- Gac-gnso-cg - lists.icann.org

GAC-GNSO day-to-day cooperation ..
by Manal Ismail Feb. 24, 2014

Feb. 24, 2014

Dear All .. Please find attached the document prepared by Marika and Olof on mechanisms for GAC-GNSO day-to-day cooperation .. Further to our discussion during our last conference call, appreciate your feedback on the following 2 points, before we start populating the table on page 2 .. 1. Confirm whether these are the objectives & expectations and/or whether any additions / revisions are needed 2. What are the options to be considered to achieve these objectives? Any additional ones? Looking forward to receiving your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal

6 10

Overview of Active GNSO Working Groups
by Marika Konings Feb. 19, 2014

Feb. 19, 2014

Dear All, As requested during the last meeting, please find below an overview of the currently active GNSO PDP and non-PDP Working Group. For further details on each of the PDP WGs, please see also the monthly one-pagers that are provided to the GAC which are focused on identifying upcoming engagement opportunities (see https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Engagement+Policy+Document s). For additional information about the other activities, please see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active. Please let me know should you have any questions. Best regards, Marika Overview of Active GNSO Working Groups 1. Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Policy Development Process A number of high priority topics were identified by the ICANN community for the RAA negotiations. One of these was the accreditation of providers of privacy and proxy services for domain name registrations. A privacy service is one in which a domain name is registered in the registrant¹s name, but other contact details displayed in the publicly-accessible Whois gTLD registration data directory are those given by the privacy service provider and not those of the registrant. A proxy service is one in which the registered name holder licenses use of the domain to the customer who actually uses the domain, and the contact information displayed in the Whois system is that of the registered name holder. The Whois system is a form of Internet data directory service, utilizing a protocol that permits public lookup of a domain name, including certain contact and technical information about the registrant and the domain. The topic of privacy and proxy services accreditation was not addressed in the 2013 RAA negotiations. As such this PDP will examine the issues related to the provision and accreditation of privacy and proxy services, with a view toward assisting ICANN with developing an accreditation program for such services (see PDP WG Charter for further details - https://community.icann.org/x/pCifAg) Status: WG commended in November 2013. Input has been requested to help inform its deliberations from all SO/ACs. 2. Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process This PDP WG is expected to make recommendations to the GNSO Council on whether it is desirable to translate or transliterate contact information. In this context "contact information" is a subset of Domain Name Registration Data and thus the information that enables someone using a Domain Name Registration Data Directory Service (such as WHOIS) to contact the domain name registration holder. It usually includes the name, organization, and postal address of the registered name holder, technical contact, as well as administrative contact. Translation is defined as the translation of a text into another language and transliteration is the writing of a word using the closest corresponding letters of a different alphabet. Status: WG commenced in December 2013. Input has been requested to help inform its deliberations from all SO/ACs. 3. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Policy Development Process The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D PDP Working Group is chartered by the GNSO Council to answer six questions in relation to the IRTP: 1) whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed; 2) whether to amend the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred; 3) whether dispute options for registrants should be developed; 4) whether registrars should be required to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants; 5) whether additional penalties for IRTP breaches should be introduced, and; 6) whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need for FOAs. Status: The Working Group is expected to publish its Initial Report for public comment prior to the ICANN meeting in Singapore. Input was requested at the early stages of the WG¹s deliberations to help inform its deliberations from all SO/ACs. 4. Amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure to enable access to them by protected International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) Preliminary Issue Report At its meeting on 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council unanimously adopted all the consensus recommendations made by the GNSO¹s Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on the Protection of International Organization Names in All gTLDs (IGO-INGO WG). One of these recommendations was for the GNSO Council to request an Issue Report, to assist in determining whether a PDP should be initiated in order to explore possible amendments to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure, to enable access to and use of such curative rights protection mechanisms by protected International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs). The GNSO Council also adopted the IGO-INGO WG consensus recommendations for varied protections at the top and/or second level for certain specified names and acronyms of IGOs and INGOs (including certain emblems and names of the Red Cross movement and the International Olympic Committee). Status: Preliminary Issue Report is expected to be published for public comment by the end of February 2014. 5. Policy & Implementation Non-PDP Working Group Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation related issues of the new gTLD program, there is increased focus on which topics call for policy and which call for implementation work, including which processes should be used, at what time and how diverging opinions should be acted upon. Following several discussions by the GNSO Council on this topic, the GNSO Council formed a Working Group which has been tasked to provide concrete recommendations on how to address some of these issues from a GNSO perspective. The WG started its deliberations in August and has been tasked to provide the GNSO Council with recommendations on: 1. A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy and implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO Operating Procedures. 2. A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of "Policy Guidance", including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process (for developing policy other than "Consensus Policy") instead of a GNSO Policy Development Process; 3. A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO Policy Recommendations; 4. Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation, and; 5. Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate. Status: The WG started its deliberations in August 2013 and aims to publish an Initial Report for public comment by October 2014. Input was requested to help inform its deliberations from all SO/ACs. 6. Cross Community Working Groups Non-PDP Drafting Team The ICANN community has recognized that there may periodically be issues that cut across and are of interest to more than one of ICANN¹s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Cross-community working groups have been created previously, including the Joint DNS Security & Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA) involving At Large, ccNSO, GNSO, NRO, and SSAC, and the Joint IDN Working Group (JIG) involving the ccNSO and GNSO. Many ICANN community members have highlighted the need for a set of principles that would guide the formation and working processes of these cross-community working groups. This CWG Drafting Team, co-chaired by the GNSO and ccNSO, is a renewed effort to develop a charter for a WG tasked to develop a framework of operating principles that would allow for the effective and efficient functioning of future CWGs. Status: the DT is expected to submit the charter for consideration by the GNSO and ccNSO Council in Sinapore. Following adoption of the charter, a call for volunteers will be circulated to the community for participation. 7. Data & Metrics for Policy Making Non-PDP Working Group This effort allows for a review in how the community can collaborate with contracted parties and other reporting service providers in the sharing of complaint and abuse data that may also further educate Registrants and Internet users in submission of complaints to the appropriate party. It will also investigate how metrics can benefit the policy development process and improve fact-based decision-making. Status: The GNSO Council adopted the charter for the working group in January 2014 and a call for volunteers has been launched (open to anyone interested to join).

