January 2021 - council - lists.icann.org

Sub Pro WG Final Report - Webinar 28 Jan.
by Flip Petillion Jan. 27, 2021

Jan. 27, 2021

All : If you have any questions you would like answered at the Webinar, please send them around prior to the 28th. Thank you. Best regards, Flip Flip Petillion fpetillion(a)petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion@petillion.law> +32484652653 www.petillion.law [id:image001.png@01D3691D.DA7539C0]<https://www.petillion.law/> Attorneys – Advocaten – Avocats

1 1

FYI: ICANN News Alert -- Apply Now for ICANN Leadership Positions
by Terri Agnew Jan. 26, 2021

Jan. 26, 2021

[ICANN Announcement Alerts] Apply Now for ICANN Leadership Positions [newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/m000NR20000d2PFbRnE…> 26 January 2021 LOS ANGELES – 25 January 2021 – Today, the Nominating Committee (NomCom) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) invites interested individuals to submit applications for key leadership positions within ICANN. Selected individuals will have a unique opportunity to work with accomplished colleagues from around the globe to help shape the Internet's technical coordination and policy development. The deadline to submit applications is 18 March 2021 at 23:59 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC). We are inviting applications for the following positions: * Three members of the ICANN Board of Directors. * Three regional representatives to the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) – one each representing the Africa region, Asia, Australia, and Pacific Islands region, and Latin America and Caribbean region. * Two members of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council – one representing the Contracted Parties House and one representing the Non-Contracted Parties House. * One member of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Council. Guided by the broad public interest, those selected will work to fulfill ICANN's mission to coordinate the global Internet's system of unique identifiers, and in particular, to ensure its stable and secure operation. The selected leaders will make a valuable public service contribution toward ensuring the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. Qualifications Fluency in English is a requirement for all positions. Other qualifications, skills, and time commitments vary depending on the position. For information, visit the NomCom webpage [newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/F2bRP00FS0C0F2n0000…>. Each ICANN Board member has the option to receive compensation in accordance with the resolution passed by the Board on 30 July 2014, but it is not required (See Board Member Compensation [newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/Y0d0n0TNF000b002PRC…>). The remaining positions are voluntary. Application Deadline and Process There is an online candidate portal [newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/F2bRP00HU0C0F2n0000…>to submit applications. All applications are confidential. For full consideration, the NomCom must receive applications by 18 March 2021, 23:59 UTC. Candidate applications that remain incomplete at the end of this period will not be considered. Following receipt of the applications, the NomCom will consider all applicants and select a shortlist of qualified candidates. Selections are expected to be announced in August 2021. Successful candidates will assume their positions at the conclusion of ICANN72 Annual General Meeting in October 2021. Meetings, Travel, Reimbursement, and Compensation These positions require regular participation in virtual meetings via telephone and Zoom. The positions may involve significant international travel when pandemic-related travel restrictions lift. Reasonable direct and properly documented expenses incurred in the course of service by Board Directors and volunteers will be reimbursed. For More Information Learn more by visiting the NomCom webpage [newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/F2bRP00FS0C0F2n0000…>. If you have any questions or comments, email nomcom2021(a)icann.org [newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/I020ICb0P0FVNd200n0…>. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world. [shadow] [Twitter][newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/I020JCb0P0FWNd200n0…> [Facebook][newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/JR2PC00K2E0NXnb0dF0…> [Instagram][newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/f00nd0P0bL002R20CNE…> [Linkedin][newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/x0C0000n2M20PNR0Zd0…> [YouTube][newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/wRbEN0dCP0000F20000…> [shadow1] Unsubscribe [newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/NR00OC0d0002FnE01N0…> | https://www.icann.org [newsalerts.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newsalerts.icann.org/JR2PC00P2E0N2nb0dF0…>

1 0

Re: [council] Liaison to liaison to EPDP phase 2A (was: RE: GNSO Council Liaisons)
by philippe.fouquart＠orange.com Jan. 26, 2021

