September 2019 - council - lists.icann.org

FOR DISCUSSION ONLY: Draft Addendum to RPM Charter
by Mary Wong 19 Sep '19

19 Sep '19

SENT ON BEHALF OF PAUL MCGRADY Dear Councilors, On behalf of Paul McGrady, who led the small team effort along with Martin Silva Valent and Elsa Saad to develop a draft amendment to the current Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group Charter, please find attached a proposed draft Addendum to the RPM Charter for your review and discussion on the upcoming Council call. The document has also been reviewed by Petter Rindforth, the Chair of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP Working Group. You will see some comments and yellow-highlighted text of some provisions that the Council may wish to discuss. Based on the small team’s understanding and the informal discussion that was held in Marrakech between several GNSO Councilors, GAC and IGO representatives, this draft document will also be sent to GAC leadership for their feedback, with the expectation that a final version can be voted on by the GNSO Council by/in Montreal. Thanks and cheers Mary & Steve (on behalf of Paul)

4 3

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#326]
by ICANN 19 Sep '19

19 Sep '19

1 0

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#325]
by ICANN 19 Sep '19

19 Sep '19

1 0

GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#324]
by ICANN 19 Sep '19

19 Sep '19

1 0

FYI: [ICANN Community Leaders] 19 September Update
by Terri Agnew 19 Sep '19

19 Sep '19

From: SO-AC-SG-CLeaders <so-ac-sg-cleaders-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Community Leadership Digest <david.olive(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "policyinfo(a)icann.org" <policyinfo(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 9:15 AM To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org" <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org> Subject: [ICANN Community Leaders] 19 September Update [http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=f1991ade-537d-48eb-a5bf-cdb8ea3d94d8&a=1122025…] Thursday, 19 September 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 Information Sharing · NEW: Invitation to Provide Feedback on the ICANN Board’s Proposed Public Interest Framework · NEW: Nominating Committee Review Detailed Implementation Plan ICANN66 Planning · NEW: ICANN66 Prep Week Schedule · NEW: Participate in Newcomers Day at ICANN66 · NEW: Support the ICANN Engagement Booth at ICANN66 · REMINDER: Publication Support for ICANN66 · SAVE THE DATE: ICANN66 Community Leadership Reception Public Comment · Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model · Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Accepted Recommendations – Plan for Implementation and Next Steps Information Sharing NEW: Invitation to Provide Feedback on the ICANN Board’s Proposed Public Interest Framework Executive: Sally Costerton, Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING From 18 September – 18 October 2019, a community consultation is taking place on the global public interest framework proposed by the ICANN Board. In reviewing the proposal, the ICANN Board is asking the ICANN community to consider the following questions for input to the ICANN Board: 1. What are your thoughts on the proposed framework approach? Do you have any suggestions for how it could be improved? 2. What are your thoughts on the proposed approach for decisions in the ICANN ecosystem to be accompanied by a consideration of their impact on the global public interest (as well as an explanation regarding what is meant by the GPI in the specific case)? 3. How do you see this working for the Supporting Organization (SO), Advisory Committee (AC), constituency, group, review team, or cross-community working group (CCWG) to which you are contributing? The global public interest is central to many of ICANN’s primary governance documents, and the ICANN Board hopes to play a role in facilitating a bottom-up, community-driven process to develop a framework as a toolkit for the ICANN community to consider the global public interest. These considerations would not change the process by which decisions are made but could instead serve as tools for the community to reinforce the commitment to the public interest and to demonstrate how specific recommendations, advice, and public comments are in the global public interest. This includes the ICANN community guiding the ICANN Board about the public interest determination the latter must make in its decisions. To learn more about the framework, please read the discussion paper [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. Community feedback is welcome by Friday, 18 October 2019 via email at gpitoolkit(a)icann.org. After