November 2013 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

REMINDER: Meeting Invitation/ ISPCP CALL
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 13, 2014

Feb. 13, 2014

Dear All, The next ISPCP call is scheduled on Monday 14 October 2013 at 1300 UTC. To check your local time: http://tinyurl.com/psxypoh Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ispcp/?launcher=false Please find the dial-in details below: Participant Passcode: Participant: 3429 # Dial-in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie

2 8

FW: Call for Volunteers GNSO Policy Translation and Transliteration PDP Working Group
by Tony Holmes Nov. 29, 2013

Nov. 29, 2013

Volunteers? Please respond back to me if you're interested in representing the ISPCP on this WG. Tony From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org] Sent: 27 November 2013 16:36 To: tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com) mike(a)haven2.com; Anthony Harris (anthonyrharris(a)gmail.com) Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: Call for Volunteers GNSO Policy Translation and Transliteration PDP Working Group Dear Tony, Would you please be so kind as to bring this call for volunteers to the notice of the ISPCP. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Nathalie Call for Volunteers GNSO Policy Translation and Transliteration PDP Working Group In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council is seeking volunteers to serve on the PDP Working Group (WG) on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information. This WG is expected to make recommendations to the GNSO Council on whether it is desirable to translate or transliterate contact information. In this context, translation is the process of conveying the meaning of text from on language into another; transliteration is the process of representing the characters of one alphabetical or syllabic system of writing by the characters of another, conversion alphabet. Introductory Webinar To provide potential volunteers with an idea of the PDP Process including Working Group procedures and also some background information on the WG's substantive issues, an Introductory Webinar will be held at the following times: Tuesday 10 December 2013, 12.00-13.00UTC - local times: <http://tinyurl.com/m2suev5> http://tinyurl.com/m2suev5 Wednesday 11 December 2013, 18.00-19.00UTC - local times <http://tinyurl.com/kyk5lej> http://tinyurl.com/kyk5lej To join the webinar please RVSP to gnso-secs(a)icann.org First meeting If you are interested in joining the Working Group, please contact gnso-secs(a)icann.org. The first meeting of the Working Group is currently foreseen to take place in the week of 16 December - a doodle poll will be send out the week prior to determine a convenient meeting time. Background . Following the Recommendations of the Final Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf> of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group, a Final Issue Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13 -en.pdf> on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 . GNSO Council's initiated <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+201 3> a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the translation and transliteration of contact information on 13 June 2013; Drafting Team was formed and Charter <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/transliteration-contact-charter-06nov13-en. pdf> submitted to GNSO Council and approved <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> on 20 November 2013. . As part of its deliberations on this issue, Charter stipulates several questions for the PDP WG to consider, including (but not limited to): - Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script. - Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script. * For more detailed, consult the WG's Charter <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/transliteration-contact-charter-06nov13-en. pdf> and the GNSO Policy Development Process <http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/31379/> . Note GNSO Council also requested ICANN to commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to be completed in time to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations. Relevant Documents . Charter Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group (WG) Charter - http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/transliteration-contact-charter-06nov13-en.p df . Final Issue Report on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13 -en.pdf). . Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf) . GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines ( <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf)

2 1

the i-coordination mailing list
by Mike O'Connor Nov. 28, 2013

Nov. 28, 2013

hi all, one of the threads that ran through the "prepare for Brazil" conversation in BA was reference to a mailing list -- not the dead one on the 1net.org site, but an actual live one that was being run by the NRO. here's a link to the subscription page for that list. https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

string delegations
by Mike O'Connor Nov. 27, 2013

Nov. 27, 2013

hi all here are the strings delegated over the last two weeks (sorry, i forgot to send out a note last week while i attended the ICANN meetings) 23 November 2013 みんな (xn--q9jyb4c) - Japanese for "everyone" Charleston Road Registry, Inc. 19 November 2013 .DIAMONDS John Edge, LLC 19 November 2013 .TIPS Corn Willow, LLC 19 November 2013 .PHOTOGRAPHY Sugar Glen, LLC 19 November 2013 .DIRECTORY Extra Madison, LLC 19 November 2013 .ENTERPRISES Snow Oaks, LLC 19 November 2013 .KITCHEN Just Goodbye, LLC 19 November 2013 .TODAY Pearl Woods, LLC 14 November 2013 .PLUMBING Spring Tigers, LLC 14 November 2013 .GRAPHICS Over Madison, LLC 14 November 2013 .CONTRACTORS Magic Woods, LLC 14 November 2013 .GALLERY Sugar House, LLC 14 November 2013 .SEXY Uniregistry, Corp. 14 November 2013 .CONSTRUCTION Fox Dynamite, LLC 14 November 2013 .TATTOO Uniregistry, Corp. 14 November 2013 .TECHNOLOGY Auburn Falls 14 November 2013 .ESTATE Trixy Park, LLC 14 November 2013 .LAND Pine Moon, LLC 14 November 2013 .BIKE Grand Hollow, LLC here is a link to ICANN's list of delegated new gTLDs - http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings mikey

