deadlines is also indicated. ACTION ITEMS FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 19 DECEMBER 2019 Item 3: Consent Agenda Action items: * ICANN Staff to send the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communiqué to ICANN Board cc-ing the GAC Chair and GAC support staff, * ICANN Staff to inform the Empowered Community Administration the confirmation of Keith Drazek as the GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration * ICANN Staff to inform the Chair and support staff of the CCWG Auction Proceeds the confirmation of Anne Aikman-Scalese as on the GNSO appointees Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of the Supplemental Recommendation Related to the Non-Adopted EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations (recommendation #12) Action item: * GNSO Chair to communicate the Supplemental Recommendation to the ICANN Board, including the vote result of the GNSO Council Supermajority supporting the Supplemental Recommendation. Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion on the Addendum to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Charter to Integrate Recommendation 5 From IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report Action items: * GNSO Councilors to ask additional questions and/or provide comments about the proposed charter addendum on the GNSO Council list before 13 January 2020. * GNSO Council small team, in consultation with the GNSO Council leadership, to finalize the charter addendum and submit the final version to the GNSO Council no later than 13 January 2020. Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session Action items: * GNSO Council leadership to send the detailed proposed agenda for SPS2020 on list by Friday, 20 December. * All GNSO Councilors to participate in a Pre-SPS webinar in January 2020 as part of the preparation. * GNSO Councilors to read all relevant materials/documents (e.g., PDP 3.0 implementation documents, GNSO guidelines related to its role & responsibility in the Empowered Community) ahead of SPS 2020. Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS 8.1 - Consideration of previous GNSO Council Additional Budget Requests (ABRs) and whether they should be pursued in the future, as well as if other ABRs should be submitted Action item: * GNSO Councilors to provide ideas/suggestions, if any, for FY21 ABRs on list, in time for the Council review of potential ABRs during its January 2020 meeting. FY21 ABR submissions are due at the end of January 2020. 8.2 - Letter from ICANN org - EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 28 <https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-18dec19-en.pdf> Action item: * GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with ICANN staff, to draft a response to the ICANN Org letter and share the draft with the Council by January 2020 Council meeting. Thank you and happy holidays! 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 visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar [features.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_cal…>

1 0

Additional documents for Council review and input
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 20, 2019

Dec. 20, 2019

Dear all, The GNSO Council wiki page<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Documents+for+GNSO+…> for documents which councilors are expected to review and provide input up on has been updated with the following items: * Past GNSO Additional Budget Requests to review for submission of new requests in January 2020 * Letter from ICANN Org regarding EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 28 <https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/marby-to-drazek-18dec19-en.pdf> for which the GNSO Council expected to draft a response Thank you, 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 visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions and vote 19 December 2019
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 19, 2019