the community consultation, there will be a public session at ICANN66, followed by a Public Comment proceeding. For more information, visit: https://go.icann.org/2kMb7RB. NEW: Nominating Committee Review Detailed Implementation Plan Executive: Theresa Swinehart, Senior Vice President, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING The Nominating Committee Review Implementation Working Party (NomComRIWG) has submitted a Detailed Implementation Plan [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> to the ICANN Board Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC). The OEC will review the detailed implementation plan and make its recommendation to the ICANN Board. ICANN Board action is expected during ICANN66. If the ICANN Board accepts the detailed implementation plan, implementation will start shortly after, with the NomComRIWG [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> overseeing the process per the ICANN Board resolution from 14 March [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. Implementation will require community input, including but not limited to Public Comment and possible changes to the ICANN Bylaws. The NomComRWIG expects the implementation of all 27 recommendations to last between 30 and 36 months with an impact on the NomCom and, by extension, the ICANN community. ICANN66 Planning NEW: ICANN66 Prep Week Schedule Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING On Monday, ICANN released the schedule for ICANN66 Prep Week, which features a series of seven webinars to prepare the community ahead of its Annual General Meeting in November. See the schedule and registration information [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. NEW: Participate in Newcomers Day at ICANN66 Executive: Sally Costerton, Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING The Public Responsibility Support team will be hosting Newcomers Day for ICANN66 on Sunday, 3 November 2019. Newcomers Day will feature two community sessions: Session 1: Supporting Organization Councils and Advisory Committees 10:00-12:20 (broken up into ten minute slots; e.g. 10:00-10:10, 10:10-10:20, etc.) Session 2: Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies 13:20-15:00 (broken up into ten minute slots; e.g. 13:20-13:30, 13:30-13:40, etc.) We would like to invite your community group to designate a representative to attend the relevant session. Your remarks should be focused toward the Newcomers and will be followed by a brief question and answer session. Together, this should not exceed 10 minutes. We will provide standard slides but you are welcome to send us any slides as well. We will share the deck once it is finalized. By Friday, 11 October 2019, please email deborah.escalera(a)icann.org with your designated representative(s). NEW: Support the ICANN Engagement Booth at ICANN66 Executive: Sally Costerton, Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING I know everyone is busy preparing for ICANN66, but I want to make you aware that you are welcome and encouraged to come and do outreach at the ICANN Engagement booth. The ICANN Engagement booth is in place so that Newcomers, ICANN org members, and ICANN community members to engage in discussions. It is supported by volunteers from the ICANN community, including members of Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. It would be beneficial to have the presence of seasoned ICANN community members to share their knowledge. We would like to offer one-hour slots during ICANN66. Sign up here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. Sincerely, Deborah Escalera REMINDER: Publication Support for ICANN66 Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING 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. 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 Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Accepted Recommendations – Plan for Implementation and Next Steps [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Monday, 21 October 2019 Volume 1, Issue 51 | Archive [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> | Next Issue: Monday, 23 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

IMPORTANT: 2020 Strategic Planning Session
by Drazek, Keith 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Hi all, Council Leadership and staff just met to kick off our planning for the January 2020 Strategic Planning Session in Los Angeles. We are planning for a cocktail reception on Tuesday night, and a full working day on Friday, including an afternoon meeting and drinks with the ICANN Board. As such, as you make your travel arrangements, plan your return trip to enable your participation, and full Council participation, with the ICANN Board. Thanks, Keith

