August 2019 - council - lists.icann.org

Confirmation of GNSO Representative on the Empowered Community Administration
by Nathalie Peregrine 20 Oct '22

20 Oct '22

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

For GNSO Council Consideration: Proposed Amendments to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF)
by Brian Aitchison 18 Oct '19

18 Oct '19

Dear GNSO Council, The Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) represents ICANN org’s Global Domains Division’s “roadmap” for implementing community-developed and approved consensus policy recommendations. Point H of the Framework mandates that ICANN org “continually review the implementation framework and related materials to encapsulate additional best-practices or to adjust the steps as a result of lessons learned with previous consensus policy projects.” In accordance with this mandate, please find attached an amended version of the CPIF for your consideration. This proposed set of amendments focuses on establishing standardized processes for post-implementation consensus policy reviews and for amending the CPIF document on an ongoing basis. In addition to a number of minor language updates, the following sections have been added to or created: 1. Section V, “Support and Review”: Section expanded to reference the proposed post-implementation consensus policy review process added in the new Section VI 2. Section VI, “Post-Implementation Consensus Policy Review Process”: New section added to detail proposed steps for carrying out reviews of implemented consensus policies 3. Section VII, “Consensus Policy Implementation Framework Amendment Process”: New section added to detail proposed steps for amending the CPIF Similar to our effort last year to update the framework and “test” the amendment process, minor updates have been left as redlines throughout the document; more substantive changes are shown as redlines and have “rationale” comments associated with them. The amended version will ultimately be posted to icann.org’s implementation page at https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation. Community review of these proposed amendments is essential to ensure that they conform to existing org and community standards and practices. If you have input on these proposed amendments, please provide it to this group by Monday, 9 September (feel free to annotate the document directly and/or provide your input in an email). Thank you all for your time in reviewing this important process. Please let me know of any questions. Best, Brian Aitchison -- Brian Aitchison, PhD Lead Researcher Operations and Policy Research Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Los Angeles, CA

2 2

Reminder: Document and Motion deadline Monday 9 September 2019 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council Meeting 19 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 06 Sep '19

06 Sep '19

Dear all, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. Monday 9 September 2019 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday 19 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a councilor and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/M4-kBg Thank you very much. With kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by 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 2

Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
by Drazek, Keith 06 Sep '19

