From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 00:33:23 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 07:33:23 +1000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Initial report from the GGP on applicant support
 working group
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnF8iDmSKtQ_GV2tqd+mQKAV6E1y+3A+3xGAJiq-NtbKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnF8iDmSKtQ_GV2tqd+mQKAV6E1y+3A+3xGAJiq-NtbKA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeXUi8h5=p9J7S4vzfss9iG9PgAuhYH-T_wkY+DXi48U=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rafik,

Thank you, much appreciated.

@NCSG, as Rafik has recommended, an NCSG comment would be great on this
topic we care dearly about. If you would like to volunteer for it, please
let me know.

Warmly,
Tomslin



On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 at 07:13, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As NCSG representative to the GGP working group on applicant support, I am
> happy to share the initial report
> https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/gnso-guidance-process-applicant-support-guidance-recommendation-initial-report-31-07-2023
> .
>
> The public comments period starts from today till the 11th September and I
> recommend NCSG to submit its comments on the report if there is any concern
> or to support the recommendations. Let me know if you have any questions
> or  clarification.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rafik
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230801/b9eca6c7/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Thu Aug  3 18:49:01 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 17:49:01 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: DRAFT ICANN78 Schedule
In-Reply-To: <4CE77093-7F5E-4BB4-9FC4-A235AF736B8D@icann.org>
References: <4CE77093-7F5E-4BB4-9FC4-A235AF736B8D@icann.org>
Message-ID: <9d79e1da-a9bb-8384-7c28-6d94c71402e0@Julf.com>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	DRAFT ICANN78 Schedule
Date: 	Thu, 3 Aug 2023 15:45:25 +0000
From: 	Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
To: 	Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>, Raoul Plommer 
<plommer at gmail.com>, 'Benjamin Akinmoyeje' <benakin at gmail.com>



Hello chairs,

I wanted to share a draft ICANN78 schedule. Any of the NCSG/NCUC/NPOC 
meetings can be moved around, the team just played around to see if 
everything would fit.

Reminder that there is another planning call today at 18:00 UTC.

Please let me know what you think.

*Andrea Glandon*

Policy Operations Coordinator

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

*Skype ID:*acglandon76
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN78 GNSO Draft Schedule & Community requests - OPTION 2 draft (1).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 92688 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230803/98ec5759/attachment.pdf>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 23:05:19 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 06:05:19 +1000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Fwd: DRAFT ICANN78 Schedule
In-Reply-To: <9d79e1da-a9bb-8384-7c28-6d94c71402e0@Julf.com>
References: <4CE77093-7F5E-4BB4-9FC4-A235AF736B8D@icann.org>
 <9d79e1da-a9bb-8384-7c28-6d94c71402e0@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeXrPFqTtC1VyqasCX-psmepsYXygbhX1wTtyNN2pVdkAg@mail.gmail.com>

NCSG PC time on SUnday at 15:00 works for me.

Warmly,
Tomslin



On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 01:49, Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC <
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        DRAFT ICANN78 Schedule
> Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 15:45:25 +0000
> From:   Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
> To:     Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>, Raoul Plommer
> <plommer at gmail.com>, 'Benjamin Akinmoyeje' <benakin at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> Hello chairs,
>
> I wanted to share a draft ICANN78 schedule. Any of the NCSG/NCUC/NPOC
> meetings can be moved around, the team just played around to see if
> everything would fit.
>
> Reminder that there is another planning call today at 18:00 UTC.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> *Andrea Glandon*
>
> Policy Operations Coordinator
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> *Skype ID:*acglandon76
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230804/ee582757/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Thu Aug 10 22:25:38 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 21:25:38 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request: Your view on reviving CSCG for UN High
 Level Advisory Body on AI
In-Reply-To: <CAK78muR5W6Rofk+6LHnFwnWz_v37PD9O7VvG8R0EqL-JtvtV4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK78muR5W6Rofk+6LHnFwnWz_v37PD9O7VvG8R0EqL-JtvtV4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87a3db3a-94e6-2513-bc11-b8f73eb6cb83@Julf.com>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Request: Your view on reviving CSCG for UN High Level Advisory 
Body on AI
Date: 	Wed, 9 Aug 2023 17:15:13 +0100
From: 	Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
To: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>, Richard Hill 
<rhill at hill-a.ch>, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
CC: 	Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>, valeria 
Betancourt <Valeriab at apc.org>



Dear Richard, Parminder, Johan,

We hope you are well.

Bruna and I, along with Valeria (as representatives of the IGC and APC 
respectively) are getting in touch with regards to the recent call by 
the UN for experts to serve on the global multistakeholder Advisory Body 
on Artificial Intelligence. The deadline is August 31. More information 
is here: https://www.un.org/techenvoy/content/artificial-intelligence
<https://www.un.org/techenvoy/content/artificial-intelligence>
While we know the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) has been 
inactive since the MAG 2021 elections, and is not participating in the 
current nominations for the MAG, we would be interested to hear whether 
you believe that r/eviving the CSCG for the purposes of providing civil 
society nominations to the Advisory Body on AI /would be of interest to 
you/your constituencies. If so, we would propose an alternative process 
to that we have normally used in order to ensure we can collect and 
submit nominations within the timeframe. For example, we would suggest 
that each constituency run its own selection process and submit (up to) 
two names, and the CSCG then submit all those names (up to eight, should 
all four constituencies participate). We think this particular process, 
considering the importance of the topic area (the current 'race' to 
regulate AI and develop standards), combined with the possible role of 
the UN as a multilateral institution in such debates, the lack of 
clarity around the mandate of the body and its eventual make-up, 
particularly necessitates engagement from civil society at this early 
stage. It is for these reasons we recommend utilising the CSCG for this 
purpose.

We also wanted to let you know that we will be putting together a letter 
to the SG's office expressing concern about the lack of information on 
the process, the body itself, and the short timeframe for nominations.

To go ahead, we would request that you let us know whether your 
constituencies would engage in a nomination process /*this week* /- so 
that we can issue calls next week, allowing for c. two weeks to collect 
nominations/run nomination processes.

We look forward to hearing what you think!

Best wishes

Sheetal, Bruna and Valeria.
-- 
*
*
*Sheetal Kumar*
Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
T:?+44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT| M:?+44 (0)7739569514??|
PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP?Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 
DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|

---

<https://www.4dayweek.co.uk/>

	

GPD is proud to be an accredited four-day week organisation that cares 
about the well-being of its team. Please note that our office hours are 
now Monday to Thursday (9am-5pm UK time). Find out more here 
<https://www.gp-digital.org/news/gpd-becomes-a-four-day-week-organisation/>. 
<https://www.gp-digital.org/news/gpd-becomes-a-four-day-week-organisation/>





From julf at Julf.com  Fri Aug 11 17:47:22 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:47:22 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCPH Day Zero Request
In-Reply-To: <96168F1E-8E0C-4D46-AF8E-55DA3808F96B@icann.org>
References: <96168F1E-8E0C-4D46-AF8E-55DA3808F96B@icann.org>
Message-ID: <010d3cb4-ea93-8f50-dddd-9a118cf5aa25@Julf.com>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	NCPH Day Zero Request
Date: 	Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:02:45 +0000
From: 	Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org>
To: 	julf at julf.com <julf at julf.com>, mcole at perkinscoie.com 
<mcole at perkinscoie.com>
CC: 	David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>, Carlos Reyes 
<carlos.reyes at icann.org>, Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>, 
Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>



Dear Julf and Mason,

Thank you for the thoughtful proposal for an NCPH day zero workshop 
before the ICANN78 Annual General Meeting in Hamburg, Germany.

My team and I reviewed the proposal. It is an ambitious agenda with 
substantive topics, and progress on those matters would benefit both the 
CSG and NCSG, the NCPH as a whole, the GNSO, and all of ICANN.?This is 
especially true since it has been five years since the last NCPH convening.

ICANN org is committed to promoting an effective ICANN community, and we 
want to foster better CSG and NCSG relations. Therefore, ICANN org is 
supporting this request. A day zero workshop for 24 already supported 
travelers from the NCPH is a prudent use of ICANN resources.

Carlos and his team are coordinating with the Meetings and Travel 
Support teams on the arrangements and will be in touch with you to 
assist your planning efforts.?We wish you a productive day zero workshop 
and look forward to a report of the outcomes.

Best,
Sally



From julf at Julf.com  Mon Aug 14 15:45:00 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:45:00 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: REMINDER | GNSO Chair 2023 Election Timeline
In-Reply-To: <1F00BD9E-4978-4E55-8424-1850FDF00C21@icann.org>
References: <1F00BD9E-4978-4E55-8424-1850FDF00C21@icann.org>
Message-ID: <03b97a9d-41c2-db63-5d8b-0f5ec5a1a7aa@Julf.com>

Do we issue a call for candidates, or do we just come up with a
couple of suggestions?

	Julf



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	REMINDER | GNSO Chair 2023 Election Timeline
Date: 	Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:20:22 +0000
From: 	Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org>
To: 	Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>, philippe.fouquart at orange.com 
<philippe.fouquart at orange.com>, Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>, Raoul 
Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>, Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com>, 
Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>
CC: 	Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>, gnso-secs at icann.org 
<gnso-secs at icann.org>, Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>



***REMINDER*

Dear Non Contracted Party House Chairs,

Please see below the GNSO Chair election timeline for the 2023 GNSO 
Chair election. We are sharing ahead of the announcement deadline in 
order to allow for more flexible election scheduling.

*Deadlines***

	

*Activity Commences:***

*20 April 2023***

	

Announce Proposed Procedure and Timeline

*23 June 2023 (ICANN78 funded traveler name submission deadline)***

	

NomCom Selectees Announced

SG/C New Council Members Announced

House Nominee Selection

*25 September 2023***

	

Houses Submit Nominees

*07 October 2023***

	

Candidates Submit Statements

*22 October 2023*

	

Candidate Meetings

*25 October 2023***

	

Election Held at Annual General Meeting

*27 October 2023***

	

Council informs the Board & Community and posts election results on the 
GNSO website

Traditionally the timeline is built in keeping with GNSO Operating 
Procedures guidelines, but with the funded traveler submission deadline 
now being 120 days prior to the meeting (instead of 90 days), we have 
had to adapt the first two steps of the timeline. This now fits in with 
the _23 June 2023_ as submission deadline for funded traveler names for 
ICANN78.

The remaining steps however are in keeping with the GNSO Operating 
Procedures, counting back from the election date.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Terri



From bruna.mrtns at gmail.com  Mon Aug 14 15:54:16 2023
From: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com (Bruna Martins dos Santos)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:54:16 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Fwd: REMINDER | GNSO Chair 2023 Election
 Timeline
In-Reply-To: <03b97a9d-41c2-db63-5d8b-0f5ec5a1a7aa@Julf.com>
References: <1F00BD9E-4978-4E55-8424-1850FDF00C21@icann.org>
 <03b97a9d-41c2-db63-5d8b-0f5ec5a1a7aa@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <CADAEEV2jf7i-Ve747rFa0-whY_1LUhstgiV9rdAOo6UbqfqhPw@mail.gmail.com>

It depends on what was the agreement with the CSG. Last year they claimed
some sort of new agreement too in order to elect Makr and/or John, and we
said it would be ok to elect John but @Tomslin Samme-Nlar
<mesumbeslin at gmail.com> would put his name up for vice-chair or chair in
the coming year.

Best,
B

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 2:45?PM Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC <
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Do we issue a call for candidates, or do we just come up with a
> couple of suggestions?
>
>         Julf
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        REMINDER | GNSO Chair 2023 Election Timeline
> Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:20:22 +0000
> From:   Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org>
> To:     Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>, philippe.fouquart at orange.com
> <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>, Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>, Raoul
> Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>, Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com>,
> Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>
> CC:     Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>, gnso-secs at icann.org
> <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
>
>
>
> ***REMINDER*
>
> Dear Non Contracted Party House Chairs,
>
> Please see below the GNSO Chair election timeline for the 2023 GNSO
> Chair election. We are sharing ahead of the announcement deadline in
> order to allow for more flexible election scheduling.
>
> *Deadlines***
>
>
>
> *Activity Commences:***
>
> *20 April 2023***
>
>
>
> Announce Proposed Procedure and Timeline
>
> *23 June 2023 (ICANN78 funded traveler name submission deadline)***
>
>
>
> NomCom Selectees Announced
>
> SG/C New Council Members Announced
>
> House Nominee Selection
>
> *25 September 2023***
>
>
>
> Houses Submit Nominees
>
> *07 October 2023***
>
>
>
> Candidates Submit Statements
>
> *22 October 2023*
>
>
>
> Candidate Meetings
>
> *25 October 2023***
>
>
>
> Election Held at Annual General Meeting
>
> *27 October 2023***
>
>
>
> Council informs the Board & Community and posts election results on the
> GNSO website
>
> Traditionally the timeline is built in keeping with GNSO Operating
> Procedures guidelines, but with the funded traveler submission deadline
> now being 120 days prior to the meeting (instead of 90 days), we have
> had to adapt the first two steps of the timeline. This now fits in with
> the _23 June 2023_ as submission deadline for funded traveler names for
> ICANN78.
>
> The remaining steps however are in keeping with the GNSO Operating
> Procedures, counting back from the election date.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Terri
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>


-- 

*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

German Chancellor Fellow 21' (Bundeskanzler-Stipendiatin) | Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation <https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/>

Member | Coaliz?o Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus  <https://igcaucus.org/>

Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
bruna.martinsantos
Email: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230814/6bdb80c2/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Mon Aug 14 17:22:43 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 16:22:43 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Fwd: REMINDER | GNSO Chair 2023 Election
 Timeline
In-Reply-To: <CADAEEV2jf7i-Ve747rFa0-whY_1LUhstgiV9rdAOo6UbqfqhPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1F00BD9E-4978-4E55-8424-1850FDF00C21@icann.org>
 <03b97a9d-41c2-db63-5d8b-0f5ec5a1a7aa@Julf.com>
 <CADAEEV2jf7i-Ve747rFa0-whY_1LUhstgiV9rdAOo6UbqfqhPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ad81e09e-6ad6-4cff-8b3e-db7ad4e5f67c@Julf.com>

Is that agreement documented anywhere?

	Julf

On 14/08/2023 14:54, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
> It depends on what was the agreement with the CSG. Last year they 
> claimed some sort of new agreement too in order to elect Makr?and/or 
> John, and we said it would be ok to elect John but @Tomslin Samme-Nlar 
> <mailto:mesumbeslin at gmail.com>?would put his name up for vice-chair or 
> chair in the coming year.
> 
> Best,
> B
> 
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 2:45?PM Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC 
> <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
> 
>     Do we issue a call for candidates, or do we just come up with a
>     couple of suggestions?
> 
>      ? ? ? ? Julf
> 
> 
> 
>     -------- Forwarded Message --------
>     Subject:? ? ? ? REMINDER | GNSO Chair 2023 Election Timeline
>     Date:? ?Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:20:22 +0000
>     From:? ?Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org
>     <mailto:terri.agnew at icann.org>>
>     To:? ? ?Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org
>     <mailto:lschulman at inta.org>>, philippe.fouquart at orange.com
>     <mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>
>     <philippe.fouquart at orange.com
>     <mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>>, Johan Helsingius
>     <julf at Julf.com>, Raoul
>     Plommer <plommer at gmail.com <mailto:plommer at gmail.com>>, Benjamin
>     Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com <mailto:benakin at gmail.com>>,
>     Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com
>     <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>>
>     CC:? ? ?Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org
>     <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>, gnso-secs at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
>     <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>, Andrea Glandon
>     <andrea.glandon at icann.org <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>>
> 
> 
> 
>     ***REMINDER*
> 
>     Dear Non Contracted Party House Chairs,
> 
>     Please see below the GNSO Chair election timeline for the 2023 GNSO
>     Chair election. We are sharing ahead of the announcement deadline in
>     order to allow for more flexible election scheduling.
> 
>     *Deadlines***
> 
> 
> 
>     *Activity Commences:***
> 
>     *20 April 2023***
> 
> 
> 
>     Announce Proposed Procedure and Timeline
> 
>     *23 June 2023 (ICANN78 funded traveler name submission deadline)***
> 
> 
> 
>     NomCom Selectees Announced
> 
>     SG/C New Council Members Announced
> 
>     House Nominee Selection
> 
>     *25 September 2023***
> 
> 
> 
>     Houses Submit Nominees
> 
>     *07 October 2023***
> 
> 
> 
>     Candidates Submit Statements
> 
>     *22 October 2023*
> 
> 
> 
>     Candidate Meetings
> 
>     *25 October 2023***
> 
> 
> 
>     Election Held at Annual General Meeting
> 
>     *27 October 2023***
> 
> 
> 
>     Council informs the Board & Community and posts election results on the
>     GNSO website
> 
>     Traditionally the timeline is built in keeping with GNSO Operating
>     Procedures guidelines, but with the funded traveler submission deadline
>     now being 120 days prior to the meeting (instead of 90 days), we have
>     had to adapt the first two steps of the timeline. This now fits in with
>     the _23 June 2023_ as submission deadline for funded traveler names for
>     ICANN78.
> 
>     The remaining steps however are in keeping with the GNSO Operating
>     Procedures, counting back from the election date.
> 
>     Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
>     Thank you,
> 
>     Terri
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-EC mailing list
>     NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> */Bruna Martins dos Santos
> /*
> 
> German Chancellor Fellow 21' (Bundeskanzler-Stipendiatin) | Alexander 
> von Humboldt Foundation <https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/>
> 
> Member | Coaliz?o Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
> Co-Coordinator?| Internet Governance Caucus <https://igcaucus.org/>
> 
> Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins>?// Skype: 
> bruna.martinsantos
> Email: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>


From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Tue Aug 15 23:55:45 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 06:55:45 +1000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Update on Closed Generics
In-Reply-To: <CANsVcExMEwf8NSiwq=UOQMF0wwAqz2gis6zimQEKyJBCz85acQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN8PR05MB60491774D29B988AAB15E80B9212A@BN8PR05MB6049.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <3BC02A74-9B55-4F66-A9F6-B5620C98A9BF@kjpritz.com>
 <PH8PR06MB91275E031AF455E9F7FD11B3C313A@PH8PR06MB9127.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <CANsVcEz-2=F-1--4FH4K0Nzcc41+Bij60nrrzCr9ip++-=tkig@mail.gmail.com>
 <D95A1C53-F4F5-4113-A61C-4C7C4E5D2DFD@kjpritz.com>
 <b3b89023e7a4405894554a833a52420b@amazon.com>
 <CANsVcExMEwf8NSiwq=UOQMF0wwAqz2gis6zimQEKyJBCz85acQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeXDe17X7igyVp9pof0F_E1bhbv6ejeWDsCAyYNqNrfooA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear councillors,

What is our stance on this?

1. Overall, I think the declaration that the Facilitated dialogue on Closed
generics is a failure is a win to NCSG as we warned council and the board
against taking this path.

2. I think the concern Kurt raises that the letter to be addressed to the
board asking to "*pause any release of closed generics to a future round
might inadvertently be revising subpro recommendation*"  and that of Anne
that "*contains a subtle underlying policy recommendation in favor of
accepting new Closed Generic applications in the next round in the absence
of developed policy*" are both valid concerns we should pay close attention
to.

3. However, I like Anne's proposal that avoids subtly modifying any
consensus policy. She proposes that "*Perhaps Council should simply advise
the Board that (1) Based on public comment, the Facilitated Dialogue
process proved unsuccessful in this instance and (2) Council does not
believe a further policy process would result in a consensus and therefore,
the Board should decide the issues, including whether or not to accept
Closed Generic applications in the next round.*"

What are your thoughts?


Warmly,
Tomslin



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Anne ICANN via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 02:17
Subject: Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>
Cc: COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG <COUNCIL at gnso.icann.org>, Avri Doria <
avri.doria at board.icann.org>


Thanks Greg - The point you make that there is as yet no official statement
from Council to the Board on this issue is an important one.    I think
there is rough consensus at the Council level that we don't want the next
round to be delayed by this issue.  I think two significant questions
remain as to the following:

Issue #1. Whether to accept applications for Closed Generics in the next
round or to pause such applications pending future Board action or GNSO
policy development efforts.  The draft  statements put forward so far would
endorse accepting applications and that is also a policy statement which
essentially defines the "status quo" as permitting such applications.
(After all, closed generic applications could block open generic
applications in that instance.)   This is tricky because the GAC has
reiterated that its previous  Closed Generic advice is "standing advice".
Would it be a solution for the Board to simply accept that advice in
relation to a Closed Generic application and then accept applications in
the next round but  require the Applicant to prove that the application
serves a public interest goal without specifying any standards that apply
for that proof? Or could the Board say that it cannot accept the advice
from the GAC because it would require ICANN to weigh the content of the
Closed Generic application and to police the public interest goal issue
during the term of the contract award,  meaning the requirement of the GAC
advice is out of scope for ICANN's mission as overly content -related?
Maybe the Council should just say "don't delay the next round" and should
not take a policy position on whether or not to accept Closed Generic
applications when the next round opens, i.e. leave that to the Board to
decide that policy issue as well?

