May 2021 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] Accuracy scoping team - proposed next steps
by Marie Pattullo - AIM 10 May '21

10 May '21

Dear all, Many thanks for this and for your input, Jeff and Kurt. The perspective of the BC: * We are keen for this work to be productive on a practical level (how to promote/ensure accurate data) and to start as soon as possible. * We should not confuse the establishment of a scoping team with the charter for a PDP: the whole point is that a cross-community group of experts should come together to look at what we have, what (if any) other resources/studies are needed and propose the way forward. There is no need to impose rigid charter-like questions; the experts may have other experience-based views that we have not considered. * We have a different understanding as to the proposed study, further to both the draft text and our Extraordinary meeting: whether we need such a study, and what it should address, should be defined by the scoping team. That team would start by considering all of the resources we already have about accuracy, both to come to agreement on what our next steps should be and to avoid duplication, and after that they can decide if there are gaps or questions that such a study could address. * While we agree that RDS data accuracy's definition would be one of the most important aspects of the scoping group's work, we caution against this work being limited to definition. Once defined we also need to do something about it: "we have measured the data and x% is inaccurate" is not the end goal. * We don't think that we need to have more lengthy discussions at Council level. The issue of accuracy has been bubbling for years, as the GAC rightly says way before the GDPR. It was to be addressed in Phase 1 of the EPDP but has been repeatedly pushed back and if we do not address it, legislation will do so for us, creating yet more jurisdictional fragmentation. We reiterate that the scoping team should be formed and be allowed to start its work as soon as possible - they are the experts and the whole idea is to ask experts where we are and how we move forward, and yet another Council-level discussion will, in our view, only lead to unnecessary delay. Kind regards, Marie From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz via council Sent: Friday, 7 May 2021 04:45 To: philippe.fouquart <philippe.fouquart(a)orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>> Cc: gnso-SECS <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>; GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Accuracy scoping team - proposed next steps Hi Philippe: Thank you for providing the draft set of proposed next steps for dealing with the topic of registration data accuracy. We (RYSG Council representatives) have read the proposal and associated documentation and consulted with our stakeholder group members and leadership. First, we wish you to confirm that the Proposed Path Forward is intended to be the "framework" described and recommended in the recent ICANN briefing (i.e., "develop a framework for a study on how to measure accuracy"). After reading the documents furnished, that was the conclusion to which we came. Keeping with the ICANN briefing recommendation to "commission a study on how accuracy of registration data might be measured," we believe the Proposed Path Forward is too vague to be released as is. I.e., the proposal provides inadequate direction to the working group (which is likely to cause confusion and be perceived as disrespectful of volunteers' time). Put another way, the proposal initiates the study but does not describe the scope of the work to be done. For example, the proposal calls for the scoping team to focus on, "identifying what problems, if any, are expected to be addressed and how," but nowhere describes to what the problems should pertain other than "accuracy," with no other detail or direction. Instead, the objective and terms of reference should be clearly delineated. Recognizing our commitment to fact-based policy development, the proposal should make clear that we are seeking to formulate an approach to data registration accuracy measurement first - and that any policy discussion will follow (because policy should be informed by data and facts derived from competently done studies). The "problems" identified should be those specifically related to how accuracy of registration data might be measured. In addition, we think it necessary to expressly include registration data accuracy definitions in the scoping team's remit. How can one design an approach to registration data accuracy measurement without defining that which is to be measured? The proposal refers extensively to GDPR and NIS2. Most of these could be omitted. The proposal seeks to assess how best to measure accuracy, which we think is an objective matter, and not seek to interpret and implement statutory requirements, which is a policy discussion that should occur when the factual assessments are complete. (We do note the proposal's brief inference that the GDPR Accuracy Principle is essentially satisfied by the current actions of the contracted parties.) Regarding timing, the call for volunteers should be published after the close of work on the EPDP for Registration Data. This scoping effort will require the expertise of EPDP participants because it is likely that one of the problems to be addressed is how or whether personal data can be processed to accomplish a registration data accuracy assessment. In addition, the topic of registration data accuracy continues to be raised in the EPDP discussions and that should be exhausted before going on to a subsequent effort on the same topic. We also believe the composition or casting of the working group should be more carefully considered. The specification of "two from each" stakeholder group seems arbitrary and merits additional discussion. To correct these concerns, we propose to have a substantive discussion at the Council level, and then create a small team of Council members (or form a "working-group-of-the-whole") to redraft the proposed framework, an effort we will gladly support. Sincerely, Maxim Alzoba Sebastien Ducos Kurt Pritz On Apr 23, 2021, at 2:43 PM, philippe.fouquart--- via council <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councillors, Following our extraordinary meeting on 8 April 2021, Council leadership, with the support of the GNSO Support Staff, has worked together to develop a set of proposed next steps for dealing with the topic of accuracy. The proposed next steps aim to find a balance between the different viewpoints that have been expressed on this topic while at the same time recognizing our commitment to fact-based policy development. The Council leadership's expectation is that by focusing on identifying and confirming the problem(s) (if any), the scoping team will be in a much better position to recommend to the Council what next steps to take. We would like to request that you review the attached document with your respective groups and indicate by Friday 7 May at the latest if you have any significant concerns or objections about the proposed next steps. If no concerns or objections are raised, Council leadership will include formal confirmation of these next steps on the consent agenda for the Council meeting on 20 May 2021. We would also like to request Jeffrey, as the Council liaison to the GAC, to share this message with his GAC point of contact for the GAC's information, making clear that this document is still subject to change, as the GAC has expressed interest in this topic in its recent engagements with the GNSO Council. Regards, Pam, Tanya & Philippe _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. <Accuracy scoping team - proposed next steps - 23 April 2021.pdf>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