Jan. 26, 2021

Dear Councilors, This is to let you know that I will serve as liaison to the EPDP ph2A. All the best, Philippe From: FOUQUART Philippe TGI/OLN Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:56 PM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Liaison to liaison to EPDP phase 2A (was: RE: [council] GNSO Council Liaisons) Dear Councilors, A reminder that Council is in dire need for liaison to EPDP phase 2A, so please let us know if you’re interested. This phase 2A is expected to be much more limited in time than the previous expedited PDPs(!). Thanks, Regards, Philippe From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 2:19 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Liaisons Dear Councilors, I just wanted to follow-up on the message below. After reviewing the email, I realized I made a typo that hopefully did not create too much confusion. For the second liaison vacancy, I put EPDP Phase 2 instead of EPDP Phase 2A. With the EPDP Phase 2A having already kicked off, there remains an immediate need to identify a Council liaison to this group. Please give some consideration to whether you might able to serve in this role. Best, Steve From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Monday, December 21, 2020 at 3:31 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Liaisons Dear Councilors, Following the affirmative vote to approve the Consent Agenda on the 17 December 2020 meeting, a number of GNSO Council liaisons are now confirmed. However, note that during the meeting, Olga withdrew her name as the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP Phase 2 and that there is still an outstanding vacancy for the EPDP Phase 2A. In consultation with Council leadership, here is the proposed path forward. EPDP Phase 2: As this PDP has now concluded, there does not appear to be a pressing need to identify a new liaison, though one will be needed once an Implementation Review Team (IRT) is established. However, and without making too many assumptions, there may be reason that the IRT for Phase 2 will be merged or perhaps be a continuation of the existing IRT, which could allow Sebastien to serve as the single Council liaison to the IRT (assuming there is some form of streamlined IRT and Sebastien is willing of course). The Council leadership proposal here is to leave this position vacant, at least for the moment. EPDP Phase 2A: There is however a need to identify a liaison here, in a timely fashion, as the EPDP Team has already held its first meeting. To give you a sense of the commitment, liaisons typically take part in leadership planning meetings, share information and updates between the WG and Council, provide guidance regarding WG processes, etc. (see role description here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-liai…) However, I would note that during the EPDP Phase 2, the liaison also served as the vice-chair, and this possibility is I understand under discussion within the EPDP Phase 2A currently. Assuming that ends up being the outcome, the liaison would then be asked to both fulfill the requirements of being a GNSO Council liaison to the WG, as well as that of being a vice-chair, which is primarily chairing WG calls when the Chair is unavailable. That said, the Chair has indicated that he fully anticipates being available for this limited duration effort. The Council leadership proposal here is of course to identify a volunteer to fill this position. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Senior Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 21 January 2021
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 25, 2021

Jan. 25, 2021

Dear Councilors, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday, 21 January 2021 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 4 February 2021. Thank you. Kind Regards, Nathalie

1 0

Action Items: GNSO Council meeting 21 January 2021
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 25, 2021

