January 2021 - council - lists.icann.org

Recordings, attendance & Zoom chat | GNSO Council meeting | Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 19:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Jan. 21, 2021

Jan. 21, 2021

Dear all, Please find below the audio recording, zoom recording (audio, visual, rough transcript) and chat of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday, 21 January 2021 at 19:00 UTC. Audio only: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/NcNlD-m9xBLVWSlyxDBTWsJAFpKVAhkz3q9MD6uqNP4d… Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab): https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/Y2RWkHG3AA-BUHfI6gFHneE_bnBx-yjlgg25H4HWTTO… Zoom chat: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/sdownload/kPyhSrc8cl7DDBCZ-oIJjyGw-PKNp2esvZzEtgU… The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar With kind regards, Terri

1 0

GNSO Council Absence Notification Form: Manjul
by GNSO Council via ICANN Jan. 21, 2021

Jan. 21, 2021

#submission { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; } #submission td, #submission th { border: 1px solid #ddd; padding: 8px; text-align: left; } Full Name of Officer: Manjeet Bhatkar Officer Email Address: manjeet.bhatkar(a)icann.org Date Prepared: 18 December 2021 GNSO Organization: Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: Sr. Manager Name of Absent Councilor: Manjul Voting Remedy: Proxy Proxy Information Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: test reason for leading to the remedy Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: test specified subject Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: 1 January 2023 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. No Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). Yes Full Name of GNSO Councilor Serving as Voting Proxy: Prachi Temporary Alternate Information Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: Full Name of Councilor's Temporary Alternate: [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. Temporary Alternate Email Address: Voting Direction Information Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). By submitting my personal data, I agree that my personal data will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy [1], and agree to abide by the website Terms of Service [2]. I Agree [1] https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [2] https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos

1 0

FW: [Ext] Thursday, 21 January 2021
by Julie Bisland Jan. 21, 2021

Jan. 21, 2021

FYI: From: ICANN Community Leadership Digest <david.olive(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "policyinfo(a)icann.org" <policyinfo(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 9:01 AM To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Thursday, 21 January 2021 [http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=38c01501-cf93-4f5f-95ca-0ff1764ad974&a=1122025…] Thursday, 21 January 2021 ICANN Community Leadership Digest [https://files.constantcontact.com/304b3fd3501/31f30ab5-1445-45c3-aef7-c0ea4…] The ICANN org Policy Development Support function publishes this twice-weekly digest to help ICANN community leaders track requests and follow updates. Table of Contents Information Sharing · NEW: Stakeholder Assembly about ICANN's Perspectives on EU Digital Initiatives · DUE TOMORROW: Revised Operational Design Phase Concept Paper · NEXT WEEK: Request for Community Selection Panel Participants – 2021 Community Excellence Award Program · NEXT WEEK: FY22 Additional Budget Requests Due Friday, 29 January 2021 · REMINDER: Call for SOs/ACs to Nominate Fellowship Program Mentors and Selection Committee Members · REMINDER: Volunteers Needed for Advisory Group on ICANN's North America Stakeholder Engagement Plan · REMINDER: ICANN Continues the Pandemic Internet Access Reimbursement Program · REMINDER: Nomination Period for the ICANN Community Excellence Award Now Open Public Comment · NEXT WEEK: Priority 2 Policy Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration from EPDP Phase 2 · Draft FY22-26 Operating & Financial Plan and Draft FY22 Operating Plan & Budget Information Sharing NEW: Stakeholder Assembly about ICANN's Perspectives on EU Digital Initiatives From: Sally Costerton, Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement An ICANN European regional stakeholder assembly will present ICANN org reflections [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…> on current European Union (EU) initiatives on Wednesday, 27 January, 15:00-16:00 UTC. This interactive webinar is open to all who register and will provide an overview of areas where EU legislative and regulatory initiatives make mention of, or potentially affect, the Domain Name System. We will present potential impacts on the ICANN mission and technical remit; and invite discussion on how various members of the broader ICANN community and ICANN policy development may be affected. Wednesday, 27 January, 2021,15:00 - 16:00 UTC Register [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…> Learn more. [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…> DUE TOMORROW: Revised Operational Design Phase Concept Paper From: Theresa Swinehart, Senior Vice President, Global Domains & Strategy ICANN org has shared a revised version of the Operational Design Phase Concept Paper [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…>. The new version follows community consultation during ICANN69, including written feedback by a number of community groups. The concept paper proposes an Operational Design Phase (ODP) that is to become part of the policy and implementation life cycle. The ICANN organization will conduct the ODP for consensus policy recommendations that are approved by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council. The purpose of the ODP is to provide the Board with relevant information to decide, as required by the Bylaws, whether a recommendation is in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN. Please provide your input by Friday, 22 January 2021, to mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>. NEXT WEEK: Request for Community Selection Panel Participants – 2021 ICANN Community Excellence Award Program From: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support On 1 December 2020, Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee chairs received an email request to provide up to two members from their respective group to help choose the recipient of the 2021 ICANN Community Excellence Award. The deadline to provide names to david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> is Monday, 25 January 2021. The 2021 ICANN Community Excellence Award will be presented during ICANN71 in June 2021. A community selection panel will be formed to review the nominations and select the award recipient. Ideally, panelists will serve a maximum of two consecutive terms on the selection panel to ensure diversity and equal opportunity among community members. The time commitment for the selection panel includes weekly one-hour calls between the end of March through June 2021. NEXT WEEK: FY22 Additional Budget Requests Due Friday, 29 January 2021 ICANN org has launched the FY22 Additional Budget Request process. This process pertains to a dedicated part of the overall ICANN annual budget that is set aside to fund specific requests from the community for activities that are not already included in the recurring ICANN budget. Submissions are due on Friday, 29 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to planning(a)icann.org<mailto:planning@icann.org>. Learn more [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…>. REMINDER: Call for SOs/ACs to Nominate Fellowship Program Mentors and Selection Committee Members From: Sally Costerton, Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement ICANN has announced [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…> a call for nominees to volunteer to serve as mentors to the Fellowship Program and as members to its Selection Committee. There will be a total of seven mentors and seven Selection Committee members, and each group is welcome to nominate one individual for each role. Interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees should select their respective Fellowship Program mentor and Selection Committee representative by Sunday, 31 January 2021 and notify fellowshipconsultation(a)icann.org<mailto:fellowshipconsultation@icann.org>. Individual self-nominations will not be considered. Criteria for mentors and Selection Committee members can be found here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…>. REMINDER: Volunteers Needed for Advisory Group on ICANN's North America Stakeholder Engagement Plan From: Naela Sarras, Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement, North America Community members are invited to join a short-term regional advisory group, that will help advise the GSE North America team on the development of the next iteration of the North America Stakeholder Engagement Plan. This effort seeks community input to enhance the important work of stakeholder engagement across North America by actively soliciting input into ICANN policy and work processes. This advisory group will be time-limited (February - May 2021), will include two webinars, and be directed toward answering specific questions. With help from the community, the team hopes to surface implementable ideas with measurable impact to enhance engagement. Kindly send your reply with one or two named volunteers for this activity by Friday, 12 February 2021. Please send your reply to naela.sarras(a)icann.org<mailto:naela.sarras@icann.org> and joe.catapano(a)icann.org<mailto:joe.catapano@icann.org>. REMINDER: ICANN Continues the Pandemic Internet Access Reimbursement Program Interested community members must apply in advance of ICANN70, and those who meet the eligibility requirements will be selected to participate. The application deadline is Friday, 5 March 2021 at 23:59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). The application process will open 8 February 2021 and program details are available here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…>. The goal of this program is to facilitate participation in ICANN Public Meetings during this global pandemic. It offers community members who have limited Internet capacity financial assistance to increase their Internet bandwidth. Learn more. [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…> REMINDER: Nomination Period for the ICANN Community Excellence Award Now Open From: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support The nomination period for the ICANN Community Excellence Award 2020 is now open. The deadline for submissions is Monday, 29 March 2021, and the winner(s) will be announced during ICANN71. The ICANN Community Excellence Award recognizes ICANN community members who substantively contribute to policymaking within the ICANN ecosystem and who are deeply invested in developing consensus-based solutions within ICANN’s multistakeholder model. Learn more about the nomination process [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…> and submit your nominations here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…>. Public Comment NEXT WEEK: Priority 2 Policy Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration from EPDP Phase 2 [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…> Close Date: Friday, 22 January 2021 Draft FY22-26 Operating & Financial Plan and Draft FY22 Operating Plan & Budget [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…> Close Date: Monday, 15 February 2021 Volume 3, Issue 6 | Archive [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NkucnzOa5fOvLaTWs…> | Next Issue: Monday, 25 January 2021

1 0

Doodle poll: GNSO Council Development Session
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 20, 2021

Jan. 20, 2021

Dear councilors, Following the GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session held in December 2020, the GNSO Council Development session will take place early February 2021 in the form of a 90 min virtual break-out room session. We are offering two different times to accommodate Council time zones. Please therefore complete the below Doodle with at least one slot which you would be able to make. Doodle poll: https://doodle.com/poll/hwtsgxcf87fdncub?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link Thank you! Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
by Emily Barabas Jan. 20, 2021

