FW: FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018
Resending as I don’t believe this went through. From: Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 1:54 PM To: mail@berrycobb.com; christopher.lamb17@gmail.com; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 All, The NCSG Call where this was discussed can be found here: https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1808&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&O=D&P=1207.... The conversation starts somewhere around 6:30 in. They acknowledge no one from the NCSG participated (in the chat transcript), but ultimately will abstain or vote no. It seemed apparent from listening to the call that they did not really review the final report and the changes. Here is my summary of the oral conversation: 1. Farzanah stated that she has not really had a chance to review, but thinks that this is overreach by the Red Cross. In fact, she refers to objecting to acronyms (My note: She did not read final report because there are no acronyms); She recommends a no or an abstention. 2. Amr: My understanding is that there is no real legal basis to protect these names. Amr wants to know where acronyms stand and where the discussions are taking place. [My note: It is clear that the NCSG did not understand scope of the referral back] 3. [Other person – Did not get name] – Where is the report and is there a summary of the report?; Link given to her. 4. Rafik: We can ask questions and list them and hopefully Council will answer them. He brings up the possibility of deferring the motion. He says we can say there was not enough time to review. So we need more time to understand. The WG said they reviewed our comment carefully. Apparently Thomas Rickert was supposed to reach out to Rafik, but Rafik said he has not heard anything.F 5. Farzanah – We should have participated in the WG, but we can still vote no. Our NCSG “Values” are against this. 6. Rafik: Lets work on our rationale for saying no during the deferral. Yes, we did not have people working on the Group. But this WG took up so much time that a lot people stopped participating after the many years. This is from the chat transcript: Tatiana Tropina:I am not comfortable with voting on this motion, I agree with Farz that we need to raise the questions, esp with regard to what GNSO said in 2017 (there is a reference to this in our comment) Amr Elsadr:Report here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180807/ab4b45f9/red-cro... Amr Elsadr:Summary of recommendations at the beginning of the report. Tatiana Tropina:I wonder if we have to vote tomorrow. Tatiana Tropina:I wonder if we defer what's gotta change! Amr Elsadr:Wouldn't mind a deferral. Tatiana Tropina:I won't mind a deferral but at the end the report won't change and we will vote no or abstain. Tatiana Tropina:so we can just vote no or abstain with the statements. Claire Craig:If we defer is there a timeframe? Farzaneh Badii:I will read it. I wonder how carefully they read it :) Amr Elsadr:We need to get real. Nobody from NCSG participated in this WG, and the WG is submitted to the Council with Full Consensus of its members. The motion will pass on Council, irrespective of our views/votes. Tatiana Tropina:okay let's asl for a deferral tomorrow Tatiana Tropina:Amr, that's what am saying, the deferral would be only to strategise our abstentions/nos Tatiana Tropina:and supermajority, yes Elsa Saade:i tend to agree with Tatiana on this one Amr Elsadr::-) Tatiana Tropina:I am somewhere in the middile ground, I won't mind just to vote no tomorrow Tatiana Tropina:It's just stand on our ground. So instead of deferral we can just say a big no right on the spot. But deferral is better, some fuss :-) Farzaneh Badii:I can help with the reason Stephanie Perrin:Can we come up with a clear paragraph as to what we are objecting to? Tatiana Tropina:No requires no explanation, but abstention won't count. Hmmmm. Hard choice, let's defer Amr Elsadr:If our councilors would like this motion to be defered, should be for a good reason. One reason might be to investigate whether or not the WG has made its recommendations based on a legal basis, or not. If there is a legal basis for these names to be reserved, then the WG should demonstrate this. If there isn't..., Tatiana Tropina:Farzaneh, the comment you drafted is really outlining all the reasons very good, but if there is anything else you could add - am sure we all will appreciate.... Farzaneh Badii:sure. I just have to check if they changed anything based on our comments. I doubt it :) Tatiana Tropina:Amr, do you think the reason that the WG chair promised to get in contact with us and explain how our comments were addressed etc etc is not a good reason? The fact that we need investigate... ? Tatiana Tropina:I saw they still had the magic number 191... Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 8:21 AM To: christopher.lamb17@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com>; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Hi All, You can view the bicameral structure of the GNSO Council here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/council The structure of the GNSO, descriptions of each Stakeholder Group and Constituency as well as ExCom composition can be found on their respective pages nested under the Council description page linked above. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: christopher.lamb17@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com> [mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 00:04 To: Greg Shatan Cc: Chuck Gomes Consulting; Berry Cobb; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Dear Greg, Thanks. I was attempting to locate the source of the concerns to see if that added to my understanding of the way forward, and I had misread the constituencies website . These concerns will no doubt emerge from the consultations and explanations ahead, but the whole result is really quite frustrating. Cheers Chris From: Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 13:33 To: Christopher Lamb Cc: Chuck Gomes Consulting ; Berry Cobb ; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Christopher, The RrSG is not affiliated with the NCSG -- they are on opposite sides of the aisle in the GNSO. The NCSG is the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, one of the two Stakeholder Groups in the Non-Contracted Parties House of the GNSO. (The other is the Commercial Stakeholders Group, which in turn comprises the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency and the ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency.) (The NCSG in turn comprises the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the Non-Profit Organization Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC).) The RrSG is the Registrar Stakeholder Group, one of the two Stakeholder Groups in the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO. (The other is the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG).) Best regards, Greg On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:18 PM <christopher.lamb17@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, Agreed, and it will be good to keep track of developments through the updates which Berry has generously offered to provide. Am I right to understand that it is the RrSG within NCSG which has instigated this deferral? Chris From: Chuck Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 10:39 To: mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> ; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 It is very disappointing that the NCSG failed to participate in the process and then requests a deferral. Chuck From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 5:15 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSO Council motions 16 August 2018 Hi All, As an FYI, the motion to approve the Reconvened WG’s report was deferred by the NCSG. It will be considered by the GNSO Council at its 27 September meeting. Concerns about the legal basis were for protections were raised. Thomas had agreed to consult with them to help them better understand the WG’s findings and full support for its consensus recommendations. I will update the group as things progress. Below are links to the recordings and motions adopted by the Council at its meeting today. Thank you. B Please find below the MP3, Adobe Connect recording and chat of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday, 16 August 2018 at 21:00 UTC. MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-16aug18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording URL: https://participate.icann.org/p377bzpfiry/ Adobe Connect chat at: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript... All on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Berry A. Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: Gnso-chairs [mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 19:22 To: gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSO Council motions 16 August 2018 Dear all, Please find below the resolutions from the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday, 16 August 2018. If no objections we will send to the council list. Approved - Consent Agenda: Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board Made by Martin Silva Valent Seconded by Michele Neylon Whereas, 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 4. The GNSO Council hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Panama GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac...) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. 2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. Vote results<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-16aug18-en.p...