1 0

**Updated** Final Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meeting - 19 September 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Dear all, Please find agenda modified below with updated URLs for the CCT draft and the IRP draft letter. The updates are highlighted below. Final Proposed Agenda 19 September 2019<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agen…> 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/MY-kBg This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf> v3.3, updated on 30 January 2018 For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. GNSO Council meeting held at 21:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y29q6mfl 16:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington; 22:00 London; (next day) 02:00 Islamabad; 06:00 Tokyo; 07:00 Melbourne GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream0<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…>1<http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________ Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 mins) 1.1 - Roll Call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/minutes/draft-minute…> of the GNSO Council meeting on the 18 July 2019 were posted on the 02 August 2019 Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/minutes/minutes-coun…> of the GNSO Council meeting on the 22 August 2019 were posted on the 6 September 2019 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 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 (0 minutes) * None Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Board referrals of CCT-RT recommendations to GNSO Council and GNSO PDP WGs (10 minutes) On 10 June 2019, ICANN org communicated to the GNSO Council that the ICANN Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 – see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en%20…> - 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). The Council was specifically invited to review to pages 1-4 of the scorecard https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scor…<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. The recommendations the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to the GNSO Council, in whole or in part, for its 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”. The Board noted in its resolution that: “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” A small group of Council volunteers reviewed the recommendations passed through to the GNSO Council as well as 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, the GNSO Chair is planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their feedback. An initial draft with the small team's proposed GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to the GNSO were circulated to the GNSO Council on 23 July for review and consideration with an updated version circulated on 30 August [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-…]. Here the Council will consider the initial draft and whether and how to coordinate with the PDP WGs to which recommendations were also passed through. 4.1 – Introduction of topic (Pam Little) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Next steps Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Policy Status Report and Council next steps (15 minutes) The Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) provides guidance to ICANN org and the community for implementing policy. However, there is minimal guidance in this document or in other documentation around the review of implemented policies adopted by the GNSO Council. In some cases, a review is explicitly mandated as an element of the PDP WG’s recommendations to the Council, but in some cases, the recommendations are silent in this respect. ICANN org, in consultation with the Council, prepared a draft framework<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/post-implementation-policy-review-framewor…> on the approach for post-implementation reviews of Council adopted policy recommendations. The framework provides guidance on a number of questions (e.g., When should a review be initiated when there is no PDP recommendation to do so? What triggers should initiate a review? What are the expected outcomes of the review? Etc.). During its 26 April 2018 meeting, the Council agreed to have ICANN org conduct a review of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP). ICANN org utilized the draft framework for conducting the post-implementation review of the IRTP. On 14 November 2018, ICANN org published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/irtp-status-2018-11-14-en> the IRTP Policy Status Report for public comment. ICANN org has worked to integrate elements identified in public comment and on 22 April 2019, shared a Revised Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Status Report<https://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-status-22apr19-en.pdf>. As noted in the report, there are no prescribed next steps once the Council is in receipt of the report. As such, here, the Council will discuss possible next steps for the Transfer Policy taking into account the Transfer Policy Review briefing document<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draf…> prepared by staff and the recent feedback from the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) regarding its suggested approach. 5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 – Next Steps Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Draft Amendments to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Charter to Integrate Recommendation 5 From IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report (15 minutes) On 18 April 2019, the Council voted<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+April+20…> to approve recommendations 1-4 of Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG. The Council also resolved to not approve Recommendation 5 and, ” directs the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDP to consider, as part of its Phase 2 work, whether an appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent with Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report and: * accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances; * does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction; * preserves registrants’ rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and * recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.” The GNSO Council resolved also to, “amend the charter for the RPMs PDP Working Group to reflect this new instruction accordingly.” Some members of the GNSO Council met with certain members of the GAC and IGOs at ICANN65, where there appeared to be agreement from the GAC/IGOs to support the chartering of this separate work. A small team of Councilors was convened to prepare draft amendments<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpms-char…> to the RPMs PDP charter, which was shared with the Council on 10 September 2019. Here, the Council will discuss the draft, but take no action at this time. Consultation with the GAC/IGOs is still required before a motion can be submitted. 