April 2019 - council - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [ICANN Community Leaders] 22 April Update
by Drazek, Keith April 22, 2019

April 22, 2019

All, please see below. Note the first item related to a request for input to establish an IRP Standing Panel, including a series of questions to be answered. We will need to begin addressing this at the Council level, so please raise it now with your respective SGs and Cs. Thanks, Keith From: ICANN Community Leadership Digest <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: April 22, 2019 at 10:18:06 AM EDT To: so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org<mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [ICANN Community Leaders] 22 April Update Reply-To: policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> [http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=d3b47b54-1769-4624-b08a-60e53c8c3f2d&a=1122025…] Monday, 22 April 2019 ICANN Community Leadership Digest [https://files.constantcontact.com/304b3fd3501/31f30ab5-1445-45c3-aef7-c0ea4…] This twice-weekly digest helps ICANN community leaders track requests and provides updates from ICANN org. TABLE OF CONTENTS Requests * REMINDER: Input to Establish IRP Standing Panel Information Sharing * REMINDER: CROP Deadline for ICANN65 * LOOKING AHEAD: ICANN66 Travel Support Timeline ICANN65 Planning * NEW: ICANN65 Travel Support Deadlines * THIS WEEK: First ICANN65 Schedule Production Teleconference * REMINDER: Publication Support for ICANN65 * SAVE THE DATE: ICANN65 Community Leadership Reception * REMINDER: Meet with the ATRT3 Team at ICANN65 Public Comment * Proposal for Hebrew Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules * Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement * Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement * Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement * Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement Requests REMINDER: Input to Establish IRP Standing Panel Executive: John Jeffrey, General Counsel and Secretary FOR: All SO/AC Chairs REQUEST ICANN organization needs input on the open questions<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001O5PlXE3Vqm9Um0E3hh1vRIxs66pqPVokyjGo9pmmZR8Q…> regarding how the Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) will coordinate their participation in the process for the selection of a standing panel to preside over ICANN’s Independent Review Process (IRP) proceedings. The questions identified here<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001O5PlXE3Vqm9Um0E3hh1vRIxs66pqPVokyjGo9pmmZR8Q…> need to be resolved in order to move forward with the work on establishing a standing panel. ACTION Please send your input on the open questions<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001O5PlXE3Vqm9Um0E3hh1vRIxs66pqPVokyjGo9pmmZR8Q…> to the public email list: <i<mailto:irp-standing-panel@icann.org>rp-standing-panel(a)icann.org<mailto:irp-standing-panel@icann.org>>. For more information, please contact Liz Le at <elizabeth.le(a)icann.org<mailto:elizabeth.le@icann.org>>. BACKGROUND The IRP is an accountability mechanism provided by the ICANN Bylaws that allows for third-party review of actions (or inactions) by the ICANN Board or staff that are allegedly in violation of the Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. The Bylaws provide that an omnibus standing panel shall be established from which panelists shall be selected to preside over specific IRP disputes. The ICANN Bylaws specify that ICANN shall, in consultation with the SOs and ACs, establish the standing panel. The Bylaws requires ICANN, in consultation with the SOs and ACs, to pursue a four-step process to establish the standing panel. As part of the process, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on one slate of candidates for the standing panel to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval. Information Sharing REMINDER: CROP Deadline for ICANN65 Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING The Community Regional Outreach Program (CROP) for FY19 will end on 30 June 2019. For groups planning to use CROP funds to conduct outreach during ICANN65, requests must be submitted no later than Monday, 6 May 2019. No exceptions will be made. When submitting a CROP travel request, please keep in mind the following: * Trip requests must be approved by your respective community leadership team. * For FY19, the trip request must be filled in by the CROP participant (you) via the CROP Wiki space. * In order to access the Wiki space, you must first have an account; please let your CROP Coordinator know if you need an account. * All individuals requesting CROP funding must also review the CROP Guidelines prior to submitting a request: https://community.icann.org/x/yicFBQ<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001O5PlXE3Vqm9Um0E3hh1vRIxs66pqPVokyjGo9pmmZR8Q…>. Please contact <crop-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:crop-staff@icann.org>> with any questions. LOOKING AHEAD: ICANN66 Travel Support Timeline Executive: Sally Costerton, Senior Advisor to the President and CEO; Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING All travel support requests are now due 120 days prior to the next ICANN Public Meeting. This was previously a 90-day deadline. Therefore, the deadline for ICANN66 travel support is Friday, 5 July 2019. If applicable, community groups will need to adjust their election timelines accordingly to ensure new leaders are eligible in