Issue #2. Whether the Council itself has taken a decision that it will not
proceed to develop Closed Generic policy using an existing GNSO policy
process.  (I think it's possible the Board has the authority to request a
formal policy process - not sure whether Council has the right to refuse to
do so.)  Did the Council already decide it would not undertake an existing
policy process when it authorized the Facilitated Dialogue process? Does
the statement need to reflect a Council decision in this regard and if so,
does that need a separate vote from Council?  Are we risking delay of the
next round over the Council's failure to act on this policy issue?  The
Board invoked the Facilitated Dialogue process outside normal policy
development channels but it appears that process failed.

Any thoughts re the above considerations ?
Anne



Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso at gmail.com


On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 6:51?AM DiBiase, Gregory via council <
council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:

> Hi Kurt,
>
>
>
> A couple thoughts here:
>
>
>
>    1. We have not communicated a decision or feedback to Board yet, so we
>    have time to discuss our messaging (so far, the SO/AC chairs have sent a
>    letter to the dialogue participants and the dialogue participants have
>    agreed with the letter?s sentiment).
>    2. I think council is in agreement that work on closed generics cannot
>    be a dependency for the next round and the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed
>    Generic gTLDs should not continue to be the vehicle advancing this work
>    (please let me know if I?m oversimplifying).  If this is correct, I think
>    we can simplify this issue to: how or if we should frame the ?status quo?
>    to the Board.  More specifically, we can take a closer look at this
>    proposed language from the letter to the dialogue participants:
>       1. ?until there is community-developed policy, the Board should
>       maintain the position from the 2012 round (i.e., any applications seeking
>       to impose exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single
>       person or entity and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in
>       Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed;?
>    3. Perhaps we should modify this part to say closer to: ?given that
>    there is no community-developed policy on closed generics (i.e., any
>    applications seeking to impose exclusive registry access for "generic
>    strings" to a single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's
>    Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement), we
>    acknowledge that the Board may not allow closed generics to proceed (in
>    line with their position from the 20201 round) until policy is developed.?
>    In other words, we don?t need to instruct the Board on what the status quo
>    is, rather, we are informing them that a policy on closed generics has not
>    been finalized and we recommend not delaying the next round until this
>    policy work is completed.
>
>
>
> I?m sure I have point 3 wrong as I am not as well-versed in subpro as
> others, but we can discuss further to make sure we are all aligned.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *kurt
> kjpritz.com via council
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 13, 2023 7:54 PM
> *To:* Paul McGrady <paul at elstermcgrady.com>
> *Cc:* Avri Doria <avri.doria at board.icann.org>; GNSO Council <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Update on Closed Generics
>
>
>
> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Replying to Paul (Hi Paul):
>
>
>
> As pointed out by Anne (and Rubens in a parallel email exchange), the
> question of status quo is not settled. That is the reason the SubPro
> working group specifically asked the Board to settle the question.
>
>
>
> The Board essentially created a new, temporary policy when it introduced
> an additional restriction into the criteria for delegating new TLDs. (I say
> temporary because the restriction was time-limited in a way.)
>
>
>
> The SubPro final report does not recommend an extension of that
> restriction by way of a ?pause,? the report specifically recommends
> something else. By recommending a pause, the SO/AC leadership would be
> amending the final report recommendation.
>
>
>
> I wish I could be clearer. That somehow eludes me at the moment.
>
>
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 Aug 2023, at 3:37 am, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Kurt and Paul,
>
>
>
> As I see it, the issue has come back to what constitutes the "status
> quo".  This issue was hotly debated in the Sub Pro Working Group.  Some
> maintained that there was no prohibition on the applications for Closed
> Generics because none was contained in the 2012 AGB. Others maintained that
> due to the GAC Advice and Board direction to "pause" pending policy
> development, the "status quo" is actually a "pause" which would be
> continued at the start of the next round.  The risk I see for the ICANN
> Board in the latter situation is that those existing applications for
> Closed Generics (which are on hold) as well as any future applications to
> be taken in the next round (not prohibited by this recommendation) would
> build a case for Request for Reconsideration if the Board does not allow
> those applications to move forward.  For example, the grounds might be
> Applicant Freedom of Expression under the Human Rights Core Value and the
> underlying principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression that has been
> affirmed by subsequent PDP work and is now being confirmed in the Sub Pro
> IRT process.
>
>
>
> Another factor is that the Board has consistently declined to make
> policy.  And I'm not certain that the GNSO Council actually has the
> authority to direct the Board to make a Closed Generic policy.  Are you
> gentlemen certain that this is kosher?
>
>
>
> Certainly I agree this issue should not hold up the next round but of
> course there is a year to go.  If the Board is willing to take a decision
> on this, that is one scenario.   If the Board is not willing to take a
> decision on this and/or is concerned about the risk of expensive litigation
> over a possible ban, then that is another scenario.  Has anyone spoken with
> our Sub Pro Board reps about this approach?  (They are copied here.)
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:15?AM Paul McGrady via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
>
>
> Thanks for this.  I?m not sure I am understanding your concern.  One of
> the basic tenants that everyone in the SubPro PDP agreed to was that,
> absent any changes captured in the Recommendations, that the status quo
> would prevail.  All the letter does is ask for that.  I feel better about
> sticking with the WG?s inability to change the status quo than I do asking
> the Board to write a policy when the community couldn?t agree to anything,
> even after two valiant efforts.  We tried in the WG, we couldn?t get there,
> the status quo should prevail.  We tried again at the request of the Board
> at the SO/AC level, we couldn?t get there, the status quo should prevail.
> The letter leaves open the possibility of future community work on this but
> notes there is no bandwidth or appetite to do so and we don?t want the next
> round held up.  Help me understand you concern about asking the Board to
> maintain the status quo until/if the community comes up with a policy on
> these.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *kurt
> kjpritz.com via council
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2023 3:45 AM
> *To:* John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
> *Cc:* GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>
>
>
> Hi John:
>
> Thanks for taking time to make this detailed report, and also thanks to
> the well-intentioned people that participated in the effort, in particular,
> our GNSO representatives. I am not surprised by the outcome.
>
> I am surprised by the recommendation to pause any release of
> closed generics to a future round. Such an action would turn the
> consensus-based policy development process on its head.
>
> 1. I don?t understand how the SO/AC leaders have the authority to revise
> the PDP final report recommendation.
>
> The PDP final report (approved by each of the Councillors) stated that the
> closed generic decision should be left up to the ICANN Board. The
> final report did not recommend the conflicting direction that the closed
> generics ban be continued until a future round.
>
> The Board made an attempt to (re)involve the community by inviting the GAC
> and GNSO to develop a solution. With that effort closed, we should revert
> back to the final report recommendations. We should not change
> the consensus position developed. Do we think the PDP team would have
> approved a recommendation to pause closed generics for an additional round?
> (No.)
>
> We have thoroughly discussed the conditions under which a Council approved
> final report can be changed (e.g., GGP), and this is not one of them.
>
>
>
> 2.     Continuing the ban on closed generics effectively abandons
> the consensus policy model of decision making.
>
> The new gTLD policy developments, in 2007-8 and 2016-21 have asked the
> questions: (1) should there be a round of TLDs and, if yes, (2)
> what restrictions / conditions should be in place to address SSR, IP,
> and competition concerns.
>
> Restrictions and conditions enjoying consensus support were implemented in
> the program. (An illustrative example is the RPM IRT, whose recommendations
> were ratified by the community STI.)
>
> During discussions on closed generics, there were people for barring them,
> allowing them, and allowing them with restrictions. Pausing
> any introduction of closed generics essentially creates a policy advocated
> by a minority (and in any case not enjoying consensus support). The final
> report indicated as much.
>
> This result provides an incentive to avoid compromise. Going forward,
> those wanting to implement an unsupported policy can refuse to compromise
> through a PDP and subsequent ad-hoc discussions with the hope
> that leadership will ?give up? and implement unsupported restrictions.
>
> 3.     The decision to ban closed generics for an additional
> round contradicts the one step the Board took.
>
> The Board direction to the GAC-GNSO team established
> guardrails, prohibiting a model that would either ban or provide for the
> unrestricted release of closed generics. We cannot be sure this is where
> the Board will land absent input from the GAC-GNSO effort, but we should
> not erase the chance that the Board would develop a balanced decision.
>
>
>
> Two additional points:
>
>
> 1.     I do not believe that deferring the issue to the Board will
> delay the next round, despite the recent GAC-GNSO detour. The Board has
> more than a year to make a call.
>
>
> 2.     I do not believe the Board is exceeding their authority in
> making the call. The GNSO specifically assigned the task to the Board as
> part of their policy management responsibility. In any event, the Board
> established that authority when it paused closed generics in 2012,
> contradicting the Council-approved policy.
>
>
> If given the opportunity to participate in a discussion on this issue, I
> would oppose the recommendation that the issue should be paused, and
> closed generics banned for the reasons stated above. I would support the
> final report recommendation that the issue be decided by the Board.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
> On 10 Aug 2023, at 7:33 am, John McElwaine via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
>
>
> As GNSO Council liaison to the ALAC-GAC-GNSO Facilitated Dialogue on
> Closed Generic gTLDs, I wanted to update you on the latest developments on
> this project. On 7 July 2023, after discussions amongst themselves that I
> also participated in, Sebastien (in his capacity as GNSO Chair), Jonathan
> Zuck (ALAC Chair) and Nico Caballero (GAC Chair) sent the attached letter
> to the participants in the dialogue. For reasons set out in the letter, and
> in response to questions that the dialogue participants had referred to
> them (also noted in the letter), the three Chairs have collectively decided
> that it will be neither necessary to continue with the dialogue to develop
> a final framework nor initiate further policy development work on this
> topic.
>
>
>
> The dialogue participants have discussed the Chairs? joint letter and
> agreed to conclude their work as requested, including producing an outcomes
> report to ensure that the work to date is thoroughly documented.
> Participants also agreed to forward the Chairs? letter to all the
> commenters that submitted input on the draft framework (viz., Tucows, RySG,
> BC, ISPCPC, ALAC and GAC), and have invited those commenters that wish to
> engage with the group to join their next call to clarify any significant
> concerns they raised in the feedback they provided.
>
>
>
> The staff team that is supporting the dialogue is currently preparing a
> draft outcomes report for the group to review. The group intends for the
> outcomes report to serve as an introduction and summary of their work,
> including expressly clarifying that the draft framework the group published
> in June 2023 does not reflect agreed outcomes but, rather, was a product of
> compromise that was reached in the interests of soliciting community
> feedback on the various elements and points included in the draft
> framework. The outcomes report will also include all the community feedback
> that were submitted in full, links to the group?s community wiki space and
> other relevant documentation, and the participants? feedback on the
> consensus building techniques and approaches that were used for the
> dialogue.
>
>
>
> The group hopes to wrap up its work by September, in line with its
> previous plan to conclude the dialogue and final framework by end-Q3 2023.
> I understand that Sebastien, Nico and Jonathan will also be sending a
> separate communication to the ICANN Board that reflects the decision they
> took and, as stated in the letter, expressing the collective view that:
>
>
>
> (1) closed generic gTLDs should not be viewed as a dependency for the next
> round;
>
> (2) until there is community-developed policy, the Board should maintain
> the position from the 2012 round (i.e., any applications seeking to impose
> exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single person or
> entity and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section
> 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed*;* and
>
> (3) should the community decide in the future to resume the policy
> discussions, this should be based on the good work that has been done to
> date in the facilitated dialogue.
>
>
>
> Sebastien and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have on the
> letter, the Chairs? decision and the proposed next steps. You may also wish
> to check in with the representatives that each of your Stakeholder Groups
> appointed to the dialogue for further information.
>
>
>
> Finally, I am sure I speak for all of us when I say that we are very
> grateful to the dialogue participants and the staff support team for all
> the hard work and consensus building that resulted in a detailed and
> substantive, if preliminary, draft framework. I also hope that the
> participants? feedback on the methods and techniques used in the dialogue,
> as well as other lessons learned from the experience, will provide the GNSO
> Council and community with useful information that we can put into practice
> in future policy discussions.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> John
>
>
>
> *Confidentiality Notice*
> This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to
> read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and
> delete all copies of this message.
>
> <Message from ALAC GAC  GNSO Chairs to Closed Generics Facilitated
> Dialogue Participants - FINAL - 5 August 2023 (002).pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
>
> This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230816/4ed69d31/attachment.htm>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Wed Aug 16 00:22:45 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 07:22:45 +1000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting |
 Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 13:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <FCA8C816-D1B6-45FB-9DC0-B3171EBDD994@icann.org>
References: <FCA8C816-D1B6-45FB-9DC0-B3171EBDD994@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeXCXYXQ1ixKWWYxr5sB_o9MAP8MR-A+Xp=aoTGhDRvwPQ@mail.gmail.com>

FYI.

We will discuss the agenda at our Monthly Policy call on Monday, 21 August
at 11:30 UTC

Warmly,
Tomslin
Policy Chair



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Terri Agnew via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 07:35
Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Thursday, 24
August 2023 at 13:00 UTC
To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>,
liaison6c at gnso.icann.org <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>


Dear all,



Please find below the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting
taking place on Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 2 hours. This has
been posted on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/0IBXDg>.



Thank you.



Kind regards,



Terri

*************

Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered
on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access:
https://community.icann.org/x/yIBXDg.



This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-24oct19-en.pdf>
v3.5, updated on 24 October 2019.

For convenience:

   - An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is
   provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
   - An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee
   voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.



GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 13:00 UTC:
https://tinyurl.com/2h2mdzcd.



06:00 Los Angeles; 09:00 Washington DC; 14:00 London; 15:00 Paris; 16:00
Moscow; 07:00 Melbourne



*GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation:*
*https://icann.zoom.us/j/97891627902?pwd=RURCTitiNEVwd2UySEk1QkRESmlFZz09*
<https://icann.zoom.us/j/97891627902?pwd=RURCTitiNEVwd2UySEk1QkRESmlFZz09>

Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not
be able to attend and/or need a dial out call.

___________________________________

*Item 1: Administrative Matters (5 minutes)*

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the
GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-14jun23-en.pdf>
of the GNSO Council meeting on 14 June were posted on 01 July 2023.

Minutes
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-20jul23-en.pdf>
of the GNSO Council meeting on 20 July were posted on 06 August 2023.



*Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (0 minutes)*

2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
topics, to include review of Projects List
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List.
<https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg>



*Item 3: Consent Agenda (5 minutes)*



   - Approval of the 2023 Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Slate - In
   accordance with Section 17.2 (d) of the ICANN Bylaw and per the CSC
   Charter, the full membership of the CSC must be approved by the GNSO
   Council. The Council approves the full slate of members and liaisons,
   noting that the SSAC has declined to appoint a liaison

*Members*

Dmitry Burkov (EU)

Appointing Organization: RySG

Term: 2023 - 2025



Federico Neves (LAC)

Appointing Organization: ccNSO

Term: 2023 ? 2025



Brett Carr (EU)

Appointing Organization: ccNSO

Term: 2022 - 2024



Rick Wilhelm (NA)

Appointing Organization: RySG

Term: 2022 ? 2024



2 Liaisons: Holly Raiche

Appointing Organization: ALAC

Term: 2023 - 2025



Milton Mueller

Appointing Organization: GNSO (Non-Registry)

Term: 2023 - 2025



Gloria Atwine Katuuku

Appointing Organization: GAC

Term: 2022 - 2024



Ken Renard

Appointing Organization: RSSAC

Term: 2022 - 2024



Amy Creamer

Appointing Organization: PTI

Term: No term limit



Alternates: In line with recommendations of the second CSC Effectiveness
Review Team included in its Final Report, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils
requested that the liaison appointing organizations each appoint one (1)
alternate, and strongly encouraged the ccNSO and RySG to each appoint one
(1) alternate in addition to members. While some appointing organizations
have chosen to appoint alternates later in the process, to date the
following alternate appointment has been made:



Ejikeme Egbuogu

Appointing Organization: ALAC

Term: 2023 ? 2025



John Gbadamosi

Appointing Organization: GNSO (Non-Registry)

Term: 2023 ? 2025



*Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - SubPro Small Team Clarifying Statement (20 minutes)*

During its informal session at ICANN76 and the subsequent Council meeting,
the Council discussed and agreed
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-15mar23-en.pdf>
to
task a small team of interested councilors to review the recommendations
that the Board placed in a pending status and suggest to the full Council
how the underlying concerns that caused the pending status can be best
addressed (i.e., a limited triage exercise).

Since ICANN76, the Council SubPro Small Team has met several times and has
completed a comprehensive review of the issues chart, with Board member
input on why the Board placed specific recommendations into a pending
status. The Council discussed the main output of that triage effort, the
proposed paths forward for each pending recommendation, during an
Extraordinary Meeting on 4 May. During that meeting, the Council agreed to
further task the small team with taking interim steps (e.g., provision of
clarifying information, developing speaking points) in order to support the
Council?s dialogue with the ICANN Board on 22 May
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=240617931>. The
Council debriefed after the dialogue with the ICANN Board and discussed
next steps.

During the ICANN77 Day 0 Session, the Council heard from the members of the
Board regarding the Board?s views on potential ?landing spots? on the
pending recommendations. Following this discussion, the Small Team has
drafted clarifying statements for items in landing spot one (?Provision of
Clarifying Statement to the Board?). During its meeting in July, the
Council received an update from the Small Team on the proposed clarifying
statement.

Here, the Council will vote on the clarifying statement.

4.1 ? Introduction of topic (Paul McGrady, SubPro Small Team Chair)

4.2 ? Council discussion

4.3 ? Council Vote



*Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Committee for Overseeing and
Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) Recommendations Report on
Review of the Statement of Interest (SOI) Requirements (20 minutes)*



The GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot was initiated in June
2021 to determine whether the framework, as outlined here
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/continuous-improvement-oversight-implementation-framework-29jun21-en.pdf>,
could serve as an approach for dealing with the various projects that are
focused on improvements to GNSO processes and procedures.



The CCOICI tasked <https://community.icann.org/x/NAAiCw> the GNSO Statement
of Interest (SOI) Task Force to address the following questions:




   1. Is the original objective of the SOI, as stated in the BGC WG Report,
   still valid? If not, why not and what should the current objective be?
   2. Based on the response to question 1), is the requested information to
   be provided as part of the SOI still fit for purpose? If not, why not, and
   what would need to be changed to make it fit for purpose?
   3. Are there any further measures that should be considered from an
   enforcement / escalation perspective, in addition or instead of those
   already included in the requirements?



The Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous
Improvement (CCOICI) submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration its
Recommendations Report following its review of the Recommendations Report
submitted to the CCOICI by the GNSO Statement of Interest Task Force based
on their review of the GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Requirements as
well as their review of the input received in response to the public
comment forum.



Here, the Council will hear an overview of the CCOICI Recommendations
Report
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/chen-to-gnso-council-14aug23-en.pdf>on
the SOI Requirements.



5.1 - Introduction of topic (Manju Chen, CCOICI Chair)



5.2 - Council Discussion



5.3 - Next Steps



*Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Chartering the Standing Predictability
Implementation Review Team (?SPIRT?) (15 minutes)*



In its Final Report
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-report-newgtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-02feb21-en.pdf>,
the Subsequent Procedures Working Group recommended ?the formation of a
Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (?SPIRT?) (Pronounced
?spirit?) to serve as the body responsible for reviewing potential issues
related to the Program, to conduct analysis utilizing the framework, and to
recommend the process/mechanism that should be followed to address the
issue (i.e., utilize the Predictability Framework). The GNSO Council shall
be responsible for oversight of the SPIRT and may review all
recommendations of the SPIRT in accordance with the procedures outlined in
the GNSO Operating Procedures and Annexes thereto.?

Here, the Council will hear from the two Council Liaisons to the SubPro
Implementation Review Team ?IRT? regarding the chartering of the SPIRT.