> DEFFERED - MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RECONVENED WORKING GROUP ON RED CROSS NAMES Proposed by: Heather Forrest Seconded by: Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf, including Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13- en.pdf<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-%...>); 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2); 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were consistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections (which approval, in relation to the Red Cross, was limited to withholding from registration at both the top and second levels the specific terms designated as so-called “Scope 1” identifiers by the PDP Working Group (i.e., “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Crystal” and “Red Lion & Sun” in all six official languages of the United Nations)) and requested additional time to consider those remaining consensus PDP recommendations that were not consistent with GAC advice (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2....); 4. In March 2017, representatives of the GAC and GNSO held a discussion at the ICANN58 Public Meeting in Copenhagen, facilitated by former ICANN Board member Dr. Bruce Tonkin, to discuss a possible path forward for reconciling GAC advice and GNSO policy on the topic of protection at the second level of the domain name system for IGO acronyms and the remaining names and acronyms associated with the Red Cross (being those designated by the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group as “Scope 2” identifiers); 5. Following the March 2017 facilitated discussion, the ICANN Board passed a resolution requesting that the GNSO Council consider initiating the Policy Amendment Process documented in the GNSO PDP Manual in respect of certain of the so-called “Scope 2” identifiers for the Red Cross, i.e., the full names of the National Societies recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, and the full names of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official languages of the United Nations) (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-03-16- en#2.e.i); 6. In May 2017, the GNSO Council passed a resolution noting that the March 2017 facilitated discussions had highlighted a set of exceptional circumstances (in the availability of a finite list of names and documented evidence of the legal basis for their protection) constituting a justifiable basis for the Council’s taking the extraordinary step of reconvening the original IGO-INGO PDP Working Group pursuant to Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual for the specific purpose of considering possible modifications to its previous consensus policy recommendations concerning and limited to the so-called “Scope 2” Red Cross full names noted by the Board, and including a defined, finite list of variants of those names, and with acronyms and any other names not falling within the scope of this reconvened effort (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20170503-071); 7. The Reconvened PDP Working Group held its first meeting on 14 June 2017, and has since worked diligently to develop a set of recommendations that were published for public comment on 21 June 2018 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-protection-initial-2018-06-2...); and 8. Following the close of the public comment period on 31 July 2018, the Reconvened PDP Working Group reviewed the comments that were received and completed its Final Report and finite List of names, which it submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration on 6 August 2018 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo/red-cross-protection-policy-amend-... https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo/red-cross-identifiers-proposed-res...). Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and approves all of the consensus recommendations made by the Reconvened PDP Working Group; 2. The GNSO Council thanks the Reconvened PDP Working Group for its diligence and its successful work in attaining consensus on all recommendations; 3. The GNSO Council thanks the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement for its efforts in providing the documentation and information needed to justify and underpin the consensus recommendations; and 4. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a Recommendations Report for delivery to the ICANN Board in accordance with the process outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. Vote results<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-16aug18-en.p...> Approved - MOTION IN RELATION TO THE ADOPTION OF THE GNSO REVIEW WORKING GROUP IMPLEMENTATION FINAL REPORT Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Donna Austin Whereas: 1. The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014. 2. The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future. 3. The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en...) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority). 4. On 25 June 2016, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). 5. Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations. An implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution. 6. The GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews. This discussion paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 20 June 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discus...). 7. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed next steps during the ICANN meeting in Helsinki where it was proposed to repurpose the SCI as a Working Group to develop the requested implementation plan as outlined in the staff discussion paper. 8. The GNSO Council adopted the Charter<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-21jul16-en.pdf> of the GNSO Review Working Group during its meeting on 21 July 2016. 9. This Working Group was tasked to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Review recommendations<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en...> which were adopted<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e> by the ICANN Board on 25 June 2016. 10. The implementation plan<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61610342/GNSO%20Review%20Im...> was adopted<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+2...> by the GNSO Council on 15 December 2016. 11. On 03 February 2017 the ICANN Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) of the Board of Directors adopted<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-02-03-en#1.e> the plan. 12. Following approval of the implementation plan by the ICANN Board of Directors, the GNSO Review Working Group executed the implementation of the recommendations as specified in the implementation plan, and provided the GNSO Council with regular status updates (at a minimum prior to every ICANN meeting) on the status of implementation, including an overview for which recommendations implementation was considered complete. 13. On 26 July 2018 the GNSO Review Working Group submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso2-revi...> indicating that the Working Group had agreed by full consensus that all GNSO Review recommendations have been implemented as of 21 June 2018. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso2-revi...>. 2. The GNSO Council directs staff to submit the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report to the OEC of the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration. 3. The GNSO Council thanks the GNSO Review Working Group members for their diligence and dedication in the successful execution of the implementation of the GNSO review recommendations. 4. The GNSO Council shall decide to disband the GNSO Review Working Group after the Implementation Final Report has been approved by the ICANN Board of Directors. Vote results<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-16aug18-en.p...> ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo ________________________________ [Avast logo]<https://www.avast.com/antivirus> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/antivirus> _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