6.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership / Small team) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next Steps Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Org’s Request for Clarification on Data Accuracy and Phase-2 of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (10 minutes) On 21 June 2019, the GNSO Council received a letter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/marby-to-…> from ICANN Org, which was seeking a better understanding of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Team’s plans “to consider the subject of "data accuracy" as it relates to gTLD registration data and related services, such as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System (ARS)<https://whois.icann.org/en/whoisars>.” Further, “ICANN org notes that footnote #6 on page 7 of the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report states: “The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System.” However, it is not clear who would consider this topic and when. Therefore, ICANN org seeks the GNSO Council’s clarification on whether the Phase 2 EPDP Team will be considering the subject of data accuracy, including projects that utilize gTLD registration data, such as WHOIS ARS.” The GNSO Council prepared a response to acknowledge the letter reception. However, the Council still needs to prepare its substantive input to the request from ICANN org. A small team has been working on that substantive response and will provide their initial thoughts on the key themes to be contained in the response. Here, the small team will lead a discussion on the themes of the substantive response. 7.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership / small team) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - EPDP P1 Recommendation 27: ICANN Org’s Assessment of Impact From GDPR on Existing Policies / Procedures (15 minutes) In the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process Team Phase 1 (EPDP P1) Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld…>, recommendation #27 asked that during the implementation of the policy recommendations, existing policies / procedures be made consistent with the changes to required data elements. ICANN org prepared a draft work plan to address EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 27, which was shared<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2019-August/022994.html> with the GNSO Council and IRT on 27 August. Here, the Council will receive an update from ICANN Org on the status of its implementation work to date on this recommendation. 8.1 – Introduction of topic (ICANN org - Karen Lentz) 8.2 – Council discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - PDP 3.0 Small Group Update/Discussion (10 minutes) In advance of the 22 August 2019 GNSO Council meeting, the PDP 3.0 Small Team completed five (5) out of fourteen (14) PDP 3.0 improvements, provided an update, and requested feedback by 13 September 2019. Work continued on the rest of the nine (9) improvements in the pipeline, which are at various levels of progress. While a number of improvements are nearing completion, they are not yet at a point where they are ready for Council review. The PDP 3.0 small group has prepared a work plan that covers items leading up to ICANN66, as well as additional elements needed to complete the project. The PDP 3.0 small group is expected to provide a factual update of the work to date to the public comment period for the Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/multistakeholder-model-next-steps-201…>. Given the connections between the topics, the PDP 3.0 small group believes that it is in a good position to provide that update. Here, the Council will receive an update on progress made to date and the work plan to complete the PDP 3.0 implementation. 9.1 - Introduction of topic (Rafik Dammak) 9.2 - Council discussion 9.3 - Next steps Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Draft Response to the Verisign Request to Defer Enforcement of the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy (10 minutes) On 29 July 2019, Verisign wrote<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/kane-to-namazi-29jul19…> to ICANN org again requesting an extension to the current implementation plan for the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy by one year. The ICANN Board wrote<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-t…> to the GNSO Council, asking for the Council’s views on whether it believes the request should be granted. The ICANN Board requested response during or immediately following the GNSO Council meeting on 19 September. A draft response<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2019-September/023022.html> was circulated on 6 September, which notes the expected policy work related to the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy, but also notes that the request for deferral is from an ICANN Contracted Party and is not a matter of policy development. Here, the Council will discuss the draft and the underlying conclusions and rationale. 10.1 - Introduction of topic (Rafik Dammak and Pam Little) 10.2 - Council discussion 10.3 - Next steps Item 11: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Draft Response to Questions on the Independent Review Process Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) (10 minutes) On 09 May 2019, ICANN org published a Call to Action for the Independent Review Process Standing Panel, which was intended to help the Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) in its critical role of implementing the updated IRP. ICANN org published a series of questions, posed to the various Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, seeking input to pending issues. The GNSO convened a small team, tasked with preparing a draft response<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/drazek-et…> on behalf of the Council. Here, the small team will seek feedback from the Council on its draft response. 11.1 - Introduction of topic (Small Team) 11.2 - Council discussion 11.3 - Next steps Item 12: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes) 12.1 - Draft GNSO Council letter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-coun…> to the ICANN Board regarding potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. 12.2 - Approval of the 2019 slate of Members and Liaisons on the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - possible email vote