6.1 ? Introduction of Topic (Anne Aikman-Scalese and Susan Payne, SubPro
IRT Liaisons)

6.2 ? Council discussion

6.3 - Next Steps



*Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - SubPro Pending Recommendations - Expected
Non-Adoption (20 minutes)*

During its informal session at ICANN76 and the subsequent Council meeting,
the Council discussed and agreed
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-15mar23-en.pdf>
to
task a small team of interested councilors to review the recommendations
that the Board placed in a pending status and suggest to the full Council
how the underlying concerns that caused the pending status can be best
addressed (i.e., a limited triage exercise).

Since ICANN76, the Council SubPro Small Team has met several times and has
completed a comprehensive review of the issues chart, with Board member
input on why the Board placed specific recommendations into a pending
status. The Council discussed the main output of that triage effort, the
proposed paths forward for each pending recommendation, during an
Extraordinary Meeting on 4 May. During that meeting, the Council agreed to
further task the small team with taking interim steps (e.g., provision of
clarifying information, developing speaking points) in order to support the
Council?s dialogue with the ICANN Board on 22 May
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=240617931>. The
Council debriefed after the dialogue with the ICANN Board and discussed
next steps.

During the ICANN77 Day 0 Session, the Council heard from the members of the
Board regarding the Board?s views on potential ?landing spots? on the
pending recommendations.

Here, the Council will hear an update on the proposed path for the
recommendations the Board is not expected to adopt. In addition, the small
team is requesting Council for further instructions now that it has reached
the solution building stage; as well as input on whether or not it is time
to invite the GAC to participate more formally in the small team's work and
how that would work practically.

7.1 - Introduction of Topic (Paul McGrady, Chair of SubPro Small Team)

7.2 - Council Discussion

7.3 - Next Steps



*Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Closed Generics (20 minutes)*



In March 2022, the ICANN Board requested that the GAC and GNSO Council
consider engaging in a facilitated dialogue to develop a framework for
further GNSO policy work on the issue of Closed Generics. The GAC and GNSO
Council agreed to the Board?s suggestion and each appointed six
participants for the dialogue. One participant and one alternate from the
ALAC were also appointed. Should the GAC-GNSO facilitated dialogue result
in an agreed framework, the agreements will be further developed through
the appropriate GNSO policy process.

Following an initial, informal meeting at ICANN75 in Kuala Lumpur, the
dialogue participants have since been meeting regularly via Zoom and held a
substantive two-day face-to-face meeting in Washington, D.C. in late
January 2023. The dialogue is hoping to deliver a draft framework around
the end of April 2023 to the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and other SOACs for community
input. At this stage, groups are expected to have approximately four weeks
to review the document.

During its meeting at ICANN76, the ICANN Board passed a resolution
<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-16-03-2023-en>
adopting a substantial portion of the outputs from the New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures PDP, setting in motion the start of the implementation process
for the next round of new gTLDs. As part of the resolution, the Board
established deadlines for key deliverables that will impact the development
of the implementation plan.



The GNSO Chair, GAC Chair, and ALAC Chair plan to send a separate
communication to the ICANN Board that reflects the decision they took and,
as stated in the letter, expressing the collective view that:



(1) closed generic gTLDs should not be viewed as a dependency for the next
round;



(2) until there is community-developed policy, the Board should maintain
the position from the 2012 round (i.e., any applications seeking to impose
exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single person or
entity and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section
2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed; and



(3) should the community decide in the future to resume the policy
discussions, this should be based on the good work that has been done to
date in the facilitated dialogue.



Here, the Council will discuss the current state of work and the proposed
communication to the Board.



8.1 - Introduction of Topic (John McElwaine, Council Liaison to Closed
Generics Facilitated Discussion)

8.2 - Council Discussion

8.3 - Next Steps



*Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (15 minutes)*



9.1 Update from NIS2 Outreach Team (Thomas Rickert, Chair of Small Team)

9.2 ICANN78 Planning (Terri Agnew, ICANN org)

9.3 Discussion Paper on .Quebec

9.4 Grant Program implementation update to Chartering Organizations

 _______________________________

Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11,
Section 11.3(i))

See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11.

Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating
Procedures, Section 4.4)

See
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf



*References for Coordinated Universal Time of 13:00 UTC*

Local time between March and October in the NORTHERN hemisphere

See https://www.timeanddate.com/time/change/ for Dates for Daylight Saving
Time and Clock Changes

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

California, USA (PDT) UTC-7  06:00

San Jos?, Costa Rica (CDT) UTC-6  07:00

New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4  09:00

Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3  10:00

Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 14:00

Paris, France (CEST) UTC+2   15:00

Moscow, Russia (MSK) UTC+3  16:00

Singapore (SGT) UTC+8  (Friday)  21:00

Melbourne, Australia (AEST) UTC+10 23:00

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

US and Canada: DST starts on Sunday 12 March 2023 (with exceptions)

European countries: DST starts on Sunday 26 March 2023 (with exceptions)

DST ends on Sunday 29 October 2023 for most European countries.

DST ends on Sunday 05 November 2023 for most of the US and Canada

Some parts of Australia: DST ends on Sunday 02 April 2023

Some parts of Australia: DST starts on Sunday 01 October 2023

----------------------------------------------------------------------

For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com and
https://tinyurl.com/2h2mdzcd














_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230816/12953a2c/attachment.htm>

From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Wed Aug 16 23:58:31 2023
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 16:58:31 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Update on Closed Generics
In-Reply-To: <CAM8DdeXDe17X7igyVp9pof0F_E1bhbv6ejeWDsCAyYNqNrfooA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN8PR05MB60491774D29B988AAB15E80B9212A@BN8PR05MB6049.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <3BC02A74-9B55-4F66-A9F6-B5620C98A9BF@kjpritz.com>
 <PH8PR06MB91275E031AF455E9F7FD11B3C313A@PH8PR06MB9127.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <CANsVcEz-2=F-1--4FH4K0Nzcc41+Bij60nrrzCr9ip++-=tkig@mail.gmail.com>
 <D95A1C53-F4F5-4113-A61C-4C7C4E5D2DFD@kjpritz.com>
 <b3b89023e7a4405894554a833a52420b@amazon.com>
 <CANsVcExMEwf8NSiwq=UOQMF0wwAqz2gis6zimQEKyJBCz85acQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM8DdeXDe17X7igyVp9pof0F_E1bhbv6ejeWDsCAyYNqNrfooA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fa526e80-8741-fe1d-d21f-d959606112c7@KathyKleiman.com>

Hi Tomslin,

I'm sorry that the Facilitated Dialogue is being viewed by some as a 
failure.? In our Closed Generics Small Team meeting last week, it was 
made very clear to us that the Chairs of the GNSO, GAC and ALAC did not 
consider our work a failure, but a success that resulted in important 
issues being raised. I share the highlights of the "3 Chair Letter" and 
attach it to this email:

- "As the Chairs of the three community groups that agreed to 
participate in this dialog[ue, we are extremely grateful to you as well 
as very proud of how your work is a testament to the robustness and 
viability of ICANN?s multistakeholder model. We would like to thank you 
all for all the hard work, collaborative effort, and time that you have 
put into this project, resulting in a detailed draft framework for 
potential policy work that reflects the many hours of good faith 
discussions that took place."

- "We noted that there does not seem to be strong community demand for 
closed generic gTLDs in the next round, particularly if success in 
obtaining a gTLD in this category will entail engaging in a complex 
process with complicated requirements."

- "As a result of all these considerations and our discussions, we 
believe that it is not necessary to resolve the question of closed 
generic gTLDs as a dependency for the next round of new gTLDs, and we 
plan to inform the ICANN Board accordingly. We agree with the ICANN 
Board (in its original invitation to the GAC and the GNSO to engage in a 
facilitated dialogue) that this topic is one for community policy work, 
rather than a decision for the Board. /
/

/- As such and based on our collective belief that there is neither the 
need nor the community bandwidth to conduct additional work at this 
stage, we also plan to ask that, for the next round, the Board maintain 
the position that, unless and until there is a communitydeveloped 
consensus policy in place, any applications seeking to impose exclusive 
registry access for "generic strings" to a single person or entity 
and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section 
2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed. [italics added]/

- "Finally, we also plan to inform the Board that any future community 
policy work on this topic should be based on the good work that has been 
done to date in this facilitated dialogue."*
*

*----------------*

*So overall, we were told we did a good job on a tough issue. I think 
the Small Group's Framework advanced the dialogue and our joint 
understanding of the competition problems associated with a single 
company controlling a "closed generic" gTLD significantly.
*

Frankly, I would advise the Council to support the work and words of the 
GNSO Chair, and the recommendation not to proceed with Closed Generic 
applications in the next round under the circumstances as outlined in 
the letter.

I urge you not to join in the criticism of some on the GNSO - excellent 
and hard work was done here - including our GNSO representatives John 
McElwaine, Phillippe Fouquart, Jeff, Sophie and me.? We worked very 
hard, and pushed the understanding of this issues, and ways to address 
it, to new levels.? Our work likely will become the basis of future 
discussion. But, as Chris Disspain said at our second Closed G meeting 
in ICANN77 (and he was on the Board in the first round), not all issues 
deserve the huge amount of time it would take to fully resolve them.

Best regards, Kathy

Attachment: 3 Chairs Letter Aug 5

On 8/15/2023 4:55 PM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
> Dear councillors,
>
> What is our stance on this?
>
> 1. Overall, I think the declaration that the Facilitated dialogue on 
> Closed generics is a failure is a win to NCSG as we warned council and 
> the board against taking this path.
>
> 2. I think the concern Kurt raises that the letter to be addressed to 
> the board asking to "/*pause any release of closed generics to a 
> future round might inadvertently be revising subpro recommendation*/" 
> ?and that of Anne that "*/contains a subtle underlying policy 
> recommendation in favor of accepting new Closed Generic applications 
> in the next round in the absence of developed policy/*" are both valid 
> concerns we should pay close attention to.
>
> 3. However, I like Anne's proposal that avoids subtly modifying any 
> consensus policy. She proposes that "*/Perhaps Council should simply 
> advise the Board that (1) Based on public comment, the Facilitated 
> Dialogue process proved unsuccessful in this instance and (2) Council 
> does not believe a further policy process would result in a consensus 
> and therefore, the Board should decide the issues, including whether 
> or not to accept Closed Generic applications in the next round./*"
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Anne ICANN via council* <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 02:17
> Subject: Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
> To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>
> Cc: COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG <COUNCIL at gnso.icann.org>, Avri Doria 
> <avri.doria at board.icann.org>
>
>
> Thanks Greg - The point you make that there is as yet no official 
> statement from Council to the Board on this issue is an important 
> one.? ? I think there is rough consensus at the Council level that we 
> don't want the next round to be delayed by this issue.? I think two 
> significant questions remain as to the following:
>
> Issue #1. Whether to accept applications for Closed Generics in the 
> next round or to pause such applications pending future Board action 
> or GNSO policy development efforts.? The draft? statements put forward 
> so far would endorse accepting applications and that is also a policy 
> statement which essentially defines the "status quo" as permitting 
> such applications.? (After all, closed generic applications could 
> block open generic applications in that instance.)? ?This is tricky 
> because the GAC has reiterated that its previous? Closed Generic 
> advice is "standing advice".? Would it be a solution for the Board to 
> simply accept that advice in relation to a Closed Generic application 
> and then accept applications in the next round but? require the 
> Applicant to prove that the application serves a public interest goal 
> without specifying any standards that apply for that proof? Or could 
> the Board say that it cannot accept the advice from the GAC because it 
> would require ICANN to weigh the content of the Closed Generic 
> application and to police the public interest goal issue during the 
> term of the contract award, meaning the requirement of the GAC advice 
> is out of scope for ICANN's mission as overly content -related? Maybe 
> the Council should just say "don't delay the next round" and should 
> not take a policy position on whether or not to accept Closed Generic 
> applications when the next round opens, i.e. leave that to the Board 
> to decide that policy issue as well?
>
> Issue #2. Whether the Council itself has taken a decision that it will 
> not proceed to develop Closed Generic policy using an existing GNSO 
> policy process. (I think it's possible the Board has the authority to 
> request a formal policy process - not sure whether Council has the 
> right to refuse to do so.)? Did the Council already decide it would 
> not undertake an existing policy process when it authorized the 
> Facilitated Dialogue process? Does the statement need to reflect a 
> Council decision in this regard and if so, does that need a separate 
> vote from Council?? Are we risking delay of the next round over the 
> Council's failure to act on this policy issue?? The Board invoked the 
> Facilitated Dialogue process outside normal policy development 
> channels but it appears that process failed.
>
> Any thoughts re the above considerations ?
> Anne
>
>
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
> GNSO Councilor
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 6:51?AM DiBiase, Gregory via council 
> <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
>     Hi Kurt,
>
>     A couple thoughts here:
>
>      1. We have not communicated a decision or feedback to Board yet,
>         so we have time to discuss our messaging (so far, the SO/AC
>         chairs have sent a letter to the dialogue participants and the
>         dialogue participants have agreed with the letter?s sentiment).
>      2. I think council is in agreement that work on closed generics
>         cannot be a dependency for the next round and the Facilitated
>         Dialogue on Closed Generic gTLDs should not continue to be the
>         vehicle advancing this work (please let me know if I?m
>         oversimplifying).? If this is correct, I think we can simplify
>         this issue to: how or if we should frame the ?status quo? to
>         the Board. More specifically, we can take a closer look at
>         this proposed language from the letter to the dialogue
>         participants:
>          1. ?until there is community-developed policy, the Board
>             should maintain the position from the 2012 round (i.e.,
>             any applications seeking to impose exclusive registry
>             access for "generic strings" to a single person or entity
>             and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in
>             Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed;?
>      3. Perhaps we should modify this part to say closer to: ?given
>         that there is no community-developed policy on closed generics
>         (i.e., any applications seeking to impose exclusive registry
>         access for "generic strings" to a single person or entity
>         and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in
>         Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement), we acknowledge that
>         the Board may not allow closed generics to proceed (in line
>         with their position from the 20201 round) until policy is
>         developed.?? In other words, we don?t need to instruct the
>         Board on what the status quo is, rather, we are informing them
>         that a policy on closed generics has not been finalized and we
>         recommend not delaying the next round until this policy work
>         is completed.
>
>     I?m sure I have point 3 wrong as I am not as well-versed in subpro
>     as others, but we can discuss further to make sure we are all aligned.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Greg
>
>     *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of
>     *kurt kjpritz.com <http://kjpritz.com> via council
>     *Sent:* Sunday, August 13, 2023 7:54 PM
>     *To:* Paul McGrady <paul at elstermcgrady.com>
>     *Cc:* Avri Doria <avri.doria at board.icann.org>; GNSO Council
>     <council at gnso.icann.org>
>     *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Update on Closed Generics
>
>     *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization.
>     Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the
>     sender and know the content is safe.
>
>     Replying to Paul (Hi Paul):
>
>     As pointed out by Anne (and Rubens in a parallel email exchange),
>     the question of status quo is not settled. That is the reason the
>     SubPro working group specifically asked the Board to settle the
>     question.
>
>     The Board essentially created a new, temporary policy when it
>     introduced an additional restriction into the criteria for
>     delegating new TLDs. (I say temporary because the restriction was
>     time-limited in a way.)
>
>     The SubPro final report does not recommend an extension of that
>     restriction by way of a ?pause,? the report specifically
>     recommends something else. By recommending a pause, the SO/AC
>     leadership would be amending the final report recommendation.
>
>     I wish I could be clearer. That somehow eludes me at the moment.
>
>     Kurt
>
>
>
>         On 11 Aug 2023, at 3:37 am, Anne ICANN
>         <anneicanngnso at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>         Hi Kurt and Paul,
>
>         As I see it, the issue has come back to what constitutes the
>         "status quo". This issue was hotly debated in the Sub Pro
>         Working Group.? Some maintained that there was no prohibition
>         on the applications for Closed Generics because none was
>         contained in the 2012 AGB. Others maintained that due to the
>         GAC Advice and Board direction to "pause" pending policy
>         development, the "status quo" is actually a "pause" which
>         would be continued at the start of the next round.? The risk I
>         see for the ICANN Board in the latter situation is that those
>         existing applications for Closed Generics (which are on hold)
>         as well as any future applications to be taken in the next
>         round (not prohibited by this recommendation) would build a
>         case for Request for Reconsideration if the Board does not
>         allow those applications to move forward.? For example, the
>         grounds might be Applicant Freedom of Expression under the
>         Human Rights Core Value and the underlying principle of
>         Applicant Freedom of Expression that has been affirmed by
>         subsequent PDP work and is now being confirmed in the Sub Pro
>         IRT process.
>
>         Another factor is that the Board has consistently declined to
>         make policy.? And I'm not certain that the GNSO Council
>         actually has the authority to direct the Board to make a
>         Closed Generic policy.? Are you gentlemen certain that this is
>         kosher?
>
>         Certainly I agree this issue should not hold up the next round
>         but of course there is a year to go.? If the Board is willing
>         to take a decision on this, that is one scenario.? ?If the
>         Board is not willing to take a decision on this and/or is
>         concerned about the risk of expensive litigation over a
>         possible ban, then that is another scenario.? Has anyone
>         spoken with our Sub Pro Board reps about this approach?? (They
>         are copied here.)
>
>         Thank you,
>
>         Anne
>
>         Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
>         GNSO Councilor
>
>         NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
>         anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
>         On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:15?AM Paul McGrady via council
>         <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
>             Hi Kurt,
>
>             Thanks for this.? I?m not sure I am understanding your
>             concern. One of the basic tenants that everyone in the
>             SubPro PDP agreed to was that, absent any changes captured
>             in the Recommendations, that the status quo would
>             prevail.? All the letter does is ask for that.? I feel
>             better about sticking with the WG?s inability to change
>             the status quo than I do asking the Board to write a
>             policy when the community couldn?t agree to anything, even
>             after two valiant efforts.? We tried in the WG, we
>             couldn?t get there, the status quo should prevail.? We
>             tried again at the request of the Board at the SO/AC
>             level, we couldn?t get there, the status quo should
>             prevail.? The letter leaves open the possibility of future
>             community work on this but notes there is no bandwidth or
>             appetite to do so and we don?t want the next round held
>             up.? Help me understand you concern about asking the Board
>             to maintain the status quo until/if the community comes up
>             with a policy on these.
>
>             Best,
>
>             Paul
>
>             *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On
>             Behalf Of *kurt kjpritz.com <http://kjpritz.com/> via council
>             *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2023 3:45 AM
>             *To:* John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
>             *Cc:* GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>             *Subject:* Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>
>             Hi John:
>
>             Thanks for taking time to make this detailed report, and
>             also?thanks to the well-intentioned people that
>             participated in the effort, in?particular, our GNSO
>             representatives. I am not?surprised by the outcome.
>
>             I am surprised by the recommendation to pause any release
>             of closed?generics to a future round. Such an action would
>             turn the consensus-based?policy development process?on its
>             head.
>
>                 1.?I don?t understand how the SO/AC leaders have the
>                 authority to?revise the PDP final report recommendation.
>
>                 The PDP final report (approved by each of the
>                 Councillors) stated?that the closed generic decision
>                 should be left up to the ICANN Board. The final?report
>                 did not?recommend the conflicting direction that the
>                 closed generics ban?be continued until a future round.
>
>                 The Board made an attempt to (re)involve the community
>                 by inviting?the GAC and GNSO to develop a solution.
>                 With that effort closed, we should?revert back to the
>                 final?report recommendations. We should not change
>                 the?consensus position developed. Do we think the PDP
>                 team would have approved a?recommendation to pause
>                 closed?generics for an additional round? (No.)
>
>                 We have thoroughly discussed the conditions under
>                 which a Council?approved final report can be changed
>                 (e.g., GGP), and this is not one of?them.
>
>                 2. ???Continuing the ban on closed generics
>                 effectively abandons the?consensus policy model of
>                 decision making.
>
>                 The new gTLD policy developments, in 2007-8 and
>                 2016-21 have asked?the questions: (1) should there be
>                 a round of TLDs and, if yes, (2) what?restrictions /
>                 conditions?should be in place to address SSR, IP,
>                 and?competition concerns.
>
>                 Restrictions and conditions enjoying consensus support
>                 were?implemented in the program. (An illustrative
>                 example is the RPM IRT, whose?recommendations
>                 were?ratified by the community STI.)
>
>                 During discussions on closed generics, there were
>                 people for?barring them, allowing them, and allowing
>                 them with restrictions. Pausing any?introduction of
>                 closed?generics essentially creates a policy advocated
>                 by a?minority (and in any case not enjoying consensus
>                 support). The final report?indicated as much.
>
>                 This result provides an incentive to avoid compromise.
>                 Going?forward, those wanting to implement an
>                 unsupported policy can refuse to?compromise through a
>                 PDP and?subsequent ad-hoc discussions with the hope
>                 that?leadership will ?give up? and implement
>                 unsupported restrictions.
>
>                 3. ???The decision to ban closed generics for an
>                 additional round?contradicts the one step the Board took.
>
>                 The Board direction to the GAC-GNSO team established
>                 guardrails,?prohibiting a model that would either ban
>                 or provide for the unrestricted?release of closed
>                 generics.?We cannot be sure this is where the Board
>                 will?land absent input from the GAC-GNSO effort, but
>                 we should not erase the chance?that the Board would
>                 develop a?balanced decision.
>
>             Two additional points:
>
>
>                 1.? ???I do not believe that deferring the issue to
>                 the Board will delay?the next round, despite the
>                 recent GAC-GNSO detour. The Board has more than a?year
>                 to make a call.
>
>
>                 2.? ???I do not believe the Board is exceeding their
>                 authority in making?the call. The GNSO specifically
>                 assigned the task to the Board as part of their?policy
>                 management responsibility. In any event, the Board
>                 established that?authority when it?paused closed
>                 generics in 2012, contradicting the?Council-approved
>                 policy.
>
>
>             If given the opportunity to participate in a discussion on
>             this?issue, I would oppose the recommendation that the
>             issue should be paused, and closed?generics banned for
>             the?reasons stated above. I would support the final report
>             recommendation that the issue be decided by the Board.
>
>
>             Sincerely,
>
>             Kurt
>
>                 On 10 Aug 2023, at 7:33 am, John McElwaine via council
>                 <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
>                 Dear Councilors,
>
>                 As GNSO Council liaison to the ALAC-GAC-GNSO
>                 Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generic gTLDs, I wanted
>                 to update you on the latest developments on this
>                 project. On 7 July 2023, after discussions amongst
>                 themselves that I also participated in, Sebastien (in
>                 his capacity as GNSO Chair), Jonathan Zuck (ALAC
>                 Chair) and Nico Caballero (GAC Chair) sent the
>                 attached letter to the participants in the dialogue.
>                 For reasons set out in the letter, and in response to
>                 questions that the dialogue participants had referred
>                 to them (also noted in the letter), the three Chairs
>                 have collectively decided that it will be neither
>                 necessary to continue with the dialogue to develop a
>                 final framework nor initiate further policy
>                 development work on this topic.
>
>                 The dialogue participants have discussed the Chairs?
>                 joint letter and agreed to conclude their work as
>                 requested, including producing an outcomes report to
>                 ensure that the work to date is thoroughly documented.
>                 Participants also agreed to forward the Chairs? letter
>                 to all the commenters that submitted input on the
>                 draft framework (viz., Tucows, RySG, BC, ISPCPC, ALAC
>                 and GAC), and have invited those commenters that wish
>                 to engage with the group to join their next call to
>                 clarify any significant concerns they raised in the
>                 feedback they provided.
>
>                 The staff team that is supporting the dialogue is
>                 currently preparing a draft outcomes report for the
>                 group to review. The group intends for the outcomes
>                 report to serve as an introduction and summary of
>                 their work, including expressly clarifying that the
>                 draft framework the group published in June 2023 does
>                 not reflect agreed outcomes but, rather, was a product
>                 of compromise that was reached in the interests of
>                 soliciting community feedback on the various elements
>                 and points included in the draft framework. The
>                 outcomes report will also include all the community
>                 feedback that were submitted in full, links to the
>                 group?s community wiki space and other relevant
>                 documentation, and the participants? feedback on the
>                 consensus building techniques and approaches that were
>                 used for the dialogue.
>
>                 The group hopes to wrap up its work by September, in
>                 line with its previous plan to conclude the dialogue
>                 and final framework by end-Q3 2023. I understand that
>                 Sebastien, Nico and Jonathan will also be sending a
>                 separate communication to the ICANN Board that
>                 reflects the decision they took and, as stated in the
>                 letter, expressing the collective view that:
>
>                 (1) closed generic gTLDs should not be viewed as a
>                 dependency for the next round;
>
>                 (2) until there is community-developed policy, the
>                 Board should maintain the position from the 2012 round
>                 (i.e., any applications seeking to impose exclusive
>                 registry access for "generic strings" to a single
>                 person or entity and/or that person's or entity's
>                 Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the
>                 Registry Agreement) should not proceed*;*and
>
>                 (3) should the community decide in the future to
>                 resume the policy discussions, this should be based on
>                 the good work that has been done to date in the
>                 facilitated dialogue.
>
>                 Sebastien and I will be happy to answer any questions
>                 you may have on the letter, the Chairs? decision and
>                 the proposed next steps. You may also wish to check in
>                 with the representatives that each of your Stakeholder
>                 Groups appointed to the dialogue for further information.
>
>                 Finally, I am sure I speak for all of us when I say
>                 that we are very grateful to the dialogue participants
>                 and the staff support team for all the hard work and
>                 consensus building that resulted in a detailed and
>                 substantive, if preliminary, draft framework. I also
>                 hope that the participants? feedback on the methods
>                 and techniques used in the dialogue, as well as other
>                 lessons learned from the experience, will provide the
>                 GNSO Council and community with useful information
>                 that we can put into practice in future policy
>                 discussions.
>
>                 Best regards,
>
>                 John
>
>                 *Confidentiality Notice*
>                 This message is intended exclusively for the
>                 individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
>                 communication may contain information that is
>                 proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise
>                 legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the
>                 named addressee, you are not authorized to read,
>                 print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any
>                 part of it. If you have received this message in
>                 error, please notify the sender immediately either by
>                 phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and
>                 delete all copies of this message.
>
>                 <Message from ALAC GAC ?GNSO Chairs to Closed Generics
>                 Facilitated Dialogue Participants - FINAL - 5 August
>                 2023
>                 (002).pdf>_______________________________________________
>                 council mailing list
>                 council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>                 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
>                 processing of your personal data for purposes of
>                 subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the
>                 ICANN Privacy Policy
>                 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
>                 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the
>                 website Terms of Service
>                 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
>                 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit
>                 the Mailman link above to change your membership
>                 status or configuration, including unsubscribing,
>                 setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery
>                 altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>             This email originated from outside the firm. Please use
>             caution.
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             council mailing list
>             council at gnso.icann.org
>             https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
>             processing of your personal data for purposes of
>             subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN
>             Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>             the website Terms of Service
>             (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
>             Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>             configuration, including unsubscribing, setting
>             digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether
>             (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     council mailing list
>     council at gnso.icann.org
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
>     your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing
>     list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
>     (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
>     Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
>     Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>     configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
>     delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation),
>     and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of 
> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list 
> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy 
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of 
> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman 
> link above to change your membership status or configuration, 
> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling 
> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230816/8b5efeac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Message from ALAC GAC GNSO Chairs to Closed Generics Facilitated Dialogue Participants - FINAL - 5 August 2023 (002).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 124016 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230816/8b5efeac/attachment.pdf>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Thu Aug 17 15:23:37 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:23:37 +1000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Update on Closed Generics
In-Reply-To: <fa526e80-8741-fe1d-d21f-d959606112c7@KathyKleiman.com>
References: <BN8PR05MB60491774D29B988AAB15E80B9212A@BN8PR05MB6049.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <3BC02A74-9B55-4F66-A9F6-B5620C98A9BF@kjpritz.com>
 <PH8PR06MB91275E031AF455E9F7FD11B3C313A@PH8PR06MB9127.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <CANsVcEz-2=F-1--4FH4K0Nzcc41+Bij60nrrzCr9ip++-=tkig@mail.gmail.com>
 <D95A1C53-F4F5-4113-A61C-4C7C4E5D2DFD@kjpritz.com>
 <b3b89023e7a4405894554a833a52420b@amazon.com>
 <CANsVcExMEwf8NSiwq=UOQMF0wwAqz2gis6zimQEKyJBCz85acQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM8DdeXDe17X7igyVp9pof0F_E1bhbv6ejeWDsCAyYNqNrfooA@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa526e80-8741-fe1d-d21f-d959606112c7@KathyKleiman.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeXtgTeeC_99KCKCm8iCPAdKHf7dPV+OSe8eP1UBHQoqKg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for the detailed update. We are certainly thankful to you and the
team for the hard work you put into this.