Thanks Jeff. I don't think they understand the recommendations enough to explain why they oppose them. I definitely don't understand their position. I wonder whether the GNSO should institute a requirement that an SG cannot request a deferral if they did not participate in the WG. It requires extra time of those who did spend the time in the WG to deal with their unexplained issues. Chuck Get Outlook for Android On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:24 AM -0700, "Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman@valideus.com> wrote: Resending as I don’t believe this went through. From: Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 1:54 PM To: mail@berrycobb.com; christopher.lamb17@gmail.com; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 All, The NCSG Call where this was discussed can be found here: https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1808&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&O=D&P=1207.... The conversation starts somewhere around 6:30 in. They acknowledge no one from the NCSG participated (in the chat transcript), but ultimately will abstain or vote no. It seemed apparent from listening to the call that they did not really review the final report and the changes. Here is my summary of the oral conversation: Farzanah stated that she has not really had a chance to review, but thinks that this is overreach by the Red Cross. In fact, she refers to objecting to acronyms (My note: She did not read final report because there are no acronyms); She recommends a no or an abstention.Amr: My understanding is that there is no real legal basis to protect these names. Amr wants to know where acronyms stand and where the discussions are taking place. [My note: It is clear that the NCSG did not understand scope of the referral back][Other person – Did not get name] – Where is the report and is there a summary of the report?; Link given to her.Rafik: We can ask questions and list them and hopefully Council will answer them. He brings up the possibility of deferring the motion. He says we can say there was not enough time to review. So we need more time to understand. The WG said they reviewed our comment carefully. Apparently Thomas Rickert was supposed to reach out to Rafik, but Rafik said he has not heard anything.FFarzanah – We should have participated in the WG, but we can still vote no. Our NCSG “Values” are against this.Rafik: Lets work on our rationale for saying no during the deferral. Yes, we did not have people working on the Group. But this WG took up so much time that a lot people stopped participating after the many years. This is from the chat transcript: Tatiana Tropina:I am not comfortable with voting on this motion, I agree with Farz that we need to raise the questions, esp with regard to what GNSO said in 2017 (there is a reference to this in our comment) Amr Elsadr:Report here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180807/ab4b45f9/red-cro... Amr Elsadr:Summary of recommendations at the beginning of the report. Tatiana Tropina:I wonder if we have to vote tomorrow. Tatiana Tropina:I wonder if we defer what's gotta change! Amr Elsadr:Wouldn't mind a deferral. Tatiana Tropina:I won't mind a deferral but at the end the report won't change and we will vote no or abstain. Tatiana Tropina:so we can just vote no or abstain with the statements. Claire Craig:If we defer is there a timeframe? Farzaneh Badii:I will read it. I wonder how carefully they read it :) Amr Elsadr:We need to get real. Nobody from NCSG participated in this WG, and the WG is submitted to the Council with Full Consensus of its members. The motion will pass on Council, irrespective of our views/votes. Tatiana Tropina:okay let's asl for a deferral tomorrow Tatiana Tropina:Amr, that's what am saying, the deferral would be only to strategise our abstentions/nos Tatiana Tropina:and supermajority, yes Elsa Saade:i tend to agree with Tatiana on this one Amr Elsadr::-) Tatiana Tropina:I am somewhere in the middile ground, I won't mind just to vote no tomorrow Tatiana Tropina:It's just stand on our ground. So instead of deferral we can just say a big no right on the spot. But deferral is better, some fuss :-) Farzaneh Badii:I can help with the reason Stephanie Perrin:Can we come up with a clear paragraph as to what we are objecting to? Tatiana Tropina:No requires no explanation, but abstention won't count. Hmmmm. Hard choice, let's defer Amr Elsadr:If our councilors would like this motion to be defered, should be for a good reason. One reason might be to investigate whether or not the WG has made its recommendations based on a legal basis, or not. If there is a legal basis for these names to be reserved, then the WG should demonstrate this. If there isn't..., Tatiana Tropina:Farzaneh, the comment you drafted is really outlining all the reasons very good, but if there is anything else you could add - am sure we all will appreciate.... Farzaneh Badii:sure. I just have to check if they changed anything based on our comments. I doubt it :) Tatiana Tropina:Amr, do you think the reason that the WG chair promised to get in contact with us and explain how our comments were addressed etc etc is not a good reason? The fact that we need investigate... ? Tatiana Tropina:I saw they still had the magic number 191... Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of mail@berrycobb.com Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 8:21 AM To: christopher.lamb17@gmail.com; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Hi All, You can view the bicameral structure of the GNSO Council here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/council The structure of the GNSO, descriptions of each Stakeholder Group and Constituency as well as ExCom composition can be found on their respective pages nested under the Council description page linked above. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: christopher.lamb17@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 00:04 To: Greg Shatan Cc: Chuck Gomes Consulting; Berry Cobb; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Dear Greg, Thanks. I was attempting to locate the source of the concerns to see if that added to my understanding of the way forward, and I had misread the constituencies website . These concerns will no doubt emerge from the consultations and explanations ahead, but the whole result is really quite frustrating. Cheers Chris From: Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 13:33 To: Christopher Lamb Cc: Chuck Gomes Consulting ; Berry Cobb ; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Christopher, The RrSG is not affiliated with the NCSG -- they are on opposite sides of the aisle in the GNSO. The NCSG is the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, one of the two Stakeholder Groups in the Non-Contracted Parties House of the GNSO. (The other is the Commercial Stakeholders Group, which in turn comprises the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency and the ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency.) (The NCSG in turn comprises the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the Non-Profit Organization Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC).) The RrSG is the Registrar Stakeholder Group, one of the two Stakeholder Groups in the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO. (The other is the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG).) Best regards, Greg On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:18 PM <christopher.lamb17@gmail.com> wrote: Dear all, Agreed, and it will be good to keep track of developments through the updates which Berry has generously offered to provide. Am I right to understand that it is the RrSG within NCSG which has instigated this deferral? Chris From: Chuck Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 10:39 To: mail@berrycobb.com ; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 It is very disappointing that the NCSG failed to participate in the process and then requests a deferral. Chuck From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of mail@berrycobb.com Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 5:15 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSO Council motions 16 August 2018 Hi All, As an FYI, the motion to approve the Reconvened WG’s report was deferred by the NCSG. It will be considered by the GNSO Council at its 27 September meeting. Concerns about the legal basis were for protections were raised. Thomas had agreed to consult with them to help them better understand the WG’s findings and full support for its consensus recommendations. I will update the group as things progress. Below are links to the recordings and motions adopted by the Council at its meeting today. Thank you. B Please find below the MP3, Adobe Connect recording and chat of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday, 16 August 2018 at 21:00 UTC. MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-16aug18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording URL: https://participate.icann.org/p377bzpfiry/ Adobe Connect chat at: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript... All on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Berry A. Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: Gnso-chairs [mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 19:22 To: gnso-chairs@icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSO Council motions 16 August 2018 Dear all, Please find below the resolutions from the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday, 16 August 2018. If no objections we will send to the council list. Approved - Consent Agenda: Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board Made by Martin Silva Valent Seconded by Michele Neylon Whereas, 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 4. The GNSO Council hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Panama GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac...) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. 