Jan. 25, 2021

Dear Councilors, Please find the action items, as stated during the meeting, below arising from the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday, 21 January 2021. Please refer to the Action Item page<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> for updates on item completion progress. Please take note of the action items coming out of the Council meeting and the proposed timing for delivering on these actions. Please ensure your wiki logins are up to date as all Action Items have been assigned to councilors and/or staff and posted on the Action Item wiki page here<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items>. If you are logged into the wiki when you go to that page, your name will be highlighted alongside the action item assigned to you. Please refer to this page for the recent status updates on the Action items. Please note that actions for all councilors are highlighted below. Item 1: Administrative Matters Action Item: * GNSO Secretariat to check whether Kristian Ormen’s and Maxim Alzoba’s SOIs reflect the update that they provided during the Council meeting [COMPLETED] Item 3: Consent Agenda Action Item: * GNSO Secretariat to inform: 1) the CSC about Milton Mueller’s appointment as the GNSO Non-Registry Liaison; 2) the ICANN Fellowship Program about Farell Folly’s appointment as the GNSO appointed mentor for three consecutive ICANN meetings, beginning with ICANN72; and 3) the Community Representatives Group about Heather Forrest’s appointment as the GNSO Representative [COMPLETED] Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Affirm Intent of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7 (25 minutes) Action Item: * Sebastien Ducos to communicate the GNSO Council input to the Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team per the resolved clauses of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+…> regarding the EPDP Phase 1 Rec 7. [OPEN] * GNSO Council leadership to communicate the GNSO Council input to the ICANN Board of Directors per the resolved clauses of the motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+January+…> regarding the EPDP Phase 1 Rec 7. Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Final Report and Recommendations From the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs PDP WG Action Item: * GNSO Staff to inform the RPM PDP WG on the GNSO Council approval of all its thirty-five (35) Phase 1 Final Recommendations as documented in the PDP WG’s Final Report. [COMPLETED] * GNSO Staff to prepare the Recommendations Report for the RPM Phase 1 Final Report for voting at the Council meeting in February 2021. [IN PROGESS] Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS 8.1 - GNSO Standing Committee for Continuous Improvement - objections to expanding upon the high-level outline and developing a more detailed draft proposal? 8.2 - GNSO Council feedback on the updated Operational Design Phase concept paper - objections to draft Council feedback (if input is available) 8.3 - GNSO Council Additional Budget Requests (none received) 8.4 - Update on the ICANN Meetings strategy 8.5 - Update on the IGO Work Track kickoff 8.6 - Small team proposed input to the ICANN Board regarding the SSAD consultation 8.7 - GNSO liaison between the IDN Policy Track / EPDP and the ccPDP4 (Dennis Tan) Action Item: * GNSO Staff to send an informal Council communication to the ICANN org on the updated Operational Design Phase concept paper, including concerns expressed by some Councilors. [COMPLETED] * Council members to provide input by end of day tomorrow (22-Jan-2021) at the latest on the Proposed Messaging to the ICANN Board in relation to the SSAD Consultation. GNSO Staff to send the proposed messaging to the ICANN Board by EOD 22-Jan-2021. [COMPLETED] Thank you! Nathalie

1 0

Document and Motion deadline Monday 8 February 2021 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council Meeting 18 February 2021 at 19:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 25, 2021

Jan. 25, 2021

Dear all, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. Monday 8 February 2021 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday 18 February 2021 at 19:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a councilor and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/SAtACQ Thank you. Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Re: [council] [Ext] RE: Response Forwarded from RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs re: GNSO Council resolutions 21 January 2021
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 25, 2021