My only concern with the 'recommendation' that the council leadership is
planning on sending to the board is that it appears to make recommendations
contrary to the subpro report. This concern comes strictly from the point
of view of my role as a GNSO policy manager (councillor).

If the SubPro report didn't recommend neither to allow nor ban closed
generics, hence leaving it at the discretion of the board, then I believe
the Council should be careful not to make contradictory statements that
might appear to the community as making an "executive recommendation" to
the board outside the PDP process.

I see a thread has also been spun in the members' list. Perhaps we should
take the discussion there and see what other members think?

Warmly,
Tomslin

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023, 06:58 Kathy Kleiman, <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:

> Hi Tomslin,
>
> I'm sorry that the Facilitated Dialogue is being viewed by some as a
> failure.  In our Closed Generics Small Team meeting last week, it was made
> very clear to us that the Chairs of the GNSO, GAC and ALAC did not consider
> our work a failure, but a success that resulted in important issues being
> raised. I share the highlights of the "3 Chair Letter" and attach it to
> this email:
>
> - "As the Chairs of the three community groups that agreed to participate
> in this dialog[ue, we are extremely grateful to you as well as very proud
> of how your work is a testament to the robustness and viability of ICANN?s
> multistakeholder model. We would like to thank you all for all the hard
> work, collaborative effort, and time that you have put into this project,
> resulting in a detailed draft framework for potential policy work that
> reflects the many hours of good faith discussions that took place."
>
> - "We noted that there does not seem to be strong community demand for
> closed generic gTLDs in the next round, particularly if success in
> obtaining a gTLD in this category will entail engaging in a complex process
> with complicated requirements."
>
> - "As a result of all these considerations and our discussions, we believe
> that it is not necessary to resolve the question of closed generic gTLDs as
> a dependency for the next round of new gTLDs, and we plan to inform the
> ICANN Board accordingly. We agree with the ICANN Board (in its original
> invitation to the GAC and the GNSO to engage in a facilitated dialogue)
> that this topic is one for community policy work, rather than a decision
> for the Board.
>
> *- As such and based on our collective belief that there is neither the
> need nor the community bandwidth to conduct additional work at this stage,
> we also plan to ask that, for the next round, the Board maintain the
> position that, unless and until there is a community developed consensus
> policy in place, any applications seeking to impose exclusive registry
> access for "generic strings" to a single person or entity and/or that
> person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the
> Registry Agreement) should not proceed. [italics added]*
>
> - "Finally, we also plan to inform the Board that any future community
> policy work on this topic should be based on the good work that has been
> done to date in this facilitated dialogue."
>
> *----------------*
>
>
> *So overall, we were told we did a good job on a tough issue. I think the
> Small Group's Framework advanced the dialogue and our joint understanding
> of the competition problems associated with a single company controlling a
> "closed generic" gTLD significantly.  *
>
> Frankly, I would advise the Council to support the work and words of the
> GNSO Chair, and the recommendation not to proceed with Closed Generic
> applications in the next round under the circumstances as outlined in the
> letter.
>
> I urge you not to join in the criticism of some on the GNSO - excellent
> and hard work was done here - including our GNSO representatives John
> McElwaine, Phillippe Fouquart, Jeff, Sophie and me.  We worked very hard,
> and pushed the understanding of this issues, and ways to address it, to new
> levels.  Our work likely will become the basis of future discussion. But,
> as Chris Disspain said at our second Closed G meeting in ICANN77 (and he
> was on the Board in the first round), not all issues deserve the huge
> amount of time it would take to fully resolve them.
>
> Best regards, Kathy
>
> Attachment: 3 Chairs Letter Aug 5
> On 8/15/2023 4:55 PM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
>
> Dear councillors,
>
> What is our stance on this?
>
> 1. Overall, I think the declaration that the Facilitated dialogue on
> Closed generics is a failure is a win to NCSG as we warned council and the
> board against taking this path.
>
> 2. I think the concern Kurt raises that the letter to be addressed to the
> board asking to "*pause any release of closed generics to a future round
> might inadvertently be revising subpro recommendation*"  and that of Anne
> that "*contains a subtle underlying policy recommendation in favor of
> accepting new Closed Generic applications in the next round in the absence
> of developed policy*" are both valid concerns we should pay close
> attention to.
>
> 3. However, I like Anne's proposal that avoids subtly modifying any
> consensus policy. She proposes that "*Perhaps Council should simply
> advise the Board that (1) Based on public comment, the Facilitated Dialogue
> process proved unsuccessful in this instance and (2) Council does not
> believe a further policy process would result in a consensus and therefore,
> the Board should decide the issues, including whether or not to accept
> Closed Generic applications in the next round.*"
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Anne ICANN via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 02:17
> Subject: Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
> To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>
> Cc: COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG <COUNCIL at gnso.icann.org>, Avri Doria <
> avri.doria at board.icann.org>
>
>
> Thanks Greg - The point you make that there is as yet no official
> statement from Council to the Board on this issue is an important one.    I
> think there is rough consensus at the Council level that we don't want the
> next round to be delayed by this issue.  I think two significant questions
> remain as to the following:
>
> Issue #1. Whether to accept applications for Closed Generics in the next
> round or to pause such applications pending future Board action or GNSO
> policy development efforts.  The draft  statements put forward so far would
> endorse accepting applications and that is also a policy statement which
> essentially defines the "status quo" as permitting such applications.
> (After all, closed generic applications could block open generic
> applications in that instance.)   This is tricky because the GAC has
> reiterated that its previous  Closed Generic advice is "standing advice".
> Would it be a solution for the Board to simply accept that advice in
> relation to a Closed Generic application and then accept applications in
> the next round but  require the Applicant to prove that the application
> serves a public interest goal without specifying any standards that apply
> for that proof? Or could the Board say that it cannot accept the advice
> from the GAC because it would require ICANN to weigh the content of the
> Closed Generic application and to police the public interest goal issue
> during the term of the contract award,  meaning the requirement of the GAC
> advice is out of scope for ICANN's mission as overly content -related?
> Maybe the Council should just say "don't delay the next round" and should
> not take a policy position on whether or not to accept Closed Generic
> applications when the next round opens, i.e. leave that to the Board to
> decide that policy issue as well?
>
> Issue #2. Whether the Council itself has taken a decision that it will not
> proceed to develop Closed Generic policy using an existing GNSO policy
> process.  (I think it's possible the Board has the authority to request a
> formal policy process - not sure whether Council has the right to refuse to
> do so.)  Did the Council already decide it would not undertake an existing
> policy process when it authorized the Facilitated Dialogue process? Does
> the statement need to reflect a Council decision in this regard and if so,
> does that need a separate vote from Council?  Are we risking delay of the
> next round over the Council's failure to act on this policy issue?  The
> Board invoked the Facilitated Dialogue process outside normal policy
> development channels but it appears that process failed.
>
> Any thoughts re the above considerations ?
> Anne
>
>
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
> GNSO Councilor
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 6:51?AM DiBiase, Gregory via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kurt,
>>
>>
>>
>> A couple thoughts here:
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. We have not communicated a decision or feedback to Board yet, so
>>    we have time to discuss our messaging (so far, the SO/AC chairs have sent a
>>    letter to the dialogue participants and the dialogue participants have
>>    agreed with the letter?s sentiment).
>>    2. I think council is in agreement that work on closed generics
>>    cannot be a dependency for the next round and the Facilitated Dialogue on
>>    Closed Generic gTLDs should not continue to be the vehicle advancing this
>>    work (please let me know if I?m oversimplifying).  If this is correct, I
>>    think we can simplify this issue to: how or if we should frame the ?status
>>    quo? to the Board.  More specifically, we can take a closer look at this
>>    proposed language from the letter to the dialogue participants:
>>       1. ?until there is community-developed policy, the Board should
>>       maintain the position from the 2012 round (i.e., any applications seeking
>>       to impose exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single
>>       person or entity and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in
>>       Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed;?
>>    3. Perhaps we should modify this part to say closer to: ?given that
>>    there is no community-developed policy on closed generics (i.e., any
>>    applications seeking to impose exclusive registry access for "generic
>>    strings" to a single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's
>>    Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement), we
>>    acknowledge that the Board may not allow closed generics to proceed (in
>>    line with their position from the 20201 round) until policy is developed.?
>>    In other words, we don?t need to instruct the Board on what the status quo
>>    is, rather, we are informing them that a policy on closed generics has not
>>    been finalized and we recommend not delaying the next round until this
>>    policy work is completed.
>>
>>
>>
>> I?m sure I have point 3 wrong as I am not as well-versed in subpro as
>> others, but we can discuss further to make sure we are all aligned.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *kurt
>> kjpritz.com via council
>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 13, 2023 7:54 PM
>> *To:* Paul McGrady <paul at elstermcgrady.com>
>> *Cc:* Avri Doria <avri.doria at board.icann.org>; GNSO Council <
>> council at gnso.icann.org>
>> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Update on Closed Generics
>>
>>
>>
>> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
>> know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Replying to Paul (Hi Paul):
>>
>>
>>
>> As pointed out by Anne (and Rubens in a parallel email exchange), the
>> question of status quo is not settled. That is the reason the SubPro
>> working group specifically asked the Board to settle the question.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Board essentially created a new, temporary policy when it introduced
>> an additional restriction into the criteria for delegating new TLDs. (I say
>> temporary because the restriction was time-limited in a way.)
>>
>>
>>
>> The SubPro final report does not recommend an extension of that
>> restriction by way of a ?pause,? the report specifically recommends
>> something else. By recommending a pause, the SO/AC leadership would be
>> amending the final report recommendation.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wish I could be clearer. That somehow eludes me at the moment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kurt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11 Aug 2023, at 3:37 am, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Kurt and Paul,
>>
>>
>>
>> As I see it, the issue has come back to what constitutes the "status
>> quo".  This issue was hotly debated in the Sub Pro Working Group.  Some
>> maintained that there was no prohibition on the applications for Closed
>> Generics because none was contained in the 2012 AGB. Others maintained that
>> due to the GAC Advice and Board direction to "pause" pending policy
>> development, the "status quo" is actually a "pause" which would be
>> continued at the start of the next round.  The risk I see for the ICANN
>> Board in the latter situation is that those existing applications for
>> Closed Generics (which are on hold) as well as any future applications to
>> be taken in the next round (not prohibited by this recommendation) would
>> build a case for Request for Reconsideration if the Board does not allow
>> those applications to move forward.  For example, the grounds might be
>> Applicant Freedom of Expression under the Human Rights Core Value and the
>> underlying principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression that has been
>> affirmed by subsequent PDP work and is now being confirmed in the Sub Pro
>> IRT process.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another factor is that the Board has consistently declined to make
>> policy.  And I'm not certain that the GNSO Council actually has the
>> authority to direct the Board to make a Closed Generic policy.  Are you
>> gentlemen certain that this is kosher?
>>
>>
>>
>> Certainly I agree this issue should not hold up the next round but of
>> course there is a year to go.  If the Board is willing to take a decision
>> on this, that is one scenario.   If the Board is not willing to take a
>> decision on this and/or is concerned about the risk of expensive litigation
>> over a possible ban, then that is another scenario.  Has anyone spoken with
>> our Sub Pro Board reps about this approach?  (They are copied here.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Anne
>>
>>
>>
>> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>>
>> GNSO Councilor
>>
>> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>>
>> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:15?AM Paul McGrady via council <
>> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Kurt,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for this.  I?m not sure I am understanding your concern.  One of
>> the basic tenants that everyone in the SubPro PDP agreed to was that,
>> absent any changes captured in the Recommendations, that the status quo
>> would prevail.  All the letter does is ask for that.  I feel better about
>> sticking with the WG?s inability to change the status quo than I do asking
>> the Board to write a policy when the community couldn?t agree to anything,
>> even after two valiant efforts.  We tried in the WG, we couldn?t get there,
>> the status quo should prevail.  We tried again at the request of the Board
>> at the SO/AC level, we couldn?t get there, the status quo should prevail.
>> The letter leaves open the possibility of future community work on this but
>> notes there is no bandwidth or appetite to do so and we don?t want the next
>> round held up.  Help me understand you concern about asking the Board to
>> maintain the status quo until/if the community comes up with a policy on
>> these.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *kurt
>> kjpritz.com via council
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2023 3:45 AM
>> *To:* John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
>> *Cc:* GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi John:
>>
>> Thanks for taking time to make this detailed report, and also thanks to
>> the well-intentioned people that participated in the effort, in particular,
>> our GNSO representatives. I am not surprised by the outcome.
>>
>> I am surprised by the recommendation to pause any release of
>> closed generics to a future round. Such an action would turn the
>> consensus-based policy development process on its head.
>>
>> 1. I don?t understand how the SO/AC leaders have the authority to revise
>> the PDP final report recommendation.
>>
>> The PDP final report (approved by each of the Councillors) stated that
>> the closed generic decision should be left up to the ICANN Board. The
>> final report did not recommend the conflicting direction that the closed
>> generics ban be continued until a future round.
>>
>> The Board made an attempt to (re)involve the community by inviting the
>> GAC and GNSO to develop a solution. With that effort closed, we
>> should revert back to the final report recommendations. We should not
>> change the consensus position developed. Do we think the PDP team would
>> have approved a recommendation to pause closed generics for an additional
>> round? (No.)
>>
>> We have thoroughly discussed the conditions under which a
>> Council approved final report can be changed (e.g., GGP), and this is not
>> one of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.     Continuing the ban on closed generics effectively abandons
>> the consensus policy model of decision making.
>>
>> The new gTLD policy developments, in 2007-8 and 2016-21 have asked the
>> questions: (1) should there be a round of TLDs and, if yes, (2)
>> what restrictions / conditions should be in place to address SSR, IP,
>> and competition concerns.
>>
>> Restrictions and conditions enjoying consensus support were implemented
>> in the program. (An illustrative example is the RPM IRT,
>> whose recommendations were ratified by the community STI.)
>>
>> During discussions on closed generics, there were people for barring
>> them, allowing them, and allowing them with restrictions. Pausing
>> any introduction of closed generics essentially creates a policy advocated
>> by a minority (and in any case not enjoying consensus support). The final
>> report indicated as much.
>>
>> This result provides an incentive to avoid compromise. Going forward,
>> those wanting to implement an unsupported policy can refuse to compromise
>> through a PDP and subsequent ad-hoc discussions with the hope
>> that leadership will ?give up? and implement unsupported restrictions.
>>
>> 3.     The decision to ban closed generics for an additional
>> round contradicts the one step the Board took.
>>
>> The Board direction to the GAC-GNSO team established
>> guardrails, prohibiting a model that would either ban or provide for the
>> unrestricted release of closed generics. We cannot be sure this is where
>> the Board will land absent input from the GAC-GNSO effort, but we should
>> not erase the chance that the Board would develop a balanced decision.
>>
>>
>>
>> Two additional points:
>>
>>
>> 1.     I do not believe that deferring the issue to the Board will
>> delay the next round, despite the recent GAC-GNSO detour. The Board has
>> more than a year to make a call.
>>
>>
>> 2.     I do not believe the Board is exceeding their authority in
>> making the call. The GNSO specifically assigned the task to the Board as
>> part of their policy management responsibility. In any event, the Board
>> established that authority when it paused closed generics in 2012,
>> contradicting the Council-approved policy.
>>
>>
>> If given the opportunity to participate in a discussion on this issue, I
>> would oppose the recommendation that the issue should be paused, and
>> closed generics banned for the reasons stated above. I would support the
>> final report recommendation that the issue be decided by the Board.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Kurt
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 Aug 2023, at 7:33 am, John McElwaine via council <
>> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Councilors,
>>
>>
>>
>> As GNSO Council liaison to the ALAC-GAC-GNSO Facilitated Dialogue on
>> Closed Generic gTLDs, I wanted to update you on the latest developments on
>> this project. On 7 July 2023, after discussions amongst themselves that I
>> also participated in, Sebastien (in his capacity as GNSO Chair), Jonathan
>> Zuck (ALAC Chair) and Nico Caballero (GAC Chair) sent the attached letter
>> to the participants in the dialogue. For reasons set out in the letter, and
>> in response to questions that the dialogue participants had referred to
>> them (also noted in the letter), the three Chairs have collectively decided
>> that it will be neither necessary to continue with the dialogue to develop
>> a final framework nor initiate further policy development work on this
>> topic.
>>
>>
>>
>> The dialogue participants have discussed the Chairs? joint letter and
>> agreed to conclude their work as requested, including producing an outcomes
>> report to ensure that the work to date is thoroughly documented.
>> Participants also agreed to forward the Chairs? letter to all the
>> commenters that submitted input on the draft framework (viz., Tucows, RySG,
>> BC, ISPCPC, ALAC and GAC), and have invited those commenters that wish to
>> engage with the group to join their next call to clarify any significant
>> concerns they raised in the feedback they provided.
>>
>>
>>
>> The staff team that is supporting the dialogue is currently preparing a
>> draft outcomes report for the group to review. The group intends for the
>> outcomes report to serve as an introduction and summary of their work,
>> including expressly clarifying that the draft framework the group published
>> in June 2023 does not reflect agreed outcomes but, rather, was a product of
>> compromise that was reached in the interests of soliciting community
>> feedback on the various elements and points included in the draft
>> framework. The outcomes report will also include all the community feedback
>> that were submitted in full, links to the group?s community wiki space and
>> other relevant documentation, and the participants? feedback on the
>> consensus building techniques and approaches that were used for the
>> dialogue.
>>
>>
>>
>> The group hopes to wrap up its work by September, in line with its
>> previous plan to conclude the dialogue and final framework by end-Q3 2023.
>> I understand that Sebastien, Nico and Jonathan will also be sending a
>> separate communication to the ICANN Board that reflects the decision they
>> took and, as stated in the letter, expressing the collective view that:
>>
>>
>>
>> (1) closed generic gTLDs should not be viewed as a dependency for the
>> next round;
>>
>> (2) until there is community-developed policy, the Board should maintain
>> the position from the 2012 round (i.e., any applications seeking to impose
>> exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single person or
>> entity and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section
>> 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed*;* and
>>
>> (3) should the community decide in the future to resume the policy
>> discussions, this should be based on the good work that has been done to
>> date in the facilitated dialogue.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sebastien and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have on the
>> letter, the Chairs? decision and the proposed next steps. You may also wish
>> to check in with the representatives that each of your Stakeholder Groups
>> appointed to the dialogue for further information.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, I am sure I speak for all of us when I say that we are very
>> grateful to the dialogue participants and the staff support team for all
>> the hard work and consensus building that resulted in a detailed and
>> substantive, if preliminary, draft framework. I also hope that the
>> participants? feedback on the methods and techniques used in the dialogue,
>> as well as other lessons learned from the experience, will provide the GNSO
>> Council and community with useful information that we can put into practice
>> in future policy discussions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> *Confidentiality Notice*
>> This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to
>> which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is
>> proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from
>> disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to
>> read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If
>> you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
>> immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and
>> delete all copies of this message.
>>
>> <Message from ALAC GAC  GNSO Chairs to Closed Generics Facilitated
>> Dialogue Participants - FINAL - 5 August 2023 (002).pdf>
>> _______________________________________________
>> council mailing list
>> council at gnso.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>
>>
>>
>> This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> council mailing list
>> council at gnso.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> council mailing list
>> council at gnso.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230817/98719c07/attachment.htm>