time for the ICAN66 travel support deadline. ICANN65 Planning NEW: ICANN65 Travel Support Deadlines Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING There are two upcoming deadlines related to travel support for ICANN65. * Thursday, 25 April 2019: Cut-off date for adding supported travelers * Friday, 10 May 2018: Cut-off date to replace supported travelers THIS WEEK: First ICANN65 Schedule Production Teleconference Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING Please save the date for the first production teleconference for the ICANN65 schedule on Thursday, 25 April at 14:00 UTC. Calendar invitations have been sent to the community ICANN Public Meeting planning mailing list. REMINDER: Publication Support for ICANN65 Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING Translation Deadline If your ICANN65 publication requires translation, please provide the final material(s) by Friday, 3 May. This ensures that there is enough time to translate the publication by the print deadline. If your materials require design assistance (outlined above), please note that the final materials will have to be complete, including the edit/approval process, by this deadline in order to be translated. Print-Only Deadline If you only need your ICANN65 publication printed (meaning your publication is ready to send directly to the printer and needs no translation or design/layout modifications), please provide the file along with the quantity you want printed and dimensions of the publication by Friday, 17 May. Please work directly with your support staff to submit these requests. SAVE THE DATE: ICANN65 Community Leadership Reception Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING Save the date for the ICANN65 Community Leadership Reception with members of the ICANN Board and Executive Team on Sunday, 23 June 2019, 18:00-20:00 CET in Marrakech, Morocco. Details will be confirmed as the date approaches. REMINDER: Meet with the ATRT3 Team Executive: Theresa Swinehart, Senior Vice President, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives FOR: All SO/AC Chairs INFORMATION SHARING The third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) will meet in Marrakech to advance its work. As some of the team will be in Marrakech we would like to ask for a 30 to 40-minute slot on your community group's agenda, if possible. Community input is key to the success of this process. If you are able to accommodate us on your agenda, please send us an email to <atrt3-coordination(a)icann.org<mailto:atrt3-coordination@icann.org>> to let us know a day and time that would suit. We will send you a preliminary set of questions ahead of the meeting to aid the discussion. We also welcome any questions you wish to raise in advance. Our goal for Marrakech is to: - Socialize our terms of reference and scope; - Conduct investigation of identified objectives - Seek input from the community to help us shape our findings and draft recommendations. BACKGROUND The ATRT review is mandated by ICANN Bylaws Section 4.6 (b) to examine ICANN’s execution of its commitment to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making reflect the public interest and are accountable to the Internet community. Prior to meeting in Marrakech, the review team met on 3-5 April in Los Angeles for its first substantive meeting to develop our terms of reference and workplan, in response to the Board Resolution (2018.10.25.15) requesting that “ATRT3 adopt its Terms of Reference and Work Plan within 60 days of convening its first meeting, and submit these documents to the Board and to the leadership of the Supporting Organizations and the Advisory Committees, to confirm that the team's scope and timeline are consistent with the requirements of the ICANN Bylaws and ICANN community expectations.” We look forward to hearing from you. Many thanks and best regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Pat Kane, ATRT3 Co-Chairs Public Comment Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001O5PlXE3Vqm9Um0E3hh1vRIxs66pqPVokyjGo9pmmZR8Q…> Close Date: Monday, 29 April 2019 Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001O5PlXE3Vqm9Um0E3hh1vRIxs66pqPVokyjGo9pmmZR8Q…> Close Date: Monday, 29 April 2019 Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001O5PlXE3Vqm9Um0E3hh1vRIxs66pqPVokyjGo9pmmZR8Q…> Close Date: Tuesday, 7 May 2019 Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001O5PlXE3Vqm9Um0E3hh1vRIxs66pqPVokyjGo9pmmZR8Q…> Close Date: Tuesday, 14 May 2019 Volume 1, Issue 13 | Archive<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001O5PlXE3Vqm9Um0E3hh1vRIxs66pqPVokyjGo9pmmZR8Q…> | Next Issue: Thursday, 25 April 2019 ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org<https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=00115LrDzKl3LoTB9FWCDiE2A%3D&…> Update Profile<https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&m=00115LrDzKl3LoTB9FWCDiE2A%3D&…> | About our service provider<http://www.constantcontact.com/legal/service-provider?cc=about-service-prov…> Sent by david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> in collaboration with [Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today.] <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=nge> Try it free today<http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=nge> _______________________________________________ SO-AC-SG-CLeaders mailing list SO-AC-SG-CLeaders(a)icann.org<mailto:SO-AC-SG-CLeaders@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders

1 0

MP3, Adobe Connect recording and chat transcript/ GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 18 April 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine April 19, 2019

April 19, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the MP3, Adobe Connect recording and chat of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday, 18 April 2019 at 21:00 UTC. MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-18apr19-en.mp3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> Adobe Connect Recording URL: https://participate.icann.org/p44ivf39ab2/<https://participate.icann.org/p44ivf39ab2/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=159ec623f20935ce…> Adobe Connect chat at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-18apr19-en.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meet…> All on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> With kind regards, Terri

1 0

GNSO Council motions & votes 18 April 2019
by Nathalie Peregrine April 19, 2019

April 19, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the resolutions and vote results from the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday 18 April 2019 to be posted on the GNSO resolutions<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> page shortly. Consent Agenda * Motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+April+20…> to adopt the GNSO Council response<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-18apr19-en.pdf> to the GAC Communique<https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann64-kobe-communique> * Confirmation of the Recommendations Report <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/council-recommendations-epdp-temp-spec-gtl…> to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data PDP WG, Phase 1. * Approval of the suggested amendments to the GNSO’s Fellowship Selection criteria. (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/fellowshi…) Motion vote: Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board Whereas, 1. 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. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. 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. 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. 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Kobe GAC Communiqué (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 Kobe 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…> Council vote: Approval of the appointment of Janis Karklins as Chair for the Expedited Policy Development Process Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Specification for gTLD Registration Data. (see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2019-April/022561.html) Note: Removed from the Consent Agenda (by Councilor request). Vote results <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-coun…> Motion vote: Approval of the Final Report From the GNSO PDP Working Group on the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WHEREAS: 1. 1. On 9 July 2018, the Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms submitted its Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-17jul18-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council. The Final Report contains five policy recommendations, namely: Recommendation 1(a): For INGOs (including the Red Cross movement and the International Olympic Committee), no substantive changes to the UDRP and URS are to be made, and no specific new dispute resolution procedures are to be created. Recommendation 1(b): For IGOs, no specific new dispute resolution procedures are to be created. Recommendation 2: The Working Group notes that an IGO may seek to demonstrate that it has the requisite standing to file a complaint under the UDRP or URS by showing that it has complied with the requisite communication and notification procedure in accordance with Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. An IGO may consider this to be an option where it does not have a registered trademark or service mark in its name and/or acronym but believes it has certain unregistered trademark or service mark rights for which it must adduce factual evidence to show that it nevertheless has substantive legal rights in the name and/or acronym in question. In this regard, the Working Group recommends that specific Policy Guidance on this topic be issued by ICANN to clarify the following points: (a) this alternative mechanism for standing is not needed in a situation where an IGO already holds trademark or service mark rights in its name and/or acronym, as the IGO would in such a case proceed in the same way as a nonIGO trademark owner; (b) whether or not compliance with Article 6ter will be considered determinative of standing is a decision to be made by the UDRP or URS panelist(s) based on the facts of each case; and (c) the possibility that an IGO may seek to rely on its compliance with Article 6ter to demonstrate standing should not modify or affect any of the existing grounds which UDRP and/or URS panelists have previously found sufficient for IGO standing (e.g. based on statutes and treaties). Recommendation 3: ICANN shall create and issue Policy Guidance: (a) outlining the various procedural filing options available to IGOs, e.g. they have the ability to elect to have a complaint filed under the UDRP and/or URS on their behalf by an assignee, agent or licensee; and (b) advising IGOs and INGOs to, in the first instance and prior to filing a UDRP or URS complaint, contact the registrar of record to address the harms for which they are seeking redress. In addition, ICANN shall ensure that this Policy Guidance document is brought to the notice of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) for its and its members’ and observers’ information, and published along with the procedures and rules applicable to the UDRP and URS on the ICANN website Recommendation 4: Notwithstanding GAC advice concerning access to curative rights processes for IGOs as well as the Charter language requiring the