Jan. 25, 2021

Dear all, Adding Phil Corwin to the cc’s as he was meant to be included in the original forwarded response. With kind regards, Julie From: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>, "brian.beckham(a)wipo.int" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Subject: [Ext] RE: Response Forwarded from RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs re: GNSO Council resolutions 21 January 2021 All, There seems to have been a lot of visceral reaction to my comments at the Council meeting to leaving open the possibility of combining the RPM implementation of Phase 1 IRT with the SubPro IRT (assuming SubPro Recommendations get adopted). I would like to provide a little bit of context and perhaps be a little more specific at which elements of the RPM PDP Phase 1 should logically be combined with the SubPro Recommendations. In particular, there are some recommendations that the RPM group has made that direct changes to be made to the Applicant Guidebook for subsequent rounds of new gTLDs, or for changes to be made to the Base Registry Agreement. Those are the recommendations that should logically be joined with the SubPro IRT. For example: Sunrise Recommendations: 1-4 and 8 (although technically 2-4 just say status quo should be maintained). One Example below: * Sunrise Final Recommendation #1: The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. * Subpro Recommendation 36.4: ICANN must add a contractual provision stating that the registry operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices. In the event that ICANN receives an order from a court that a Registry has engaged in fraudulent or deceptive practices, ICANN may issue a notice of breach for such practices and allow the registry to cure such breach in accordance with the Registry Agreement. Further, in the event that there is a credible allegation by any third party of fraudulent or deceptive practices, other than as set forth in above, ICANN may, at its discretion, either commence Dispute Resolution actions under the Registry Agreement (Currently Article 5 of the Registry Agreement), or appoint a Panel under the PICDRP. For the purposes of a credible claim of fraudulent or deceptive practices the Reporter (as defined by the PICDRP) must only specifically state the grounds of the alleged non-compliance, but not that it personally has been harmed as a result of the Registry Operator's act or omission. Rationale: Both of the above recommendations stem from the same types of discussions and both ask that the new gTLD Agreement be changed. SubPro viewed circumventing the RPMs as being “fraudulent” and both SubPro and RPM used the context of .feedback to come up with these recommendations. It makes no sense to have two different IRTs consider this. The other recommendations from the RPM Final Report that should be combined with SubPro are TMCH Recommendation #8 (which deals with revising a section of the Applicant Guidebook), and TM Claims Recommendations 1-3 (although these recommended maintaining the Status Quo). The rest of the recommendations can and should be a separate IRT if that is what the Council wishes. But any recommendation that is aimed at new gTLDs, revising the Applicant Guidebook and the new gTLD Registry Agreement should be combined for efficiencies. They can be a separate work track of SubPro IRT, but it makes no sense not to combine. Thanks. * [cid:image001.png@01D6F318.6908AFF0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 12:05 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>; brian.beckham(a)wipo.int Subject: [council] Response Forwarded from RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs re: GNSO Council resolutions 21 January 2021 Dear all, Please see the attached response and below forwarded on behalf of the Co-Chairs of the RPMs PDP WG. Kind regards, Julie ------ Begin Response Forwarded from RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs------------ January 22, 2021 Dear Members of the GNSO Council: We write as co-chairs of the recently completed Phase 1 review of all RPMs in all gTLDs WG. On our own behalf, as well as for the many dedicated WG members who participated in our multi-year effort, we extend our heartfelt thanks to Council members for your unanimous approval of the Recommendations contained in our Final Report at your January 21st meeting. However, we are aware that during the Council’s pre-vote consideration of the Report, there was discussion of creating a combined Implementation Review Team (IRT) for the recommendations produced by the RPM and Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) WGs, and that the Council may further discuss this possibility. With respect, we do not believe that such a combined IRT would be a useful or productive approach, and urge that the Council establish separate RPM and SubPro IRTs for the following reasons: * While 34 of the 35 RPM recommendations received full consensus, many of them present complex issues to be worked out by the IRT, and doing so successfully could be undermined by vastly expanding the number of issues to be addressed by a combined IRT. * Community members who may wish to contribute to the IRT after participating in the WG, or because they have interest and expertise in trademark issues, should not be compelled to participate in discussions of second round procedural issues in which they may have no interest or expertise. Doing so risks reducing overall community participation. * The RPM modifications recommended by our WG will apply to both first round and future new gTLDs, while the recommendations made by SubPro will apply only to future rounds. * The WGs were supported by different ICANN staff, and a combined IRT could consequently put a greater overall burden on staff. In conclusion, we believe that the recommendations made by the RPM WG will be better and more expeditiously implemented if addressed by an IRT focused solely on rights protection matters, rather than one also tasked with additional important, difficult, and unrelated procedural implementation matters. Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter. Sincerely, Brian Beckham Kathryn Kleiman Philip Corwin --------- End Response Forwarded from RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs-----------

1 0

Response Forwarded from RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs re: GNSO Council resolutions 21 January 2021
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 25, 2021

Jan. 25, 2021

Dear all, Please see the attached response and below forwarded on behalf of the Co-Chairs of the RPMs PDP WG. Kind regards, Julie ------ Begin Response Forwarded from RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs------------ January 22, 2021 Dear Members of the GNSO Council: We write as co-chairs of the recently completed Phase 1 review of all RPMs in all gTLDs WG. On our own behalf, as well as for the many dedicated WG members who participated in our multi-year effort, we extend our heartfelt thanks to Council members for your unanimous approval of the Recommendations contained in our Final Report at your January 21st meeting. However, we are aware that during the Council’s pre-vote consideration of the Report, there was discussion of creating a combined Implementation Review Team (IRT) for the recommendations produced by the RPM and Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) WGs, and that the Council may further discuss this possibility. With respect, we do not believe that such a combined IRT would be a useful or productive approach, and urge that the Council establish separate RPM and SubPro IRTs for the following reasons: * While 34 of the 35 RPM recommendations received full consensus, many of them present complex issues to be worked out by the IRT, and doing so successfully could be undermined by vastly expanding the number of issues to be addressed by a combined IRT. * Community members who may wish to contribute to the IRT after participating in the WG, or because they have interest and expertise in trademark issues, should not be compelled to participate in discussions of second round procedural issues in which they may have no interest or expertise. Doing so risks reducing overall community participation. * The RPM modifications recommended by our WG will apply to both first round and future new gTLDs, while the recommendations made by SubPro will apply only to future rounds. * The WGs were supported by different ICANN staff, and a combined IRT could consequently put a greater overall burden on staff. In conclusion, we believe that the recommendations made by the RPM WG will be better and more expeditiously implemented if addressed by an IRT focused solely on rights protection matters, rather than one also tasked with additional important, difficult, and unrelated procedural implementation matters. Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter. Sincerely, Brian Beckham Kathryn Kleiman Philip Corwin --------- End Response Forwarded from RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs-----------

