April 2019 - council - lists.icann.org

pre-IRT liaison for Registration Data Policy Implementation (EPDP Phase 1)
by Dennis Chang 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

Dear GNSO Council, The EPDP Phase 1 Implementation, now called Registration Data Policy Implementation, requests the GNSO Council to consider assigning a liaison to the pre-IRT as an option. We had our first pre-IRT call last week. As we were discussing the role of the pre-IRT and how it would differ from the IRT, the subject of the GNSO Council Liaison came up. As you know, the IRT requires a liaison, but for the pre-IRT, we did not make this a requirement for expediency. Some of members of the pre-IRT suggested that the GNSO Council should consider assigning a member of the council to join the pre-IRT. As we expect the pre-IRT to transition as a team to the IRT, it would make for an efficient transition. Therefore, we decided to make the liaison role an option for the GNSO Council. If the GNSO Council wishes to assign a liaison, please have that member follow the instructions provided in the Call for Pre-IRT now posted on the pre-IRT wiki. https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIPRP/Registration+Data+Policy+Implem… The implementation team appreciates the support of the GNSO Council. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director Telephone: +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

FW: [Ext] RE: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel
by philippe.fouquart＠orange.com 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

Dear fellow councilors, As a follow-up to our email discussion, please see Goran’s response to the ccNSO council’s letter on this subject. Regards, Philippe From: Ccnso-council [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Goran Marby Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 10:15 PM To: Austin, Donna; Katrina Sataki; David Olive; Samantha Eisner Cc: ccnso-council(a)icann.org; so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org; 'Nigel Roberts' Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] [Ext] RE: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel Hi friends, I wish to thank you for the e-mails, noting the importance to the community of the selection of a Standing Panel for Independent Review Processes (IRPs), and suggesting that ICANN Org relaunch the call for community input via the public comment process. I would like to take this opportunity to assure everyone that our publication of a blog post on this topic on 9 March was intended to supplement, and not displace, the existing processes through which we seek the community’s feedback. This is why the same request was circulated after the conclusion of the ICANN64 Kobe meeting in the Community Leadership Digest. On this specific topic, what we have tried to do is provide more specific and targeted ways for the community to provide feedback, since the establishment of an IRP Standing Panel has been a long-standing topic of community discussion. You will recall that a webinar was held in January 2018, followed by a public session at ICANN61 in March 2018. The questions that we have developed result from these discussions to date and builds on work done by the community-based IRP Implementation Oversight Team. We had hoped that this continuous process will allow for multiple opportunities for the community to provide its views, as we work toward completing the important task of seating the Standing Panel. I take the point that publishing the blog post on 9 March without providing more specific information about how else we intend to collect community feedback may have sent the wrong signal. In addition, I understand that the suggested 15 April deadline may not be feasible at this stage. I therefore invite you and your community groups to continue to provide your feedback via email to the publicly-archived mailing list that was set up some time ago for the community to continue its discussions in a transparent and accessible way: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irp-standing-panel/. If possible, I ask that you provide your input by 15 May 2019<x-apple-data-detectors://17>. In relation to the need to provide greater clarity while ensuring transparency in our operations, you may be interested to know that, prior to the ICANN64 Kobe meeting, I had already requested that David Olive and his team prepare a comprehensive set of guidelines regarding the appropriate use of public comment proceedings and other community consultations. I expect to hold a discussion about this with my Executive Team around the time of ICANN65 in Marrakech. In closing, I thank you all for your helpful and constructive feedback. I look forward to sharing very shortly with you further information about the remaining work to be done on the IRP Standing Panel, as well as our plans to clarify the use of public comment and consultation opportunities. Regards Göran From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> Date: Monday, April 15, 2019 at 10:27 AM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv>, Goran Marby <goran.marby(a)icann.org> Cc: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org>, 'Chris Disspain' <chris(a)disspain.uk>, 'Nigel Roberts' <nigel.roberts(a)board.icann.org>, "so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org" <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel As the deadline for responses is today 15 April 2019, do we have any update on whether the deadline will be extended as requested by Katrina. From: SO-AC-SG-CLeaders [mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 12:55 AM To: 'Goran Marby' <goran.marby(a)icann.org> Cc: ccnso-council(a)icann.org; 'Chris Disspain' <chris(a)disspain.uk>; 'Nigel Roberts' <nigel.roberts(a)board.icann.org>; so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org Subject: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel Dear Göran: In your blog post of 9 March 2019, you invited community inputs on the process for the selection of a standing panel to hear Independent Review Process (IRP) complaints. You included a series of questions, with a deadline for responses by 15 April 2019: * Qualifications for Standing Panelists: Are there specific qualifications that should be included? If so, what are they? Anything disqualifying? Should the SOs and ACs recommend qualifications? And if so, how? * Identifying a Slate of Well-Qualified Panelists: We’ve heard concerns from some members of the ICANN community as to whether the broader community has the appropriate experience and skill for this selection work, and have suggested the possibility that ICANN instead contract with experts to perform this vetting process. Should the community rely on expertise to help vet and recommend a final slate for the standing panel? * Board Approval of Panel Slate – Further Questions: After there is a slate of well-qualified applicants, the Board must confirm the panel. If the Board has questions that might impact its confirmation, to whom should those questions be addressed? If experts are used to develop the slate, should the experts, the SOs and ACs, or some combination thereof be part of that conversation? * Future Selections: Should the process being designed today be reviewed for effectiveness after the first slating is completed, prior to making it standard operating procedure for future selection rounds? The IRP, as you correctly stated, is an accountability mechanism arising from the ICANN Bylaws. ICANN Board and staff decisions may be reviewed for breaches of ICANN’s own policies, core values or because decisions have been made on the basis of incorrect information. Matters of high importance that fall within scope include disputes involving the rights of the Empowered Community, enforcement of ICANN’s contractual rights with respect to the IANA Naming Function Contract, and claims regarding PTI service complaints by direct customers of the IANA naming functions (that are not resolved through mediation). The appointment of appropriately qualified and independent panellists who will be making these review decision is therefore a high concern to us. Taking into account that: 1) the blog post was published right before ICANN64, when most volunteers are travelling or busy preparing for the meeting, 2) no corresponding public comments request has been published on the ICANN website, 3) no information about the request was published in ICANN Community Leadership Digest (the questions were first mentioned only on 11 April), and to ensure that: 1) all community members are aware of the opportunity to provide input, 2) everyone has sufficient time to discuss the issue and submit their considerations, 3) the process is transparent and all comments are published in due time, we would like to encourage you to re-launch the call for community inputs in accordance with the established procedures. Furthermore, we request that only one process for seeking community feedback, i.e. ICANN public comments procedure, is used in the future. While a blog post may remain to be a good tool for reminders, and senior staff commentary may encourage engagement and participation, they are no substitute for due process. Yours sincerely, Katrina Sataki On behalf of the ccNSO Council _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