2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. Vote results DEFFERED - MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RECONVENED WORKING GROUP ON RED CROSS NAMES Proposed by: Heather Forrest Seconded by: Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf, including Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13- en.pdf); 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2); 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were consistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections (which approval, in relation to the Red Cross, was limited to withholding from registration at both the top and second levels the specific terms designated as so-called “Scope 1” identifiers by the PDP Working Group (i.e., “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Crystal” and “Red Lion & Sun” in all six official languages of the United Nations)) and requested additional time to consider those remaining consensus PDP recommendations that were not consistent with GAC advice (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2....); 4. In March 2017, representatives of the GAC and GNSO held a discussion at the ICANN58 Public Meeting in Copenhagen, facilitated by former ICANN Board member Dr. Bruce Tonkin, to discuss a possible path forward for reconciling GAC advice and GNSO policy on the topic of protection at the second level of the domain name system for IGO acronyms and the remaining names and acronyms associated with the Red Cross (being those designated by the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group as “Scope 2” identifiers); 5. Following the March 2017 facilitated discussion, the ICANN Board passed a resolution requesting that the GNSO Council consider initiating the Policy Amendment Process documented in the GNSO PDP Manual in respect of certain of the so-called “Scope 2” identifiers for the Red Cross, i.e., the full names of the National Societies recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, and the full names of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official languages of the United Nations) (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-03-16- en#2.e.i); 6. In May 2017, the GNSO Council passed a resolution noting that the March 2017 facilitated discussions had highlighted a set of exceptional circumstances (in the availability of a finite list of names and documented evidence of the legal basis for their protection) constituting a justifiable basis for the Council’s taking the extraordinary step of reconvening the original IGO-INGO PDP Working Group pursuant to Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual for the specific purpose of considering possible modifications to its previous consensus policy recommendations concerning and limited to the so-called “Scope 2” Red Cross full names noted by the Board, and including a defined, finite list of variants of those names, and with acronyms and any other names not falling within the scope of this reconvened effort (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20170503-071); 7. The Reconvened PDP Working Group held its first meeting on 14 June 2017, and has since worked diligently to develop a set of recommendations that were published for public comment on 21 June 2018 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-protection-initial-2018-06-2...); and 8. Following the close of the public comment period on 31 July 2018, the Reconvened PDP Working Group reviewed the comments that were received and completed its Final Report and finite List of names, which it submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration on 6 August 2018 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo/red-cross-protection-policy-amend-... https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo/red-cross-identifiers-proposed-res...). Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and approves all of the consensus recommendations made by the Reconvened PDP Working Group; 2. The GNSO Council thanks the Reconvened PDP Working Group for its diligence and its successful work in attaining consensus on all recommendations; 3. The GNSO Council thanks the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement for its efforts in providing the documentation and information needed to justify and underpin the consensus recommendations; and 4. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a Recommendations Report for delivery to the ICANN Board in accordance with the process outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. Vote results Approved - MOTION IN RELATION TO THE ADOPTION OF THE GNSO REVIEW WORKING GROUP IMPLEMENTATION FINAL REPORT Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Donna Austin Whereas: 1. The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014. 2. The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future. 3. The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en...) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority). 4. On 25 June 2016, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). 5. Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations. An implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution. 6. The GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews. This discussion paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 20 June 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discus...). 7. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed next steps during the ICANN meeting in Helsinki where it was proposed to repurpose the SCI as a Working Group to develop the requested implementation plan as outlined in the staff discussion paper. 8. The GNSO Council adopted the Charter of the GNSO Review Working Group during its meeting on 21 July 2016. 9. This Working Group was tasked to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Review recommendations which were adopted by the ICANN Board on 25 June 2016. 10. The implementation plan was adopted by the GNSO Council on 15 December 2016. 11. On 03 February 2017 the ICANN Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) of the Board of Directors adopted the plan. 12. Following approval of the implementation plan by the ICANN Board of Directors, the GNSO Review Working Group executed the implementation of the recommendations as specified in the implementation plan, and provided the GNSO Council with regular status updates (at a minimum prior to every ICANN meeting) on the status of implementation, including an overview for which recommendations implementation was considered complete. 13. On 26 July 2018 the GNSO Review Working Group submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report indicating that the Working Group had agreed by full consensus that all GNSO Review recommendations have been implemented as of 21 June 2018. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report. 2. The GNSO Council directs staff to submit the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report to the OEC of the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration. 3. The GNSO Council thanks the GNSO Review Working Group members for their diligence and dedication in the successful execution of the implementation of the GNSO review recommendations. 4. The GNSO Council shall decide to disband the GNSO Review Working Group after the Implementation Final Report has been approved by the ICANN Board of Directors. Vote results _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
Hello Chuck, Jeff and everyone, In accordance with the Council discussion during and action items from the Council’s meeting last Thursday, staff will be organizing a call between Thomas and interested NCSG Councilors and members before the next Council meeting. We have also forwarded a copy of the Final Report to the NCSG Councilors highlighting the part where the legal basis for protection is described (as this was one of the questions raised during the Council call) and we will be sending the recording and transcript of the Working Group’s final discussion – where you reviewed the NCSG’s public comment – to them ahead of the call with Thomas as well. Best regards, Berry & Mary From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult@cgomes.com> Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 14:51 To: "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@valideus.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Thanks Jeff. I don't think they understand the recommendations enough to explain why they oppose them. I definitely don't understand their position. I wonder whether the GNSO should institute a requirement that an SG cannot request a deferral if they did not participate in the WG. It requires extra time of those who did spend the time in the WG to deal with their unexplained issues. Chuck Get Outlook for Android [aka.ms]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aka.ms_ghei36&d=DwMFaQ&...> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:24 AM -0700, "Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>> wrote: Resending as I don’t believe this went through. From: Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 1:54 PM To: mail@berrycobb.com; christopher.lamb17@gmail.com; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 All, The NCSG Call where this was discussed can be found here: https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1808&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&O=D&P=1207... [listserv.syr.edu]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__listserv.syr.edu_script...>. The conversation starts somewhere around 6:30 in. They acknowledge no one from the NCSG participated (in the chat transcript), but ultimately will abstain or vote no. It seemed apparent from listening to the call that they did not really review the final report and the changes. Here is my summary of the oral conversation: 1. Farzanah stated that she has not really had a chance to review, but thinks that this is overreach by the Red Cross. In fact, she refers to objecting to acronyms (My note: She did not read final report because there are no acronyms); She recommends a no or an abstention. 