Working Group to consider “the need to address the issue of cost to IGOs and INGOs to use curative processes”, there was no support within the Working Group for a recommendation to provide subsidies to any party to use the UDRP or URS. Nevertheless, the Working Group recognizes that it has no authority to obligate the expenditure of ICANN funds, and it understands, further, that the feasibility of providing IGOs with access to the UDRP and URS at no or nominal cost to the IGOs is a question that must be addressed directly through discussions between the ICANN Board with the GAC and IGOs. The Working Group also notes that many Working Group members believe that a respondent should also be eligible to receive financial support for its defense in a case where ICANN has subsidized the complainant. Recommendation 5: Where a losing registrant challenges the initial UDRP/URS decision by filing suit in a national court of mutual jurisdiction and the IGO that succeeded in its initial UDRP/URS complaint also succeeds in asserting jurisdictional immunity in that court, the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor UDRP or URS shall be set aside (i.e. invalidated). 2. On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council acknowledged<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20180719-1> receipt of the PDP Final Report, noted that, “[i]n view of the need to consider the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers (including IGO acronyms), the GNSO Council intends to review this Final Report … with a view toward developing a possible path forward that will also facilitate the resolution of the outstanding inconsistencies between GAC advice and prior GNSO policy recommendations on the overall scope of IGO protections”, and confirmed its “intention to act on the recommendations that have been developed by the Working Group at the earliest opportunity following its review and deliberations on these topics”; 3. The GNSO Council has discussed the PDP Final Report on various occasions, including at a webinar conducted on 9 October 2018 and during the GNSO Council’s meetings in August 2018, October 2018, November 2018, December 2018 and January 2019; 4. As part of these discussions, the GNSO Council also reviewed the procedural options currently available to it under the GNSO’s operating rules and procedures (see, e.g.: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-procedural-options-council-29… and https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-December/022153.html) 5. At the ICANN63 Public Meeting held in Barcelona, Spain, the GNSO Council agreed to withdraw a motion to vote on the PDP Final Report submitted for the Council’s October 2018 meeting, in view of a number of concerns about the report that had been raised by several Councilors and stakeholder groups; 6. On 21 October 2018, the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) sent a letter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/ismail-to…> to the GNSO Council leadership requesting an opportunity for the GAC to engage with the GNSO Council “as a matter of urgency; and [asking] that the GNSO Council gives serious consideration to the option of deferring its decision on the named PDP final recommendations until a dialogue between GAC and GNSO Council has been conducted”; On 14 January 2019, the GNSO Council leadership responded<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-coun…> to the GAC Chair’s 21 October 2018 letter, welcoming the GAC’s wish to engage in an “open and constructive dialogue”; 8. At the ICANN64 Public Meeting held in Kobe, Japan, the GNSO Council leadership described the procedural options that the Council is considering and sought the GAC’s feedback on the GAC’s willingness to participate in a targeted effort focusing on the issue of curative rights for IGOs and possibly drawing on the community’s recent experiences with the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification and Work Track 5 of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP; 9. The GAC’s Kobe Communique<https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann64-kobe-communique> noted the GAC’s “fruitful exchanges with the GNSO Council regarding the possibility of restarting the PDP on curative protections, under conditions amenable to all interested parties, including IGOs and interested GAC members, with a view to achieving mutually acceptable results [with] a timeline with a targeted date associated with such a course of action”; and 10. As a result of the numerous discussions that have taken place since the submission of the PDP Final Report, the GNSO Council believes it has thoroughly considered all the available options and now wishes to proceed in the manner specified below. RESOLVED: 1. 1. The GNSO Council approves, and recommends that the ICANN Board adopt, Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a Recommendations Report for delivery to the ICANN Board in accordance with the process outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. 2. 2. The GNSO Council does not approve Recommendation 5 of the PDP Final Report 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: 3. a) accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances; a. b) does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction; b. c) preserves registrants’ rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and c. d) 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. 4. 3. The GNSO Council intends to amend the charter for the RPM PDP Working Group to reflect this new instruction accordingly. 5. 4. The GNSO Council affirms that it will take into account its approval of Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 in considering the recommendations it receives from the RMP PDP Working Group. 6. 5. The GNSO Council thanks all the members of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP for their hard work in completing this PDP. Vote results <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-coun…>