2 1

FW: [Ext] Monday, 10 May 2021
by Andrea Glandon 10 May '21

10 May '21

[http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=a34006c0-fe39-41ca-9d1d-1f837b2b83a7&a=1122025…] Monday, 10 May 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 · REMINDER: ICANN71 Publication Support · REMINDER: Participate in "ICANN Community Groups: An Introduction for Newcomers" · REMINDER: ICANN Continues the Pandemic Internet Access Reimbursement Program Public Comment · GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Phase 1 Final Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration · GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration · Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 5 (MSR-5) Information Sharing REMINDER: ICANN71 Publication Support Design Deadline For publication design assistance, please provide all the text, images, layout, and publication type/size requirements (i.e. newsletter, one-pager, trifold, etc.) by Friday, 14 May 2021. Please keep in mind that all materials, new or updated, must be evergreen. There is a maximum of two design iterations per publication. Translation-only Deadline For translation, please provide the final material(s) by Friday, 21 May 2021. This ensures that there is enough time to translate the publication. If the publication requires design assistance, please note that the final materials will have to be complete, including the edit/approval process, by this deadline in order to be translated. Please work directly with your support team to submit these requests to evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org and liana.teo(a)icann.org. REMINDER: Participate in "ICANN Community Groups: An Introduction for Newcomers" The Public Responsibility Support team seeks speakers from ICANN communities to participate in an introductory session for newcomers. Each speaker will have five minutes to provide an overview of their ICANN community group. The session will take place Wednesday, 2 June 2021, 13:00-14:30 UTC. Sign up [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001jaD4DNG1NiVeuaHGO…> by Monday, 24 May 2021. Please contact deborah.escalera(a)icann.org with any questions. REMINDER: ICANN Continues the Pandemic Internet Access Reimbursement Program Interested ICANN community members must apply [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001jaD4DNG1NiVeuaHGO…> in advance of ICANN71, and those who meet the eligibility requirements will be selected to participate. The application deadline is Friday, 28 May 2021 at 23:59 UTC. The goal of this program is to facilitate participation in ICANN Public Meetings during this pandemic. It offers ICANN community members who have limited Internet capacity financial assistance to increase their Internet bandwidth. Public Comment GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Phase 1 Final Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001jaD4DNG1NiVeuaHGO…> Close Date: Friday, 21 May 2021 GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001jaD4DNG1NiVeuaHGO…> Close Date: Tuesday, 1 June 2021 Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 5 (MSR-5) [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001jaD4DNG1NiVeuaHGO…> Close Date: Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Volume 3, Issue 35 | Archive [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001jaD4DNG1NiVeuaHGO…> | Next Issue: Thursday, 13 May 2021 ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe andrea.glandon(a)icann.org [visitor.constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=00…> Update Profile [visitor.constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&m=00…> | Constant Contact Data Notice [constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.constantcontact.com/legal/customer-c…> Sent by david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> powered by [Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today.][constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=nge&…> Try email marketing for free today! [constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=nge&…>