Dec. 19, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the resolutions and council vote from the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday 19 December which will be posted shortly on the GNSO resolutions<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> page. 20191219-1 Consent agenda Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of ICANN66 GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board Whereas, 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. The GNSO Council has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 4. The GNSO Council hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Montréal GAC Communiqué<https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann66-montreal-communique> (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-ga…) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Council Review of the Montréal GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. 2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-coun…> 20191219-2 Consent agenda Motion - Confirmation of GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration Whereas, 1. The GNSO Council confirmed in November 2019 that the GNSO Chair (currently Keith Drazek) will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community (EC) Administration on an interim basis. 2. The GNSO Council leadership team subsequently met to agree who from the Council leadership should perform the role of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration and communicated this decision to the Council mailing list on 9 December 2019. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms that Keith Drazek, GNSO Chair will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration until the end of his term at ICANN69. 2. The GNSO representative shall act solely as directed by the GNSO Council in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and other related GNSO Operating Procedures. 3. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this decision to the ICANN Secretary which will serve as the required written certification from the GNSO Chair designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration Vote results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-coun…> Consent agenda vote: Confirmation of Anne Aikman-Scalese as one of the GNSO appointees to the CCWG Auction Proceeds 20191219-3 Motion - EPDP Phase 1 GNSO Council Supplemental Recommendation Whereas, 1. On 17 May 2018<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-05-17-en>, the ICANN Board adopted the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-data-specs-en/#temp…> (Temporary Specification) pursuant to the procedures in the Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement concerning the establishment of temporary policies; 2. Following the adoption of the Temporary Specification, and per the procedure for Temporary Policies as outlined in the Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement, a Consensus Policy development process as set forth in ICANN's Bylaws needs to be initiated immediately and completed within a one-year time period from the effective date (25 May 2018) of the Temporary Specification; 3. The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council approved the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Initiation Request (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec…) and the EPDP Team Charter (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec…) on 19 July 2018; 4. The EPDP followed the prescribed EPDP procedures as stated in the Bylaws and delivered its Phase 1 Final Report on 20 February 2019; 5. The EPDP Team reached consensus on all but two Recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the Charter; 6. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the Recommendations of the EPDP Team and approved all Recommendations on 4 March 2019 by a GNSO Supermajority vote (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20190304-1) 7. The ICANN Board did not adopt Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, and Recommendation 12, with respect to the option to delete data in the Organization field and provided its rationale in the Board resolution (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-05-15-en#1.b) as well as a formal Board Statement incorporating the rationale for discussion, as specified in Annex A-1, Section 6 of the ICANN Bylaws (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-drazek-15ma…) 8. The ICANN Bylaws foresee that in case of non-adoption, “the Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement”. The GNSO Council discussed this topic during its Council meetings on 28 May 2019, 26 June 2019, 18 July 2019, 22 August 2019, 24 October 2019 and 6 November 2019, with the ICANN Board during its joint sessions at ICANN65<https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058162> and ICANN66<https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116821>, as well as in an exchange of letters (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-coun… and https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-t…) 9. The GNSO Council also solicited and considered the input from the EPDP Team (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-May/001941.html, https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/karklins-to-drazek-09jun19-en.pdf and https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-October/002737.html) Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council has concluded that concerning Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, this is firmly within the scope of the EPDP Team to address as part of its phase 2 deliberations as the original language was already flagged as a placeholder pending further consideration during phase 2. As such, the Council will not take further action in the context of Annex A-1 Section 6 of the ICANN Bylaws and accept the Board’s non-adoption 2. In relation to Recommendation 12, with respect to the option to delete data in the Organization field, the GNSO Council adopts the following Supplemental Recommendation reaffirming the part of the original Recommendation #12 and the Implementation Advice which stated that: “b) If the registrant declines, or does not respond to the query, the Registrar may redact the Organization field, or delete the field contents.” (emphasis added) but hereby providing additional implementation guidance: similar to what was recommended in Recommendation 29 in the context of the deletion of administrative contact, prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information. 3. The GNSO Council Chair is requested to communicate this Supplemental Recommendation to the ICANN Board. Vote results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-coun…>

1 0

Recordings, attendance & Zoom chat/ GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 19 December 2019 at 21:00 UTC.
by Terri Agnew Dec. 19, 2019

Dec. 19, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the audio recording, zoom recording (audio, visual, rough transcript) and chat of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday, 19 December 2019 at 21:00 UTC. Audio only: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/6ZCKkLS4u6cUr1I2tpkQS7US84KEPEnrCjRmrN… Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab): https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/ALgYc3OhDYfpMgyeJAuKrhaCpaHD-5aT7CyIJ… Zoom chat: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/download/9ddcIap8tiKbdMYV7z8ir_tYGAHjgDLTob… The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> With kind regards, Terri

1 0

Update to SOI
by Johan Helsingius Dec. 19, 2019

Dec. 19, 2019

To save time on a pretty busy council meeting agenda, I am hereby flagging some minor updates to my SOI. Last week I was elected to the board of the Finnish Internet Association that is the Finnish ISOC chapter and thus an ICANN At-Large Structure. I am also not a member of Non Commercial Users Constituency any more, but a constitution-less member of the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group. Julf