1 0

PLEASE READ: Transitioning to Zoom
by Nathalie Peregrine 15 Apr '19

15 Apr '19

Dear all, As you may already know<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/transitioning-icann-s-remote-participation-…>, ICANN is replacing the Adobe Connect tool with Zoom. As with all transitions, there will be a learning curve for community members as well as for staff but through the tools, information and proposed next steps outlined below, we hope we can make this transition is as smooth as possible. The complete roll out is expected to be finalized by ICANN65, Marrakech, however many groups will be noticing their calls scheduled on Zoom as of next week. Please see below a few pointers which we hope will help get everyone ready. How is staff preparing for the transition? Staff has received training, has viewed training videos and has had the opportunity to go through practice runs in Zoom rooms. This should facilitate our assistance in getting you all up to speed and work with the different groups on transitioning existing practices to the zoom environment. What is available to the community to prepare for the transition? Staff is reaching out to Stakeholder Group and Constituency, as well as PDP Working Group, leadership teams to introduce them to Zoom and ensure they will be comfortable running their first sessions with this new tool. Staff will also present Zoom to community members at the beginning of each conference call to ensure all understand the different functions and how to use them. The attached Welcome to Zoom! document will be presented at the same time. SOAC Support staff will be present during each call to assist. What stays the same? (please open the Welcome to Zoom! document for a visual) Zoom rooms still show participant and chat pods. The public chat pods will be archived and circulated as per usual, the private chat content remains inaccessible to ICANN Org staff). Documents can still be viewed in the Zoom room but please note that this sharing is a screen share which means it is no longer possible to scroll through documents unless the person who is sharing their screen does so. It is possible to join the audio via audio bridge (telephone) or via the computer. Zoom VoIP quality is excellent. It will still be possible to get a dial out for those unable to connect to the Zoom room. What changes? (please open the Welcome to Zoom! And the FAQ documents) Participants need to click on the participant list and the chat to activate them. This just takes two seconds. The content of the chat only appears from participant connection time. This means if you joins 4 mins late, you will not be able to access the first 4 mins of the chat. Zoom is notified of this and is looking into resolving the issue. The entire content of the chat transcript will however be available immediately after the end of the call once it gets posted / circulated by the host. Several documents can be viewed at the same time if several staff members are screensharing, this will allow you to navigate (as applicable) to Notes, Agenda and Documents in your own time during the call. Documents will be able to be shared via the chat to allow all to download materials to their computers during the call. The mobile app does not require you to remain in the app in order to hear the zoom room audio. Please open the attached FAQ document for any additional queries you may have. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please let us know – our objective is to make sure this transition is as smooth as possible. Kind regards, The GNSO Team 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…>