1 0

For your review: GNSO Project List
by Nathalie Peregrine April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

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…> Thank you Kind regards, Nathalie

4 4

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#312]
by ICANN April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

1 0

GAC Communique response
by Drazek, Keith April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

Hi all, Here’s the GNSO Council response to the ICANN 64 GAC Communique. Keith

1 0

FW: Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP
by Flip Petillion April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

Dear Keith, Dear all, I do not know if the letter has already been sent. If not, please find attached the draft PPSAI letter with suggested edits from the IPC, providing further factual background. Please let us know should you have any comments or questions. Best regards, Flip Flip Petillion fpetillion(a)petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law> +32484652653 www.petillion.law<http://www.petillion.law/> [Petillion_Logo_Zwart_600px]<http://www.petillion.law/> Attorneys – Advocaten – Avocats ________________________________ From: councilOn Behalf OfDrazek, Keith via council Sent: 11 April 2019 16:04:37 (UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris To: marie.pattullo(a)aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>; darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP Hi Marie, Thanks very much for the clarifying questions. 1. Yes, the letter essentially acknowledges the differences of opinion on timing and the role of ICANN Org in managing implementation work, and defers that decision to ICANN Org. 1. The following language in the letter was intended to address the “parsing” point we discussed in Kobe. It does not use the work “parse” but I think the intention is the same: “As discussed during the GNSO Council meetings in Kobe, the Council notes that a detailed analysis on elements of the implementation work that are impacted by GDPR and interdependent with the EPDP outcome would be helpful to the Council and the GNSO community and encourages ICANN org to carry out such analysis as soon as possible.” Please let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Keith From: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 6:43 AM To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP Many thanks, Keith. Can I please clarify, does “... the GNSO Council considers it appropriate to defer the decision on this issue to ICANN org and the PPSAI IRT” mean that we’re leaving it to Org and the IRT to decide on whether to start the implementation? Also – may I ask what happened to the suggestion about parsing – lifted from the Kobe action points, “In relation to unpausing of the PPSAI IRT, Council to consider whether it would be possible to parse out EPDP-dependent versus non-EPDP dependent items.”? Thanks! Marie From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 1:59 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP Thank you, Keith. The RrSG has reviewed the letter and has no additional comments or objections. Thanks, Darcy On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 9:11 AM Drazek, Keith via council <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, Attached is a draft Council response to the 4 March 2019 letter we received from Cyrus concerning PPSAI Implementation and related IRTP issues. Here’s the link to Cyrus’ letter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/namazi-to-drazek-et-al… The attached draft acknowledges and refers to the discussion we had in Kobe on the topic and recognizes the differing views of Councilors. Thanks to Pam for taking the lead on drafting this. Rafik and I have both reviewed and provided our input. Please review and advise if you have any comments. I’d like to be able to send this sooner rather than later. Best, Keith _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

4 4

Summary of Agenda -- Prep for GNSO Council Meeting - 18 April 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Drazek, Keith April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