Jan. 20, 2021

Dear Councilors, Please find attached the Final Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, which will be discussed under agenda item 6 of the 21 January GNSO Council meeting. Below, you will find a message from the Working Group Co-Chairs regarding the Final Report. Kind regards, Emily Dear Council Members, The Working Group for the PDP on Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs (SubPro) proudly submits its Final Report to the GNSO Council for consideration. We are happy to report that all but one of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus. Annex C of the Final Report provides further detail about the Consensus designations for specific outputs under each topic. Within each of the outputs within the topics that received less than Full Consensus, to the extent there were more than one Output for that Topic, the table in Annex C sets forth those outputs within the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus. For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is “Consensus.” That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 had “Full Consensus”, but Output 2.3 had Consensus. The PDP Working Group Leadership would like to draw the Council’s attention to a few of the items which may require future thought and/or discussion. 1. Mitigating DNS Abuse. As you are aware, by Letter dated 27 April 2020, the SubPro PDP Working Group referred the issue of DNS Abuse in all gTLDs back to the GNSO Council. As stated in that letter, and repeated in Recommendation 9.15, the Working Group acknowledges ongoing important work in the community on the topic of DNS abuse and believes that a holistic solution is needed to account for DNS abuse in all gTLDs as opposed to dealing with these recommendations with respect to only the introduction of subsequent new gTLDs. In addition, recommending new requirements that would only apply to the new gTLDs added to the root in subsequent rounds could result in singling out those new gTLDs for disparate treatment in contravention of the ICANN Bylaws. Therefore, this PDP Working Group is not making any recommendations with respect to mitigating domain name abuse other than stating that any such future effort must apply to both existing and new gTLDs (and potentially ccTLDs). 1. Closed Generics. The Working Group had “Full Consensus” on the fact that we were unable to come to an agreement on what, if anything, should be done with respect to Closed Generics in subsequent rounds (see Topic 23). This topic was debated for may hours, was the subject of several requests for comments by the community, and had multiple proposals that were discussed, debated and ultimately dismissed. The fact is that there are compelling arguments both for and against allowing them in subsequent rounds, and no right or wrong answer. The Working Group believes that if this issue were to be considered in future policy work, it should also involve experts in the areas of competition law, public policy, and economics. In addition, it should be performed by those in the community that are not associated with any past, present, or expectations of future work in connection with new gTLD applications or objections to new gTLD applications. Absent such independence, any future work is unlikely to result in an outcome any different than the one achieved in this Working Group. 1. Public Interest Commitments / Registry Voluntary Commitments. Although the substantive proposals in Topic 9 garnered Consensus regarding PICs and RVCs, the ICANN Board raised some questions in its comments to the Draft Final Report about whether requiring PICs/RVCs in subsequent rounds (other than those that were grandfathered) are in line with the 2016 ICANN Bylaws. This issue, we believe, is not one that can be answered by a PDP Working Group, but rather by the ICANN Board itself with input from the entire community. Therefore, those recommendations should be read in a manner that assumes that in fact PICs and RVCs can be implemented in the contracts and enforced by ICANN. There is some discussion of this in Topic 9, and proposed ways to implement those PICs/RVCs in a manner that we believe would be compliant, but this may need further discussion within the community as a whole (Not in a PDP). If for any reason the PIC/RVC Recommendations cannot be implemented with the current Bylaws, the community may either want to engage in a discussion to revise the Bylaws, or alternatively, revise the recommendations to ensure that they are enforceable. 1. Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets. Topic 35 was the only topic to receive the overall designation of Strong Support but Significant Opposition. * Although many of the elements in those recommendations did get Consensus support, there was not consensus on: (a) whether the auctions of last resort should be done as a sealed bid auction where bids are submitted towards the beginning of the process, or (b) whether private auctions should be allowed to resolve contention sets. * There was consensus on allowing other forms of private resolution, such as combining applications, creating new ventures, etc. * But there was no consensus on whether private auctions, where each losing applicant splits the proceeds from the winning bid, should continue to be allowed in subsequent rounds. Our plan is to hold a webinar for the Council and community to attend to discuss these matters further. The webinar will be held prior to the February Council meeting. On behalf of the entire Working Group, we would like to thank the 200+ members of the group for the thousands of hours of meetings, Adobe Connect and Zoom Calls, and In-Person meetings over these past four to five years. We also want to thank not just all of the Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups that actively participated, but also the ALAC and GAC for all of their input, dedication and support. Finally, we could not have done this without the support and expertise or Steve, Julie and Emily from ICANN Org. Sincerely, Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr SubPro PDP Chairs Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