06 Sep '19

Hi all, In preparation for our 22 August GNSO Council meeting, and further Council discussion on this topic, I am attaching an updated draft letter for your review. We have attempted to incorporate everyone’s comments and expressed views in this draft. To summarize, the goal of this letter is to: 1. Ensure the Council is proceeding as expected under Annex A-1 Section 6 of the ICANN Bylaws. 2. Create a record of the Council-Board engagement in Marrakech. 3. Advise the Board of the Council’s current thinking around Recommendation #1, Purpose 2 and Recommendation #12. 4. Seek further input from the Board, and ideally confirm a common understanding or more clearly understand any difference of opinion. 5. Ensure that the Council is setting good precedent in terms of how we engage in this kind of situation. In response to comments from Marie and Flip, we have added language that acknowledges a difference of opinion among Councilors on the subject of Rec #12 and the deletion of data. Please review and provide any comments to the list. We will also discuss next week. Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks to all and I appreciate your patience on this one. Best, Keith From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:08 PM To: Flip Petillion <fpetillion(a)petillion.law> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations Em 30 de jul de 2019, à(s) 10:14:000, Flip Petillion <fpetillion(a)petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law>> escreveu: Rubens, I share the feeling that it is uncommon to have a substantive discussion within the Council. However, that is exactly what the Bylaws mandate us to do within the atypical framework of expedited PDPs. Doesn’t the proposed one pager attached to the draft letter also address substance? I don't think the bylaws mandate who specifically does that. It's a substantive discussion, but in the same way we ask WGs to take them, we can ask the RegData EPDP WG to answer the substance. If we engage ourselves in a discussion where we first delegated authority to a WG, we would be disenfranchising them. BTW, Expedited PDPs only differ from Standard PDPs by not having an Issue Report to frame discussions. So everything we does here is a precedent for any future PDP, being an EPDP or not. As to your second comment, I think we owe it to the community to provide the Board with recommendations and reasoning that is legally sound. If certain aspects of privacy have been previously overlooked, now seems the time to correct them. IPC can send Board, PDP or anyone else any communication they see fit at any time. But the discussion here is not that, it's only the Board rationale for not approving the PDP recommendation. Rubens Best regards, Flip Flip Petillion fpetillion(a)petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law> +32484652653 www.petillion.law<http://www.petillion.law/> <image001.png><http://www.petillion.law/> Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Date: Tuesday, 30 July 2019 at 13:22 To: Flip Petillion <fpetillion(a)petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law>> Cc: Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations Flip, I find strange we are having a substantive discussion on the topic within the Council. I believe our approach to board denials of PDP recommendation should be to ask the PDP WG what clarifications or positions they have, and relay them to the board. IPC is represented in the PDP so the same content you posted here could be used there while formulating the response, whatever that response would look like. And still on process grounds, it's clear that the board rationale for not approving part of Rec. 12 is different from the IPC rationale you relayed to the Council. But the rationale that needs to be answered to is the Board one, because they've made the decision to not fully approve rec. 12. So while it's interesting to know the overall IPC position on the matter, the topic at hand is the Board decision. Rubens On 30 Jul 2019, at 06:54, Flip Petillion <fpetillion(a)petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law>> wrote: Hi Ayden, Thank you for your questions and for the opportunity to clarify our position. I understand your questions address the substance of the recommendations and not the GNSO Council’s remit within the Board Approval Process. 1. Regarding your first question: You are correct that the ‘Organisation’ field pertains to information of legal entities and thus should not be subject to GDPR principles (and thus should not be deleted or even redacted). However, this is not treated as such in the Final Report. To avoid that we enter into circular discussions, we started from the premise in the Final Report (and the draft rationale for rec. #12) that the GDPR could apply to the ‘Organisation’ field. Our point is that, in such a case, the practices of both disclosing AND deleting data are subject to GDPR according to article 4 (2). ,The deletion of previously provided data can likewise not occur without a solid purpose, legal basis and safeguards. 