2. Amr: My understanding is that there is no real legal basis to protect these names. Amr wants to know where acronyms stand and where the discussions are taking place. [My note: It is clear that the NCSG did not understand scope of the referral back] 3. [Other person – Did not get name] – Where is the report and is there a summary of the report?; Link given to her. 4. Rafik: We can ask questions and list them and hopefully Council will answer them. He brings up the possibility of deferring the motion. He says we can say there was not enough time to review. So we need more time to understand. The WG said they reviewed our comment carefully. Apparently Thomas Rickert was supposed to reach out to Rafik, but Rafik said he has not heard anything.F 5. Farzanah – We should have participated in the WG, but we can still vote no. Our NCSG “Values” are against this. 6. Rafik: Lets work on our rationale for saying no during the deferral. Yes, we did not have people working on the Group. But this WG took up so much time that a lot people stopped participating after the many years. This is from the chat transcript: Tatiana Tropina:I am not comfortable with voting on this motion, I agree with Farz that we need to raise the questions, esp with regard to what GNSO said in 2017 (there is a reference to this in our comment) Amr Elsadr:Report here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180807/ab4b45f9/red-cro... Amr Elsadr:Summary of recommendations at the beginning of the report. Tatiana Tropina:I wonder if we have to vote tomorrow. Tatiana Tropina:I wonder if we defer what's gotta change! Amr Elsadr:Wouldn't mind a deferral. Tatiana Tropina:I won't mind a deferral but at the end the report won't change and we will vote no or abstain. Tatiana Tropina:so we can just vote no or abstain with the statements. Claire Craig:If we defer is there a timeframe? Farzaneh Badii:I will read it. I wonder how carefully they read it :) Amr Elsadr:We need to get real. Nobody from NCSG participated in this WG, and the WG is submitted to the Council with Full Consensus of its members. The motion will pass on Council, irrespective of our views/votes. Tatiana Tropina:okay let's asl for a deferral tomorrow Tatiana Tropina:Amr, that's what am saying, the deferral would be only to strategise our abstentions/nos Tatiana Tropina:and supermajority, yes Elsa Saade:i tend to agree with Tatiana on this one Amr Elsadr::-) Tatiana Tropina:I am somewhere in the middile ground, I won't mind just to vote no tomorrow Tatiana Tropina:It's just stand on our ground. So instead of deferral we can just say a big no right on the spot. But deferral is better, some fuss :-) Farzaneh Badii:I can help with the reason Stephanie Perrin:Can we come up with a clear paragraph as to what we are objecting to? Tatiana Tropina:No requires no explanation, but abstention won't count. Hmmmm. Hard choice, let's defer Amr Elsadr:If our councilors would like this motion to be defered, should be for a good reason. One reason might be to investigate whether or not the WG has made its recommendations based on a legal basis, or not. If there is a legal basis for these names to be reserved, then the WG should demonstrate this. If there isn't..., Tatiana Tropina:Farzaneh, the comment you drafted is really outlining all the reasons very good, but if there is anything else you could add - am sure we all will appreciate.... Farzaneh Badii:sure. I just have to check if they changed anything based on our comments. I doubt it :) Tatiana Tropina:Amr, do you think the reason that the WG chair promised to get in contact with us and explain how our comments were addressed etc etc is not a good reason? The fact that we need investigate... ? Tatiana Tropina:I saw they still had the magic number 191... Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 8:21 AM To: christopher.lamb17@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com>; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Hi All, You can view the bicameral structure of the GNSO Council here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/council [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_about...> The structure of the GNSO, descriptions of each Stakeholder Group and Constituency as well as ExCom composition can be found on their respective pages nested under the Council description page linked above. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: christopher.lamb17@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com> [mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 00:04 To: Greg Shatan Cc: Chuck Gomes Consulting; Berry Cobb; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Dear Greg, Thanks. I was attempting to locate the source of the concerns to see if that added to my understanding of the way forward, and I had misread the constituencies website . These concerns will no doubt emerge from the consultations and explanations ahead, but the whole result is really quite frustrating. Cheers Chris From: Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 13:33 To: Christopher Lamb Cc: Chuck Gomes Consulting ; Berry Cobb ; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Christopher, The RrSG is not affiliated with the NCSG -- they are on opposite sides of the aisle in the GNSO. The NCSG is the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, one of the two Stakeholder Groups in the Non-Contracted Parties House of the GNSO. (The other is the Commercial Stakeholders Group, which in turn comprises the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency and the ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency.) (The NCSG in turn comprises the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the Non-Profit Organization Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC).) The RrSG is the Registrar Stakeholder Group, one of the two Stakeholder Groups in the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO. (The other is the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG).) Best regards, Greg On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:18 PM <christopher.lamb17@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, Agreed, and it will be good to keep track of developments through the updates which Berry has generously offered to provide. Am I right to understand that it is the RrSG within NCSG which has instigated this deferral? Chris From: Chuck Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 10:39 To: mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> ; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 It is very disappointing that the NCSG failed to participate in the process and then requests a deferral. Chuck From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 5:15 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSO Council motions 16 August 2018 Hi All, As an FYI, the motion to approve the Reconvened WG’s report was deferred by the NCSG. It will be considered by the GNSO Council at its 27 September meeting. Concerns about the legal basis were for protections were raised. Thomas had agreed to consult with them to help them better understand the WG’s findings and full support for its consensus recommendations. I will update the group as things progress. Below are links to the recordings and motions adopted by the Council at its meeting today. Thank you. B Please find below the MP3, Adobe Connect recording and chat of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday, 16 August 2018 at 21:00 UTC. MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-16aug18-en.mp3 [audio.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn...> Adobe Connect Recording URL: https://participate.icann.org/p377bzpfiry/ Adobe Connect chat at: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> All on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> Berry A. Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: Gnso-chairs [mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 19:22 To: gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSO Council motions 16 August 2018 Dear all, Please find below the resolutions from the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday, 16 August 2018. If no objections we will send to the council list. Approved - Consent Agenda: Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board Made by Martin Silva Valent Seconded by Michele Neylon Whereas, 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 4. The GNSO Council hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Panama GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. 2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. Vote results [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meeti...> DEFFERED - MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RECONVENED WORKING GROUP ON RED CROSS NAMES Proposed by: Heather Forrest Seconded by: Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue...>, including Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13- en.pdf [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue...>); 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counci...>); 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were consistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections (which approval, in relation to the Red Cross, was limited to withholding from registration at both the top and second levels the specific terms designated as so-called “Scope 1” identifiers by the PDP Working Group (i.e., “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Crystal” and “Red Lion & Sun” in all six official languages of the United Nations)) and requested additional time to consider those remaining consensus PDP recommendations that were not consistent with GAC advice (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2.... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_groups_...