4 8

Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Action items from today's meeting
by Marika Konings Feb. 12, 2014

Feb. 12, 2014

Apologies, I just realised I sent you the redline version instead of the final version which you'll find attached now. Best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 11 February 2014 20:56 To: "gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org" <gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Action items from today's meeting Dear All, Following today's meeting, please find attached the final version of the charter as agreed by those on the call today. The charter will now be shared with the GNSO Council and GAC members for their information. Also attached is the proposed FY15 Community Request Form to support the GAC-GNSO Liaison as circulated earlier this week. If there are any further comments and /or questions, please submit these by Friday 14 February at the latest. As noted before, this request is in no way intended to prejudice the discussion on the different options that have been put forward to date and as such can be withdrawn at any point the consultation groups decides not to pursue this specific option any further. Please note that the next meeting is scheduled for 25 February at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika

1 0

Action items from today's meeting
by Marika Konings Feb. 11, 2014

Feb. 11, 2014

Dear All, Following today's meeting, please find attached the final version of the charter as agreed by those on the call today. The charter will now be shared with the GNSO Council and GAC members for their information. Also attached is the proposed FY15 Community Request Form to support the GAC-GNSO Liaison as circulated earlier this week. If there are any further comments and /or questions, please submit these by Friday 14 February at the latest. As noted before, this request is in no way intended to prejudice the discussion on the different options that have been put forward to date and as such can be withdrawn at any point the consultation groups decides not to pursue this specific option any further. Please note that the next meeting is scheduled for 25 February at 14.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika

1 0

MP3 recording GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference Tuesday 11 February 2014 1400 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 11, 2014