1 0

DEADLINE TODAY: Document and Motion deadline Monday 10 May 2021 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council Meeting 20 May 2021 at 19:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine 10 May '21

10 May '21

Dear all, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. Monday 10 May 2021 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday 20 May 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/2YO1CQ 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

URGENT REVIEW: GNSO Council Review of GAC Communique - ICANN70
by Pam Little 07 May '21

07 May '21

Dear Councilors, In the interest of time and on behalf of the Council small drafting team, please find attached a clean copy of the GNSO Council Review of GAC Communique - ICANN70 for your review. Please kindly provide any feedback you may have by COB Thursday, 6 May. Apologies for such short turn around time but we are aiming to send the final document to the Board no later than 7 May noting formal approved will take place at the 20 May Council meeting. Many thanks to Jeff and Councilors who contributed to this effort. Kind regards, Pam

2 1

FW: [gnso-chairs] [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to Philippe Fouquart
by philippe.fouquart＠orange.com 07 May '21

07 May '21

Dear Councillors, Please note this acknowledgement of receipt of our letters to the Board regarding recommendations 7 and 12 of the EPDP Ph1. Have a nice weekend, Philippe -------- Message d'origine -------- De : Wendy Profit via Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs(a)icann.org> Date : 07/05/2021 17:53 (GMT+01:00) À : gnso-chairs(a)icann.org, gnso-secs(a)icann.org Cc : Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org>, Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, Correspondence <Correspondence(a)icann.org>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team(a)icann.org> Objet : [gnso-chairs] [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to Philippe Fouquart Dear Philippe Fouquart, Please find the attached letter from Maarten Botterman regarding the GNSO’s two recent letters concerning the GNSO Council adoption of a motion on EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 7, and the Council’s clarification on the Supplemental Guidance on EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 12. Thank you and best regards, Wendy Profit ICANN Board Operations Senior Manager 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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

Accuracy scoping team - proposed next steps
by philippe.fouquart＠orange.com 07 May '21

07 May '21

Dear Councillors, Following our extraordinary meeting on 8 April 2021, Council leadership, with the support of the GNSO Support Staff, has worked together to develop a set of proposed next steps for dealing with the topic of accuracy. The proposed next steps aim to find a balance between the different viewpoints that have been expressed on this topic while at the same time recognizing our commitment to fact-based policy development. The Council leadership's expectation is that by focusing on identifying and confirming the problem(s) (if any), the scoping team will be in a much better position to recommend to the Council what next steps to take. We would like to request that you review the attached document with your respective groups and indicate by Friday 7 May at the latest if you have any significant concerns or objections about the proposed next steps. If no concerns or objections are raised, Council leadership will include formal confirmation of these next steps on the consent agenda for the Council meeting on 20 May 2021. We would also like to request Jeffrey, as the Council liaison to the GAC, to share this message with his GAC point of contact for the GAC's information, making clear that this document is still subject to change, as the GAC has expressed interest in this topic in its recent engagements with the GNSO Council. Regards, Pam, Tanya & Philippe _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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.