2 1

FW: [Ext] Monday, 25 January 2021
by Andrea Glandon Jan. 25, 2021

Jan. 25, 2021

[http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=31458e70-69ad-471a-b9bb-7490d812501f&a=1122025…] Monday, 25 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 ICANN70 Resources · Registration · Virtual Backgrounds Information Sharing · DUE TODAY: Request for Community Selection Panel Participants – 2021 Community Excellence Award Program · THIS WEEK: Stakeholder Assembly about ICANN Perspectives on EU Digital Initiatives · THIS 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 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 · Draft FY22-26 Operating & Financial Plan and Draft FY22 Operating Plan & Budget ICANN70 Resources Registration [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…> Virtual Backgrounds [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…> Information Sharing DUE TODAY: 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. THIS WEEK: Stakeholder Assembly about ICANN 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=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…> 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=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…> Learn more. [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…> THIS 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=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…>. 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=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…> 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=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…>. REMINDER: Volunteers Needed for Advisory Group on ICANN 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=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…>. 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=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…> 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=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…> and submit your nominations here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…>. Public Comment 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=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…> Close Date: Monday, 15 February 2021 Volume 3, Issue 7 | Archive [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001AWeYdfc88W76Pct_F…> | Next Issue: Thursday, 28 January 2021

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions 21 January 2021
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 21, 2021