From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Thu Aug 17 16:54:26 2023
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 09:54:26 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Update on Closed Generics
In-Reply-To: <CAM8DdeXtgTeeC_99KCKCm8iCPAdKHf7dPV+OSe8eP1UBHQoqKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN8PR05MB60491774D29B988AAB15E80B9212A@BN8PR05MB6049.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <3BC02A74-9B55-4F66-A9F6-B5620C98A9BF@kjpritz.com>
 <PH8PR06MB91275E031AF455E9F7FD11B3C313A@PH8PR06MB9127.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <CANsVcEz-2=F-1--4FH4K0Nzcc41+Bij60nrrzCr9ip++-=tkig@mail.gmail.com>
 <D95A1C53-F4F5-4113-A61C-4C7C4E5D2DFD@kjpritz.com>
 <b3b89023e7a4405894554a833a52420b@amazon.com>
 <CANsVcExMEwf8NSiwq=UOQMF0wwAqz2gis6zimQEKyJBCz85acQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM8DdeXDe17X7igyVp9pof0F_E1bhbv6ejeWDsCAyYNqNrfooA@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa526e80-8741-fe1d-d21f-d959606112c7@KathyKleiman.com>
 <CAM8DdeXtgTeeC_99KCKCm8iCPAdKHf7dPV+OSe8eP1UBHQoqKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <09888666-6daf-62e9-3e09-9cf854abe63d@KathyKleiman.com>

Hi Tomslin,

What recommendation is Council sending to the Board and how does it 
contradict the SubPro WG??? I'm sorry to not be on these lists or see 
these nuances. I am sure there is great anger from Jeff, Kurt and Paul 
right now.

/Just between us, can we be candid about what happened in the Closed 
Generics Small Team?///As a matter of real policy, I feel the Closed 
Generics Small Team (CGST) advanced this dialogue of Closed Generics 
with a real cross-community and in-depth exploration of the _problems 
and possibilities__of Closed Generics_.

The Framework showed with great clarity that Closed Generics are gTLDs 
of words/strings with meanings for entire industries and should be 
allocated - if allocated - with great sensitivity to the 
representativeness of the entire industry AND clear agreement to abide 
by defined standards of non anti-competitive behavior if one company in 
an industry obtains the Closed Generic.? For example, Amazon can't take 
all the domain names in .BOOK for themselves alone.

Section 10 may be its strongest and best part of the Framework. It lays 
out what I wrote above. 
https://community.icann.org/display/GFDOCG/FOR+INPUT%3A+Draft+Framework+for+Closed+Generic+gTLDs?preview=/244944418/244944420/Draft%20Framework%20for%20Closed%20Generic%20gTLDs.pdf 


---

I head into a medical procedure so won't be able to engage on the 
members list. Also, we on the Members list do not understand the nuances 
of Council wording as you do. I think Council practices are becoming 
very nuanced.

We will follow your good advice. But please don't let them erase the 
good work of the Closed Generics Small Team. You called us into 
existence and we worked hard. What we learned cannot be unlearned - and 
the Board will be reading our work and processing it.