2. Regarding your second question: (i) You are correct that the GDPR requires consent to be informed, affirmative and freely given. However, active opt-in consent is only required when relying on consent as a legal basis (art. 6.1.a). The Final Report and the guidance of the EU Authorities and DPAs have established that, depending on the purpose, the performance of the registration contract (art. 6.1.b) and legitimate interest (art. 6.1.f) are the valid legal bases. For the latter, an opt-out mechanism or redaction mechanism can be sufficient to shift the balance in favour of the interested party (cfr. Article 29 WP Guidance on Legitimate Interest) and active opt-in consent is not required. (ii) If you were to rely on consent as a legal basis, normally (and ideally) consent is obtained at the time of collection of the personal data (i.e. the registration of the domain name). It is at this point in time that the data subject (registrant) is properly informed of the processing activities and is engaged in providing the necessary information related to the purpose and legal bases (i.e., performance of the registration agreement). Practice has shown that there are a lot of problems with obtaining consent after the fact (i.e., during the performance of the registration agreement). Quite often data subjects cannot be contacted, are confused about the nature of the opt-in communication, are simply not interested, etc. Accordingly, the requirement of an active opt-in consent on the basis of a ‘review request’ to existing registrants unnecessarily risks losing valid organisation information on a wide scale. I hope this sufficiently answers your questions and clarifies the position of the IPC on this matter. Best regards, Flip Flip Petillion fpetillion(a)petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law> +32484652653 www.petillion.law<http://www.petillion.law/> <image001.png><http://www.petillion.law/> Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats From: Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Reply to: Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Date: Tuesday, 30 July 2019 at 00:41 To: Flip Petillion <fpetillion(a)petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law>> Cc: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations Hi Flip, Thanks for sharing this input from the IPC. Sorry if this is a stupid question, but since data that does not pertain to natural persons is beyond the scope of the GDPR, I do not understand how you can make the claim that article 4 (2) of the GDPR does not allow for the organisation field to be deleted. Could you please clarify? Thanks. I am also concerned that what you describe below - "Practice has shown that data subjects are generally reluctant to take active steps after their data has been collected to provide active opt-in consent (cfr. opt-in emails)" - sounds like a proposal for not obtaining consent that is valid under the GDPR, which I understand requires consent to be freely given. Kind regards, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, 29 July 2019 18:29, Flip Petillion <fpetillion(a)petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law>> wrote: Dear Keith, Dear All, The IPC shares the Board’s concern that the option to delete the Organisation fields contents as a result of a refusal or failure to respond by the registrant upon a ‘review request’ by the registrar, risks resulting in a wide scale loss of crucial information about the registrant's identity. While the IPC acknowledges that Recommendation #12 achieved consensus support in the EPDP Team’s Phase 1 Final Report, we agree with the Board that the “or delete the field contents” part of recommendation #12 2) b) is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. We therefore do not agree that the recommendation should be resubmitted as is, and also not together with the presented rationale in the draft letter to the Board. Irrespective of the debate as to whether the organisation field may contain personal data or not, the issues considered in the current rationale and the concerns of the Board can both be met by redacting the organisation data in case of an opt-out (or lack of active opt-in) instead of deleting. · The concept of ‘privacy by default/design’ in the GDPR does not automatically necessitate the implementation of an opt-in mechanism (especially considering the legitimate interests attached to the transparency of organisation information online); · The deletion/erasure by a controller of previously provided personal data is also considered ‘processing’ (article 4 (2) GDPR), for which the controller must determine a purpose and proper legal basis. As a result, a registrar cannot simply delete important information provided by the registrant unless (i) the registrant has requested the erasure of the ‘Organisation’ field by exercising his right to erasure (this right must be actively exercised and cannot be inferred), (ii) the retention of the ‘Organisation’ field is no longer necessary for the purposes of processing the domain name registration data (Recommendation #15 implies that the retention period of the data elements would at the minimum be the ‘life of the registration’), or (iii) the registrar can justify the deletion on the basis of another valid legal basis (such as the consent of the registrant). Practice has shown that data subjects are generally reluctant to take active steps after their data has been collected to provide active opt-in consent (cfr. opt-in emails). Together with the expected difficulties in contacting the registrants and verifying their (lack of) consent on a wide scale, the IPC believes (in accordance with the Board Statement) that this would pose a serious and unnecessary risk to lose important registrant information. Procedurally, we fail to see the use of the checks and balances incorporated in the ‘Board Approval Process’ of Annex A-1 Section 6 of the Bylaws if it would be outside the GNSO Council’s remit to allow a modification to the Consensus Policy recommendation delivered by the EPDP Team. Section 6 of Annex A-1 of the Bylaws specifically provides: “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.” The IPC therefore believes it is in the GNSO Council’s remit to consult with the Board and modify a Consensus Policy Recommendation if such modification alleviates concerns raised in the Board Statement and is in the best interest of the ICANN community and ICANN. In accordance with the concern raised in the Board Statement, the IPC therefore believes that the “or delete the field contents” part (deletion option) of Recommendation #12 2) b) should be deleted. Best regards, Flip Flip Petillion fpetillion(a)petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law> +32484652653 