2 3

update: GNSO Council small team on GNSO next steps to implement WS2 recommendations
by Tatiana Tropina Jan. 20, 2021

Jan. 20, 2021

Dear Councillors, as some of you might remember, there was an agenda item on WS2 implementation update at our last meeting in 2020. For the Council meeting in January, we have a pretty packed agenda. Therefore, the leadership decided to update you on the WS2 small team's work (in the context of the broader community work on this) via email. We will get back to this topic in the next meetings. For now, I would like to share the updates (below). Please let me know if you have any questions -- happy to answer. The small team of GNSO Councillors had a task to go through the WS2 recommendations and (1) see which recommendations concern the GNSO Council's remit and (2) prioritise them. You can see the result of this work -- a big Table with prioritisation -- attached to this email as a PDF document. The group considers the following recommendations important for the GNSO Council in the next steps to implement WS2 recommendations: *Topic 2. Guidelines for Standards of Conduct Presumed to be in Good Faith Associated with Exercising Removal of Individual ICANN Board Directors* *Relevance to the GNSO Council:* partially relevant. *Priority:* high. *Suggested action: *we decided to follow up with drafters of previous GNSO guidelines to see what has been addressed already and whether the existing GNSO Guidelines on Bylaw obligations as a Decisional Participant provide sufficient flexibility to satisfy WS2 rec 2.1.2. Heather Forrest, who chaired the group, which drafted the existing guidelines, believes that there is no need to update the Guidelines in the intermediate terms because they are not in conflict with the WS2 requirements and there is nothing preventing the applicant of the Guidelines from satisfying the WS2 requirements when following the process as outlined in the Guidelines. However, in the long term, it might be beneficial to make an explicit reference to the additional requirements of WS2; these WS2 recommendations can be included in the list of items for consideration if/when the Council decides to launch the review of these Guidelines. *Topic 3. Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights * *Relevance to the GNSO Council:* fully relevant. *Priority: *medium to high *Suggested action: *the prioritization level of implementing this recommendation is to be discussed by the GNSO Council. *Topic 4. Jurisdiction. **Subtopic: absence of a choice of law provision in the base RA* *Relevance to the GNSO Council: *partially relevant *Priority: *medium *Suggested action: *Recommendation considers Contracted Parties. Coordination among the GNSO Council/SGs/Cs may be needed for implementing this recommendation. SGs/Cs should be made aware of this recommendation and report back to the Council on their assessment. *Topic 6. Increase SO/AC Accountability* *Relevance to the GNSO Council: *partially relevant *Priority: *medium *Suggested action: *The GNSO Council has already been in compliance with some of the recommendations. The implementation of them is ongoing. Substantive consideration of these issues could form part of the GNSO3 review. Currently, the ICANN community and ICANN Org are preparing an overview of the views on the implementation of WS2 recommendations. The Council's views on this will be considered together with prioritisation considerations by other parts of the community and, of course, the ICANN Org. the situation is currently developing, and we can hopefully go back to this work soon and get some updates when the data is aggregated. Warm regards, Tanya

1 0

Standing Committee for Continuous Improvement – Review of Input Received
by philippe.fouquart＠orange.com Jan. 20, 2021

Jan. 20, 2021

Dear Councilors, On behalf of Council leadership team, thanks for all the inputs received to date regarding the proposed Standing Committee for Continuous Improvement (SCCI). As a first step, in the overview that is attached to this email, we have tried to capture the different comments and suggestions in combination with responses and proposals for how these might be addressed. We would like to note that we are in no way wedded to the idea of creating a standing committee or other structure, but we are looking for the most effective and efficient way to undertake the work items that are on the Council’s and GNSO community’s list by either an SCCI or similar type of overarching framework. Similarly, a number of you have pointed to the previous SCI and the possible need to first review the work that the SCI did before an SCCI would be created, but we want to be clear, although the SCI might be similar in name, this effort is not intended to recreate the SCI. The SCI had a very specific purpose, to oversee and address any possible negative effects coming out of the 2004 GNSO Review Implementation. It worked on issues such as submission of reports and motions, voting outside of a Council meeting and waiver of ten-day motion deadline. Eventually, its work was overtaken by the 2014 GNSO Review and it was deemed no longer fit for purpose. If there is an urgent need to review the SCI work products (which were also within scope for the 2014 GNSO Review and any subsequent GNSO review), the Council would need to add this to the ADR and determine the urgency in the context of the long list of other items that are already on there. We also appreciate that there are still quite a few questions and further details are needed before it is possible to determine whether this is the path to follow, and notably on the risks of adding management overhead as a number of you highlighted , so we would like to suggest that the leadership team works together with the staff support team to put a further detailed outline and approach together factoring in your input following which the Council can hopefully make a determination on whether to proceed with creating a new SCCI or other structure. If not, the Council will need to urgently consider how and when to best tackle the different items on the ADR. Regards, Philippe, Pam and Tatiana _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