1 0

Fwd: [soac-discussion] Internet Governance CWG
by Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de Nov. 24, 2013

Nov. 24, 2013

Sent from my personal phone Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: > Von: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> > Datum: 23. November 2013 21:31:40 GMT-2 > An: "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> > Kopie: Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org> > Betreff: [soac-discussion] Internet Governance CWG > > Dear SO-AC Leaders: > > As announced during the ICANN 48 Meeting in Buenos Aires, an Internet Governance CWG has been established that will be the source of the ICANN Community’s preparation for 1Net initiative the Multistakeholder Meeting in Brazil in 2014 as well as the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation. > > In order to move the activities of the Internet Governance CWG forward, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chair, and Rafik Dammak, NCSG Chair, have offered to serve as co-facilitators. > > As co-facilitators of this group, they will shortly contact you to begin recruiting a balanced group of contributors from across the ICANN Community. > > ICANN’s GSE and Strategy Teams will provide support for the work of this new CWG. > > Best regards, > > Theresa Swinehart - Sr. Advisor to the President on Strategy > > Sally Costerton - Senior Advisor to the President — Global Stakeholder Engagement > > David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support > General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul > > <1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[298].png> > > > > > > <1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[298].png>

1 0

GIving Nale Collisoins update at DNS Day in Japan
by Izumi Okutani Nov. 21, 2013

Nov. 21, 2013

Hi all, JPNIC have secured 30 min slot at a DNS operators confernece in Japan next week on 28th to share the Name Collisions issues. If anyone knows the best source of reference(s) about this issue which explains; - what are the risks - ICANN's plans to do to address this issues and future steps - the POC to submit comments and able to share on this list, it would be very helpful. Thanks, Izumi/JPNIC

1 0

Fwd: [council] FW: [REGYCON] CALL FOR NOMINATIONS - RySG REPRESENTATIVE, GNSO COUNCIL
by Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de Nov. 20, 2013

Nov. 20, 2013

Sent from my personal phone Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: > Von: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Datum: 20. November 2013 08:08:35 GMT-3 > An: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Betreff: [council] FW: [REGYCON] CALL FOR NOMINATIONS - RySG REPRESENTATIVE, GNSO COUNCIL > > Dear Councillors, > > Please see the note from Keith Drazek re the replacement for Jeff Neuman on the Council. > Welcome Chuck! > > Glen > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com] > Sent: mercredi 20 novembre 2013 00:20 > To: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Fwd: [REGYCON] CALL FOR NOMINATIONS - RySG REPRESENTATIVE, GNSO COUNCIL > > Hi Glen, FYI, the RySG is appointing Chuck Gomes as interim council rep while we conduct a nomination and election cycle to replace Jeff. He's baaaaaaaack! Best, Keith > > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Cherie Stubbs <cherstubbs(a)aol.com> > Date: November 19, 2013, 7:19:00 PM GMT-03:00 > To: <regycon(a)googlegroups.com> > Subject: [REGYCON] CALL FOR NOMINATIONS - RySG REPRESENTATIVE, GNSO COUNCIL > > As announced by email earlier today, Jeff Neuman submitted his notice of resignation from the GNSO Council, effective with the end of the GNSO Council meetings being held in Buenos Aires. During the RySG meeting today, a call for an interim GNSO Council representative was made, and Chuck Gomes volunteered to step forward in this role until the official election process to replace Jeff is completed. > > To this end, this shall serve as a formal call for nominations for the the Registries Stakeholder Group GNSO Council Representative seat being vacated by Jeff Neuman. The term of this seat will end at the close of the last ICANN meeting in 2014, but this individual will be eligible to serve additional terms. > > Some specifics to consider for nominations follow: > Nominations may be from any geographic region except Europe and the AAPAC; > The term will start immediately after the close of the voting period; > All nominations must be seconded. > The nominating period will remain open until 23:59 UTC on Wednesday, 27 November 2013. The voting period will open on Thursday, 28 November, and remain open until 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 3 December 2013. If necessary, the votes will be ratified no later than the close of the next scheduled bi-weekly teleconference call scheduled for Wednesday, 4 December 2013. > > Please refer to the RySG Charter (http://gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/RySG.Charter.Appro…) Sections VIII Elections, B. RySG Representatives to the GNSO Council, and IX, RySG GNSO Council Representative Responsibilities, for clarification. > > Thank you for your attention to this important issue. > > Best regards, > > Cherie > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ICANN Registry Constituency" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to regycon+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