Feb. 11, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference held on Tuesday 11 February 2014 at 1400 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-20140211-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb Please also note that the next call is scheduled for Tuesday, 25 February at 14:00 UTC. The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Government Advisory Committee Manal Ismail - co-chair - Egypt Ana Neves - Portugal Suzanne Radel - USA Gema Maria Campillos - Spain GNSO Council Jonathan Robinson - co-chair - Registries Stakeholder Group Mikey O'Connor -Internet Service Providers & Connectivity Providers Constituency Amr Elsadr - Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) Apology: Mark Carvell - UK David Cake - GNSO vice chair ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Olof Nordling Glen de Saint Géry ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Public archives of the mailing list can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Adobe Chat transcript: Marika Konings:Welcome to the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on Early Engagement of 11 February 2014 Marika Konings:Mikey, do note that this is part of the FY15 Community Request Form, not the 'normal' ICANN Budget process Marika Konings:For further information, please see https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/Community+Special+Budget… Amr Elsadr:@Mikey: That sounds like a very good idea. Gema Campillos:@Mike: finding a GAC volunteer to follow the work of the Inter Registrar Transfer Policy working group or the Data and Metrics for Policy-Making working group can be difficult. Amr Elsadr:@Marika: +1. In different situations, sometimes even individual insights by GAC members would be very helpful to GNSO WGs. Gema Campillos:Reasons: as you say, they don´t have a clear public policy interest and second, it is always hard to allocate more time to these issues. But, have a try!! Mike O'Connor:@Gema -- yes, i agree. IRTP isn't one that warrants a participant -- but maybe a comment? Gema Campillos:We´ll try to encourage GAC participation to place a comment! Mike O'Connor:terrific! :-) Marika Konings:Suzanne, as you've flaged privacy/proxy as an important topic for the GAC, is there something we can do in the interim to encourage GAC input? Would it be helpful to provide a status update to the GAC in Singapore? Marika Konings:either as part of the GAC-GNSO joint meeting, or as a separate update from the WG itself? Suzanne Radell:Thank you, Marike, for the offer, which I do think we need to pursue further. May I get back to you and Olof after the GAC call next week (during which I will flag this issue Marika Konings:@Suzanne - yes, definitely. Olof Nordling:Likewise, Suzanne! Suzanne Radell:Well said, Jonathan; I like the sound of that Amr Elsadr:Some of the WGs in which it was perceived by the WG members that GAC input would be valuable were mentioned in Marika's email. We should build on that. Marika Konings:Maybe it would be helpful if I provide a list of currently ongoing PDPs / WGs with a short description which may make it easier for the GAC to prioritize and/or determine which ones are likely to have public policy impact? Suzanne Radell:That is a great idea, Marika, and thanks for offering! Manal Ismail:Thanks Marika .. indeed great idea .. Ana Neves:@ Marika +1. Thanks. Amr Elsadr:@Marika: Yes on public policy impact, but also on insights on PDPs concerned with languages/IDNs/internationalized domain name registration data. Amr Elsadr:For e.g.: as mentioned in your email - the translation & transliteration of contact information pdp. Olof Nordling:@Suzanne "Coordination Group" is what we are;-) Suzanne Radell:Thanks, Olof Marika Konings:@Olof - it is actually Consultation Group... Olof Nordling:or rather Consultation Group... oops! Suzanne Radell:Very helpful comments, Marika. Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Bye. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

charter - final version
by Mike O'Connor Feb. 11, 2014

Feb. 11, 2014

hi all, here’s the final version of the charter mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

GAC-GNSO Special Budget Request Liaison
by Marika Konings Feb. 11, 2014

Feb. 11, 2014

Dear All, As discussed, Olof and I have prepared a first draft of the FY15 Community Request Form to request travel support for a GNSO liaison to the GAC. As noted before, this request is in no way intended to prejudice the discussion on the different options that have been put forward to date and as such can be withdrawn at any point the consultation groups decides not to pursue this specific option any further. Please note that the deadline for submission is 7 March. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Best regards, Marika

4 7

Agenda for Tues. Feb. 11th cc ..
by Manal Ismail Feb. 11, 2014

Feb. 11, 2014

Dear All .. Apologies for the late sending .. Here is the agenda for today's conference call as compiled by Jonathan and myself .. 1. Sign off Charter (Version circulated by Mikey on Feb. 10th, 2014) 2. Day-to-day work track (Working document prepared by Marika and Olof - Version circulated for our conference call on Jan. 28th, 2014) o First draft of the FY15 Community Request Form to request travel support for GNSO liaison to the GAC (Prepared by Marika and Olof - Version circulated by Marika on Jan. 10th, 2014) o Interim measures to ensure effective GNSO / GAC interaction 3. PDP work track (Working document prepared by Marika, Mikey and Suzanne - Version circulated for our conference call on Jan. 28th, 2014) 4. Agree on expectations from both work tracks for the following call (Note: Next call scheduled - 25 February 2014, 14h00 UTC) 5. AOB Referenced documents are all attached for your convenience .. Kind Regards --Manal