www.petillion.law<http://www.petillion.law/> <image002.png><http://www.petillion.law/> Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats From: Flip Petillion <fpetillion(a)petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law>> Date: Monday, 29 July 2019 at 21:41 To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations Dear Keith, Dear All, Due to the vacation period, we will be able to send in the IPC comments later today or tomorrow morning my time. Sorry for the inconvenience. Best regards, Flip Flip Petillion fpetillion(a)petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law> +32484652653 www.petillion.law<http://www.petillion.law/> <image003.png><http://www.petillion.law/> Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 18:53 To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations We support the current draft of the letter and comments of Darcy. Also I'd like to underline , that the modification of the recommendations is for GNSO Council, not for the Board ,and that doing micro management of PDPs is not in the GNSO Council's role. Maxim Alzoba On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 22:44 Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> wrote: Thanks you, Keith. The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) agrees that it's outside the Council's remit to modify, or even suggest modification of, a consensus recommendation from a PDP working group and therefore objects to modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. The Council should seek to formalize the rationale provided to the Board in Marrakech and resubmit the consensus recommendation to the Board for approval. Therefore, RrSG supports the Council's letter to the Board as written regarding Recommendation 12. Regarding Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the EPDP Team and Board have been quite clear that further legal analysis is necessary to ensure Purpose 2 is drafted consistent with applicable laws. In its Final Report, the EPDP Team recommended Purpose 2 be further evaluated during phase 2 of the EPDP. In its resolution, the Board clearly instructed ICANN Org to engage the DPAs to accomplish the necessary legal analysis to perform the work. That legal analysis must be completed before the EPDP Team can even begin to consider how to revise Purpose 2. Further, it is not typical for the Council to instruct a PDP as to when it works on such specific tasks. It is up to the PDP Working Group, with its leadership and coordinating with ICANN staff, to prioritize its work. So far, the EPDP Team has prioritized the work related to the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, consistent with its Charter, and with the concerns of many of the GNSO Councilors. At this point, the RrSG sees no reason for the Council to intervene to reprioritize the Purpose 2 work ahead of the chartered work. Best, Darcy On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Hi Marie, Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during yesterday’s Council call. On your second point below, related to the Board’s treatment of Recommendation 12, I believe it is outside the Council’s remit to suggest, or even allow, a modification to the Consensus Policy recommendation delivered to us by the EPDP Team, and subsequently delivered by Council to the Board. In my view, it is the role of Council to now hold the Board accountable for its decision to not accept Rec 12 in full, and to call for the Board to accept it following the clarification they requested. I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion with our respective SGs and Cs, but that’s my current view. Best, Keith From: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM 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: [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations Hi Keith, Thanks for sharing the draft. I’m afraid I haven’t been able to discuss this much with our members yet (sorry) but on an initial reading, the BC does have some concerns. On your first point, on rec 1, while the first sentence is great, we have problems with the second. As you know from the comments we attached to Janis’ letter, we really need to give the EPDP Team a clear instruction to reword this and replace the placeholder language; I understand that it’s not on the Team’s roadmap right now. We really think that at a minimum, Council needs to tell the Team to do that and get it back ASAP for Board action. We all agree that the EPDP should deal with this, so we really do need a purpose 2 (for 3rd party access) for the Board to adopt. As for your 2nd para, on rec 12, we don’t agree that it should just be resubmitted as is. As you know, the BC really does think that as far as the ORG field goes, Rec 12 should be amended to remove the deletion option. There could always be an option of to allow the contracted parties to update any inaccuracies in the ORG field, as appropriate, if they need that. Looking forward to the discussion! Thanks Marie From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:49 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations Hi all, In preparation for our Council meeting this week, please review the attached draft letter to the ICANN Board concerning next steps on the two EPDP Phase 1 recommendations not accepted in full by the Board. As you will recall, we had a good conversation with the ICANN Board during our working session lunch, and we committed to following up on the issue. The draft letter is self-explanatory, and our goal is to ensure a common understanding between Council and Board before we take our formal action to request Board reconsideration on Recommendation 12. We want to avoid an ongoing back-and-forth on the issue, so our hope is this letter will pave the way to a clear resolution. Please review before our Council meeting. Thanks to Rafik and Pam for leading this work while I was on PTO. Best, Keith _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