1 0

In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting 21 January 2021
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 20, 2021

Jan. 20, 2021

Dear all, A few reminders in preparation for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 21 January 2021 at 19:00 UTC. * Please remember to update your Zoom application, steps as to how to do this can be found here<https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362233-Upgrade-update-to-the-l….>. * Please review the agenda<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO…> and motions<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+…> as well as supporting documents<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Documents+21+Januar…>. * Please review all updated Program Management Tools<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Program+Management+…>: Action Item list<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items>, Project List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Project+List> , Action Decision Radar<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Decision+Rad…>. * There are three votes on the GNSO Council agenda, if you cannot make the call, or are worried about connectivity issues, please use the GNSO Council Absence Notification form<https://forms.icann.org/en/gnso-council-absence-notification-form> to assign a proxy. Thank you, Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

seconding SSC appointments motions
by Tatiana Tropina Jan. 20, 2021

Jan. 20, 2021

Dear all, we have quite a few motions on the agenda that are not seconded yet. With this email, I would like to second at least some of them. I would gladly second the following motions submitted by Carlton: 1) Motion - Appointment of a GNSO Non-Registry Liaison to the Customer Standing Committee 2) Motion - Nomination of a Mentor for the ICANN Fellowship Program 3) Motion - Appointment of a GNSO Representative to the Community Representatives Group that will nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel. Warm regards, Tatiana

3 2

GNSO Standing Committee for Continuous Improvement – Ideas and Possible Approach
by philippe.fouquart＠orange.com Jan. 20, 2021

Jan. 20, 2021

Dear Councilors, SG/C Chairs, As you may be aware, there are quite a number of projects on the Council’s Action Decision Radar (see https://community.icann.org/x/14vzC) that deal with improvements to GNSO processes and procedures. We heard from you during the Strategic Planning Session about the importance of prioritizing work as well as considering the resources available to conduct work as efficiently as possible. To this end, the suggestion was made to explore the possibility of creating a Standing Committee that would be tasked with addressing projects or assignments that are mainly focused on improving existing GNSO processes and procedures. To further explore this possible approach, the Council leadership team has worked with the staff support team on developing a high-level outline for your review and input (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HBCXMkLb7vFkWClgCpsr8WjYScz3UDh4/edit) Although the Standing Committee would be chartered by and operate under the oversight of the GNSO Council, it is intended to be a GNSO effort which can only be successful with the full support and participation of all SG and Cs. We appreciate that it may be challenging to comment on this approach without having all the details, but our hope is that by soliciting input at this point in time, we would be able to develop a more detailed proposal as a next step factoring in your suggestions and perspectives. Some of the questions we hope you can focus on are: · Is this the right approach to benefit from synergies? If not, how should all the projects listed be tackled instead? · How to ensure appropriate scoping of work? The idea is that the standing committee would tackle topics that cut across the GNSO community and/or would benefit from a cross-GNSO collaboration. A possible approach could be that the charter provides an indication of the topics that are expected to be tackled, but specific assignments are confirmed in the form of a clear scoping document and work plan that is approved by the GNSO Council, with input from SG/Cs via their respective Council members. Are there other approaches that could be considered? · What should membership look like? How to ensure a balanced composition which at the same time is nimble enough to work effectively? How to introduce sufficient flexibility to allow for expert participation? · What decision-making methodology should be applied? Or is this to be determined based on the assignment the Standing Committee is tasked with? · Is it feasible to consider tackling some of the projects identified in parallel through different sub-committees? · How should the work be prioritized if a Standing Committee is created? Each of the possible projects identified could take a substantial amount of time to address and resolve which means certain items could take a while to get addressed. Of course, there may be other topics you want to weigh in on. We hope to receive your feedback in advance of the next Council meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 21 January, either via your input on the google doc (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HBCXMkLb7vFkWClgCpsr8WjYScz3UDh4/edit) or in response to this email. As you will have seen, a number of the possible projects for the Standing Committee are fairly high on the Council’s Action Decision Radar so we hope to agree on an approach for tackling these sooner rather than later. Best regards and happy holidays, Philippe Fouquart Chair, GNSO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

6 6