Hi all, As we approach today’s GNSO Council meeting, here are some highlights and observations to help us prepare: * Consent Agenda: * GNSO COUNCIL RESPONSE TO GAC COMMUNIQUE: We have a motion to adopt the GNSO Council response to the ICANN 64 GAC Communique. The placeholder motion language was introduced prior to the 10-day document deadline, but the substance of the response was still under discussion as of this morning. The small group of volunteers, coordinated by Julf, continues to work toward a stable version for Council consideration. We had hoped to have this finalized before the ICANN Board-GAC meeting on 15 April, but that didn’t happen. As such, recognizing that councilors may need time to review the final version and socialize it with their respective SG/Cs, we may need to move this item from the consent agenda to a separate item and hold an email vote following our 18 April meeting. * APPOINTMENT OF JANIS KARKLINS AS EPDP PHASE 2 CHAIR: We have a motion to approve the unanimous recommendation from the GNSO Council Leadership Team and SSC Leadership Team for the appointment of Janis Karklins to the role of EPDP Phase 2 Chair. * Main Agenda: * MOTION TO ADDRESS THE IGO-INGO CURATIVE RIGHTS PROTECTIONS FINAL REPORT: * On 8 April, the GNSO Council Leadership Team presented our proposed motion to finally resolve the long-overdue action item related to voting on the IGO-INGO CRP Final Report. As we described in December 2018, we believe the current motion is the best path forward and a compromise among various differing views among councilors. * To be clear, some councilors prefer that we reject all recommendations and start over. Other councilors believe we should approve everything and send it all to the Board. As a compromise, we believe that the best course of action is to approve Recommendations 1-4 and reject/refer Recommendation #5 to the RPM PDP WG for its Phase 2 work on UDRP. To accomplish this, the Council needs a simple majority vote. * I understand that some are concerned about the potential impact on the RPM PDP WG and possible related delays, or that this approach is still in conflict with long-standing GAC advice to create a separate process for IGOs. Others are concerned about whether we can realistically find a sufficiently representative group of participants to start a new EPDP. Still others recognize that Recommendation #5 specifically relates to the UDRP, and therefore believe it should be a part of the RPM PDP work. Because Recommendations 1-4 in part say that no new DRP should be introduced, adjustments to the existing UDRP and/or URS appear to be the appropriate avenue for re-considering the topic. * Therefore, my recommendation here is that we refer Rec 5 to the RPM PDP WG but re-charter the group’s work to allow or require a dedicated sub-team or work-track for the issue. Such a re-chartered sub-team could be structured using PDP 3.0 and/or EPDP-like rules. That way, it becomes the responsibility of an existing and broad-based PDP, but also allows for a targeted group to work the issue. While re-chartering, we can also require a firm timeline and issue a call for new volunteers with specific subject matter expertise, such as in relevant fields of international law, to ensure the group is well-informed. * Council’s approval of a new EPDP, instead of referring to the RPM PDP, would require a supermajority and I frankly don’t know if that’s possible with the range of views among us. * Finally, in response to a courtesy email I sent to Manal advising her of this motion, I received the attached letter expressing the GAC’s negative views of this proposed approach. They would prefer a new dedicated EPDP to revisit all of the work without approval of Recs 1-4. * MANAGING IDN VARIANTS: We will have 15 minutes allocated for an introductory discussion of IDN Variants to be led by Sarmad Hussein of ICANN Org. The primary focus of this brief session will be on the ICANN Board’s resolution related to GNSO and ccNSO work on IDN Variant TLDs. However, it will also serve as a primer for further Council discussion and consideration of the broader range of IDN Variant issues – at the top-level, at the second-level, and the distinction between existing and future TLDs. We have a developing situation where new rules related to IDNs (guidelines) are being developed and implemented and contracted parties are taking on new obligations outside of a typical PDP. The forward-looking gTLD policy development for IDN TLDs can appropriately be handled by the SubPro PDP, but that’s not the place for discussions of existing TLDs and/or the impact of requirements on second-level names. We also need to figure out how to ensure the GNSO and ccNSO efforts can work toward a consistent policy, as required by the Board. As I noted, this session is an introduction to the issue, and I believe the Council needs to take this up more holistically to ensure our policy development mandate is respected. * EPDP PHASE 1 IMPLEMENTATION STATUS UPDATE: We will have 15 minutes dedicated to an update on the EPDP Phase One informal Implementation Review Team (IRT). Dennis Change of ICANN Org will lead this session. Note that the “informal” nature of the IRT is expected to go away once the ICANN Board approves the EPDP Phase One Final Report in May. At that time, ICANN Org will formally begin the IRT work under Dennis’ leadership. Note that the there is an open request for a GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP Phase One IRT. Any volunteers? * UPDATE ON THE RPM PDP WG TIMELINE: In Kobe, the GNSO Council Leadership Team, along with Paul McGrady in his role as Council Liaison to the RPM PDP, met with the RPM PDP Co-Chairs to discuss timelines and working methods to try to help bring some additional rigor and predictability to the WG’s deliverables. We asked the Co-Chairs to work together and with staff to develop a detailed work plan with milestones and measurable deliverables, and to identify how they anticipate making decisions to execute on that work plan. We had indicated a deadline of 18 April to coincide with our Council meeting, but last week the Co-Chairs requested an extension. We have granted an extension until 26 April, so during our 18 April meeting, Paul McGrady will provide an update to Council. Thanks for your attention! Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Keith From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 10:06 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Final Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meeting - 18 April 2019 at 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please below find the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 18 April 2019 at 21:00 UTC. Final GNSO Council Agenda 18 April 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/uhBIBg 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. Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y6jqgg5p 14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington; 22:00 London; (Friday) 02:00 Islamabad; 06:00 Tokyo; 07:00 Melbourne 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________ Item 1: Administrative Matters (5 mins) 1.1 - Roll Call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-special-council-04mar19-en.pdf> of the GNSO Council meeting on the 4th March were posted on the 18 March 2019 Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/minutes-c…> of the GNSO Council meeting on the 13th March were posted on the 30 March 2019 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 Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List<https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> Item 3: Consent Agenda (15 minutes) * Motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+April+20…> to adopt the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique<https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann64-kobe-communique> * Confirmation of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data PDP WG, Phase 1. * Approval of the appointment of [NAME] as Chair for the Expedited Policy Development Process Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. * Approval of the suggested amendments to the GNSO’s Fellowship Selection criteria. Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (20 minutes) The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG worked to resolve a final recommendation relating to IGO jurisdictional immunity and registrants’ rights to file court proceedings. The WG reached agreement on a single recommendation amongst several options for their final recommendation on this area, as well as for all other recommendations. The WG Chair 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<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201806>, 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<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-…> in time for the 19 July 2018 Council meeting. After having agreed on consensus levels for its final recommendations, the WG considered the text of its 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<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-…> to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus recommendations, along with three Working Group member minority statements, documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the Final Report. On its 19 July Council meeting, the Council resolved<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201806> to accept the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group, where it noted that it would consider the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of the appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers. On 9 October 2018, the Council held a question and answer webinar to review the recommendations and to ask itself a series of questions, 1) Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?; 2) Has the PDP followed due process?; and 3) Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic? A motion to consider the Final Report was originally submitted on the 24 October 2018 Council meeting agenda but was withdrawn due to concerns around both the process followed by the PDP, as well as the substance of the PDP WG’s recommendations. Council leadership and staff have developed a summary document (Summary Paper<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-28nov18-en.pdf> and Slide Deck<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-procedural-options-council-29…>) that lists issues raised by Councilors, options available, and potential considerations. During the November meeting, the Council considered a set of available options and briefly discussed possible next steps. On 20 December 2018, Council leadership circulated a proposal<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-December/022153.html> for next steps. Council leadership has since sent a reply<https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-ismail-14jan19-en.…> to the GAC, in response to a letter received during ICANN63. On the 24 January 2018 Council meeting, the Council discussed the proposal prepared by Council leadership. On 14 February 2019, the Council further discussed next steps and agreed to consult with the Governmental Advisory Committee, both before and at ICANN64. The GNSO Council and GAC had productive discussions, where the Council discussed procedural options that it is considering. The GAC’s Kobe Communique<https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann64-kobe-communique> noted the GAC’s “fruitful exchanges with the GNSO Council regarding the possibility of restarting the PDP on curative protections, under conditions amenable to all interested parties, including IGOs and interested GAC members, with a view to achieving mutually acceptable results [with] a timeline with a targeted date associated with such a course of action.” Based on the Council discussions and consultation with the GAC, the Council believes that it has thoroughly considered the available options. Here, the Council will vote to approve the set of actions as detailed in the relevant motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+April+20…>. 4.1 – Presentation of motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+April+20…> (Council Leadership) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority for recommendations 1-4) 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 – Managing IDN Variants TLDs (15 minutes) The ICANN Board resolved in 2010 that IDN variant TLDs will not be delegated until relevant work is completed and directed ICANN org to develop a report identifying what needs to be done with the evaluation, possible delegation, allocation and operation of generic top-level domains (gTLDs) containing variant characters IDNs, in order to facilitate the development of workable approaches to the deployment of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs. Based on analysis, ICANN org and the community identified two gaps to address: 1) that there is no definition of IDN variant TLDs, and; 2) that there is no IDN variant TLD management mechanism. The Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lgr-procedure-20mar13-en.pdf> (RZ-LGR Procedure) has been developed by the community to define the IDN variant TLDs and, following the Board resolution<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2013-04-11-en#2.a> in 