3 7

Redraft: Supplemental Recommendation re EPDP - 19 December 2019
by Marie Pattullo Dec. 19, 2019

Dec. 19, 2019

Hi all, To be keep it simple, and to use wording that we are all familiar with, a different suggestion: In relation to Recommendation 12, with respect to the option to delete data in the Organization field, the GNSO Council adopts the following Supplemental Recommendation reaffirming the part of the original Recommendation #12 and the Implementation Advice which stated that: “b) If the registrant declines, or does not respond to the query, the Registrar may redact the Organization field, or delete the field contents.” (emphasis added) but hereby providinges additional implementation guidance: similar to what was recommended in Recommendation 29 in the context of the deletion of administrative contact, prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information in compliance with Section 3.7.7.1 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. We do hope that this won’t be contentious, and then the BC can vote in favour of the motion. Thanks, Marie From: Marie Pattullo Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 12:03 PM To: kdrazek(a)verisign.com Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: FW: [council] GNSO Council Meeting / Supplemental Recommendation re EPDP - 19 December 2019 Many thanks for the detailed response, Keith and for your views, Maxim. As you know our concern is that as worded, the supplemental recommendation could leave us with scenarios where there is both no data in the Org field and the Registered Name field listing simply “domain admin”, thus “domain admin” becomes the registrant: that poses clear risks of (inter alia) domain hijacking. Our concern isn’t about redaction, but deletion. If the data is deleted – and this of course would include deleting accurate data – we could be left with no data at all and confusion as to who is the actual registrant. We fully agree (of course!), Maxim, that no-one wants inaccurate data (reference our earlier comments on this): can this not be dealt with in implementation of the policy rather than in the policy itself? e.g.: Going forward a new registrant, or a registrant renewing their registration, should be required to verify/confirm the accuracy of the data? To answer Maxim’s final point: as drafted the supplemental recommendation would not just “sacrifice all the [inaccurate] data of such domains” but all the accurate data too, and the possibility to verify the actual registrant. Understanding Keith’s issue about amending the initial recommendation, could this be dealt with instead by a small change in the supplemental wording? In relation to Recommendation 12, with respect to the option to delete data in the Organization field, the GNSO Council adopts the following Supplemental Recommendation reaffirming the part of the original Recommendation #12 and the Implementation Advice which stated that: “b) If the registrant declines, or does not respond to the query, the Registrar may redact the Organization field, or delete the field contents.” (emphasis added) but hereby providinges additional implementation guidance: similar to what was recommended in Recommendation 29 in the context of the deletion of administrative contact, prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains valid Registered Name Holder contact information so that the actual registrant can be contacted. Best to all, Marie From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:55 PM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting / Supplemental Recommendation re EPDP - 19 December 2019 Hi Marie, Thank you for the continued engagement of the BC on this topic. I’ll take this opportunity to provide some context for where we are, and how we arrived at the proposed motion text: 1. We have engaged with the ICANN Board, both in writing and in F2F meetings (Marrakech and Montreal), to discuss this issue and to fully understand the Board’s concerns. 2. Through that engagement over many months, and in consultation with the EPDP Team, we were able to develop implementation guidance that we believe will address the Board’s concerns. 3. During ICANN 66 in Montreal, we consulted with the EPDP Team, and there was no consensus to re-do or alter the original Recommendation 12 language. 4. As the PDP manager, the GNSO Council is now required to either accept the Board’s rejection of that portion of Recommendation 12, or to reaffirm the original language. With no consensus within the EPDP Team to amend it, and following the extensive exchanges referenced above, the Council is prepared to reaffirm the original recommendation but include implementation guidance to address the Board’s stated concerns. 5. On substance, in response to your note, my understanding is that data inaccuracy isn’t the only reason the EPDP recommended deletion. There was also concern that lack of response from registrant could put registrars in a position of having data that they can’t confirm they have consent or a purpose for, especially with older legacy registrations. 