2 2

GAC Feedback on Accuracy Scoping Document (long note)
by Jeff Neuman 06 May '21

06 May '21

All, I have had a couple of discussions with the GAC contact to the GNSO, Jorge Cancio as well as an exchange of emails on the Accuracy Scoping Document. The email exchange has been shared with the GNSO Council Leaders. GNSO Council Leadership is planning on a call with GAC Leaders and Topic Leads to discuss this topic in the near future. To summarize GAC initial feedback, and the responses (in italics from GNSO Council Leadership): General Statement from GNSO Council Leadership to the GAC on Scoping Paper: As you know, the topic of accuracy has always been challenging for the ICANN community and has become even more complex post GDPR. In coming up with the proposed next steps, Council leadership team worked closely with staff who were involved in supporting the EPDP and our approach was very much informed by the Accuracy Briefing Paper from ICANN org, which we believe provides the necessary objectivity. We were also guided by PDP 3.0 Improvement #4: Consensus Playbook<https://go.icann.org/consensus>, based on which, we believe the proposed next steps are appropriate for the Accuracy Scoping Team to: 1. Assess the Situation 2. Right-Size the Problem Specific Comments from the GAC and responses from GNSO Council Leadership 1. GAC Comment: "We are not sure how this step fits in with the originally planned scoping exercise, whereto the GAC had been invited to participate; GNSO Council Leadership: Council reached out to the different groups to assess interest and availability to participate in a possible scoping team. No formal invitation to participate has been sent yet. 1. GAC Comment. The document seems to imply that accuracy is an issue only for contracted parties, and not for the larger community as well, and that the issue is not "immediate" or urgent, which it is... GNSO Council Leadership: This seems to be a misunderstanding. The references to contracted parties are due to their unique role as data controllers (see Bird & Bird memos on accuracy). All those participating in the scoping team are requested to identify "what problems, if any, are expected to be addressed and how", this is not limited by any means to the perspective of contracted parties. 1. GAC Comment: The scoping team should remain free to shape the scoping analysis, whereas the proposed document gives quite clear-cut indications as to the work to be carried out. GNSO Council Leadership: We believe it is the Council's role, if not obligation, to provide instructions to the scoping team on what the expected deliverables are. This is what is set out in the document. 1. GAC Comment: As to scope, there is support for the idea that the scoping analysis should be broader than the questions discussed under EPDP. In fact, the document could be read as unduly restricting the scope of future efforts by (at least initially) confining the inquiry to GDPR compliance. The discussion wrongly mentions that the accuracy issue originated with the EPDP when in reality, the concerns with inaccurate domain name registration data predated the EPDP and have been raised for many years. Indeed, the concerns about whether domain name registration data was sufficiently accurate led to ICANN's Accuracy Reporting System (ARS) initiative, an initiative that was regrettably suspended before it reached the key phase that would have measured the accuracy of the registrant's identity. GNSO Council Leadership: The reference to EPDP is because that is how the topic has ended up on the Council's agenda (see EPDP Phase 1 recommendation "footnote 6 - The topic of accuracy as related to GDPR compliance is expected to be considered further as well as the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System) but the proposed steps forward document clearly recognizes that the scope should not be artificially limited to accuracy as defined under GDPR, as suggested in the ICANN org Briefing Paper. It was not intended to be interpreted as to the definitive date as to when concerns were expressed about the accuracy of registration data. 1. GAC Comment: Based on the document, colleagues comment that GNSO should be mindful of two main points: * 'accuracy definition' issues should not allow blocking the scoping work (as this is the case on DNS abuse where definition issues do not allow advancing on addressing problems of major importance). * An adversarial discussion on 'there is - or not - an accuracy-related problem' would lead to a deadlock situation; and should be avoided as a starting point to the discussion. GNSO Council Leadership: As currently drafted, the instructions to the scoping team are: " Recognizing that there may be different interpretations of what "accuracy" means, what it may or may not include in different contexts and the laws in this area are evolving, it may be worth exploring the topic from a different angle. 1. Council leadership would like to propose that the scoping team focuses its deliberations on identifying what problems, if any, are expected to be addressed and how". This approach is specifically intended to avoid focusing on a definition to determine the scope of work, but instead focus on identifying and quantifying the problem so that a data-driven approach can be taken in considering this issue further. 1. GAC Comment: It has also been said that this proposal limit data gathering in a manner that won't reveal to what extent current domain name registration data is accurate. In this sense, while there is a recognition of the need to gather data on this issue, the approach seems again too narrow as it seems to focus only on the right of rectification or complaints about data accuracy. These two data points alone will not permit a full picture off data accuracy. The right of rectification will only shed light on whether registrants themselves need to correct their data (shedding no light on those registrants who intentionally provide false data to hide their identity). Similarly, complaints about inaccurate data are likely hard to find - you don't know what you don't know. Instead, there needs to be a verification effort to test the accuracy of current data - that would provide a useful baseline." GNSO Council Leadership: There has been no limit set to the data gathering or what it would focus on, but the scoping team is expected to consider work that has already been undertaken in this area as well as advice that has been provided by Bird & Bird on potential avenues that could be explored. [cid:image001.png@01D74293.595E58A0] 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