Jan. 21, 2021

Dear all, Please find below the resolutions from the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 21 January 2021 which will be posted shortly on the GNSO resolutions<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> page. CONSENT AGENDA Motion - Appointment of a GNSO Non-Registry Liaison to the Customer Standing Committee Submitted by: Carlton Samuels Seconded by: Tatiana Tropina Whereas, 1. The existing GNSO Non-Registry Liaison to the Customer Standing Committee James Gannon was nominated to serve a two-year term beginning 1 October 2019. 2. The Liaison stepped down from the role as of ICANN69 due to his appointment to the PTI Board. 3. On 9 November 2020, the GNSO launched an Expression of Interest (EOI) process via email to the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies to solicit volunteers to serve in the Liaison role for the remainder of the current term. 4. The GNSO Council tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) with reviewing applications and recommending one individual for the GNSO to appoint. 5. The SSC reviewed the one application received, taking into account the criteria outlined in the EOI announcement. 6. The SSC submitted its full consensus recommendation to the GNSO Council on 11 January 2021, by way of submission of the relevant motion. 7. The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC. Resolved, 1. The GNSO appoints Milton Mueller to serve as GNSO Non-Registry Liaison to the Customer Standing Committee. 2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to staff supporting the Customer Standing Committee. 3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the appointed candidate that he has been selected. Vote results<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-…> Motion - Nomination of a Mentor for the ICANN Fellowship Program Submitted by: Carlton Samuels Seconded by: Tatiana Tropina Whereas, 1. On 16 November 2020, the ICANN Fellowship Program invited ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to nominate one individual each (total of 7) to serve in the capacity of Fellowship Program mentor for three consecutive ICANN meetings, beginning with ICANN72 (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-11-16-en) 2. On 3 December 2020, the GNSO launched an Expression of Interest (EOI) process to solicit volunteers for the GNSO-nominated mentor position (seehttps://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03dec20-en.htm) 3. The GNSO Council tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) with reviewing applications and recommending one individual for the GNSO to nominate. 4. The SSC reviewed the applications received, taking into account the criteria outlined in the EOI announcement. 5. The SSC submitted its full consensus recommendation to the GNSO Council on 11 January 2021, by way of submission of the relevant motion. 6. The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC. Resolved, 1. The GNSO nominates Farell Folly to serve as a ICANN Fellowship Program mentor for three consecutive ICANN meetings, beginning with ICANN72. 2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to staff supporting the ICANN Fellowship Program. 3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the nominated candidate that he or she has been selected. 4. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who were not nominated, thanking them for their interest and encouraging them to apply for future opportunities as they arise. . Vote results<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-…> Motion - Appointment of a GNSO Representative to the Community Representatives Group that will nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel. Submitted by: Carlton Samuels Seconded by: Tatiana Tropina Whereas, 1. The SO/AC Chairs have agreed to the formation of a Community Representatives Group to select nominees for the Bylaws-mandated Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel. 2. On 18 November 2020, ICANN, in consultation with the SO/ACs, opened an Expression of Interest process to solicit volunteers for the Community Representatives Group (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-11-18-en) with the understanding that Expressions of Interest would be reviewed by the specific SO/ACwhose endorsement was requested by the applicant. 3. The GNSO SG/C Chairs and GNSO Council Leadership agreed that the SSC should be deployed to select the GNSO’s Representative(s) to the Community Representatives Group. 4. The SG/C Chairs provided written guidance for the SSC to support the selection process. 5. The SSC reviewed the application received, taking into account the guidance provided by the SG/C Chairs. 6. The SSC submitted its full consensus recommendation to the GNSO Council on 11 January 2021, by way of submission of the relevant motion. 7. The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC. Resolved, 1. The GNSO appoints Heather Forrest to serve as a GNSO Representative to the Community Representatives Group that will nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel. 2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to the SO/AC Chairs and ICANN. 3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the nominated candidate of the Council’s decision. Vote results<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-…> Motion - GNSO Council Input on Recommendation 7 of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 1 Final Report and Thick Whois Transition Policy (Deferred from the 17 December 2020 Meeting) Submitted by: Pam Little Seconded by: John McElwaine WHEREAS 1. The Thick RDDS (Whois) Transition Policy for .COM, .NET and .JOBS<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/thick-whois-transition-policy-2017-02…> (Thick Whois Transition Policy) is an ICANN consensus policy resulting from the implementation of the policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Thick WHOIS Policy Development Process<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_29151/final-report-thi…>(“Thick Whois PDP”). 2. Section 16 of ANNEX 2: Policy Development Process Manual<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-24oct19-en.pdf> to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.5<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24oct19-en.pdf> provides: “Approved GNSO Council policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been implemented by ICANN Staff may only be amended by the initiation of a new PDP on the issue.” 3. On 17 May 2018, the ICANN Board adopted the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (“Temporary Specification”). 