6. The Council needs to close out this issue with the Board, and the current motion language will do that without requiring the GNSO Council to make substantive changes to a recommendation that received consensus support from the EPDP Team and the Council. In my view, the BC’s proposed edits to the motion would substantively and materially change the original Recommendation 12 language. In light of the above, and specifically the fact that the EPDP Team did not agree to make those substantive changes during our consultation, I believe we should retain the original motion language. I hope this context will help the BC support the current motion. I would like to hear from Rafik on this point, in his role as GNSO Council Liaison, EPDP Team Vice Chair, and maker of the motion, but I wanted to explain my views. Thanks and regards, Keith From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:56 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] GNSO Council Meeting / Supplemental Recommendation re EPDP - 19 December 2019 Dear all, The BC appreciates all of the discussions to date on the non-adopted EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations, and thanks Rafik for the drafting of the Supplemental Recommendation. May we suggest a small amendment Resolved... 2. In relation to Recommendation 12, with respect to the option to delete data in the Organization field, the GNSO Council adopts the following Supplemental Recommendation reaffirming the part of the original Recommendation #12 and the Implementation Advice which stated that: “b) If the registrant declines, or does not respond to the query, the Registrar may redact the Organization field, or delete the field contents.” (emphasis added) but hereby providing additional implementation guidance: similar to what was recommended in Recommendation 29 in the context of the deletion of administrative contact, prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information. Rationale: the original wording would lead to deletion based not on data inaccuracy, but on registrants’ failure to respond. If the data is inaccurate (reference Section 4 of the WAPS, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#who…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>) the Contracted Parties should already seek to correct the inaccuracy. We could also agree that historical circumstances have resulted in different uses of that field, and therefore WHOIS inaccuracy complaints should not be based on inconsistencies or syntactical errors with Org field data, at least for some period of time. With this change the BC will be happy to vote in favour of the motion on Thursday. Best to all, Marie From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Andrea Glandon Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:56 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Final Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meeting - 19 December 2019 at 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 19 December 2019 at 21:00 UTC. Draft GNSO Council Agenda 19 December 2019 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/D5IzBw This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf> 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. GNSO Council meeting held at 21:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/w82k6rn 13:00 Los Angeles; 13:00 Washington; 21:00 London; (Friday) 02:00 Islamabad; (Friday) 06:00 Tokyo; (Friday) 08:00 Melbourne GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream0<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…>1 Listen in application such as iTunes: 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 (10 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/sites/default/files/policy/2019/minutes/minutes-coun…> of the GNSO Council meeting on the 24 October 2019 were posted on 13 November 2019 Minutes Part 1<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/minutes/minutes-gnso…> Part 2 <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/minutes/minutes-gnso…> of the GNSO Council meetings on the 06 November 2019 were posted on 26 November 2019 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (20 minutes) 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> Item 3: Consent Agenda (10 minutes) * Motion<https://community.icann.org/x/DZIzBw> to adopt the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique. * Motion<https://community.icann.org/x/DZIzBw> for the confirmation of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration * Confirmation of Anne Aikman-Scalese as one of the GNSO appointees to the CCWG Auction Proceeds Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of the Supplemental Recommendation Related to the Non-Adopted EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations (recommendation #12) (15 minutes) On 15 May, the ICANN Board informed<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-t…> the GNSO Council of the Board’s action in relation to the GNSO’s EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations. The Board did not adopt two of the recommendations in full, where the Board has identified that portions of those recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN Community or ICANN and is initiating the consultation process between the Board and the GNSO Council. This concerns recommendation #1, purpose 2 and recommendation #12, deletion of data in the Organization field. As required under the ICANN Bylaws at Annex A-1,Section 6.b, a Board Statement is attached as Annex A to the letter, articulating the reasons for the Board’s non-adoption of these two items. As per the Bylaw requirements (Annex A-1, Section 6.c), “the Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement.” During the Council’s Extraordinary Meeting on 28 May 2019, it reviewed the Board Statement and conducted a lengthy discussion on the best path forward. On 30 May 2019, Keith Drazek, the GNSO Chair provided an update to the EPDP Team on the expected next steps in relation to the ICANN Board’s action on Phase 1 recommendations and requested that the EPDP Team provide input to identify any questions, comments or concerns in relation to ICANN Board’s action on