2013 which approved the RZ-LGR Procedure, has been implemented to incrementally develop the Root Zone Label Generation Rules to address the first gap. ICANN org has developed the Recommendations for Managing IDN Variant TLDs<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/managing-idn-variant-tlds-2018-07-25-…> (the Variant TLD Recommendations), a collection of six documents finalized after incorporating the public comment feedback and published them as mechanisms for addressing the second gap identified by the community in the implementation of IDN variant TLDs. On 14 March 2019, the ICANN Board resolved<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/prelim-report-2019-03-14-en#…>: The Board approves the Variant TLD Recommendations and requests that the ccNSO and GNSO take into account the Variant TLD Recommendations while developing their respective policies to define and manage the IDN variant TLDs for the current TLDs as well as for future TLD applications. The Board requests that the ccNSO and GNSO keep each other informed of the progress in developing the relevant details of their policies and procedures to ensure a consistent solution, based on the Variant TLD Recommendations, is developed for IDN variant ccTLDs and IDN variant gTLDs. Here, the Council will receive an update and consult with Sarmad Hussain, managing director of ICANN’s IDN Program, to better understand its responsibilities as dispensed by the ICANN Board. 5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership) 5.2 – Update and council discussion (Sarmad Hussain, ICANN staff) 5.3 – Next steps Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE – Status of the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 1 Informal Implementation Review Team (15 minutes) On 11 May 2018, ICANN released the <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#con…> Temporary Specification<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#con…> on gTLD Registration Data, which served as the main agenda topic for the subsequent Board Workshop in Vancouver. This proposed Temporary Specification provides an interim solution until the community completes a policy development process on the temporary specification which is expected to complete within a one year period. On 17 May 2017, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-05-17-en> approved<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-05-17-en> the proposed <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-data-specs-en> Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-data-specs-en>, which establishes temporary requirements for how ICANN and its Contracted Parties will comply with both ICANN contractual requirements and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The EPDP Team held its first meeting on 1 August 2018 and on 21 November 2018, the EPDP published its Initial Report for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-ini…>. After taking into account public comment received, the EPDP Team worked to deliver its Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld…> to the GNSO Council for its consideration on 20 February 2019. Due to the unique circumstances concerning the deadline for implementation, and in order to minimize the transition period, the EPDP Leadership and Team informally recommended that discussion around implementation deliverables be initiated immediately. This preliminary work will inform the deliberations of the formal Implementation Recommendation Team upon Board approval of the Policy Recommendations. The EPDP team Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld…> was adopted by the GNSO Council on 2 March 2019 and resolved to recommend that implementation efforts begin in an informal fashion. Here, the Council will receive a status update on the progress of the informal implementation efforts. 6.1 – Update (Dennis Chang, ICANN staff) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next steps Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Updated Timeline for the PDP on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDS (15 minutes) At the GNSO Council’s working session at ICANN64, on 10 March 2019, the Council welcomed updates from the chairs of the various GNSO PDPs underway, including the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDS (RPMs). The Council, amongst other questions, asked the Co-chairs about the likelihood of the RPMs PDP completing its work by February of 2020. The responses from the three co-chairs expressed varying levels of confidence in meeting that deadline and it was agreed that an updated timeline for the RPMs PDP would help the Council better carry out its role as manager of the PDP. Here, the Council will review and discuss the updated timeline. 7.1 – Introduction of topic (Paul McGrady, GNSO Council Liaison to the PDP) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes) 8.1 - Review of status assignment of the GNSO Project list. 8.2 - Reminder for funded travelers to book their travel for ICANN65 ________________________________ 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 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 (BRT) UTC-3 18:00 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0 22:00 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+2 23:00 Moscow, Russia (MSK) UTC +3 (+1 day) 00:00 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 Melbourne, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11 07:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on Sunday 27 of October 2019, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 03 of November 2019 for the US. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> and https://tinyurl.com/y6jqgg5p

7 14

GAC Communique response
by Johan Helsingius April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

The suggested GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique attached. Google docs version at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WODNWffxy_dn6WRXV-_mJAwPhlh5V57T3L94BwQ… Julf

3 5

Slides for Item 5: Managing IDN Variants TLDs for the 18 April Council Meeting
by Steve Chan April 16, 2019

April 16, 2019

Dear Councilors, On behalf of Sarmad Hussain, IDN Programs Director at ICANN, please find the supporting slides he will be using for his update for Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Managing IDN Variants TLDs on the upcoming 18 April Council Meeting. He encourages you to review beforehand and in the event you have questions or comments ahead of the meeting, please do not hesitate to pose them to Sarmad (copied on this message). Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0