2 1

Global Public Interest Framework Webinar
by Pam Little 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Change of subject line to avoid confusion. Indeed, it seems timely to raise the topic of public interest in the letter from the Council to the Board. However, I do have two concerns over this Global Stakeholder Engagement effort: Overall timeline: This is a highly complex topic so a barely 6-month timeline to finalise this work seems over-ambitious to me, considering the community is already stretched thin with the three major ongoing PDPs, PDP3.0, Evolving ICANN's Governance Model, ATRT3, etc. Timing of the webinar: Could staff please confirm whether there will only be one webinar scheduled for Tuesday, 17 September 2019 at 15:00 UTC and only community leaders are invited to such webinar. If so, it seems odd that a webinar on Global Public Interest Framework is scheduled at a time that disadvantages those from the APAC time zones. I would urge ICANN org to consider hosting two webinars (one of which at a time slot that is APAC region friendly) with both open to all community members. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Elsa S <elsa.saade(a)gmail.com> Sent At:2019 Sep. 6 (Fri.) 14:33 Recipient:"Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Cc:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>; council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject:Re: [council] FW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations I guess it is the best time to highlight the subject! Thank you for sharing Marika. Best, Elsa — On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:39 PM Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> wrote: Thanks Marika! On Sep 5, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: In light of Elsa’s comments, you may be particularly interested in the following announcement from the Leadership Digest: NEW: Global Public Interest Framework Webinar Executive: Sally Costerton, Senior Adviser to President and Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING You are invited to attend a webinar to learn more about one of the ICANN Board’s operational priorities: the public interest. The global public interest is central to many of ICANN’s primary governance documents, and the ICANN Board hopes to play a role in facilitating a bottom-up, community-driven process to develop a framework as a toolkit for the ICANN community to consider the global public interest. These considerations would not change the process by which decisions are made but could instead serve as tools for the community to reinforce the commitment to the public interest and to demonstrate how specific recommendations, advice, and public comments are in the global public interest. This includes the ICANN community guiding the ICANN Board about the public interest determination the latter must make in its decisions. To learn more about the framework, please read the discussion paper [r20.rs6.net]. The Global Public Interest Framework Webinar has been scheduled for Tuesday, 17 September 2019 at 15:00 UTC. To join the webinar, please visit https://icann.zoom.us/j/288558444 Zoom call details Meeting ID: 288 558 444 Find your local number [r20.rs6.net] Time zone converter [r20.rs6.net] Best regards, Marika From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Elsa S <elsa.saade(a)gmail.com> Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 at 10:30 To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations Hi Keith and all, Thank you for the edits. I apologize that I haven't had the chance to incorporate this into the document in a new redlined version, but here is my suggested language about Global Public Interest, I'd be happy to review any amendments: We are aware that one of ICANN's core values is to ascertain the global public interest through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes (1.2(b)(ii) of ICANN's bylaws). However, as the term Global Public Interest is not in the bylaw language for PDPs such as in Section 9a of Annex A of the GNSO Policy Development Process, whereby: "Any PDP Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN" and given that the board has invoked global public interest (or public interest) a number of times in its resolution as the basis of its decision regarding the EPDP phase 1 policy recommendations, the council is concerned with the use of the terms, particularly "Global Public Interest", in the board's letter to the council on EPDP Phase 1. It is important that when invoking public interest generally, that the Board be specific about the material effect that the recommendation has on public interest. Invoking GAC advice is not on its own sufficient. It is also important that when the term Global Public Interest is used, there should be a rationale as to why it is being used instead of the PDP bylaw language. The council is generally concerned about the process that the Board has used to assess the effect of the recommendations on global public interest and would be happy to have a bigger conversation on the issue going forward. Happy to follow up, Elsa -- On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:21 AM Drazek, Keith via council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> wrote: Hi all, Final reminder on this letter. We will send at 2000 UTC. Thanks, Keith From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:48 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations Hi all, Thanks to Darcy, Marie and Tatiana for their