4. On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council initiated an Expedited Policy Development Process (“EPDP”) and chartered the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Team to determine if the Temporary Specification should become an ICANN consensus policy as is, or with modifications (emphasis added). 5. Recommendation #7 in the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld…> (“Final Report”) makes transfer of registrant contact information optional, depending on whether the registry operator in question has an appropriate legal basis to require the data and a data processing agreement is in place. 6. To the extent the Thick Whois Transition Policy is modified by Recommendation #7, the EPDP Team recommends the Thick Whois Transition Policy and other impacted consensus policies be updated to ensure consistency (see Recommendation #27 of the Final Report). 7. Recommendation #7 was developed in response to the questions in Section C of the EPDP Charter, with a consensus designation of “Full Consensus / Consensus” (see Annex E of the Final Report). 8. On 4 March 2019, the GNSO Council adopted<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20190304-1> all the policy recommendations in the Final Report, including Recommendation #7, with the required GNSO Supermajority. 9. On 15 May 2019, the ICANN Board passed a resolution<https://features.icann.org/consideration-gnso-epdp-recommendations-temporar…> adopting most of the policy recommendations contained in the Final Report, including Recommendation #7 and noting Recommendation #7 does not repeal or overturn the Thick WHOIS Policy [sic] and directed “ICANN org to work with the Implementation Review Team to examine and transparently report on the extent to which these Recommendations require modification of existing Consensus Policies, including the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy”. 10. Section 7 of Annex A-1 to the ICANN Bylaws<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en> provides: “Upon a final decision of the Board adopting the EPDP recommendations, the Board shall, as appropriate, give authorization or direction to ICANN staff to implement the EPDP Recommendations. If deemed necessary, the Board shall direct ICANN staff to work with the GNSO Council to create a guidance implementation plan, based upon the guidance recommendations identified in the Final EPDP Recommendation(s) Report.” 11. Section III. A of the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework<https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation> provides: The GNSO Council may continue to provide input on the implementation of a policy, for example, if the GNSO Council believes that the implementation is inconsistent with the policy [recommendation]”. RESOLVED 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the EPDP had the mandate to modify the Thick Whois Transition Policy under the EPDP 2. The GNSO Council determines that in light of the EPDP being chartered by the GNSO Council, among other things, to address the questions in Part 2(c) under “Mission and Scope” to specifically address the transfer of data from registrar to registry, the resulting recommendation #7 appropriately fulfills this purpose. Furthermore, the requirement of Section 16 of the PDP Manual is deemed satisfied for the purpose of amending the Thick Whois Transition Policy. 3. The GNSO Council determines, notwithstanding the absence of a clear statement, the intent of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #7 to modify the Thick Whois Transition Policy is implied, taking into account the history, background, context and purpose of the EPDP, the specific language of Recommendation #7 and the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report in its entirety. 4. The GNSO Council determines that the Recommendation #7 language, “must be transferred from registrar to registry provided an appropriate legal basis exists and data processing agreement is in place” should be included in the Registration Data Policy in order to conform with the intent of the EPDP Phase 1 Team’s policy recommendation and the subsequent GNSO Council adoption (“GNSO Council Input”). 5. The GNSO Council instructs the Council’s Liaison to communicate the GNSO Council Input to the Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team pursuant to Section III.A of the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework<https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation>. 6. The GNSO Council shall communicate the GNSO Council Input to the ICANN Board of Directors. RATIONALE The Thick Whois PDP Final Report anticipated that its recommendations might be affected by evolving privacy regulation. In particular, Recommendation 3 states, “As part of the implementation process a legal review of law applicable to the transition of data from a thin to thick model … due consideration is given to potential privacy issues that may arise from the discussions on the transition from thin to thick Whois … Should any privacy issues emerge from these transition discussions that were not anticipated by the WG and which would require additional policy consideration, the Implementation Review Team is expected to notify the GNSO Council of these so that appropriate action can be taken.” In addition, the implementation advice (“Other Observations”) mentions in part, “...the increasing number of data protection and privacy laws and regulations around the world, as well as specific Whois-related concerns raised by the public. While recognizing that this exceeds the scope of our remit, we suggest that, as part of the development of the registration data directory system model currently in process, ICANN ensure that the ramifications of data protection and privacy laws and regulations with respect to Whois requirements be examined thoroughly.” In effect, the Temporary Specification and the EPDP accomplished the legal review of the ramifications of data protection laws required by Recommendation 3 of the Thick Whois PDP Final Report . The requirements set out in the Temporary Specification supersede and replace the contractual requirements in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the Registry Agreements, which incorporate by reference all ICANN consensus policies. There is a conflict between the data processing principles under the Temporary Specification and the requirements under existing gTLD Registry Agreements as well as the Thick Whois Transition Policy. In other words, the Thick Whois Transition Policy was modified by the Temporary Specification and further modified by Recommendation #7 in the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report, as the EPDP Team was mandated to do. While there is no explicit reference to the Thick Whois