4 8

Fwd: Fellowships for ICANN65 Marrakech - Update
by Rafik Dammak 15 Apr '19

15 Apr '19

Hi all, I am sharing update from Heather regarding the fellowship selection committee and strawman document for GNSO specific skills expected from fellows, for council review and input. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- De : Heather Forrest Date: mer. 13 mars 2019 à 17:38 Subject: Re: Fellowships for ICANN65 Marrakech - Update To: Dear Keith, Rafik, Pam, Now that the Council meeting of ICANN64 is behind you, I return to the request from the Fellowship Selection Committee for GNSO-specific target skills for ICANN Fellows in the ICANN66 selection round. For your post-ICANN64 action item list, attached is the strawman I volunteered to prepare. If Council can finalise its list of criteria at or before its April meeting, these should be able to be applied to the ICANN66 selection round. Best wishes, Heather

10 22

Fwd: [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel
by Drazek, Keith 13 Apr '19

13 Apr '19

FYI, an email from ccNSO Chair Katrina Sataki to Göran concerning ICANN’s recent use of blog posts to invite comment. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Date: April 12, 2019 at 3:54:44 AM EDT To: 'Goran Marby' <goran.marby(a)icann.org<mailto:goran.marby@icann.org>> Cc: <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>>, 'Chris Disspain' <chris(a)disspain.uk<mailto:chris@disspain.uk>>, "'Nigel Roberts'" <nigel.roberts(a)board.icann.org<mailto:nigel.roberts@board.icann.org>>, <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org<mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [ICANN Community Leaders] Accountability and community input on IRP standing panel Dear Göran: In your blog post of 9 March 2019, you invited community inputs on the process for the selection of a standing panel to hear Independent Review Process (IRP) complaints. You included a series of questions, with a deadline for responses by 15 April 2019: - Qualifications for Standing Panelists: Are there specific qualifications that should be included? If so, what are they? Anything disqualifying? Should the SOs and ACs recommend qualifications? And if so, how? - Identifying a Slate of Well-Qualified Panelists: We’ve heard concerns from some members of the ICANN community as to whether the broader community has the appropriate experience and skill for this selection work, and have suggested the possibility that ICANN instead contract with experts to perform this vetting process. Should the community rely on expertise to help vet and recommend a final slate for the standing panel? - Board Approval of Panel Slate – Further Questions: After there is a slate of well-qualified applicants, the Board must confirm the panel. If the Board has questions that might impact its confirmation, to whom should those questions be addressed? If experts are used to develop the slate, should the experts, the SOs and ACs, or some combination thereof be part of that conversation? - Future Selections: Should the process being designed today be reviewed for effectiveness after the first slating is completed, prior to making it standard operating procedure for future selection rounds? The IRP, as you correctly stated, is an accountability mechanism arising from the ICANN Bylaws. ICANN Board and staff decisions may be reviewed for breaches of ICANN’s own policies, core values or because decisions have been made on the basis of incorrect information. Matters of high importance that fall within scope include disputes involving the rights of the Empowered Community, enforcement of ICANN’s contractual rights with respect to the IANA Naming Function Contract, and claims regarding PTI service complaints by direct customers of the IANA naming functions (that are not resolved through mediation). The appointment of appropriately qualified and independent panellists who will be making these review decision is therefore a high concern to us. Taking into account that: 1) the blog post was published right before ICANN64, when most volunteers are travelling or busy preparing for the meeting, 2) no corresponding public comments request has been published on the ICANN website, 3) no information about the request was published in ICANN Community Leadership Digest (the questions were first mentioned only on 11 April), and to ensure that: 1) all community members are aware of the opportunity to provide input, 2) everyone has sufficient time to discuss the issue and submit their considerations, 3) the process is transparent and all comments are published in due time, we would like to encourage you to re-launch the call for community inputs in accordance with the established procedures. Furthermore, we request that only one process for seeking community feedback, i.e. ICANN public comments procedure, is used in the future. While a blog post may remain to be a good tool for reminders, and senior staff commentary may encourage engagement and participation, they are no substitute for due process. Yours sincerely, Katrina Sataki On behalf of the ccNSO Council _______________________________________________ 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