the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations. Subsequently, on 9 June 2019, Janis Karklins, Chair of the EPDP, informed the GNSO Chair of the following preliminary input noting that there was not sufficient time to formalize and agree on an EPDP Team response: “• In relation to purpose 2, there is a general understanding for why the Board decided to not adopt this purpose and the EPDP Team confirms that it considers it firmly within its scope for phase 2 to further review this purpose in the context of the System for Standardized Access / Disclosure (SSAD); • For recommendation #12, some additional context has been provided that may help explain the thinking behind the EPDP Team’s original recommendation. However, there is no agreement at this stage on whether or not the Board’s non-adoption should be supported.” During the Council’s June 2019 meeting, it continued to consider the next steps<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2019-May/022754.html>, taking into account a discussion with the ICANN Board at ICANN65. The reasoning and intent of the deletion part of recommendation #12 was explained to the Board, as well as the intent of purpose 2 and it was agreed that a letter should be drafted and sent to the ICANN Board as well as the EPDP Team to provide an update on the current thinking of the GNSO Council and likely next steps. The Council discussed a draft response on its 18 July 2019 meeting, subsequent discussion on the mailing list, and additional dialogue on the 22 August 2019 meeting. On 9 September 2019, the GNSO Council sent its response<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-coun…> to the ICANN Board. On 14 October 2019, the ICANN Board provided its response<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-t…> to the GNSO Council’s update. On the Council’s October 2019 meeting, the Council considered the Board’s response and discussed next steps. The Council consulted with the EPDP Team regarding some potential ways of addressing Board’s concerns (i.e., including implementation guidance), in preparation for discussions with the ICANN Board at ICANN66. At ICANN66, the GNSO Council conducted dialogue with the ICANN Board to share the proposed approach. Here, the Council will vote to approve Supplemental Recommendation reaffirming the part of the original Recommendation #12 and the Implementation Advice. See also Annex A-1, Section 6. Board Approval Process below for further details. Section 6. Board Approval Processes The Board will meet to discuss the EPDP recommendation(s) as soon as feasible, but preferably not later than the second meeting after receipt of the Recommendations Report from the Staff Manager. Board deliberation on the EPDP Recommendations contained within the Recommendations Report shall proceed as follows: a. Any EPDP Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. If the GNSO Council recommendation was approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. b. In the event that the Board determines, in accordance with paragraph a above, that the proposed EPDP Recommendations are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council. c. The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement. The Board shall determine the method (e.g., by teleconference, email, or otherwise) by which the Council and Board will discuss the Board Statement. At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for the then-current recommendation. In the event that the Council is able to reach a GNSO Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board determines that such guidance is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. For any Supplemental Recommendation approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board shall be sufficient to determine that the guidance in the Supplemental Recommendation is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN. 4.1 – Presentation of motion (Council leadership) 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: GNSO Policy Development Process of the ICANN Bylaws. Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion on the Addendum to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Charter to Integrate Recommendation 5 From IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report (20 minutes) On 18 April 2019, the Council voted<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+April+20…> to approve recommendations 1-4 of Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG. The Council also resolved to not approve Recommendation 5 and, ” directs the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDP to consider, as part of its Phase 2 work, whether an appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent with Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report and: * accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances; * does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction; * preserves registrants’ rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and * recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.” The GNSO Council resolved also to, “amend the charter for the RPMs PDP Working Group to reflect this new instruction accordingly.” Some members of the GNSO Council met with certain members of the GAC and IGOs at ICANN65, where there appeared to be agreement from the GAC/IGOs to support the chartering of this separate work. A small team of Councilors was convened to prepare a draft Addendum to the RPMs PDP charter, which was discussed during the Council’s September 2019 meeting. After integrating Councilor feedback, the revised Addendum<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpms-charter-addendum-09oct19-en.pdf> was shared with the GAC and IGOs for their consideration. The Council considered GAC/IGO feedback<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/ismail-to…> received on 1 November 2019, as well as feedback from the meeting with the GAC at ICANN66. Taking into account GAC and IGO feedback received and balancing with the goals of the GNSO Council, leadership prepared a revised draft for GNSO Council consideration. Here, the Council will discuss the draft revisions to the Addendum to the RPMs PDP charter, as well as additional steps that need to be taken prior to Council consideration for adoption. 