Transition Policy, this consensus policy and others that are affected by the GDPR and other relevant data privacy laws fell squarely within the scope of the Temporary Specification and hence they are also within the scope of the EPDP. The EPDP Charter states: “Mission and Scope This EPDP Team is being chartered to determine if the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, as is or with modifications, while complying with the GDPR and other relevant privacy and data protection law. As part of this determination, the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions. The EPDP Team shall consider what subsidiary recommendations it might make for future work by the GNSO which might be necessary to ensure relevant Consensus Policies, including those related to registration data, are reassessed to become consistent with applicable law.” Specifically, Section C of the EPDP Charter contains a set of questions regarding “transfer of data from registrar to registry”: c1) What data should registrars be required to transfer to the registry? c2) What data is required to fulfill the purpose of a registry registering and resolving a domain name? c3) What data is transferred to the registry because it is necessary to deliver the service of fulfilling a domain registration versus other legitimate purposes as outlined in part (a) above? c4) Is there a legal reason why registrars should not be required to transfer data to the registries, in accordance with previous consensus policy on this point? c5) Should registries have the option to require contact data or not? c6) Is there a valid purpose for the registrant contact data to be transferred to the registry, or should it continue to reside at the registrar? While the Final Report does not contain express language that the policy recommendations are intended to supersede the requirements in the existing ICANN consensus policies, in this case, the Thick Whois Transition Policy, such intent is implied (i.e., it goes without saying in light of the history, background, context and purpose of the EPDP). The EPDP was conducted in an open and transparent manner with representatives from all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as some ICANN Advisory Committees. As such, Recommendation #7 cannot be considered to be a “shadow repeal” of the Thick Whois Transition Policy. The recommendations contained in the Thick WHOIS PDP Final Report anticipated that the implementation of those recommendations might be affected by new privacy regulations and the GNSO should address such an occurrence. Therefore, while there is no “clear statement in new consensus policy recommendations that the new policy is intended to supersede (in whole or part) requirements in existing consensus policies,” claiming otherwise ignores the history, background, context, purpose of the EPDP as well as the Thick Whois PDP Final Report itself. The intent and meaning of Recommendation #7 is clear. It is the role of the Implementation Review Team (IRT) to ensure that the implementation of Recommendation #7 conforms to the intent of the policy recommendation. The IRT is not a forum for opening or revisiting policy discussions (see III.A and III.B, Implementation Review Team (IRT) Principles and Guidelines https://www.icann.org/resources/files/1201611-2016-08-23-en) The Policy Development Process Manual makes clear that “Approved GNSO Council policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been implemented by ICANN Staff may only be amended by the initiation of a new PDP on the issue.” It can therefore be concluded that where there is a conflict between an existing consensus policy and subsequent policy recommendation(s) on the same subject matter, the newer policy recommendation prevails. While the EPDP was scoped differently and under different circumstances than the Thick Whois PDP, it is undeniable that the two policy development processes overlapped in covering the same issue of transfer of Registration Data from registrar to registry, and therefore, the IRT should implement Recommendation #7 as written and intended. Vote results<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-…> Motion - Approve the Recommendations from the Phase 1 Final Report of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs, covering RPMs applicable to gTLDs launched under the 2012 New gTLD Program. Submitted by: John McElwaine Seconded by: Maxim Alzoba WHEREAS: 1. On 18 February 2016, the GNSO Council resolved<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160218-3> to initiate a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP), to review all existing rights protection mechanisms (RPMs in all gTLDs. 2. On 9 March 2016, the GNSO Council approved<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160309-2> the PDP Charter, thereby initiating Phase One of the PDP that focused on the RPMs developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program. 3. The PDP Working Group has followed all the necessary steps and processes required by the ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO PDP Manual and the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including the publication of an Initial Report for public comment (on 18 March 2020) and consideration of the public comments received thereto. 4. On 24 November 2020, the PDP Working Group submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its review and action. 5. The PDP Working Group has reached Full Consensus for thirty-four (34) out of the thirty-five (35) final recommendations documented in the Final Report, and Consensus for the remaining one (1) final recommendation (concerning Final Recommendation #1 for the Trademark Clearinghouse). RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council approves, and recommends that the ICANN Board adopt, all thirty-five (35) final PDP recommendations as documented in the PDP Working Group’s Final Report. 2. Should the PDP recommendations be adopted by the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that ICANN org convene an RPM Implementation Review Team, to assist ICANN org in developing the implementation details for the PDP recommendations and ensure that the resultant implementation conforms to the intent of the approved recommendations. The Implementation Review Team shall operate in accordance with the Implementation Review Team Principles and Guidance approved by the GNSO Council in June 2015. 3. The GNSO Council thanks all the various Co-Chairs and members of the PDP Working Group for their commitment and hard work in completing Phase One of this PDP. Vote results<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-…> Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0