8 14

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 22 August 2019
by Nathalie Peregrine 30 Aug '19

30 Aug '19

Dear Councilors, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting Thursday, 22 August 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 6th September 2019. Thank you very much. With kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by 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<https://features.icann.org/calendar>

2 2

Volunteer(s) needed! ICANN66 GNSO Informal Council dinner
by Nathalie Peregrine 30 Aug '19

30 Aug '19

Dear councilors, ICANN66 is fast approaching, and with that, as per tradition, the GNSO Informal Council dinner will need a councilor or councilors to sponsor the event. The dinner is scheduled to take place on Sunday 3rd November 2019 from 19:00 local time onwards. Staff is on hand of course to assist the councilor-sponsor with venue research, RSVP gathering and liaising with the selected venue once it is confirmed. Please let me know if you would like to take part in organizing this event, or are familiar with Montreal, you may have any venues to suggest. Thank you! Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO
by PAMELALITTLE 30 Aug '19

30 Aug '19

Hi Flip - Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. Dear Councilors, This item was on 22 August Council meeting agenda but was deferred to our next monthly meeting on 19 September. There are 5 recommendations under consideration and the small team's proposed response is as follows: #10 (initiating a PDP to create a privacy baseline across all registries) - No action at this time #16 (abuse and Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR)) - Redirect to ICANN org #27 & #28 - Refer to the RPM WG #29 be - Refer to Sub-pro WG It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to review the draft (attached again) and, if appropriate, seek input from your respective group by 13 September 2019. It would hopefully make our discussion during the Council meeting more efficient. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Flip Petillion <fpetillion(a)petillion.law> Sent At:2019 Aug. 20 (Tue.) 16:47 Recipient:PAMELALITTLE <pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com>; council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org>; council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc:"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <carlosraulg(a)gmail.com> Subject:Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO Thank you Pam I have no comments. Best regards, Flip Flip Petillion fpetillion(a)petillion.law +32484652653 www.petillion.law [signature_1247444843] Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Pam Little <pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com> Reply to: Pam Little <pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com> Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 02:42 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <carlosraulg(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO Dear Councilors, The small team would like to suggest some changes to the draft that was sent to the Council list late July: #16 on DAAR and DNS abuse - In light of the on-going conversations within the ICANN community, including a Plenary session on DNS Abuse to be held at ICANN66, we've made some suggested edits to the proposed Council response and new language to reflect this. #28 on cost-benefit analysis of TMCH - Staff recently clarified that the RPM WG did not carry out a cost-benefit analysis. While this was one of the specific Charter questions, Analysis Group's Final Report indicates that their data did not provide quantifiable information to include such analysis in its review. In light of this, we are suggesting a change to the proposed Council response: From: The GNSO Council will seek feedback/comment from the RPM WG whether its Phase 1 work has carried out a cost-benefit analysis consistent with the scope described in this Recommendation #28. To: The GNSO Council will refer this recommendation to the RPM WG. A redline version is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. We look forward to discussing this further at the upcoming Council meeting later this week. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:PAMELALITTLE <pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com> Sent At:2019 Jul. 23 (Tue.) 16:31 Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org>; council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc:"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <carlosraulg(a)gmail.com>; Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se>; Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> Subject:For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO Dear Councilors, You may recall that the Council discussed this topic during the wrap-up session in Marrakesh and the action item was for a small team (Carlos, Michele and myself) to take a look at the 5 Recommendations that were passed through to GNSO (see the message below from Larisa Gurnick forwarded by Mary to Council). In addition, a number of Recommendations were passed through to gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group. In order to have a better picture of where all the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its PDPs stand, Keith is planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their feedback. In the meantime, I attach an initial draft with the small team's proposed GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to the GNSO for your review and consideration. It is likely to be included in our August Council meeting agenda so please take some time to consider the proposed responses before the meeting. All feedback/comments/suggested edits are welcome! Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Sent At:2019 Jun. 10 (Mon.) 16:43 Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject:[council] Message regarding CCT-RT recommendations Dear Councilors, I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Larisa Gurnick, Vice-President in ICANN’s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department. You may recall that the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review Team’s (CCT-RT) final recommendations included several that were directed at the GNSO Council. This notification should provide you with additional information and context for the ICANN Board’s action in respect of those recommendations. Dear Members of the GNSO Council, The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, “recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action”: Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations; Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions; Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35). We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scor… which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to. Accordingly, ICANN org wishes to notify you of the recommendations the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your consideration: Recommendation 10. Recommendation 16 (in part) Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that “it is not accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider”. Recommendation 27. Recommendation 28. Recommendation 29. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, “should they choose to do so, defining the term ‘Global South’ or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org”. We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: “in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. […] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address”. As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to be “mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions”. Additionally,the Board suggests “to the referenced community groups that the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are being passed through […]”. Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for transparency purposes, “it would be helpful to have records or reporting made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations”. Please consider providing updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) these recommendations, to be included with ICANN org’s reporting. Background The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 – see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf. The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6. The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by the CCT-RT - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the Final report (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en) The Board’s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scor…. A blog post on the Board action can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-… for more context. We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. Please let us know whether you have any questions. Thank you. Best regards. Larisa Gurnick Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN

1 0

FYI: 29 August Update
by Michelle DeSmyter 29 Aug '19

29 Aug '19

FYI: [http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=677b34fc-dafa-46de-a5e5-c09365282dff&a=1122025…] Thursday, 29 August 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 · TOMORROW: Planning Assumptions for Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs · REMINDER: NextGen@ICANN Survey · REMINDER: Third Accountability and Transparency Review Survey Available for Community Input Information Sharing · NEW: Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model · NEW: CSC Findings on PTI Performance for July 2019 ICANN66 Planning · NEW: Save the Dates for ICANN66 Prep Week · REMINDER: Publication Support for ICANN66 · REMINDER: CROP Deadline for ICANN66 · SAVE THE DATE: ICANN66 Community Leadership Reception Public Comment · Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model Requests TOMORROW: Planning Assumptions for Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs Executive: Cyrus Namazi, Senior Vice President, Global Domains Division FOR: All Community Leaders REQUEST In December 2015, the GNSO initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) to determine if changes to existing policy recommendations are needed before the next round of gTLDs. The PDP Working Group expects to publish its final report with its recommendations by December 2019. These recommendations may lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, which ICANN org must implement and manage. In the course of our preparatory work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization. These are working assumptions informed by the current work of the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group. Depending on outcome of the PDP Working Group and community input, the assumptions may be updated. These assumptions have been shared with the ICANN Board, as well as the PDP Working Group and other parts of the community. ICANN org has held discussions and/or received input from the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, GAC, ALAC, and RSSAC. ICANN org plans to summarize the community input received on the operational planning assumptions and share with the ICANN Board at its September workshop. Any community input received by Friday, 30 August 2019 will be included in the summary. To submit additional feedback, please contact Trang Nguyen, trang.nguyen(a)icann.org REMINDER: NextGen@ICANN Survey Executive: Sally Costerton, Senior Adviser to President and Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement FOR: All Community Leaders REQUEST The ICANN organization is initiating a community consultation [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> to identify improvement opportunities for the NextGen@ICANN Program [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. The review will start with gathering community input via a survey about several aspects of the NextGen@ICANN Program, including its purpose, goals, processes, and synergies with the ICANN academic community. The survey [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> (PDF with background at the beginning and questionnaire questions at the end) is intended for all ICANN community groups; individuals are encouraged to work with their relevant Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, and constituencies. Responses are due Monday, 9 September 2019. Based on the input received from the survey, ICANN org will draft a proposal for program improvements that will be published for Public Comment. Once all feedback is received, ICANN org will prepare the final proposal for program improvements. Sally Costerton's blog about the NextGen@ICANN Community Consultation [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> REMINDER: Third Accountability and Transparency Review Survey Available for Community Input Executive: Theresa Swinehart, Senior Vice President, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives FOR: All Community Leaders REQUEST The third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) has published a survey for community input. The aim of this survey is to collect opinions from individuals and groups in the ICANN community on ICANN’s accountability and transparency, and to help the ATRT3 Review Team identify areas which require improvement and could benefit from a recommendation. The individual survey is available here: http://input.icann.org/go?iv=eupcis2ldyww The group survey (intended to capture group responses from ICANN community groups) is available here: http://input.icann.org/go?iv=3j46tfx0r5yzt Following the close of both surveys on Friday, 13 September 2019 at 23:59 UTC, the ATRT3 Review Team will evaluate responses as input to its draft final report. Information Sharing NEW: Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model Executive: Theresa Swinehart, Senior Vice President, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING A Public Comment proceeding [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> seeking input on the “Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>” launched on 27 August 2019. The proceeding will provide input for developing a work plan to address issues hampering the effectiveness and efficiency of ICANN’s multistakeholder model. To discuss the proceeding and next steps, the community is invited to participate in a webinar [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> on 11 September 2019 at 23:00 UTC or 12 September 2019 at 16:00 UTC. Brian Cute, the