5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 – Next steps Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE - Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data - Phase 2 Work (15 minutes) As noted in the charter<https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/EPDP+Team+Charter> for the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, work on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data (SSAD) commenced after the work on a series of gating questions are complete. With the EPDP Team’s delivery of its Final Report to the GNSO Council, the work on the gating questions was considered completed and the work on the SSAD, or otherwise known as phase 2 of the EPDP, commenced. In March of 2019, the GNSO Council resolved to indicate its non-objection to the EPDP Phase 2 work beginning; the Team commenced its Phase 2 deliberations on 2 May 2019. The Team has worked diligently in developing draft “building blocks” and policy principles that can serve as components of the SSAD. Leveraging ICANN meetings and a dedicated face-to-face meeting in September 2019, as well as remote meetings twice a week, the Team has made substantial progress towards its goal of publishing its Initial Report for public comment by mid-December of 2019. However, the EPDP Team collectively agreed to delay publication from December until a target date of 7 February 2020, noting it would prefer more time to ensure the overall quality and comprehensiveness of its draft recommendations; accordingly, the Team submitted a Project Change Request (PCR<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/105388008/EPDP-P2_Project_…>) to the GNSO Council. The EPDP Leadership presented the ramifications of delayed publication to the EPDP Team, noting, specifically, if the EPDP Team delays publication at this stage, no slack remains in the project plan to deliver a Final Report by June. In the event the EPDP Team does not meet the June deadline, any remaining resources allocated will be returned to conclude fiscal year 2020. Therefore, if the EPDP were to determine additional resources will be necessary to complete its work, the GNSO Council will be required to request more resources from the Board. Here, the Council will receive an update on the status of the EPDP Phase 2. 6.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership; Rafik Dammak - Council Liaison) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next steps Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session (15 minutes) From 22-24 January of 2020, the GNSO Council will hold its third Strategic Planning Session (SPS), which is a result of previous GNSO Councils realizing the benefit of holding dedicated sessions to plan and prepare for the coming year of work; the primary objective of these sessions is to develop a work plan for the year ahead and beyond. However, the sessions also help the GNSO Council to better understand its responsibilities and remit and how to more effectively perform its role. Council leadership and staff have collaborated on planning the upcoming SPS. Here, the Council will discuss the draft agenda, expectations for Councilors, and review action items from previous SPSs. 7.1 - Introduction of topic (Council leadership) 7.2 - Council discussion 7.3 - Next steps Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes) 8.1 - Consideration of previous GNSO Council Additional Budget Requests (ABRs) and whether they should be pursued in the future, as well as if other ABRs should be submitted. FY20 ABRs included: * GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146823/FY20%20ABR_SPS.p…> (similar ABRs submitted in FY18, FY19, and FY20) * PDP Leadership Travel Pilot<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146823/FY20%20ABR_Trave…> (similar ABRs submitted submitted in FY18, FY19, and FY20) * Consensus Building Playbook<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146823/FY20%20ABR_Conse…> (submitted in FY20 only, as an element of PDP 3.0) _______________________________ 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/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-proced… References for Coordinated Universal Time of 21:00 UTC Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8 13:00 San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 18:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2 20:00 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0 21:00 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1 22:00 Islamabad, Pakistan (PKT) (+1 day) UTC+5 02:00 Singapore (SGT) (+1 day) UTC+8 05:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST) (+1 day) UTC+9 06:00 Melbourne, Australia (AEDT) (+1 day) UTC+11 08:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on Sunday 29 of March 2020, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 08 of March 2020 for the US. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> and https://tinyurl.com/w82k6rn