7 6

Fwd: GNSO Council Request – Resource Support for EPDP Phase 2
by Drazek, Keith 12 Apr '19

12 Apr '19

Hi all, FYI, this letter has been submitted. Best, Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org<mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org>> Date: April 12, 2019 at 3:42:28 AM EDT To: Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)board.icann.org<mailto:cherine.chalaby@board.icann.org>> Cc: Goran Marby <goran.marby(a)icann.org<mailto:goran.marby@icann.org>>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team(a)icann.org<mailto:board-ops-team@icann.org>>, "rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>" <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>>, "kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, "gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>" <gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] GNSO Council Request – Resource Support for EPDP Phase 2 Dear Cherine and Board Ops, Please find attached the communication from Keith Drazek regarding the GNSO Council Request for resource support for EPDP Phase 2. This will be posted shortly on the GNSO Correspondence page<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence>. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/http://learn.icann.org/…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#311]
by ICANN 11 Apr '19

11 Apr '19

1 0

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#310]
by ICANN 11 Apr '19

11 Apr '19

1 0

Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP
by Drazek, Keith 11 Apr '19

11 Apr '19

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

3 3

Fellowship Selection Process - Council questions answered
by Rafik Dammak 10 Apr '19

10 Apr '19

Hi all, Please find below the responses from Heather to some questions in the thread related to fellowship selection process. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- De : Heather Forrest Date: mer. 10 avr. 2019 à 21:32 Subject: Fellowship Selection Process- Council questions answered To: Rafik Dammak Dear Rafik, I would be very grateful for your help with posting these responses to questions about the Fellowship selection process to the Council list. 1. Arsene raised the following: "The ability to speak English SHOULD NOT, in my opinion, be a criterion when selecting a member of the fellowship program." To clarify, the strawman that I prepared and which is now being discussed and modified by Councillors should set out *additional *criteria of a GNSO-specific nature. These criteria will be considered in respect of applicants who express an interest in, or an existing involvement with, the GNSO. There are universal criteria that apply to all applications; a basic ability to communicate in English is indeed inherent in the process, as applications must be submitted in English and understandable to the Selection Committee members. It seems to me that it is not necessary to specify English language ability as a GNSO-specific criterion. 2. Ayden has raised concerns about "confusion around why the fellowship exists." Ayden is absolutely correct that the Fellowship program is now being seen as a tool to relieve volunteer burnout and introduce active new policy development members. I pushed very hard in the Marrakech selection round to implement a minimum threshold score for 'likelihood of meaningful future engagement'. This reduced the overall number of Fellowships awarded for Marrakech, but I strongly believe that we should not follow the previous mentality of awarding as many Fellowships as are budgeted simply because the budget exists. 3. Elsa asked: "I wonder what will make anyone be sure of the criteria being met?" It will be the job of the Fellowship Selection Committee to evaluate, based on the information provided in each application, an applicant's satisfaction of the criteria. In addition to the SO/AC-specific post-Fellowship follow-up that Elsa suggests, staff are, on request of the Fellowship Selection Committee, investigating ways of objectively tracking what a Fellow does post-Fellowship. For example, we can ask: Has the Fellow joined at least one WG as an active member, or joined and made active contributions to the work of an SG/C. Has the prior Fellow participated in any ICANN meetings (whether f2f or remote) since their Fellowship? In other words, there is much more that we can do to follow up. This hasn't been done in the past, but I will continue to push hard for this going forward. Where an applicant is relatively new to ICANN, we have other ways when reviewing the application to assess whether they have potential to become active participants based on what they have done outside of ICANN. I believe this addresses Elsa's second question as well. 4. Elsa also asked: "Will this be reviewed at some point after the requirements of all SO/ACs are submitted?" Yes! What I suggest is that when the GNSO-specific criteria are applied in the Montreal round, I will report back to Council on any issues or questions that the Committee had when applying the GNSO criteria. We will have a continuous opportunity to reflect and modify. These are definitely NOT cast in stone! Let's get to a set of criteria that the Fellowship Selection Committee can apply for Montreal, re-evaluate, and revise as appropriate. Best wishes to you all, Heather

1 0