facilitator for Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model, is available to discuss this work with any ICANN community group at its convenience. To contact Brian, please send your request to the mailing list [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. NEW: CSC Findings on PTI Performance for July 2019 From: Byron Holland, CSC Chair FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING As chair of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC), I am providing you with our monthly findings on the performance of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) over July 2019 [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. I am pleased to inform you the CSC has concluded that PTI’s overall performance over July 2019 was again “Excellent” - PTI met the Service Level Agreement (SLA) at 100% for the month of July 2019. The related PTI report to the CSC, listing the individual service level metrics along with their actual and historical performance, can be found here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. I am also very pleased to inform you that after the conclusion of the Public Comment proceeding on the SLA for processing Label Generation Rules with respect to Internationalized Domain Name tables and publishing these tables, the CSC has agreed to the proposed changes. In accordance with the SLA change procedure, the next step is that CSC will request the Country Code Names Supporting Organization and the Generic Names Supporting Organization Councils to approve to the introduction of this SLA. The second SLA listed in the CSC Findings report, the country code top-level domain creation/transfer – validation and reviews: SLA amendments, is currently under development. BACKGROUND Generally, the CSC regular meeting is scheduled on or around the 15th every month, and the CSC findings report on the PTI performance is sent out shortly after that meeting. If you would like to be informed of upcoming meetings or receive CSC reports directly, you may want to subscribe to our announce list [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. Any comments on our reporting to you is welcome. The CSC became effective 1 October 2016. Background information on the committee along with transcripts of our meetings and other useful information can be found here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. ICANN66 Planning NEW: Save the Dates for ICANN66 Prep Week Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING ICANN66 Prep Week will take place 14-17 October 2019. This initiative aims to streamline the pre-ICANN Public Meeting experience to improve community preparation and increase awareness of plenary session topics. Stay tuned for an announcement with the full schedule and remote participation details. REMINDER: Publication Support for ICANN66 Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING Translation Deadline If your ICANN66 publication requires translation, please provide the final material(s) by Friday, 6 September 2019. This ensures that there is enough time to translate the publication by the print deadline. Print-Only Deadline If you only need your ICANN66 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, 20 September 2019. Please work directly with your Policy support staff to submit these requests to chantelle.doerksen(a)icann.org and liana.teo(a)icann.org. REMINDER: CROP Deadline for ICANN66 Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING For eligible groups planning to use Community Regional Outreach Program (CROP) funds to conduct outreach during ICANN66, requests must be submitted no later than Friday, 13 September 2019. No exceptions will be made. When submitting a CROP travel request, please keep in mind the following: · Trip requests must be approved by the respective community leadership team. · For FY20, the trip request must be filled in by the CROP participant via the CROP Wikispace. · In order to access the CROP Wikispace, applicants must first have an account; please let the CROP Coordinator know if an account is needed. · All individuals requesting CROP funding must also review the CROP Guidelines prior to submitting a request: https://community.icann.org/x/046jBg Please contact crop-staff(a)icann.org with any questions. SAVE THE DATE: ICANN66 Community Leadership Reception Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING The ICANN66 Community Leadership Reception with members of the ICANN Board and Executive Team will be held on Friday, 1 November 2019. More details including location and specific time will be shared later. Public Comment Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Monday, 14 October 2019 Volume 1, Issue 44 | Archive [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> | Next Issue: Monday, 2 September 2019 ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org [visitor.constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__visitor.constantcontac…> Update Profile [visitor.constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__visitor.constantcontac…> | About Constant Contact [constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constantcontact.com…> Sent by david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> in collaboration with [Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today.][constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constantcontact.com…> Try email marketing for free today! [constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constantcontact.com…>