1 0

REMINDER: NomComRIWG: Outreach questions
by Ariel Liang Dec. 19, 2019

Dec. 19, 2019

Dear all, This is a reminder for call for volunteers for the small team to draft a Council’s response to the NomCom Review Implementation WG. If you are interested in volunteering, please respond on list by COB Friday, 20 December. Thanks Tom and Carlton for volunteering! Best Regards, Ariel From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Drazek, Keith via council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Reply-To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Date: Monday, December 16, 2019 at 8:21 AM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: NomComRIWG: Outreach questions Hi all, Please see the email below from the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group. They have posed a set of questions to the GNSO Council, with a response deadline of January 31. I suggest we form a small team to coordinate the Council’s answers and reply. If anyone would like to volunteer, please let me know. Best, Keith From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez(a)icann.org> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 8:13 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>; pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com Cc: Tom Barrett <tbarrett(a)encirca.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Zahid Jamil-IG <internet(a)jamilandjamil.com>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] NomComRIWG: Outreach questions Dear Keith, Dear Pam, Dear Rafik, As the leaders of the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG), we are contacting you following the ICANN Board’s acceptance of our Detailed Implementation Plan [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The NomComRIWG has been directed to commence implementation of the twenty-seven (27) recommendations, and we are seeking the GNSO Council’s responses to a number of questions via the following google form: https://forms.gle/vrs95jrp9akK5sSRA [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_vrs95jrp9akK…> by 31 January 2020. Feel free to also seek input from the GNSO Council’s supporting staff if you believe this might add value to the implementation. If we have not received the GNSO Council’s response or a request for an extension by the deadline, we will proceed with the implementation without your input. If you prefer, feel free to respond separately to individual questions that you are able to answer, rather than wait until you are able to answer all of the questions at once. Please note this is the first round of several outreaches, we will be continuously outreaching to you throughout the implementation phase (over the next twenty-four to thirty-six months) due to the nature of this review. In particular, many members of the NomComRIWG will attend ICANN67 and plan to hold an update session for the entire community. If your group has time on your internal agenda and would like to meet with us for a short in-person update, do not hesitate to reach out to us via mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org> and we will happily coordinate. Finally, if you have any questions or concerns, either about the questions, or about any other aspect of the NomCom Review implementation, please, do not hesitate to reach out to us. Many thanks and best wishes, Tom Barrett, Chair NomComRIWG Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG Zahid Jamal, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG NomComRIWG wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/aBpIBg Detailed Implementation Plan: PDF [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> Rec. 14: Formalize communication between the NomCom and the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board to understand needed competencies and experience. * Is there additional information that could be shared between the NomCom and the GNSO so that the NomCom can better target its selection to the needs of the GNSO Council? Rec. 16: Implement and codify a system for providing feedback to the NomCom regarding the contributions and participation of members up for re-appointment by the NomCom. * What information do you currently share with the NomCom about its NomCom appointees, and what is the timing of these communications? * In your opinion, what additional information should be shared between you and the NomCom? Rec. 21: The NomCom should use a standardized tool to evaluate and prioritize candidates, based on desired competencies and experience as determined annually. This tool will not replace qualitative assessments of candidates. * In your opinion, what tools, assessments and skills analysis should be used by the NomCom to make the best possible selection. Rec. 22: The NomCom should provide consistent interview questions and an interviewer evaluation form for the candidates interviewed during the deep-dive phase and the final face-to-face interviews. * In your opinion, which questions should be part of the "interview question library" and which would then be used by every NomCom? Rec. 25: Improve NomCom selection decisions by assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom appointees. * Is the GNSO Council performing any self-assessments, or third-party assessments? * If yes, are there any identified skills needed for future NomCom appointees to your organization? * If applicable, how do you communicate this to the NomCom? * What performance assessment, if any, do you think is feasible by the GNSO Council to improve future NomCom selection decisions.

2 1