1 0

FW: [Ext] Thursday, 6 May 2021
by Julie Bisland 06 May '21

06 May '21

FYI From: ICANN Community Leadership Digest <david.olive(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "policyinfo(a)icann.org" <policyinfo(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:44 AM To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Thursday, 6 May 2021 [http://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=621c64c8-f4c9-4b09-9824-98e0ed600d23&a=1122025…] Thursday, 6 May 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: ICANN71 Publication Support · NEW: Participate in "ICANN Community Groups: An Introduction for Newcomers" · NEW: ICANN Continues the Pandemic Internet Access Reimbursement Program Public Comment · GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Phase 1 Final Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration · GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration · Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 5 (MSR-5) Information Sharing NEW: ICANN71 Publication Support Design Deadline For publication design assistance, please provide all the text, images, layout, and publication type/size requirements (i.e. newsletter, one-pager, trifold, etc.) by Monday, 10 May 2021. Please keep in mind that all materials, new or updated, must be evergreen. There is a maximum of two design iterations per publication. Translation-only Deadline For translation, please provide the final material(s) by Friday, 21 May 2021. This ensures that there is enough time to translate the publication. If the publication requires design assistance, please note that the final materials will have to be complete, including the edit/approval process, by this deadline in order to be translated. Please work directly with your support team to submit these requests to evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org and liana.teo(a)icann.org. NEW: Participate in "ICANN Community Groups: An Introduction for Newcomers" The Public Responsibility Support team seeks speakers from ICANN communities to participate in an introductory session for newcomers. Each speaker will have five minutes to provide an overview of their ICANN community group. The session will take place Wednesday, 2 June 2021, 13:00-14:30 UTC. Sign up [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001gNHKOXufuAKDOkQM2…> by Monday, 24 May 2021. Please contact deborah.escalera(a)icann.org with any questions. NEW: ICANN Continues the Pandemic Internet Access Reimbursement Program Interested ICANN community members must apply [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001gNHKOXufuAKDOkQM2…> in advance of ICANN71, and those who meet the eligibility requirements will be selected to participate. The application deadline is Friday, 28 May 2021 at 23:59 UTC. The goal of this program is to facilitate participation in ICANN Public Meetings during this pandemic. It offers ICANN community members who have limited Internet capacity financial assistance to increase their Internet bandwidth. Public Comment GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Phase 1 Final Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001gNHKOXufuAKDOkQM2…> Close Date: Friday, 21 May 2021 GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001gNHKOXufuAKDOkQM2…> Close Date: Tuesday, 1 June 2021 Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 5 (MSR-5) [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001gNHKOXufuAKDOkQM2…> Close Date: Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Volume 3, Issue 34 | Archive [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001gNHKOXufuAKDOkQM2…> | Next Issue: Monday, 10 May 2021

1 0

EPDP-P2A // April 2021 Project Package
by policy＠bacinblack.com 06 May '21

06 May '21

Dear Councilors, On behalf of the EPDP-P2A leadership team, please find attached the EPDP-P2A's 30 April 2021 project package. 1. Page 01 - Summary timeline 2. Page 02 - Project Sitrep - an extract from the Council's Project List 3. Page 03 - Group roster 4. Page 04 - Group attendance for plenary and legal committee 5. Page 05 - Work and activity metrics 6. Page 06 - Project Plan, Gannt chart 7. Pages 07-08 - Work plan & Action items for the period Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you B Berry Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant Principal | BAC in Black Consulting <http://bacinblack.com/> Mob: +1 (720) 839-5735 <https://twitter.com/berrycobb> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/berrycobb/>

1 0

FW: [ECAdmin] ccNSO Appointment to ECA
by philippe.fouquart＠orange.com 06 May '21

06 May '21

Dear SG/C leaders, This is for your information as this appointment from our cc colleagues relates to the EC. Regards, Philippe From: ECAdmin [mailto:ecadmin-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alejandra Reynoso via ECAdmin Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 3:57 PM To: john.jeffrey(a)icann.org Cc: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org>; ccnso-tracker(a)icann.org; ecadmin(a)icann.org Subject: [ECAdmin] ccNSO Appointment to ECA Dear John, As required under ICANN Bylaws 6.3 (a), I am pleased to inform you that in accordance with the Guideline: Appointment of the ccNSO Representative on the Empowered Community Administration*, the ccNSO Council has recently (30 April 2021) appointed me, replacing Stephen Deerhake, as the ccNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration for a term of one year, concluding at the end of the ICANN73 meeting, at which time the ccNSO Council will again appoint a representative for one year period. On behalf of the ccNSO Council, and best regards, Alejandra Reynoso Chair * https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/… -- [Photograph] Alejandra Reynoso Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt P: +502 23688565 E: alejandra.reynoso(a)cctld.gt<mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt<http://www.gt/> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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