1 0

FW: Request for appointment of co-chairs to the IANA Naming Function Review
by Drazek, Keith 28 Aug '19

28 Aug '19

Hi all, Please note the attached letter from ICANN Org requesting the ccNSO and GNSO appoint Co-Chairs for the IANA Naming Functions Review Team. Council leadership will be reaching out to the GNSO-appointed members to assess their respective levels of interest in taking on that role. Thanks, Keith From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:09 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>; Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>; gbunton(a)tucows.com; Harris, Anthony <harris(a)cabase.org.ar>; wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de; Brian(a)Winterfeldt.law; ed4coa(a)gmail.com; claudia.selli(a)att.com; bwanner(a)uscib.org; Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca>; Amy Creamer <amy.creamer(a)icann.org>; David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for appointment of co-chairs to the IANA Naming Function Review Dear Keith and Katrina, Please see attached letter requesting that the ccNSO and GNSO appoint co-chairs to the IANA Naming Function Review. Best, Trang

1 0

FW: EPDP Phase 1 Rec. 27 Work Plan
by Drazek, Keith 27 Aug '19

27 Aug '19

Hi all, For your information and review, I am forwarding the work plan developed by ICANN Org addressing EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 27 – the review of impacted policies, procedures and contractual provisions. This will also be shared with the EPDP Phase 1 IRT. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Best, Keith From: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz(a)icann.org> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 1:22 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>; Pam Little <pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com>; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>; Berry Cobb Mail <mail(a)berrycobb.com>; Dennis Chang <dennis.chang(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: EPDP Phase 1 Rec. 27 Discussion Hello Keith, Pam, Rafik, I wanted to share the attached draft work plan document which is based on the previous conversation we had about Rec. 27. Please let me know if I have captured this correctly, and if you have any additional input. If none, we will prepare to share with the Phase 1 IRT and would also anticipate sharing with the GNSO Council, Phase 2 team, and others. FYI, I am out of the office next week, but will pick this back up the week following and the rest of the team on cc is available in case of any issues. Best regards, Karen -- Karen Lentz Director, Operations & Policy Research ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles CA 90094 +1 310 895 3637 From: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz(a)icann.org<mailto:karen.lentz@icann.org>> Date: Monday, July 22, 2019 at 11:09 AM To: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>>, Berry Cobb <mail(a)berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>>, Keith' 'Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Pam Little <pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Subject: EPDP Phase 1 Rec. 27 Discussion We’ll use this time to review and align on plans for carrying out Recommendation 27 concerning updates to existing policies and procedures. Summary of the ICANN65 discussion is attached for reference. Meeting Info: https://icann.zoom.us/s/6696579280 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/argOCaEda Meeting ID: 669 657 9280

2 2