Best regards, Kathy


On 8/17/2023 8:23 AM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> Thanks for the detailed update. We are certainly thankful to you and 
> the team for the hard work you put into this.
>
> My only concern with the 'recommendation' that the council leadership 
> is planning on sending to the board is that it appears to make 
> recommendations contrary to the subpro report. This concern comes 
> strictly from the point of view of my role as a GNSO policy manager 
> (councillor).
>
> If the SubPro report didn't recommend neither to allow nor ban closed 
> generics, hence leaving it at the discretion of the board, then I 
> believe the Council should be careful not to make contradictory 
> statements that might appear to the community as making an "executive 
> recommendation" to the board outside the PDP process.
>
> I see a thread has also been spun in the members' list. Perhaps we 
> should take the discussion there and see what other members think?
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023, 06:58 Kathy Kleiman, <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi Tomslin,
>
>     I'm sorry that the Facilitated Dialogue is being viewed by some as
>     a failure.? In our Closed Generics Small Team meeting last week,
>     it was made very clear to us that the Chairs of the GNSO, GAC and
>     ALAC did not consider our work a failure, but a success that
>     resulted in important issues being raised. I share the highlights
>     of the "3 Chair Letter" and attach it to this email:
>
>     - "As the Chairs of the three community groups that agreed to
>     participate in this dialog[ue, we are extremely grateful to you as
>     well as very proud of how your work is a testament to the
>     robustness and viability of ICANN?s multistakeholder model. We
>     would like to thank you all for all the hard work, collaborative
>     effort, and time that you have put into this project, resulting in
>     a detailed draft framework for potential policy work that reflects
>     the many hours of good faith discussions that took place."
>
>     - "We noted that there does not seem to be strong community demand
>     for closed generic gTLDs in the next round, particularly if
>     success in obtaining a gTLD in this category will entail engaging
>     in a complex process with complicated requirements."
>
>     - "As a result of all these considerations and our discussions, we
>     believe that it is not necessary to resolve the question of closed
>     generic gTLDs as a dependency for the next round of new gTLDs, and
>     we plan to inform the ICANN Board accordingly. We agree with the
>     ICANN Board (in its original invitation to the GAC and the GNSO to
>     engage in a facilitated dialogue) that this topic is one for
>     community policy work, rather than a decision for the Board. /
>     /
>
>     /- As such and based on our collective belief that there is
>     neither the need nor the community bandwidth to conduct additional
>     work at this stage, we also plan to ask that, for the next round,
>     the Board maintain the position that, unless and until there is a
>     community developed consensus policy in place, any applications
>     seeking to impose exclusive registry access for "generic strings"
>     to a single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's
>     Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry
>     Agreement) should not proceed. [italics added]/
>
>     - "Finally, we also plan to inform the Board that any future
>     community policy work on this topic should be based on the good
>     work that has been done to date in this facilitated dialogue."*
>     *
>
>     *----------------*
>
>     *So overall, we were told we did a good job on a tough issue. I
>     think the Small Group's Framework advanced the dialogue and our
>     joint understanding of the competition problems associated with a
>     single company controlling a "closed generic" gTLD significantly.
>     *
>
>     Frankly, I would advise the Council to support the work and words
>     of the GNSO Chair, and the recommendation not to proceed with
>     Closed Generic applications in the next round under the
>     circumstances as outlined in the letter.
>
>     I urge you not to join in the criticism of some on the GNSO -
>     excellent and hard work was done here - including our GNSO
>     representatives John McElwaine, Phillippe Fouquart, Jeff, Sophie
>     and me.? We worked very hard, and pushed the understanding of this
>     issues, and ways to address it, to new levels.? Our work likely
>     will become the basis of future discussion. But, as Chris Disspain
>     said at our second Closed G meeting in ICANN77 (and he was on the
>     Board in the first round), not all issues deserve the huge amount
>     of time it would take to fully resolve them.
>
>     Best regards, Kathy
>
>     Attachment: 3 Chairs Letter Aug 5
>
>     On 8/15/2023 4:55 PM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
>>     Dear councillors,
>>
>>     What is our stance on this?
>>
>>     1. Overall, I think the declaration that the Facilitated dialogue
>>     on Closed generics is a failure is a win to NCSG as we warned
>>     council and the board against taking this path.
>>
>>     2. I think the concern Kurt raises that the letter to be
>>     addressed to the board asking to "/*pause any release of closed
>>     generics to a future round might inadvertently be revising subpro
>>     recommendation*/" ?and that of Anne that "*/contains a subtle
>>     underlying policy recommendation in favor of accepting new Closed
>>     Generic applications in the next round in the absence of
>>     developed policy/*" are both valid concerns we should pay close
>>     attention to.
>>
>>     3. However, I like Anne's proposal that avoids subtly modifying
>>     any consensus policy. She proposes that "*/Perhaps Council should
>>     simply advise the Board that (1) Based on public comment, the
>>     Facilitated Dialogue process proved unsuccessful in this instance
>>     and (2) Council does not believe a further policy process would
>>     result in a consensus and therefore, the Board should decide the
>>     issues, including whether or not to accept Closed Generic
>>     applications in the next round./*"
>>
>>     What are your thoughts?
>>
>>
>>     Warmly,
>>     Tomslin
>>
>>
>>
>>     ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>     From: *Anne ICANN via council* <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>     Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 02:17
>>     Subject: Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>>     To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>
>>     Cc: COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG <COUNCIL at gnso.icann.org>, Avri Doria
>>     <avri.doria at board.icann.org>
>>
>>
>>     Thanks Greg - The point you make that there is as yet no official
>>     statement from Council to the Board on this issue is an important
>>     one.? ? I think there is rough consensus at the Council level
>>     that we don't want the next round to be delayed by this issue.? I
>>     think two significant questions remain as to the following:
>>
>>     Issue #1. Whether to accept applications for Closed Generics in
>>     the next round or to pause such applications pending future Board
>>     action or GNSO policy development efforts.? The draft statements
>>     put forward so far would endorse accepting applications and that
>>     is also a policy statement which essentially defines the "status
>>     quo" as permitting such applications.? (After all, closed generic
>>     applications could block open generic applications in that
>>     instance.) ?This is tricky because the GAC has reiterated that
>>     its previous? Closed Generic advice is "standing advice". Would
>>     it be a solution for the Board to simply accept that advice in
>>     relation to a Closed Generic application and then accept
>>     applications in the next round but require the Applicant to prove
>>     that the application serves a public interest goal without
>>     specifying any standards that apply for that proof? Or could the
>>     Board say that it cannot accept the advice from the GAC because
>>     it would require ICANN to weigh the content of the Closed Generic
>>     application and to police the public interest goal issue during
>>     the term of the contract award,? meaning the requirement of the
>>     GAC advice is out of scope for ICANN's mission as overly content
>>     -related?? Maybe the Council should just say "don't delay the
>>     next round" and should not take a policy position on whether or
>>     not to accept Closed Generic applications when the next round
>>     opens, i.e. leave that to the Board to decide that policy issue
>>     as well?
>>
>>     Issue #2. Whether the Council itself has taken a decision that it
>>     will not proceed to develop Closed Generic policy using an
>>     existing GNSO policy process.? (I think it's possible the Board
>>     has the authority to request a formal policy process - not sure
>>     whether Council has the right to refuse to do so.)? Did the
>>     Council already decide it would not undertake an existing policy
>>     process when it authorized the Facilitated Dialogue process? Does
>>     the statement need to reflect a Council decision in this regard
>>     and if so, does that need a separate vote from Council?? Are we
>>     risking delay of the next round over the Council's failure to act
>>     on this policy issue?? The Board invoked the Facilitated Dialogue
>>     process outside normal policy development channels but it appears
>>     that process failed.
>>
>>     Any thoughts re the above considerations ?
>>     Anne
>>
>>
>>
>>     Anne Aikman-Scalese
>>     GNSO Councilor
>>     NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>>     anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 6:51?AM DiBiase, Gregory via council
>>     <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Kurt,
>>
>>         A couple thoughts here:
>>
>>          1. We have not communicated a decision or feedback to Board
>>             yet, so we have time to discuss our messaging (so far,
>>             the SO/AC chairs have sent a letter to the dialogue
>>             participants and the dialogue participants have agreed
>>             with the letter?s sentiment).
>>          2. I think council is in agreement that work on closed
>>             generics cannot be a dependency for the next round and
>>             the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generic gTLDs should
>>             not continue to be the vehicle advancing this work
>>             (please let me know if I?m oversimplifying).? If this is
>>             correct, I think we can simplify this issue to: how or if
>>             we should frame the ?status quo? to the Board.? More
>>             specifically, we can take a closer look at this proposed
>>             language from the letter to the dialogue participants:
>>              1. ?until there is community-developed policy, the Board
>>                 should maintain the position from the 2012 round
>>                 (i.e., any applications seeking to impose exclusive
>>                 registry access for "generic strings" to a single
>>                 person or entity and/or that person's or entity's
>>                 Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the
>>                 Registry Agreement) should not proceed;?
>>          3. Perhaps we should modify this part to say closer to:
>>             ?given that there is no community-developed policy on
>>             closed generics (i.e., any applications seeking to impose
>>             exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a
>>             single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's
>>             Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry
>>             Agreement), we acknowledge that the Board may not allow
>>             closed generics to proceed (in line with their position
>>             from the 20201 round) until policy is developed.?? In
>>             other words, we don?t need to instruct the Board on what
>>             the status quo is, rather, we are informing them that a
>>             policy on closed generics has not been finalized and we
>>             recommend not delaying the next round until this policy
>>             work is completed.
>>
>>         I?m sure I have point 3 wrong as I am not as well-versed in
>>         subpro as others, but we can discuss further to make sure we
>>         are all aligned.
>>
>>         Thanks,
>>
>>         Greg
>>
>>         *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf
>>         Of *kurt kjpritz.com <http://kjpritz.com> via council
>>         *Sent:* Sunday, August 13, 2023 7:54 PM
>>         *To:* Paul McGrady <paul at elstermcgrady.com>
>>         *Cc:* Avri Doria <avri.doria at board.icann.org>; GNSO Council
>>         <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>         *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Update on Closed Generics
>>
>>         *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the
>>         organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
>>         you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>>         Replying to Paul (Hi Paul):
>>
>>         As pointed out by Anne (and Rubens in a parallel email
>>         exchange), the question of status quo is not settled. That is
>>         the reason the SubPro working group specifically asked the
>>         Board to settle the question.
>>
>>         The Board essentially created a new, temporary policy when it
>>         introduced an additional restriction into the criteria for
>>         delegating new TLDs. (I say temporary because the restriction
>>         was time-limited in a way.)
>>
>>         The SubPro final report does not recommend an extension of
>>         that restriction by way of a ?pause,? the report specifically
>>         recommends something else. By recommending a pause, the SO/AC
>>         leadership would be amending the final report recommendation.
>>
>>         I wish I could be clearer. That somehow eludes me at the moment.
>>
>>         Kurt
>>
>>
>>
>>             On 11 Aug 2023, at 3:37 am, Anne ICANN
>>             <anneicanngnso at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>             Hi Kurt and Paul,
>>
>>             As I see it, the issue has come back to what constitutes
>>             the "status quo".? This issue was hotly debated in the
>>             Sub Pro Working Group.? Some maintained that there was no
>>             prohibition on the applications for Closed Generics
>>             because none was contained in the 2012 AGB. Others
>>             maintained that due to the GAC Advice and Board direction
>>             to "pause" pending policy development, the "status quo"
>>             is actually a "pause" which would be continued at the
>>             start of the next round. The risk I see for the ICANN
>>             Board in the latter situation is that those existing
>>             applications for Closed Generics (which are on hold) as
>>             well as any future applications to be taken in the next
>>             round (not prohibited by this recommendation) would build
>>             a case for Request for Reconsideration if the Board does
>>             not allow those applications to move forward.? For
>>             example, the grounds might be Applicant Freedom of
>>             Expression under the Human Rights Core Value and the
>>             underlying principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression
>>             that has been affirmed by subsequent PDP work and is now
>>             being confirmed in the Sub Pro IRT process.
>>
>>             Another factor is that the Board has consistently
>>             declined to make policy.? And I'm not certain that the
>>             GNSO Council actually has the authority to direct the
>>             Board to make a Closed Generic policy.? Are you gentlemen
>>             certain that this is kosher?
>>
>>             Certainly I agree this issue should not hold up the next
>>             round but of course there is a year to go.? If the Board
>>             is willing to take a decision on this, that is one
>>             scenario.? ?If the Board is not willing to take a
>>             decision on this and/or is concerned about the risk of
>>             expensive litigation over a possible ban, then that is
>>             another scenario.? Has anyone spoken with our Sub Pro
>>             Board reps about this approach?? (They are copied here.)
>>
>>             Thank you,
>>
>>             Anne
>>
>>             Anne Aikman-Scalese
>>
>>             GNSO Councilor
>>
>>             NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>>
>>             anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>>
>>             On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:15?AM Paul McGrady via council
>>             <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>
>>                 Hi Kurt,
>>
>>                 Thanks for this.? I?m not sure I am understanding
>>                 your concern. One of the basic tenants that everyone
>>                 in the SubPro PDP agreed to was that, absent any
>>                 changes captured in the Recommendations, that the
>>                 status quo would prevail.? All the letter does is ask
>>                 for that.? I feel better about sticking with the WG?s
>>                 inability to change the status quo than I do asking
>>                 the Board to write a policy when the community
>>                 couldn?t agree to anything, even after two valiant
>>                 efforts.? We tried in the WG, we couldn?t get there,
>>                 the status quo should prevail. We tried again at the
>>                 request of the Board at the SO/AC level, we couldn?t
>>                 get there, the status quo should prevail. The letter
>>                 leaves open the possibility of future community work
>>                 on this but notes there is no bandwidth or appetite
>>                 to do so and we don?t want the next round held up.
>>                 Help me understand you concern about asking the Board
>>                 to maintain the status quo until/if the community
>>                 comes up with a policy on these.
>>
>>                 Best,
>>
>>                 Paul
>>
>>                 *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On
>>                 Behalf Of *kurt kjpritz.com <http://kjpritz.com/> via
>>                 council
>>                 *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2023 3:45 AM
>>                 *To:* John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
>>                 *Cc:* GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>                 *Subject:* Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>>
>>                 Hi John:
>>
>>                 Thanks for taking time to make this detailed report,
>>                 and also?thanks to the well-intentioned people that
>>                 participated in the effort, in?particular, our GNSO
>>                 representatives. I am not?surprised by the outcome.
>>
>>                 I am surprised by the recommendation to pause any
>>                 release of closed?generics to a future round. Such an
>>                 action would turn the consensus-based?policy
>>                 development process?on its head.
>>
>>                     1.?I don?t understand how the SO/AC leaders have
>>                     the authority to?revise the PDP final report
>>                     recommendation.
>>
>>                     The PDP final report (approved by each of the
>>                     Councillors) stated?that the closed generic
>>                     decision should be left up to the ICANN Board.
>>                     The final?report did not?recommend the
>>                     conflicting direction that the closed generics
>>                     ban?be continued until a future round.
>>
>>                     The Board made an attempt to (re)involve the
>>                     community by inviting?the GAC and GNSO to develop
>>                     a solution. With that effort closed, we
>>                     should?revert back to the final?report
>>                     recommendations. We should not change
>>                     the?consensus position developed. Do we think the
>>                     PDP team would have approved a?recommendation to
>>                     pause closed?generics for an additional round? (No.)
>>
>>                     We have thoroughly discussed the conditions under
>>                     which a Council?approved final report can be
>>                     changed (e.g., GGP), and this is not one of?them.
>>
>>                     2. ???Continuing the ban on closed generics
>>                     effectively abandons the?consensus policy model
>>                     of decision making.
>>
>>                     The new gTLD policy developments, in 2007-8 and
>>                     2016-21 have asked?the questions: (1) should
>>                     there be a round of TLDs and, if yes, (2)
>>                     what?restrictions / conditions?should be in place
>>                     to address SSR, IP, and?competition concerns.
>>
>>                     Restrictions and conditions enjoying consensus
>>                     support were?implemented in the program. (An
>>                     illustrative example is the RPM IRT,
>>                     whose?recommendations were?ratified by the
>>                     community STI.)
>>
>>                     During discussions on closed generics, there were
>>                     people for?barring them, allowing them, and
>>                     allowing them with restrictions. Pausing
>>                     any?introduction of closed?generics essentially
>>                     creates a policy advocated by a?minority (and in
>>                     any case not enjoying consensus support). The
>>                     final report?indicated as much.
>>
>>                     This result provides an incentive to avoid
>>                     compromise. Going?forward, those wanting to
>>                     implement an unsupported policy can refuse
>>                     to?compromise through a PDP and?subsequent ad-hoc
>>                     discussions with the hope that?leadership will
>>                     ?give up? and implement unsupported restrictions.
>>
>>                     3.? ???The decision to ban closed generics for an
>>                     additional round?contradicts the one step the
>>                     Board took.
>>
>>                     The Board direction to the GAC-GNSO team
>>                     established guardrails,?prohibiting a model that
>>                     would either ban or provide for the
>>                     unrestricted?release of closed generics.?We
>>                     cannot be sure this is where the Board will?land
>>                     absent input from the GAC-GNSO effort, but we
>>                     should not erase the chance?that the Board would
>>                     develop a?balanced decision.
>>
>>                 Two additional points:
>>
>>
>>                     1.? ???I do not believe that deferring the issue
>>                     to the Board will delay?the next round, despite
>>                     the recent GAC-GNSO detour. The Board has more
>>                     than a?year to make a call.
>>
>>
>>                     2.? ???I do not believe the Board is exceeding
>>                     their authority in making?the call. The GNSO
>>                     specifically assigned the task to the Board as
>>                     part of their?policy management responsibility.
>>                     In any event, the Board established
>>                     that?authority when it?paused closed generics in
>>                     2012, contradicting the?Council-approved policy.
>>
>>
>>                 If given the opportunity to participate in a
>>                 discussion on this?issue, I would oppose the
>>                 recommendation that the issue should be paused, and
>>                 closed?generics banned for the?reasons stated above.
>>                 I would support the final report recommendation that
>>                 the issue be decided by the Board.
>>
>>
>>                 Sincerely,
>>
>>                 Kurt
>>
>>                     On 10 Aug 2023, at 7:33 am, John McElwaine via
>>                     council <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>
>>                     Dear Councilors,
>>
>>                     As GNSO Council liaison to the ALAC-GAC-GNSO
>>                     Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generic gTLDs, I
>>                     wanted to update you on the latest developments
>>                     on this project. On 7 July 2023, after
>>                     discussions amongst themselves that I also
>>                     participated in, Sebastien (in his capacity as
>>                     GNSO Chair), Jonathan Zuck (ALAC Chair) and Nico
>>                     Caballero (GAC Chair) sent the attached letter to
>>                     the participants in the dialogue. For reasons set
>>                     out in the letter, and in response to questions
>>                     that the dialogue participants had referred to
>>                     them (also noted in the letter), the three Chairs
>>                     have collectively decided that it will be neither
>>                     necessary to continue with the dialogue to
>>                     develop a final framework nor initiate further
>>                     policy development work on this topic.
>>
>>                     The dialogue participants have discussed the
>>                     Chairs? joint letter and agreed to conclude their
>>                     work as requested, including producing an
>>                     outcomes report to ensure that the work to date
>>                     is thoroughly documented. Participants also
>>                     agreed to forward the Chairs? letter to all the
>>                     commenters that submitted input on the draft
>>                     framework (viz., Tucows, RySG, BC, ISPCPC, ALAC
>>                     and GAC), and have invited those commenters that
>>                     wish to engage with the group to join their next
>>                     call to clarify any significant concerns they
>>                     raised in the feedback they provided.
>>
>>                     The staff team that is supporting the dialogue is
>>                     currently preparing a draft outcomes report for
>>                     the group to review. The group intends for the
>>                     outcomes report to serve as an introduction and
>>                     summary of their work, including expressly
>>                     clarifying that the draft framework the group
>>                     published in June 2023 does not reflect agreed
>>                     outcomes but, rather, was a product of compromise
>>                     that was reached in the interests of soliciting
>>                     community feedback on the various elements and
>>                     points included in the draft framework. The
>>                     outcomes report will also include all the
>>                     community feedback that were submitted in full,
>>                     links to the group?s community wiki space and
>>                     other relevant documentation, and the
>>                     participants? feedback on the consensus building
>>                     techniques and approaches that were used for the
>>                     dialogue.
>>
>>                     The group hopes to wrap up its work by September,
>>                     in line with its previous plan to conclude the
>>                     dialogue and final framework by end-Q3 2023. I
>>                     understand that Sebastien, Nico and Jonathan will
>>                     also be sending a separate communication to the
>>                     ICANN Board that reflects the decision they took
>>                     and, as stated in the letter, expressing the
>>                     collective view that:
>>
>>                     (1) closed generic gTLDs should not be viewed as
>>                     a dependency for the next round;
>>
>>                     (2) until there is community-developed policy,
>>                     the Board should maintain the position from the
>>                     2012 round (i.e., any applications seeking to
>>                     impose exclusive registry access for "generic
>>                     strings" to a single person or entity and/or that
>>                     person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in
>>                     Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should
>>                     not proceed*;*and
>>
>>                     (3) should the community decide in the future to
>>                     resume the policy discussions, this should be
>>                     based on the good work that has been done to date
>>                     in the facilitated dialogue.
>>
>>                     Sebastien and I will be happy to answer any
>>                     questions you may have on the letter, the Chairs?
>>                     decision and the proposed next steps. You may
>>                     also wish to check in with the representatives
>>                     that each of your Stakeholder Groups appointed to
>>                     the dialogue for further information.
>>
>>                     Finally, I am sure I speak for all of us when I
>>                     say that we are very grateful to the dialogue
>>                     participants and the staff support team for all
>>                     the hard work and consensus building that
>>                     resulted in a detailed and substantive, if
>>                     preliminary, draft framework. I also hope that
>>                     the participants? feedback on the methods and
>>                     techniques used in the dialogue, as well as other
>>                     lessons learned from the experience, will provide
>>                     the GNSO Council and community with useful
>>                     information that we can put into practice in
>>                     future policy discussions.
>>
>>                     Best regards,
>>
>>                     John
>>
>>                     *Confidentiality Notice*
>>                     This message is intended exclusively for the
>>                     individual or entity to which it is addressed.
>>                     This communication may contain information that
>>                     is proprietary, privileged, confidential or
>>                     otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you
>>                     are not the named addressee, you are not
>>                     authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
>>                     disseminate this message or any part of it. If
>>                     you have received this message in error, please
>>                     notify the sender immediately either by phone
>>                     (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete
>>                     all copies of this message.
>>
>>                     <Message from ALAC GAC ?GNSO Chairs to Closed
>>                     Generics Facilitated Dialogue Participants -
>>                     FINAL - 5 August 2023
>>                     (002).pdf>_______________________________________________
>>                     council mailing list
>>                     council at gnso.icann.org
>>                     <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>>                     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>                     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
>>
>>                     _______________________________________________
>>                     By submitting your personal data, you consent to
>>                     the processing of your personal data for purposes
>>                     of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>>                     with the ICANN Privacy Policy
>>                     (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
>>                     <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the
>>                     website Terms of Service
>>                     (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
>>                     <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can
>>                     visit the Mailman link above to change your
>>                     membership status or configuration, including
>>                     unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>>                     disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a
>>                     vacation), and so on.
>>
>>                 This email originated from outside the firm. Please
>>                 use caution.
>>
>>                 _______________________________________________
>>                 council mailing list
>>                 council at gnso.icann.org
>>                 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>
>>                 _______________________________________________
>>                 By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
>>                 processing of your personal data for purposes of
>>                 subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the
>>                 ICANN Privacy Policy
>>                 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the
>>                 website Terms of Service
>>                 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit
>>                 the Mailman link above to change your membership
>>                 status or configuration, including unsubscribing,
>>                 setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery
>>                 altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         council mailing list
>>         council at gnso.icann.org
>>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
>>         processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing
>>         to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
>>         (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms
>>         of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit
>>         the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>>         configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
>>         delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a
>>         vacation), and so on.
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     council mailing list
>>     council at gnso.icann.org
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing
>>     of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing
>>     list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
>>     (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
>>     Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
>>     Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>>     configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
>>     delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation),
>>     and so on.
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230817/0c99bb78/attachment.htm>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Sun Aug 20 23:55:20 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 06:55:20 +1000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Update on Closed Generics
In-Reply-To: <09888666-6daf-62e9-3e09-9cf854abe63d@KathyKleiman.com>
References: <BN8PR05MB60491774D29B988AAB15E80B9212A@BN8PR05MB6049.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <3BC02A74-9B55-4F66-A9F6-B5620C98A9BF@kjpritz.com>
 <PH8PR06MB91275E031AF455E9F7FD11B3C313A@PH8PR06MB9127.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <CANsVcEz-2=F-1--4FH4K0Nzcc41+Bij60nrrzCr9ip++-=tkig@mail.gmail.com>
 <D95A1C53-F4F5-4113-A61C-4C7C4E5D2DFD@kjpritz.com>
 <b3b89023e7a4405894554a833a52420b@amazon.com>
 <CANsVcExMEwf8NSiwq=UOQMF0wwAqz2gis6zimQEKyJBCz85acQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM8DdeXDe17X7igyVp9pof0F_E1bhbv6ejeWDsCAyYNqNrfooA@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa526e80-8741-fe1d-d21f-d959606112c7@KathyKleiman.com>
 <CAM8DdeXtgTeeC_99KCKCm8iCPAdKHf7dPV+OSe8eP1UBHQoqKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <09888666-6daf-62e9-3e09-9cf854abe63d@KathyKleiman.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeV+a2b6ggzQ=AKLg006e9jFTvVmXFzUZwjzgQY5WV8WGA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Kathy,

I hope your medical procedure went well.

My concern was based on the letter sent to the facilitated-dialog members
which said *"unless and until there is a community-developed consensus
policy in place, any applications seeking to impose exclusive registry
access for "generic strings" to a single person or entity and/or that
person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the
Registry Agreement) should not proceed*". This wording appears to recommend
a specific policy direction to the board for the next round despite the
SubPro report saying we have "No Agreement....there is arguably no clear
?status quo? or default position from the 2012 round to affirm", so let the
board decide.

However, the good news is that the council hasn't drafted the letter to the
board yet, so with this concern of wording expressed to the council,
hopefully the letter to the board will be more clearer in its intent to
allow the board decide for themselves since the GNSO is still not able to
develop a policy recommendation on this issue.

About the work output of the facilitated dialog (CGST), I absolutely agree
with you that the group explored in-depth the problems and possibilities of
closed generics. And the letter to board from the council also intends to
acknowledge this by saying that *should the community decide in the future
to resume the policy discussions, this should be based on the good work
that has been done to date in the facilitated dialogue*. Despite not in
support of putting together this new facilitated dialogue process, I admit
its output is helpful and thank you for the hard work you and colleagues
from GAC and ALAC put into it.

Warmly,
Tomslin



On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 23:54, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:

> Hi Tomslin,
>
> What recommendation is Council sending to the Board and how does it
> contradict the SubPro WG?   I'm sorry to not be on these lists or see these
> nuances. I am sure there is great anger from Jeff, Kurt and Paul right now.
>
> *Just between us, can we be candid about what happened in the Closed
> Generics Small Team?* As a matter of real policy, I feel the Closed
> Generics Small Team (CGST) advanced this dialogue of Closed Generics with a
> real cross-community and in-depth exploration of the *problems and
> possibilities** of Closed Generics*.
>
> The Framework showed with great clarity that Closed Generics are gTLDs of
> words/strings with meanings for entire industries and should be allocated -
> if allocated - with great sensitivity to the representativeness of the
> entire industry AND clear agreement to abide by defined standards of non
> anti-competitive behavior if one company in an industry obtains the Closed
> Generic.  For example, Amazon can't take all the domain names in .BOOK for
> themselves alone.
>
> Section 10 may be its strongest and best part of the Framework. It lays
> out what I wrote above.
> https://community.icann.org/display/GFDOCG/FOR+INPUT%3A+Draft+Framework+for+Closed+Generic+gTLDs?preview=/244944418/244944420/Draft%20Framework%20for%20Closed%20Generic%20gTLDs.pdf
>
> ---
>
> I head into a medical procedure so won't be able to engage on the members
> list. Also, we on the Members list do not understand the nuances of Council
> wording as you do. I think Council practices are becoming very nuanced.
>
> We will follow your good advice. But please don't let them erase the good
> work of the Closed Generics Small Team. You called us into existence and we
> worked hard. What we learned cannot be unlearned - and the Board will be
> reading our work and processing it.
> Best regards, Kathy
>
>
> On 8/17/2023 8:23 AM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
>
> Hi Kathy,
>
> Thanks for the detailed update. We are certainly thankful to you and the
> team for the hard work you put into this.
>
> My only concern with the 'recommendation' that the council leadership is
> planning on sending to the board is that it appears to make recommendations
> contrary to the subpro report. This concern comes strictly from the point
> of view of my role as a GNSO policy manager (councillor).
>
> If the SubPro report didn't recommend neither to allow nor ban closed
> generics, hence leaving it at the discretion of the board, then I believe
> the Council should be careful not to make contradictory statements that
> might appear to the community as making an "executive recommendation" to
> the board outside the PDP process.
>
> I see a thread has also been spun in the members' list. Perhaps we should
> take the discussion there and see what other members think?
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023, 06:58 Kathy Kleiman, <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tomslin,
>>
>> I'm sorry that the Facilitated Dialogue is being viewed by some as a
>> failure.  In our Closed Generics Small Team meeting last week, it was made
>> very clear to us that the Chairs of the GNSO, GAC and ALAC did not consider
>> our work a failure, but a success that resulted in important issues being
>> raised. I share the highlights of the "3 Chair Letter" and attach it to
>> this email:
>>
>> - "As the Chairs of the three community groups that agreed to participate
>> in this dialog[ue, we are extremely grateful to you as well as very proud
>> of how your work is a testament to the robustness and viability of ICANN?s
>> multistakeholder model. We would like to thank you all for all the hard
>> work, collaborative effort, and time that you have put into this project,
>> resulting in a detailed draft framework for potential policy work that
>> reflects the many hours of good faith discussions that took place."
>>
>> - "We noted that there does not seem to be strong community demand for
>> closed generic gTLDs in the next round, particularly if success in
>> obtaining a gTLD in this category will entail engaging in a complex process
>> with complicated requirements."
>>
>> - "As a result of all these considerations and our discussions, we
>> believe that it is not necessary to resolve the question of closed generic
>> gTLDs as a dependency for the next round of new gTLDs, and we plan to
>> inform the ICANN Board accordingly. We agree with the ICANN Board (in its
>> original invitation to the GAC and the GNSO to engage in a facilitated
>> dialogue) that this topic is one for community policy work, rather than a
>> decision for the Board.
>>
>> *- As such and based on our collective belief that there is neither the
>> need nor the community bandwidth to conduct additional work at this stage,
>> we also plan to ask that, for the next round, the Board maintain the
>> position that, unless and until there is a community developed consensus
>> policy in place, any applications seeking to impose exclusive registry
>> access for "generic strings" to a single person or entity and/or that
>> person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the
>> Registry Agreement) should not proceed. [italics added]*
>>
>> - "Finally, we also plan to inform the Board that any future community
>> policy work on this topic should be based on the good work that has been
>> done to date in this facilitated dialogue."
>>
>> *----------------*
>>
>>
>> *So overall, we were told we did a good job on a tough issue. I think the
>> Small Group's Framework advanced the dialogue and our joint understanding
>> of the competition problems associated with a single company controlling a
>> "closed generic" gTLD significantly.  *
>>
>> Frankly, I would advise the Council to support the work and words of the
>> GNSO Chair, and the recommendation not to proceed with Closed Generic
>> applications in the next round under the circumstances as outlined in the
>> letter.
>>
>> I urge you not to join in the criticism of some on the GNSO - excellent
>> and hard work was done here - including our GNSO representatives John
>> McElwaine, Phillippe Fouquart, Jeff, Sophie and me.  We worked very hard,
>> and pushed the understanding of this issues, and ways to address it, to new
>> levels.  Our work likely will become the basis of future discussion. But,
>> as Chris Disspain said at our second Closed G meeting in ICANN77 (and he
>> was on the Board in the first round), not all issues deserve the huge
>> amount of time it would take to fully resolve them.
>>
>> Best regards, Kathy
>>
>> Attachment: 3 Chairs Letter Aug 5
>> On 8/15/2023 4:55 PM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
>>
>> Dear councillors,
>>
>> What is our stance on this?
>>
>> 1. Overall, I think the declaration that the Facilitated dialogue on
>> Closed generics is a failure is a win to NCSG as we warned council and the
>> board against taking this path.
>>
>> 2. I think the concern Kurt raises that the letter to be addressed to the
>> board asking to "*pause any release of closed generics to a future round
>> might inadvertently be revising subpro recommendation*"  and that of
>> Anne that "*contains a subtle underlying policy recommendation in favor
>> of accepting new Closed Generic applications in the next round in the
>> absence of developed policy*" are both valid concerns we should pay
>> close attention to.
>>
>> 3. However, I like Anne's proposal that avoids subtly modifying any
>> consensus policy. She proposes that "*Perhaps Council should simply
>> advise the Board that (1) Based on public comment, the Facilitated Dialogue
>> process proved unsuccessful in this instance and (2) Council does not
>> believe a further policy process would result in a consensus and therefore,
>> the Board should decide the issues, including whether or not to accept
>> Closed Generic applications in the next round.*"
>>
>> What are your thoughts?
>>
>>
>> Warmly,
>> Tomslin
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: Anne ICANN via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 02:17
>> Subject: Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>> To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>
>> Cc: COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG <COUNCIL at gnso.icann.org>, Avri Doria <
>> avri.doria at board.icann.org>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Greg - The point you make that there is as yet no official
>> statement from Council to the Board on this issue is an important one.    I
>> think there is rough consensus at the Council level that we don't want the
>> next round to be delayed by this issue.  I think two significant questions
>> remain as to the following:
>>
>> Issue #1. Whether to accept applications for Closed Generics in the next
>> round or to pause such applications pending future Board action or GNSO
>> policy development efforts.  The draft  statements put forward so far would
>> endorse accepting applications and that is also a policy statement which
>> essentially defines the "status quo" as permitting such applications.
>> (After all, closed generic applications could block open generic
>> applications in that instance.)   This is tricky because the GAC has
>> reiterated that its previous  Closed Generic advice is "standing advice".
>> Would it be a solution for the Board to simply accept that advice in
>> relation to a Closed Generic application and then accept applications in
>> the next round but  require the Applicant to prove that the application
>> serves a public interest goal without specifying any standards that apply
>> for that proof? Or could the Board say that it cannot accept the advice
>> from the GAC because it would require ICANN to weigh the content of the
>> Closed Generic application and to police the public interest goal issue
>> during the term of the contract award,  meaning the requirement of the GAC
>> advice is out of scope for ICANN's mission as overly content -related?
>> Maybe the Council should just say "don't delay the next round" and should
>> not take a policy position on whether or not to accept Closed Generic
>> applications when the next round opens, i.e. leave that to the Board to
>> decide that policy issue as well?
>>
>> Issue #2. Whether the Council itself has taken a decision that it will
>> not proceed to develop Closed Generic policy using an existing GNSO policy
>> process.  (I think it's possible the Board has the authority to request a
>> formal policy process - not sure whether Council has the right to refuse to
>> do so.)  Did the Council already decide it would not undertake an existing
>> policy process when it authorized the Facilitated Dialogue process? Does
>> the statement need to reflect a Council decision in this regard and if so,
>> does that need a separate vote from Council?  Are we risking delay of the
>> next round over the Council's failure to act on this policy issue?  The
>> Board invoked the Facilitated Dialogue process outside normal policy
>> development channels but it appears that process failed.
>>
>> Any thoughts re the above considerations ?
>> Anne
>>
>>
>>
>> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>> GNSO Councilor
>> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 6:51?AM DiBiase, Gregory via council <
>> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kurt,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A couple thoughts here:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    1. We have not communicated a decision or feedback to Board yet, so
>>>    we have time to discuss our messaging (so far, the SO/AC chairs have sent a
>>>    letter to the dialogue participants and the dialogue participants have
>>>    agreed with the letter?s sentiment).
>>>    2. I think council is in agreement that work on closed generics
>>>    cannot be a dependency for the next round and the Facilitated Dialogue on
>>>    Closed Generic gTLDs should not continue to be the vehicle advancing this
>>>    work (please let me know if I?m oversimplifying).  If this is correct, I
>>>    think we can simplify this issue to: how or if we should frame the ?status
>>>    quo? to the Board.  More specifically, we can take a closer look at this
>>>    proposed language from the letter to the dialogue participants:
>>>       1. ?until there is community-developed policy, the Board should
>>>       maintain the position from the 2012 round (i.e., any applications seeking
>>>       to impose exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single
>>>       person or entity and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in
>>>       Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed;?
>>>    3. Perhaps we should modify this part to say closer to: ?given that
>>>    there is no community-developed policy on closed generics (i.e., any
>>>    applications seeking to impose exclusive registry access for "generic
>>>    strings" to a single person or entity and/or that person's or entity's
>>>    Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement), we
>>>    acknowledge that the Board may not allow closed generics to proceed (in
>>>    line with their position from the 20201 round) until policy is developed.?
>>>    In other words, we don?t need to instruct the Board on what the status quo
>>>    is, rather, we are informing them that a policy on closed generics has not
>>>    been finalized and we recommend not delaying the next round until this
>>>    policy work is completed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I?m sure I have point 3 wrong as I am not as well-versed in subpro as
>>> others, but we can discuss further to make sure we are all aligned.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *kurt
>>> kjpritz.com via council
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 13, 2023 7:54 PM
>>> *To:* Paul McGrady <paul at elstermcgrady.com>
>>> *Cc:* Avri Doria <avri.doria at board.icann.org>; GNSO Council <
>>> council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Update on Closed Generics
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
>>> know the content is safe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Replying to Paul (Hi Paul):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As pointed out by Anne (and Rubens in a parallel email exchange), the
>>> question of status quo is not settled. That is the reason the SubPro
>>> working group specifically asked the Board to settle the question.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Board essentially created a new, temporary policy when it introduced
>>> an additional restriction into the criteria for delegating new TLDs. (I say
>>> temporary because the restriction was time-limited in a way.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The SubPro final report does not recommend an extension of that
>>> restriction by way of a ?pause,? the report specifically recommends
>>> something else. By recommending a pause, the SO/AC leadership would be
>>> amending the final report recommendation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wish I could be clearer. That somehow eludes me at the moment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kurt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Aug 2023, at 3:37 am, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Kurt and Paul,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I see it, the issue has come back to what constitutes the "status
>>> quo".  This issue was hotly debated in the Sub Pro Working Group.  Some
>>> maintained that there was no prohibition on the applications for Closed
>>> Generics because none was contained in the 2012 AGB. Others maintained that
>>> due to the GAC Advice and Board direction to "pause" pending policy
>>> development, the "status quo" is actually a "pause" which would be
>>> continued at the start of the next round.  The risk I see for the ICANN
>>> Board in the latter situation is that those existing applications for
>>> Closed Generics (which are on hold) as well as any future applications to
>>> be taken in the next round (not prohibited by this recommendation) would
>>> build a case for Request for Reconsideration if the Board does not allow
>>> those applications to move forward.  For example, the grounds might be
>>> Applicant Freedom of Expression under the Human Rights Core Value and the
>>> underlying principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression that has been
>>> affirmed by subsequent PDP work and is now being confirmed in the Sub Pro
>>> IRT process.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Another factor is that the Board has consistently declined to make
>>> policy.  And I'm not certain that the GNSO Council actually has the
>>> authority to direct the Board to make a Closed Generic policy.  Are you
>>> gentlemen certain that this is kosher?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly I agree this issue should not hold up the next round but of
>>> course there is a year to go.  If the Board is willing to take a decision
>>> on this, that is one scenario.   If the Board is not willing to take a
>>> decision on this and/or is concerned about the risk of expensive litigation
>>> over a possible ban, then that is another scenario.  Has anyone spoken with
>>> our Sub Pro Board reps about this approach?  (They are copied here.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Anne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>>>
>>> GNSO Councilor
>>>
>>> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>>>
>>> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:15?AM Paul McGrady via council <
>>> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kurt,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for this.  I?m not sure I am understanding your concern.  One of
>>> the basic tenants that everyone in the SubPro PDP agreed to was that,
>>> absent any changes captured in the Recommendations, that the status quo
>>> would prevail.  All the letter does is ask for that.  I feel better about
>>> sticking with the WG?s inability to change the status quo than I do asking
>>> the Board to write a policy when the community couldn?t agree to anything,
>>> even after two valiant efforts.  We tried in the WG, we couldn?t get there,
>>> the status quo should prevail.  We tried again at the request of the Board
>>> at the SO/AC level, we couldn?t get there, the status quo should prevail.
>>> The letter leaves open the possibility of future community work on this but
>>> notes there is no bandwidth or appetite to do so and we don?t want the next
>>> round held up.  Help me understand you concern about asking the Board to
>>> maintain the status quo until/if the community comes up with a policy on
>>> these.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *kurt
>>> kjpritz.com via council
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2023 3:45 AM
>>> *To:* John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
>>> *Cc:* GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi John:
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking time to make this detailed report, and also thanks to
>>> the well-intentioned people that participated in the effort, in particular,
>>> our GNSO representatives. I am not surprised by the outcome.
>>>
>>> I am surprised by the recommendation to pause any release of
>>> closed generics to a future round. Such an action would turn the
>>> consensus-based policy development process on its head.
>>>
>>> 1. I don?t understand how the SO/AC leaders have the authority to revise
>>> the PDP final report recommendation.
>>>
>>> The PDP final report (approved by each of the Councillors) stated that
>>> the closed generic decision should be left up to the ICANN Board. The
>>> final report did not recommend the conflicting direction that the closed
>>> generics ban be continued until a future round.
>>>
>>> The Board made an attempt to (re)involve the community by inviting the
>>> GAC and GNSO to develop a solution. With that effort closed, we
>>> should revert back to the final report recommendations. We should not
>>> change the consensus position developed. Do we think the PDP team would
>>> have approved a recommendation to pause closed generics for an additional
>>> round? (No.)
>>>
>>> We have thoroughly discussed the conditions under which a
>>> Council approved final report can be changed (e.g., GGP), and this is not
>>> one of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.     Continuing the ban on closed generics effectively abandons
>>> the consensus policy model of decision making.
>>>
>>> The new gTLD policy developments, in 2007-8 and 2016-21 have asked the
>>> questions: (1) should there be a round of TLDs and, if yes, (2)
>>> what restrictions / conditions should be in place to address SSR, IP,
>>> and competition concerns.
>>>
>>> Restrictions and conditions enjoying consensus support were implemented
>>> in the program. (An illustrative example is the RPM IRT,
>>> whose recommendations were ratified by the community STI.)
>>>
>>> During discussions on closed generics, there were people for barring
>>> them, allowing them, and allowing them with restrictions. Pausing
>>> any introduction of closed generics essentially creates a policy advocated
>>> by a minority (and in any case not enjoying consensus support). The final
>>> report indicated as much.
>>>
>>> This result provides an incentive to avoid compromise. Going forward,
>>> those wanting to implement an unsupported policy can refuse to compromise
>>> through a PDP and subsequent ad-hoc discussions with the hope
>>> that leadership will ?give up? and implement unsupported restrictions.
>>>
>>> 3.     The decision to ban closed generics for an additional
>>> round contradicts the one step the Board took.
>>>
>>> The Board direction to the GAC-GNSO team established
>>> guardrails, prohibiting a model that would either ban or provide for the
>>> unrestricted release of closed generics. We cannot be sure this is where
>>> the Board will land absent input from the GAC-GNSO effort, but we should
>>> not erase the chance that the Board would develop a balanced decision.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Two additional points:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.     I do not believe that deferring the issue to the Board will
>>> delay the next round, despite the recent GAC-GNSO detour. The Board has
>>> more than a year to make a call.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.     I do not believe the Board is exceeding their authority in
>>> making the call. The GNSO specifically assigned the task to the Board as
>>> part of their policy management responsibility. In any event, the Board
>>> established that authority when it paused closed generics in 2012,
>>> contradicting the Council-approved policy.
>>>
>>>
>>> If given the opportunity to participate in a discussion on this issue, I
>>> would oppose the recommendation that the issue should be paused, and
>>> closed generics banned for the reasons stated above. I would support the
>>> final report recommendation that the issue be decided by the Board.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Kurt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10 Aug 2023, at 7:33 am, John McElwaine via council <
>>> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As GNSO Council liaison to the ALAC-GAC-GNSO Facilitated Dialogue on
>>> Closed Generic gTLDs, I wanted to update you on the latest developments on
>>> this project. On 7 July 2023, after discussions amongst themselves that I
>>> also participated in, Sebastien (in his capacity as GNSO Chair), Jonathan
>>> Zuck (ALAC Chair) and Nico Caballero (GAC Chair) sent the attached letter
>>> to the participants in the dialogue. For reasons set out in the letter, and
>>> in response to questions that the dialogue participants had referred to
>>> them (also noted in the letter), the three Chairs have collectively decided
>>> that it will be neither necessary to continue with the dialogue to develop
>>> a final framework nor initiate further policy development work on this
>>> topic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The dialogue participants have discussed the Chairs? joint letter and
>>> agreed to conclude their work as requested, including producing an outcomes
>>> report to ensure that the work to date is thoroughly documented.
>>> Participants also agreed to forward the Chairs? letter to all the
>>> commenters that submitted input on the draft framework (viz., Tucows, RySG,
>>> BC, ISPCPC, ALAC and GAC), and have invited those commenters that wish to
>>> engage with the group to join their next call to clarify any significant
>>> concerns they raised in the feedback they provided.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The staff team that is supporting the dialogue is currently preparing a
>>> draft outcomes report for the group to review. The group intends for the
>>> outcomes report to serve as an introduction and summary of their work,
>>> including expressly clarifying that the draft framework the group published
>>> in June 2023 does not reflect agreed outcomes but, rather, was a product of
>>> compromise that was reached in the interests of soliciting community
>>> feedback on the various elements and points included in the draft
>>> framework. The outcomes report will also include all the community feedback
>>> that were submitted in full, links to the group?s community wiki space and
>>> other relevant documentation, and the participants? feedback on the
>>> consensus building techniques and approaches that were used for the
>>> dialogue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The group hopes to wrap up its work by September, in line with its
>>> previous plan to conclude the dialogue and final framework by end-Q3 2023.
>>> I understand that Sebastien, Nico and Jonathan will also be sending a
>>> separate communication to the ICANN Board that reflects the decision they
>>> took and, as stated in the letter, expressing the collective view that:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (1) closed generic gTLDs should not be viewed as a dependency for the
>>> next round;
>>>
>>> (2) until there is community-developed policy, the Board should maintain
>>> the position from the 2012 round (i.e., any applications seeking to impose
>>> exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single person or
>>> entity and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section
>>> 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed*;* and
>>>
>>> (3) should the community decide in the future to resume the policy
>>> discussions, this should be based on the good work that has been done to
>>> date in the facilitated dialogue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sebastien and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have on
>>> the letter, the Chairs? decision and the proposed next steps. You may also
>>> wish to check in with the representatives that each of your Stakeholder
>>> Groups appointed to the dialogue for further information.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, I am sure I speak for all of us when I say that we are very
>>> grateful to the dialogue participants and the staff support team for all
>>> the hard work and consensus building that resulted in a detailed and
>>> substantive, if preliminary, draft framework. I also hope that the
>>> participants? feedback on the methods and techniques used in the dialogue,
>>> as well as other lessons learned from the experience, will provide the GNSO
>>> Council and community with useful information that we can put into practice
>>> in future policy discussions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Confidentiality Notice*
>>> This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to
>>> which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is
>>> proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from
>>> disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to
>>> read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If
>>> you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
>>> immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and
>>> delete all copies of this message.
>>>
>>> <Message from ALAC GAC  GNSO Chairs to Closed Generics Facilitated
>>> Dialogue Participants - FINAL - 5 August 2023 (002).pdf>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> council mailing list
>>> council at gnso.icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)
>>> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos).
>>> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> council mailing list
>>> council at gnso.icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)
>>> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos).
>>> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> council mailing list
>>> council at gnso.icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)
>>> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos).
>>> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> council mailing list
>> council at gnso.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230821/b508f14d/attachment.htm>

From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Mon Aug 21 06:45:16 2023
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2023 23:45:16 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Update on Closed Generics
In-Reply-To: <CAM8DdeV+a2b6ggzQ=AKLg006e9jFTvVmXFzUZwjzgQY5WV8WGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN8PR05MB60491774D29B988AAB15E80B9212A@BN8PR05MB6049.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <3BC02A74-9B55-4F66-A9F6-B5620C98A9BF@kjpritz.com>
 <PH8PR06MB91275E031AF455E9F7FD11B3C313A@PH8PR06MB9127.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <CANsVcEz-2=F-1--4FH4K0Nzcc41+Bij60nrrzCr9ip++-=tkig@mail.gmail.com>
 <D95A1C53-F4F5-4113-A61C-4C7C4E5D2DFD@kjpritz.com>
 <b3b89023e7a4405894554a833a52420b@amazon.com>
 <CANsVcExMEwf8NSiwq=UOQMF0wwAqz2gis6zimQEKyJBCz85acQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM8DdeXDe17X7igyVp9pof0F_E1bhbv6ejeWDsCAyYNqNrfooA@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa526e80-8741-fe1d-d21f-d959606112c7@KathyKleiman.com>
 <CAM8DdeXtgTeeC_99KCKCm8iCPAdKHf7dPV+OSe8eP1UBHQoqKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <09888666-6daf-62e9-3e09-9cf854abe63d@KathyKleiman.com>
 <CAM8DdeV+a2b6ggzQ=AKLg006e9jFTvVmXFzUZwjzgQY5WV8WGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a0654351-223b-fc51-3ea6-51e7762576f6@KathyKleiman.com>

Hi Tomlin and All,

I want to share that - surprisingly - I find myself in agreement with 
Paul McGrady in his email to Council of 10 August on Closed Generics 
(and I paste it below). I disagree with most of Kurt's representations 
of Closed Generic history, and agree wholeheartedly with Paul's. I'm 
surprised myself, but what Paul writes below is exactly what we did with 
each and every New gTLD rule we reviewed for the Rights Protection 
Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group (which I co-chaired for 4 years).