1 0

Fw: REMINDER GNSO Constituency/Stakeholder Group interaction Tuesday, 19 November 18:30 - 19:30
by WUKnoben Nov. 19, 2013

Nov. 19, 2013

FYI! Please be aware that this meeting is to discuss any issues – and in particular the IGO/INGO motion - ahead of tomorrow’s council meeting. Hope to see you in this sky room. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:07 PM To: ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org Subject: REMINDER GNSO Constituency/Stakeholder Group interaction Tuesday, 19 November 18:30 - 19:30 Dear All, The GNSO Constituency/Stakeholder Group meeting has been set up in order to facilitate interaction within the GNSO on key or contentious topics. The purpose is to create an opportunity for interaction at a time between when the SG & Constituency meetings are held on Tuesday and the time of the formal council meeting on Wednesday. Date: Tuesday, 19 November 2013 Time: 18:30 – 19:30 Venue: Atalya (24th Floor) Refreshments provided Remote participation details are below: Tuesday 19th November GNSO Constituency/Stakeholder Group interaction - Atalya 18:30 – 19:30 Password: GNSO Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fw: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
by WUKnoben Nov. 19, 2013

Nov. 19, 2013

redline version of the amended IGO/INGO motion FYI Wolf-Ulrich From: Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben ; Neuman, Jeff ; 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Hello - the redlined version is attached. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion It would be helpful for the constituencies’ discussion to have a redline version of the motion available. Could staff please provide it? Thanks Wolf-Ulrich From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Thomas, Thanks for this. Just for clarification, are you asking this to be considered by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment? Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM To: GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson Subject: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Dear Councilors, In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies. Voting Thresholds The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in the ICANN Bylaws herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X. As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum: 'an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation'. It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA. Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the implementation process to determine what would be the most effective / efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the recommendations. Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a majority of one House. Structure of the motion After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could delete the first alternative from the draft motion. One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan – this item is for your attention and action; will you grant the request? Attached to this email are the following: (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion: a.. Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus recommendations. b.. All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with three blue ###s. c.. The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection). d.. The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG Guidelines) has been removed – to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda if approved. e.. No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made to the motion – this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10 November and discussed over the weekend. (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than the RCRC/IOC). Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday. Thanks, Thomas

1 0

Fw: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
by WUKnoben Nov. 19, 2013

Nov. 19, 2013

FYI in advance to the constituency meeting Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Thomas Rickert Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM To: GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson Subject: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion Dear Councilors, In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies. Voting Thresholds The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in the ICANN Bylaws herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X. As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum: 'an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation'. It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA. Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the implementation process to determine what would be the most effective / efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the recommendations. Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a majority of one House. Structure of the motion After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could delete the first alternative from the draft motion. One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan – this item is for your attention and action; will you grant the request? Attached to this email are the following: (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion: a.. Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus recommendations. b.. All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with three blue ###s. c.. The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection). d.. The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG Guidelines) has been removed – to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda if approved. e.. No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made to the motion – this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10 November and discussed over the weekend. (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than the RCRC/IOC). Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday. Thanks, Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Councilors, In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies. Voting Thresholds The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in the ICANN Bylaws herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X. As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum: 'an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation'. It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA. Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the implementation process to determine what would be the most effective / efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the recommendations. Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a majority of one House. Structure of the motion After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could delete the first alternative from the draft motion. One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan – this item is for your attention and action; will you grant the request? Attached to this email are the following: (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion: Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus recommendations. All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with three blue ###s. The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection). The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG Guidelines) has been removed – to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda if approved. No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made to the motion – this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10 November and discussed over the weekend. (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than the RCRC/IOC). Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday. Thanks, Thomas

1 0