>); 4. In March 2017, representatives of the GAC and GNSO held a discussion at the ICANN58 Public Meeting in Copenhagen, facilitated by former ICANN Board member Dr. Bruce Tonkin, to discuss a possible path forward for reconciling GAC advice and GNSO policy on the topic of protection at the second level of the domain name system for IGO acronyms and the remaining names and acronyms associated with the Red Cross (being those designated by the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group as “Scope 2” identifiers); 5. Following the March 2017 facilitated discussion, the ICANN Board passed a resolution requesting that the GNSO Council consider initiating the Policy Amendment Process documented in the GNSO PDP Manual in respect of certain of the so-called “Scope 2” identifiers for the Red Cross, i.e., the full names of the National Societies recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, and the full names of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official languages of the United Nations) (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-03-16- [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> en#2.e.i); 6. In May 2017, the GNSO Council passed a resolution noting that the March 2017 facilitated discussions had highlighted a set of exceptional circumstances (in the availability of a finite list of names and documented evidence of the legal basis for their protection) constituting a justifiable basis for the Council’s taking the extraordinary step of reconvening the original IGO-INGO PDP Working Group pursuant to Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual for the specific purpose of considering possible modifications to its previous consensus policy recommendations concerning and limited to the so-called “Scope 2” Red Cross full names noted by the Board, and including a defined, finite list of variants of those names, and with acronyms and any other names not falling within the scope of this reconvened effort (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20170503-071 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...>); 7. The Reconvened PDP Working Group held its first meeting on 14 June 2017, and has since worked diligently to develop a set of recommendations that were published for public comment on 21 June 2018 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-protection-initial-2018-06-2... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...>); and 8. Following the close of the public comment period on 31 July 2018, the Reconvened PDP Working Group reviewed the comments that were received and completed its Final Report and finite List of names, which it submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration on 6 August 2018 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo/red-cross-protection-policy-amend-... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_igo-2Dingo_red-2Dcross-2Dprotection-2Dpolicy-2Damend-2Dprocess-2Dfinal-2D06aug18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=IY-Ktr3DUWLIRtWCiwzeP0DacUCl0C4DcHXTodDN33w&s=szNWEsDDSKIvdcPMzj_XWlZhu76puVGgtBLhoAz-Vcs&e=>)( https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo/red-cross-identifiers-proposed-res... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue...>). Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and approves all of the consensus recommendations made by the Reconvened PDP Working Group; 2. The GNSO Council thanks the Reconvened PDP Working Group for its diligence and its successful work in attaining consensus on all recommendations; 3. The GNSO Council thanks the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement for its efforts in providing the documentation and information needed to justify and underpin the consensus recommendations; and 4. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a Recommendations Report for delivery to the ICANN Board in accordance with the process outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. Vote results [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meeti...> Approved - MOTION IN RELATION TO THE ADOPTION OF THE GNSO REVIEW WORKING GROUP IMPLEMENTATION FINAL REPORT Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Donna Austin Whereas: 1. The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014. 2. The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future. 3. The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts...>) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority). 4. On 25 June 2016, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). 5. Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations. An implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution. 6. The GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews. This discussion paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 20 June 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discus... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts...>). 7. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed next steps during the ICANN meeting in Helsinki where it was proposed to repurpose the SCI as a Working Group to develop the requested implementation plan as outlined in the staff discussion paper. 8. The GNSO Council adopted the Charter [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draft...> of the GNSO Review Working Group during its meeting on 21 July 2016. 9. This Working Group was tasked to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Review recommendations [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts...> which were adopted [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> by the ICANN Board on 25 June 2016. 10. The implementation plan<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61610342/GNSO%20Review%20Im...> was adopted<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+2...> by the GNSO Council on 15 December 2016. 11. On 03 February 2017 the ICANN Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) of the Board of Directors adopted [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> the plan. 12. Following approval of the implementation plan by the ICANN Board of Directors, the GNSO Review Working Group executed the implementation of the recommendations as specified in the implementation plan, and provided the GNSO Council with regular status updates (at a minimum prior to every ICANN meeting) on the status of implementation, including an overview for which recommendations implementation was considered complete. 13. On 26 July 2018 the GNSO Review Working Group submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> indicating that the Working Group had agreed by full consensus that all GNSO Review recommendations have been implemented as of 21 June 2018. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. 2. The GNSO Council directs staff to submit the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report to the OEC of the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration. 3. The GNSO Council thanks the GNSO Review Working Group members for their diligence and dedication in the successful execution of the implementation of the GNSO review recommendations. 4. The GNSO Council shall decide to disband the GNSO Review Working Group after the Implementation Final Report has been approved by the ICANN Board of Directors. Vote results [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meeti...> ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo ________________________________ [Avast logo][avast.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus...> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com [avast.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus...> _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
Thanks Mary. Chuck From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 12:28 PM To: Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult@cgomes.com>; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@valideus.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Hello Chuck, Jeff and everyone, In accordance with the Council discussion during and action items from the Council’s meeting last Thursday, staff will be organizing a call between Thomas and interested NCSG Councilors and members before the next Council meeting. We have also forwarded a copy of the Final Report to the NCSG Councilors highlighting the part where the legal basis for protection is described (as this was one of the questions raised during the Council call) and we will be sending the recording and transcript of the Working Group’s final discussion – where you reviewed the NCSG’s public comment – to them ahead of the call with Thomas as well. Best regards, Berry & Mary From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult@cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> > Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 14:51 To: "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> " <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> >, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Thanks Jeff. I don't think they understand the recommendations enough to explain why they oppose them. I definitely don't understand their position. I wonder whether the GNSO should institute a requirement that an SG cannot request a deferral if they did not participate in the WG. It requires extra time of those who did spend the time in the WG to deal with their unexplained issues. Chuck Get <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aka.ms_ghei36&d=DwMFaQ&...> Outlook for Android [aka.ms] On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:24 AM -0700, "Jeff Neuman" < <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com> wrote: Resending as I don’t believe this went through. From: Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 1:54 PM To: <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail@berrycobb.com; <mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com> christopher.lamb17@gmail.com; 'Greg Shatan' < <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 All, The NCSG Call where this was discussed can be found here: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__listserv.syr.edu_script...> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1808&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&O=D&P=1207... [listserv.syr.edu]. The conversation starts somewhere around 6:30 in. They acknowledge no one from the NCSG participated (in the chat transcript), but ultimately will abstain or vote no. It seemed apparent from listening to the call that they did not really review the final report and the changes. Here is my summary of the oral conversation: 1. Farzanah stated that she has not really had a chance to review, but thinks that this is overreach by the Red Cross. In fact, she refers to objecting to acronyms (My note: She did not read final report because there are no acronyms); She recommends a no or an abstention. 2. Amr: My understanding is that there is no real legal basis to protect these names. Amr wants to know where acronyms stand and where the discussions are taking place. [My note: It is clear that the NCSG did not understand scope of the referral back] 3. [Other person – Did not get name] – Where is the report and is there a summary of the report?; Link given to her. 4. Rafik: We can ask questions and list them and hopefully Council will answer them. He brings up the possibility of deferring the motion. He says we can say there was not enough time to review. So we need more time to understand. The WG said they reviewed our comment carefully. Apparently Thomas Rickert was supposed to reach out to Rafik, but Rafik said he has not heard anything.F 5. Farzanah – We should have participated in the WG, but we can still vote no. Our NCSG “Values” are against this. 6. Rafik: Lets work on our rationale for saying no during the deferral. Yes, we did not have people working on the Group. But this WG took up so much time that a lot people stopped participating after the many years. This is from the chat transcript: Tatiana Tropina:I am not comfortable with voting on this motion, I agree with Farz that we need to raise the questions, esp with regard to what GNSO said in 2017 (there is a reference to this in our comment) Amr Elsadr:Report here: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180807/ab4b45f9/red-cro...> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180807/ab4b45f9/red-cro... Amr Elsadr:Summary of recommendations at the beginning of the report. Tatiana Tropina:I wonder if we have to vote tomorrow. Tatiana Tropina:I wonder if we defer what's gotta change! Amr Elsadr:Wouldn't mind a deferral. Tatiana Tropina:I won't mind a deferral but at the end the report won't change and we will vote no or abstain. Tatiana Tropina:so we can just vote no or abstain with the statements. Claire Craig:If we defer is there a timeframe? Farzaneh Badii:I will read it. I wonder how carefully they read it :) Amr Elsadr:We need to get real. Nobody from NCSG participated in this WG, and the WG is submitted to the Council with Full Consensus of its members. The motion will pass on Council, irrespective of our views/votes. Tatiana Tropina:okay let's asl for a deferral tomorrow Tatiana Tropina:Amr, that's what am saying, the deferral would be only to strategise our abstentions/nos Tatiana Tropina:and supermajority, yes Elsa Saade:i tend to agree with Tatiana on this one Amr Elsadr::-) Tatiana Tropina:I am somewhere in the middile ground, I won't mind just to vote no tomorrow Tatiana Tropina:It's just stand on our ground. So instead of deferral we can just say a big no right on the spot. But deferral is better, some fuss :-) Farzaneh Badii:I can help with the reason Stephanie Perrin:Can we come up with a clear paragraph as to what we are objecting to? Tatiana Tropina:No requires no explanation, but abstention won't count. Hmmmm. Hard choice, let's defer Amr Elsadr:If our councilors would like this motion to be defered, should be for a good reason. One reason might be to investigate whether or not the WG has made its recommendations based on a legal basis, or not. If there is a legal basis for these names to be reserved, then the WG should demonstrate this. If there isn't..., Tatiana Tropina:Farzaneh, the comment you drafted is really outlining all the reasons very good, but if there is anything else you could add - am sure we all will appreciate.... Farzaneh Badii:sure. I just have to check if they changed anything based on our comments. I doubt it :) Tatiana Tropina:Amr, do you think the reason that the WG chair promised to get in contact with us and explain how our comments were addressed etc etc is not a good reason? The fact that we need investigate... ? Tatiana Tropina:I saw they still had the magic number 191... Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-igo-ingo < <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail@berrycobb.com Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 8:21 AM To: <mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com> christopher.lamb17@gmail.com; 'Greg Shatan' < <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Hi All, You can view the bicameral structure of the GNSO Council here: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_about...> https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/council [gnso.icann.org] The structure of the GNSO, descriptions of each Stakeholder Group and Constituency as well as ExCom composition can be found on their respective pages nested under the Council description page linked above. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: <mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com> christopher.lamb17@gmail.com [ <mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com> mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 00:04 To: Greg Shatan Cc: Chuck Gomes Consulting; Berry Cobb; <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Dear Greg, Thanks. I was attempting to locate the source of the concerns to see if that added to my understanding of the way forward, and I had misread the constituencies website . These concerns will no doubt emerge from the consultations and explanations ahead, but the whole result is really quite frustrating. Cheers Chris From: Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 13:33 To: Christopher Lamb Cc: Chuck Gomes Consulting ; Berry Cobb ; <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 Christopher, The RrSG is not affiliated with the NCSG -- they are on opposite sides of the aisle in the GNSO. The NCSG is the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, one of the two Stakeholder Groups in the Non-Contracted Parties House of the GNSO. (The other is the Commercial Stakeholders Group, which in turn comprises the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency and the ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency.) (The NCSG in turn comprises the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the Non-Profit Organization Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC).) The RrSG is the Registrar Stakeholder Group, one of the two Stakeholder Groups in the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO. (The other is the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG).) Best regards, Greg On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:18 PM < <mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com> christopher.lamb17@gmail.com> wrote: Dear all, Agreed, and it will be good to keep track of developments through the updates which Berry has generously offered to provide. Am I right to understand that it is the RrSG within NCSG which has instigated this deferral? Chris From: Chuck Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 10:39 To: <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail@berrycobb.com ; <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSOCouncil motions 16 August 2018 It is very disappointing that the NCSG failed to participate in the process and then requests a deferral. Chuck From: Gnso-igo-ingo < <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail@berrycobb.com Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 5:15 PM To: <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FW: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSO Council motions 16 August 2018 Hi All, As an FYI, the motion to approve the Reconvened WG’s report was deferred by the NCSG. It will be considered by the GNSO Council at its 27 September meeting. Concerns about the legal basis were for protections were raised. Thomas had agreed to consult with them to help them better understand the WG’s findings and full support for its consensus recommendations. I will update the group as things progress. Below are links to the recordings and motions adopted by the Council at its meeting today. Thank you. B Please find below the MP3, Adobe Connect recording and chat of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday, 16 August 2018 at 21:00 UTC. MP3: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn...> https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-16aug18-en.mp3 [audio.icann.org] Adobe Connect Recording URL: <https://participate.icann.org/p377bzpfiry/> https://participate.icann.org/p377bzpfiry/ Adobe Connect chat at: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript... [gnso.icann.org] All on page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org] Berry A. Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: Gnso-chairs [ <mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 19:22 To: <mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> gnso-chairs@icann.org Cc: <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [gnso-chairs] Please review: GNSO Council motions 16 August 2018 Dear all, Please find below the resolutions from the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday, 16 August 2018. If no objections we will send to the council list. Approved - Consent Agenda: Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board Made by Martin Silva Valent Seconded by Michele Neylon Whereas, 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 4. The GNSO Council hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Panama GAC Communiqué (see <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac... [gnso.icann.org]) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. 2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meeti...> Vote results [gnso.icann.org] DEFFERED - MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RECONVENED WORKING GROUP ON RED CROSS NAMES Proposed by: Heather Forrest Seconded by: Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue...> https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org], including Minority Statements: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue...> https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13- en.pdf [gnso.icann.org]); 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counci...> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 [gnso.icann.org]); 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were consistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections (which approval, in relation to the Red Cross, was limited to withholding from registration at both the top and second levels the specific terms designated as so-called “Scope 1” identifiers by the PDP Working Group (i.e., “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Crystal” and “Red Lion & Sun” in all six official languages of the United Nations)) and requested additional time to consider those remaining consensus PDP recommendations that were not consistent with GAC advice ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_groups_...> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2.... [icann.org]); 4. In March 2017, representatives of the GAC and GNSO held a discussion at the ICANN58 Public Meeting in Copenhagen, facilitated by former ICANN Board member Dr. Bruce Tonkin, to discuss a possible path forward for reconciling GAC advice and GNSO policy on the topic of protection at the second level of the domain name system for IGO acronyms and the remaining names and acronyms associated with the Red Cross (being those designated by the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group as “Scope 2” identifiers); 5. Following the March 2017 facilitated discussion, the ICANN Board passed a resolution requesting that the GNSO Council consider initiating the Policy Amendment Process documented in the GNSO PDP Manual in respect of certain of the so-called “Scope 2” identifiers for the Red Cross, i.e., the full names of the National Societies recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, and the full names of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official languages of the United Nations) ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-03-16- [icann.org] en#2.e.i); 6. In May 2017, the GNSO Council passed a resolution noting that the March 2017 facilitated discussions had highlighted a set of exceptional circumstances (in the availability of a finite list of names and documented evidence of the legal basis for their protection) constituting a justifiable basis for the Council’s taking the extraordinary step of reconvening the original IGO-INGO PDP Working Group pursuant to Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual for the specific purpose of considering possible modifications to its previous consensus policy recommendations concerning and limited to the so-called “Scope 2” Red Cross full names noted by the Board, and including a defined, finite list of variants of those names, and with acronyms and any other names not falling within the scope of this reconvened effort ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20170503-071 [gnso.icann.org]); 7. The Reconvened PDP Working Group held its first meeting on 14 June 2017, and has since worked diligently to develop a set of recommendations that were published for public comment on 21 June 2018 ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-protection-initial-2018-06-2... [icann.org]); and 8. Following the close of the public comment period on 31 July 2018, the Reconvened PDP Working Group reviewed the comments that were received and completed its Final Report and finite List of names, which it submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration on 6 August 2018 ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue...> https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo/red-cross-protection-policy-amend-... [gnso.icann.org])( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue...> https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo/red-cross-identifiers-proposed-res... [gnso.icann.org]). Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and approves all of the consensus recommendations made by the Reconvened PDP Working Group; 2. The GNSO Council thanks the Reconvened PDP Working Group for its diligence and its successful work in attaining consensus on all recommendations; 3. The GNSO Council thanks the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement for its efforts in providing the documentation and information needed to justify and underpin the consensus recommendations; and 4. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a Recommendations Report for delivery to the ICANN Board in accordance with the process outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meeti...> Vote results [gnso.icann.org] Approved - MOTION IN RELATION TO THE ADOPTION OF THE GNSO REVIEW WORKING GROUP IMPLEMENTATION FINAL REPORT Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Donna Austin Whereas: 1. The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014. 2. The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf [icann.org]) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future. 3. The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts...> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en... [gnso.icann.org]) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority). 4. On 25 June 2016, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32). 5. Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations. An implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution. 6. The GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews. This discussion paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 20 June 2016 (see <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts...> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discus... [gnso.icann.org]). 7. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed next steps during the ICANN meeting in Helsinki where it was proposed to repurpose the SCI as a Working Group to develop the requested implementation plan as outlined in the staff discussion paper. 8. The GNSO Council adopted the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draft...> Charter [gnso.icann.org] of the GNSO Review Working Group during its meeting on 21 July 2016. 9. This Working Group was tasked to develop an implementation plan for the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts...> GNSO Review recommendations [gnso.icann.org] which were <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> adopted [icann.org] by the ICANN Board on 25 June 2016. 10. The <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61610342/GNSO%20Review%20Im...> implementation plan was <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+1+December+2...> adopted by the GNSO Council on 15 December 2016. 11. On 03 February 2017 the ICANN Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) of the Board of Directors <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> adopted [icann.org] the plan. 12. Following approval of the implementation plan by the ICANN Board of Directors, the GNSO Review Working Group executed the implementation of the recommendations as specified in the implementation plan, and provided the GNSO Council with regular status updates (at a minimum prior to every ICANN meeting) on the status of implementation, including an overview for which recommendations implementation was considered complete. 13. On 26 July 2018 the GNSO Review Working Group submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration the GNSO2 Review Implementation <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org] indicating that the Working Group had agreed by full consensus that all GNSO Review recommendations have been implemented as of 21 June 2018. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO2 Review Implementation <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org]. 2. The GNSO Council directs staff to submit the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report to the OEC of the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration. 3. The GNSO Council thanks the GNSO Review Working Group members for their diligence and dedication in the successful execution of the implementation of the GNSO review recommendations. 4. The GNSO Council shall decide to disband the GNSO Review Working Group after the Implementation Final Report has been approved by the ICANN Board of Directors. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meeti...> Vote results [gnso.icann.org] _____ _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus...> [avast.com] This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus...> www.avast.com [avast.com] _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
participants (4)
-
Chuck -
Chuck Gomes Consulting
-
Jeff Neuman -
Mary Wong