continued input on this letter. I have incorporated most of the suggested edits and added the SG/C information we discussed on 22 August and mentioned below. Attached are clean and redlined versions for your review. Please look these over and send me any final comments by this Friday at 2000 UTC. We need to wrap this up and get it sent. Thanks, Keith From: Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina(a)gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:16 PM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be> Cc: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com>; Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>; council(a)gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations Dear all, during the call, it was agreed that in the bullet point two we could add which constituencies/SGs supported which position - maybe as a footnote? I don't have any language suggested because I wanted to ask Terri or Nathalie for help to get the "headcount" in the footnote right so I won't make any mistakes. Would this be possible? If there are any alternative suggestions to the footnote, I can propose the text, of course. Warm regards, Tanya On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 19:06, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be> wrote: Hi all, Following from Darcy’s mail below, please find the suggested amendments from the BC in the attached. Best to all, Marie From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:08 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>; council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations In follow up to my email below and today's Council discussion, please find my proposed edits to section 2 attached. Thanks, Darcy On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:13 AM Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com> wrote: Thanks, all, for preparing this. I’m struggling a bit with section 2. I agree we’ve characterized Council’s position accurately in section 2. But the rest seems confusing. Did we already provide the Board with the written explanation of what was discussed in Marrakech? If not, we should consider explaining that it’s provided now and then be more specific in our ask to the Board. Thanks, Darcy From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> Date: Friday, August 16, 2019 at 8:35 AM To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations Keith and Co Thanks for your work on this. I think it captures pretty accurately where we are at Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ [blacknight.com] https://blacknight.blog/ [blacknight.blog] Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ [michele.blog] Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ [ceo.hosting] ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Drazek, Keith via council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Reply to: Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Date: Thursday 15 August 2019 at 17:59 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations 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: Ensure the Council is proceeding as expected under Annex A-1 Section 6 of the ICANN Bylaws. Create a record of the Council-Board engagement in Marrakech. Advise the Board of the Council’s current thinking around Recommendation #1, Purpose 2 and Recommendation #12. Seek further input from the Board, and ideally confirm a common understanding or more clearly understand any difference of opinion. 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> 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 +32484652653 www.petillion.law [petillion.law] <image001.png> [petillion.law] Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br> Date: Tuesday, 30 July 2019 at 13:22 To: Flip Petillion <fpetillion(a)petillion.law> Cc: Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)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> 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. 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. 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 +32484652653 www.petillion.law [petillion.law] <image001.png> [petillion.law] Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats From: Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com> Reply to: Ayden Férdeline <icann(a)ferdeline.com> Date: Tuesday, 30 July 2019 at 00:41 To: Flip Petillion <fpetillion(a)petillion.law> Cc: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)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> 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 +32484652653 www.petillion.law [petillion.law] <image002.png> [petillion.law] Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats From: Flip Petillion <fpetillion(a)petillion.law> Date: Monday, 29 July 2019 at 21:41 To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)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 +32484652653 www.petillion.law [petillion.law] <image003.png> [petillion.law] Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com> Date: Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 18:53 To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)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> 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> 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> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org; council(a)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-- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade

3 3

FYI: 16 September Update
by Michelle DeSmyter 16 Sep '19

16 Sep '19

FYI: [http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=ba6fe1f3-e823-497a-83b0-266f801ffcb3&a=1122025…] Monday, 16 September 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 Information Sharing · ICANN Board Leadership Slate · THIS WEEK: Global Public Interest Framework Webinars ICANN66 Planning · THIS WEEK: Publication Support for ICANN66 · SAVE THE DATES: ICANN66 Prep Week · SAVE THE DATE: ICANN66 Community Leadership Reception Public Comment · Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model · Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Accepted Recommendations – Plan for Implementation and Next Steps Information Sharing ICANN Board Leadership Slate Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING Please read the blog post [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> by ICANN Board Chair Cherine Chalaby about the selection of Maarten Botterman as the next ICANN Board Chair and Léon Felipe Sánchez Ambia as the next ICANN Board Vice Chair. THIS WEEK: Global Public Interest Framework Webinars Executive: Sally Costerton, Senior Adviser to President and Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING The global public interest is central to many of ICANN’s primary governance documents, and the ICANN Board hopes to play a role in facilitating a bottom-up, community-driven process to develop a framework as a toolkit for the ICANN community to consider the global public interest. These considerations would not change the process by which decisions are made but could instead serve as tools for the community to reinforce the commitment to the public interest and to demonstrate how specific recommendations, advice, and public comments are in the global public interest. This includes the ICANN community guiding the ICANN Board about the public interest determination the latter must make in its decisions. To learn more about the framework, please read the discussion paper (PDF) [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> and for more information, visit the wiki [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…>. Two Global Public Interest Framework webinars have been scheduled. The information will be the same in both webinars. Following the webinars, there will be a community consultation to gather community input on the proposed framework. The consultation will run from Wednesday, 18 September 2019 to Friday, 18 October 2019. Community feedback is welcome via email at gpitoolkit(a)icann.org<mailto:gpitoolkit@icann.org>. Webinar #1 Tuesday, 17 September 2019 15:00 UTC Remote Participation: https://icann.zoom.us/j/288558444 [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Meeting ID: 288 558 444 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/abhtJZkRdd [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Webinar #2 Thursday, 19 September 2019 03:00 UTC Remote Participation: https://icann.zoom.us/j/532026397 [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Meeting ID: 532 026 397 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/abhtJZkRdd [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> ICANN66 Planning THIS WEEK: Publication Support for ICANN66 Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING 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. SAVE THE DATES: 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. 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 Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Accepted Recommendations – Plan for Implementation and Next Steps [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> Close Date: Monday, 21 October 2019 Volume 1, Issue 50 | Archive [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-…> | Next Issue: Thursday, 19 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

PLEASE SHARE: ICANN66 Prep Week Announcement
by Terri Agnew 16 Sep '19

16 Sep '19

Dear all, Please find the ICANN66 Prep Week announcement published on the ICANN website below. This includes the link to register for Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update Webinar along with six other webinars scheduled that week. Please share it with your groups and mailing lists as appropriate. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-09-16-en Kind regards, Terri Register for ICANN66 Prep Week Webinars LOS ANGELES – 16 September 2019 – Today, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) released the schedule for ICANN66 Prep Week, which features a series of seven webinars to prepare the community ahead of its Annual General Meeting in November. To attend any of the below webinars, please register here<http://go.icann.org/prepweeksignup> by 11 October to receive joining instructions. You may also submit questions during the registration process. All registered attendees will receive participation details days before the webinar dates. ICANN66 Prep Week Webinars Schedule Monday, 14 October 2019 16:00 UTC | Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Update: What to Expect at ICANN66 Tuesday, 15 October 2019 16:00 UTC | ICANN66 Plenary Session: DNS Abuse 23:00 UTC | Pre-ICANN66 Contractual Compliance Update Wednesday, 16 October 2019 16:00 UTC | ICANN66 Plenary Session: Evolution of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model 23:00 UTC | Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Update Thursday, 17 October 2019 12:00 UTC | Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Update 16:00 UTC | Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update All webinars be in English. Materials from the Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update will also be available in French. Recordings and materials will be posted here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/montreal66-prep-week>. Prep Week was established to help streamline the pre-meeting experience, as well as increase awareness of plenary topics, foster deeper conversations and enhance briefings and readout sessions.

1 0