2 2

Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] version 7 of the charter - reflecting the last editson today's call
by Manal Ismail Feb. 10, 2014

Feb. 10, 2014

Dear Mark .. I was fine with the initial phrase, "at a very late stage", as I understood it exactly as you have described .. But if there's a probability that it may be misunderstood, I'm equally fine with either alternative, "at the end stage" or " in the final stage", as suggested by Marika and yourself .. Frankly, I have to admit I do not see big difference, so I'm flexible .. Kind Regards --Manal From: CARVELL, Mark [mailto:Mark.Carvell@Culture.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 4:07 PM To: Manal Ismail; Marika Konings; Mike O'Connor; GAC-GNSO-CG(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] version 7 of the charter - reflecting the last editson today's call Dear Marika and Manal Rather than "at the end stage", perhaps " in the final stage" is preferable as the more usual turn of phrase. I thought "at a very late stage" was ok because it effectively conveys a useful emphasis of near finality and "late" has simply the temporal meaning here: as in "they won the match with a late goal" it does not infer a delay or tardiness. Best regards Mark From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: 29 January 2014 11:10 To: Marika Konings; Mike O'Connor; GAC-GNSO-CG(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] version 7 of the charter - reflecting the last editson today's call Thanks Marika .. I see your point and personally, I'm fine with replacing 'at a very late stage' by 'at the end' .. For the sake of the charter, I believe the more we stick to facts, rather than opinions, the easier we reach consensus .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:45 PM To: Manal Ismail; Mike O'Connor; GAC-GNSO-CG(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] version 7 of the charter - reflecting the last editson today's call All, If I may make another suggestion for a change - could we use 'at the end' instead of 'at a very late stage' so that the sentence as reworded by Manal would read 'A timing difficulty arises because the Board seeks GAC advice only when the GNSO PDP reaches the Board at the end stage of the GNSO policy-deliberation process'. Very late stage seems to imply that it should have reached the Board earlier but it didn't, while at the end stage reflects the reality of the current PDP (the Board only gets involved at the end stage of the process). Thanks, Marika From: Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg> Date: Wednesday 29 January 2014 11:14 To: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, "GAC-GNSO-CG(a)icann.org" <GAC-GNSO-CG(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] version 7 of the charter - reflecting the last editson today's call Many thanks Mikey, as usual unbeatable speed J .. Dear All .. I've included below the paragraph under debate for ease of reference .. "The GAC is structured under the ICANN Bylaws to provide advice to the Board. A timing difficulty arises because the GNSO PDP reaches the Board at a very late stage of the GNSO policy-deliberation process and it may only be at that time that the GAC turns its attention to the GNSO's work. [Only then does the Board request GAC advice, which is an example of a process that appears to need review and improvement.]" The sentence "and it may only be at that time that the GAC turns its attention to the GNSO's work." implies that the GAC does not know about the GNSO's work until the Board seeks advice, which is not the case .. Hence the suggestion I did during the call was: - "The GAC is structured under the ICANN Bylaws to provide advice to the Board. A timing difficulty arises because the Board seeks GAC advice only when the GNSO PDP reaches the Board at a very late stage of the GNSO policy-deliberation process." I also believe this serves the purpose: - "The GAC is structured under the ICANN Bylaws to provide advice to the Board. The GNSO PDP reaches the Board at a very late stage of the GNSO policy-deliberation process. A timing difficulty arises when the Board then seeks GAC advice because only at that time that the GNSO gets to know about GAC concerns. [A process that appears to need review and improvement.] For me, the sentence between square brackets is not indicated but does not harm the meaning .. Looking forward to hearing what others think .. Kind Regards --Manal From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:03 PM To: GAC-GNSO-CG(a)icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] version 7 of the charter - reflecting the last editson today's call here's the version of the draft m This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. ************************************************************************ **** This email and its contents are the property of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it. All DCMS e-mail is recorded and stored for a minimum of 6 months The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

4 3

version 7 of the charter - reflecting the last edits on today's call
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 29, 2014

Jan. 29, 2014

here’s the version of the draft m PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

4 4