The Status Quo is that Closed Generic gTLDs should not proceed. How do 
we know?? Because they did not proceed in the First Round; they all 
changed to become open gTLD applications or withdrew (except one and it 
proceeded on a separate trademark/legal rights basis).? Literally dozens 
of Closed Generics opened up or withdrew their applications - .SAFETY, 
.BOOK, .SEARCH, and many more. That's the Status Quo, although a number 
of our friends refuse to acknowledge it.

As Paul wrote below: <<One of the basic tenants that everyone in the 
SubPro PDP agreed to was that, absent any changes captured in the 
Recommendations, that the status quo would prevail.? All the letter does 
is ask for that.? I feel better about sticking with the WG?s inability 
to change the status quo than I do asking the Board to write a policy 
when the community couldn?t agree to anything, even after two valiant 
efforts.? We tried in the WG, we couldn?t get there, the status quo 
should prevail.? We tried again at the request of the Board at the SO/AC 
level, we couldn?t get there, the status quo should prevail. >>

It's true. /Someday we may be able to create a rule that will receive 
consensus for Closed Generics, but not today. We certainly tried! /

Best regards and good luck!

Kathy

---------------------------------------------------

On Thu, *Aug 10, 2023 at 10:15?AM *Paul McGrady via council 
<council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:

Hi Kurt,

Thanks for this.? I?m not sure I am understanding your concern.? One of 
the basic tenants that everyone in the SubPro PDP agreed to was that, 
absent any changes captured in the Recommendations, that the status quo 
would prevail.? All the letter does is ask for that.? I feel better 
about sticking with the WG?s inability to change the status quo than I 
do asking the Board to write a policy when the community couldn?t agree 
to anything, even after two valiant efforts.? We tried in the WG, we 
couldn?t get there, the status quo should prevail.? We tried again at 
the request of the Board at the SO/AC level, we couldn?t get there, the 
status quo should prevail.? The letter leaves open the possibility of 
future community work on this but notes there is no bandwidth or 
appetite to do so and we don?t want the next round held up.? Help me 
understand you concern about asking the Board to maintain the status quo 
until/if the community comes up with a policy on these.

Best,

Paul

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/20/2023 4:55 PM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> I hope your medical procedure went well.
>
> My concern was based on the letter sent to the facilitated-dialog 
> members which said *"/unless and until there is a community-developed 
> consensus policy in place, any applications seeking to impose 
> exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single person or 
> entity and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in 
> Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed/*". This 
> wording appears to recommend a specific policy direction to the board 
> for the next round despite the SubPro report saying we have "No 
> Agreement....there is arguably no clear ?status quo? or default 
> position from the 2012 round to affirm", so let the board decide.
>
> However, the good news is that the council hasn't drafted the letter 
> to the board yet, so with this concern of wording expressed to the 
> council, hopefully the letter to the board will be more clearer in its 
> intent to allow the board decide for themselves since the GNSO is 
> still not able to develop a policy recommendation on this issue.
>
> About the work output of the facilitated dialog (CGST), I absolutely 
> agree with you that the group explored in-depth the problems and 
> possibilities of closed generics. And the letter to board from the 
> council also intends to acknowledge this by saying that *should the 
> community decide in the future to resume the policy discussions, this 
> should be based on the good work that has been done to date in the 
> facilitated dialogue*. Despite not in support of putting together this 
> new facilitated dialogue process, I admit its output is helpful and 
> thank you for the hard work you and colleagues from GAC and ALAC put 
> into it.
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 23:54, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> 
> wrote:
>
>     Hi Tomslin,
>
>     What recommendation is Council sending to the Board and how does
>     it contradict the SubPro WG??? I'm sorry to not be on these lists
>     or see these nuances. I am sure there is great anger from Jeff,
>     Kurt and Paul right now.
>
>     /Just between us, can we be candid about what happened in the
>     Closed Generics Small Team?///As a matter of real policy, I feel
>     the Closed Generics Small Team (CGST) advanced this dialogue of
>     Closed Generics with a real cross-community and in-depth
>     exploration of the _problems and possibilities__of Closed Generics_.
>
>     The Framework showed with great clarity that Closed Generics are
>     gTLDs of words/strings with meanings for entire industries and
>     should be allocated - if allocated - with great sensitivity to the
>     representativeness of the entire industry AND clear agreement to
>     abide by defined standards of non anti-competitive behavior if one
>     company in an industry obtains the Closed Generic.? For example,
>     Amazon can't take all the domain names in .BOOK for themselves alone.
>
>     Section 10 may be its strongest and best part of the Framework. It
>     lays out what I wrote above.
>     https://community.icann.org/display/GFDOCG/FOR+INPUT%3A+Draft+Framework+for+Closed+Generic+gTLDs?preview=/244944418/244944420/Draft%20Framework%20for%20Closed%20Generic%20gTLDs.pdf
>
>
>     ---
>
>     I head into a medical procedure so won't be able to engage on the
>     members list. Also, we on the Members list do not understand the
>     nuances of Council wording as you do. I think Council practices
>     are becoming very nuanced.
>
>     We will follow your good advice. But please don't let them erase
>     the good work of the Closed Generics Small Team. You called us
>     into existence and we worked hard. What we learned cannot be
>     unlearned - and the Board will be reading our work and processing it.
>
>     Best regards, Kathy
>
>
>     On 8/17/2023 8:23 AM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
>>     Hi Kathy,
>>
>>     Thanks for the detailed update. We are certainly thankful to you
>>     and the team for the hard work you put into this.
>>
>>     My only concern with the 'recommendation' that the council
>>     leadership is planning on sending to the board is that it appears
>>     to make recommendations contrary to the subpro report. This
>>     concern comes strictly from the point of view of my role as a
>>     GNSO policy manager (councillor).
>>
>>     If the SubPro report didn't recommend neither to allow nor ban
>>     closed generics, hence leaving it at the discretion of the board,
>>     then I believe the Council should be careful not to make
>>     contradictory statements that might appear to the community as
>>     making an "executive recommendation" to the board outside the PDP
>>     process.
>>
>>     I see a thread has also been spun in the members' list. Perhaps
>>     we should take the discussion there and see what other members think?
>>
>>     Warmly,
>>     Tomslin
>>
>>     On Thu, 17 Aug 2023, 06:58 Kathy Kleiman,
>>     <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Tomslin,
>>
>>         I'm sorry that the Facilitated Dialogue is being viewed by
>>         some as a failure.? In our Closed Generics Small Team meeting
>>         last week, it was made very clear to us that the Chairs of
>>         the GNSO, GAC and ALAC did not consider our work a failure,
>>         but a success that resulted in important issues being raised.
>>         I share the highlights of the "3 Chair Letter" and attach it
>>         to this email:
>>
>>         - "As the Chairs of the three community groups that agreed to
>>         participate in this dialog[ue, we are extremely grateful to
>>         you as well as very proud of how your work is a testament to
>>         the robustness and viability of ICANN?s multistakeholder
>>         model. We would like to thank you all for all the hard work,
>>         collaborative effort, and time that you have put into this
>>         project, resulting in a detailed draft framework for
>>         potential policy work that reflects the many hours of good
>>         faith discussions that took place."
>>
>>         - "We noted that there does not seem to be strong community
>>         demand for closed generic gTLDs in the next round,
>>         particularly if success in obtaining a gTLD in this category
>>         will entail engaging in a complex process with complicated
>>         requirements."
>>
>>         - "As a result of all these considerations and our
>>         discussions, we believe that it is not necessary to resolve
>>         the question of closed generic gTLDs as a dependency for the
>>         next round of new gTLDs, and we plan to inform the ICANN
>>         Board accordingly. We agree with the ICANN Board (in its
>>         original invitation to the GAC and the GNSO to engage in a
>>         facilitated dialogue) that this topic is one for community
>>         policy work, rather than a decision for the Board. /
>>         /
>>
>>         /- As such and based on our collective belief that there is
>>         neither the need nor the community bandwidth to conduct
>>         additional work at this stage, we also plan to ask that, for
>>         the next round, the Board maintain the position that, unless
>>         and until there is a community developed consensus policy in
>>         place, any applications seeking to impose exclusive registry
>>         access for "generic strings" to a single person or entity
>>         and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in
>>         Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed.
>>         [italics added]/
>>
>>         - "Finally, we also plan to inform the Board that any future
>>         community policy work on this topic should be based on the
>>         good work that has been done to date in this facilitated
>>         dialogue."*
>>         *
>>
>>         *----------------*
>>
>>         *So overall, we were told we did a good job on a tough issue.
>>         I think the Small Group's Framework advanced the dialogue and
>>         our joint understanding of the competition problems
>>         associated with a single company controlling a "closed
>>         generic" gTLD significantly.
>>         *
>>
>>         Frankly, I would advise the Council to support the work and
>>         words of the GNSO Chair, and the recommendation not to
>>         proceed with Closed Generic applications in the next round
>>         under the circumstances as outlined in the letter.
>>
>>         I urge you not to join in the criticism of some on the GNSO -
>>         excellent and hard work was done here - including our GNSO
>>         representatives John McElwaine, Phillippe Fouquart, Jeff,
>>         Sophie and me.? We worked very hard, and pushed the
>>         understanding of this issues, and ways to address it, to new
>>         levels.? Our work likely will become the basis of future
>>         discussion. But, as Chris Disspain said at our second Closed
>>         G meeting in ICANN77 (and he was on the Board in the first
>>         round), not all issues deserve the huge amount of time it
>>         would take to fully resolve them.
>>
>>         Best regards, Kathy
>>
>>         Attachment: 3 Chairs Letter Aug 5
>>
>>         On 8/15/2023 4:55 PM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
>>>         Dear councillors,
>>>
>>>         What is our stance on this?
>>>
>>>         1. Overall, I think the declaration that the Facilitated
>>>         dialogue on Closed generics is a failure is a win to NCSG as
>>>         we warned council and the board against taking this path.
>>>
>>>         2. I think the concern Kurt raises that the letter to be
>>>         addressed to the board asking to "/*pause any release of
>>>         closed generics to a future round might inadvertently be
>>>         revising subpro recommendation*/" ?and that of Anne that
>>>         "*/contains a subtle underlying policy recommendation in
>>>         favor of accepting new Closed Generic applications in the
>>>         next round in the absence of developed policy/*" are both
>>>         valid concerns we should pay close attention to.
>>>
>>>         3. However, I like Anne's proposal that avoids subtly
>>>         modifying any consensus policy. She proposes that "*/Perhaps
>>>         Council should simply advise the Board that (1) Based on
>>>         public comment, the Facilitated Dialogue process proved
>>>         unsuccessful in this instance and (2) Council does not
>>>         believe a further policy process would result in a consensus
>>>         and therefore, the Board should decide the issues, including
>>>         whether or not to accept Closed Generic applications in the
>>>         next round./*"
>>>
>>>         What are your thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>         Warmly,
>>>         Tomslin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>         From: *Anne ICANN via council* <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>         Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 02:17
>>>         Subject: Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>>>         To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>
>>>         Cc: COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG <COUNCIL at gnso.icann.org>, Avri
>>>         Doria <avri.doria at board.icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>         Thanks Greg - The point you make that there is as yet no
>>>         official statement from Council to the Board on this issue
>>>         is an important one.? ? I think there is rough consensus at
>>>         the Council level that we don't want the next round to be
>>>         delayed by this issue.? I think two significant questions
>>>         remain as to the following:
>>>
>>>         Issue #1. Whether to accept applications for Closed Generics
>>>         in the next round or to pause such applications pending
>>>         future Board action or GNSO policy development efforts.? The
>>>         draft? statements put forward so far would endorse accepting
>>>         applications and that is also a policy statement which
>>>         essentially defines the "status quo" as permitting such
>>>         applications.? (After all, closed generic applications could
>>>         block open generic applications in that instance.)? ?This is
>>>         tricky because the GAC has reiterated that its previous?
>>>         Closed Generic advice is "standing advice". Would it be a
>>>         solution for the Board to simply accept that advice in
>>>         relation to a Closed Generic application and then accept
>>>         applications in the next round but? require the Applicant to
>>>         prove that the application serves a public interest goal
>>>         without specifying any standards that apply for that proof?
>>>         Or could the Board say that it cannot accept the advice from
>>>         the GAC because it would require ICANN to weigh the content
>>>         of the Closed Generic application and to police the public
>>>         interest goal issue during the term of the contract award,
>>>         meaning the requirement of the GAC advice is out of scope
>>>         for ICANN's mission as overly content -related?? Maybe the
>>>         Council should just say "don't delay the next round" and
>>>         should not take a policy position on whether or not to
>>>         accept Closed Generic applications when the next round
>>>         opens, i.e. leave that to the Board to decide that policy
>>>         issue as well?
>>>
>>>         Issue #2. Whether the Council itself has taken a decision
>>>         that it will not proceed to develop Closed Generic policy
>>>         using an existing GNSO policy process.? (I think it's
>>>         possible the Board has the authority to request a formal
>>>         policy process - not sure whether Council has the right to
>>>         refuse to do so.)? Did the Council already decide it would
>>>         not undertake an existing policy process when it authorized
>>>         the Facilitated Dialogue process? Does the statement need to
>>>         reflect a Council decision in this regard and if so, does
>>>         that need a separate vote from Council?? Are we risking
>>>         delay of the next round over the Council's failure to act on
>>>         this policy issue?? The Board invoked the Facilitated
>>>         Dialogue process outside normal policy development channels
>>>         but it appears that process failed.
>>>
>>>         Any thoughts re the above considerations ?
>>>         Anne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         Anne Aikman-Scalese
>>>         GNSO Councilor
>>>         NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>>>         anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>         On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 6:51?AM DiBiase, Gregory via council
>>>         <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>             Hi Kurt,
>>>
>>>             A couple thoughts here:
>>>
>>>              1. We have not communicated a decision or feedback to
>>>                 Board yet, so we have time to discuss our messaging
>>>                 (so far, the SO/AC chairs have sent a letter to the
>>>                 dialogue participants and the dialogue participants
>>>                 have agreed with the letter?s sentiment).
>>>              2. I think council is in agreement that work on closed
>>>                 generics cannot be a dependency for the next round
>>>                 and the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generic gTLDs
>>>                 should not continue to be the vehicle advancing this
>>>                 work (please let me know if I?m oversimplifying).?
>>>                 If this is correct, I think we can simplify this
>>>                 issue to: how or if we should frame the ?status quo?
>>>                 to the Board.? More specifically, we can take a
>>>                 closer look at this proposed language from the
>>>                 letter to the dialogue participants:
>>>                  1. ?until there is community-developed policy, the
>>>                     Board should maintain the position from the 2012
>>>                     round (i.e., any applications seeking to impose
>>>                     exclusive registry access for "generic strings"
>>>                     to a single person or entity and/or that
>>>                     person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in
>>>                     Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should
>>>                     not proceed;?
>>>              3. Perhaps we should modify this part to say closer to:
>>>                 ?given that there is no community-developed policy
>>>                 on closed generics (i.e., any applications seeking
>>>                 to impose exclusive registry access for "generic
>>>                 strings" to a single person or entity and/or that
>>>                 person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in
>>>                 Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement), we
>>>                 acknowledge that the Board may not allow closed
>>>                 generics to proceed (in line with their position
>>>                 from the 20201 round) until policy is developed.??
>>>                 In other words, we don?t need to instruct the Board
>>>                 on what the status quo is, rather, we are informing
>>>                 them that a policy on closed generics has not been
>>>                 finalized and we recommend not delaying the next
>>>                 round until this policy work is completed.
>>>
>>>             I?m sure I have point 3 wrong as I am not as well-versed
>>>             in subpro as others, but we can discuss further to make
>>>             sure we are all aligned.
>>>
>>>             Thanks,
>>>
>>>             Greg
>>>
>>>             *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On
>>>             Behalf Of *kurt kjpritz.com <http://kjpritz.com> via council
>>>             *Sent:* Sunday, August 13, 2023 7:54 PM
>>>             *To:* Paul McGrady <paul at elstermcgrady.com>
>>>             *Cc:* Avri Doria <avri.doria at board.icann.org>; GNSO
>>>             Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>             *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Update on Closed
>>>             Generics
>>>
>>>             *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the
>>>             organization. Do not click links or open attachments
>>>             unless you can confirm the sender and know the content
>>>             is safe.
>>>
>>>             Replying to Paul (Hi Paul):
>>>
>>>             As pointed out by Anne (and Rubens in a parallel email
>>>             exchange), the question of status quo is not settled.
>>>             That is the reason the SubPro working group specifically
>>>             asked the Board to settle the question.
>>>
>>>             The Board essentially created a new, temporary policy
>>>             when it introduced an additional restriction into the
>>>             criteria for delegating new TLDs. (I say temporary
>>>             because the restriction was time-limited in a way.)
>>>
>>>             The SubPro final report does not recommend an extension
>>>             of that restriction by way of a ?pause,? the report
>>>             specifically recommends something else. By recommending
>>>             a pause, the SO/AC leadership would be amending the
>>>             final report recommendation.
>>>
>>>             I wish I could be clearer. That somehow eludes me at the
>>>             moment.
>>>
>>>             Kurt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                 On 11 Aug 2023, at 3:37 am, Anne ICANN
>>>                 <anneicanngnso at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>                 Hi Kurt and Paul,
>>>
>>>                 As I see it, the issue has come back to what
>>>                 constitutes the "status quo".? This issue was hotly
>>>                 debated in the Sub Pro Working Group.? Some
>>>                 maintained that there was no prohibition on the
>>>                 applications for Closed Generics because none was
>>>                 contained in the 2012 AGB. Others maintained that
>>>                 due to the GAC Advice and Board direction to "pause"
>>>                 pending policy development, the "status quo" is
>>>                 actually a "pause" which would be continued at the
>>>                 start of the next round.? The risk I see for the
>>>                 ICANN Board in the latter situation is that those
>>>                 existing applications for Closed Generics (which are
>>>                 on hold) as well as any future applications to be
>>>                 taken in the next round (not prohibited by this
>>>                 recommendation) would build a case for Request for
>>>                 Reconsideration if the Board does not allow those
>>>                 applications to move forward.? For example, the
>>>                 grounds might be Applicant Freedom of Expression
>>>                 under the Human Rights Core Value and the underlying
>>>                 principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression that
>>>                 has been affirmed by subsequent PDP work and is now
>>>                 being confirmed in the Sub Pro IRT process.
>>>
>>>                 Another factor is that the Board has consistently
>>>                 declined to make policy. And I'm not certain that
>>>                 the GNSO Council actually has the authority to
>>>                 direct the Board to make a Closed Generic policy.?
>>>                 Are you gentlemen certain that this is kosher?
>>>
>>>                 Certainly I agree this issue should not hold up the
>>>                 next round but of course there is a year to go. If
>>>                 the Board is willing to take a decision on this,
>>>                 that is one scenario. ?If the Board is not willing
>>>                 to take a decision on this and/or is concerned about
>>>                 the risk of expensive litigation over a possible
>>>                 ban, then that is another scenario.? Has anyone
>>>                 spoken with our Sub Pro Board reps about this
>>>                 approach? (They are copied here.)
>>>
>>>                 Thank you,
>>>
>>>                 Anne
>>>
>>>                 Anne Aikman-Scalese
>>>
>>>                 GNSO Councilor
>>>
>>>                 NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>>>
>>>                 anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>>>
>>>                 On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:15?AM Paul McGrady via
>>>                 council <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>                     Hi Kurt,
>>>
>>>                     Thanks for this.? I?m not sure I am
>>>                     understanding your concern. One of the basic
>>>                     tenants that everyone in the SubPro PDP agreed
>>>                     to was that, absent any changes captured in the
>>>                     Recommendations, that the status quo would
>>>                     prevail.? All the letter does is ask for that.?
>>>                     I feel better about sticking with the WG?s
>>>                     inability to change the status quo than I do
>>>                     asking the Board to write a policy when the
>>>                     community couldn?t agree to anything, even after
>>>                     two valiant efforts.? We tried in the WG, we
>>>                     couldn?t get there, the status quo should
>>>                     prevail.? We tried again at the request of the
>>>                     Board at the SO/AC level, we couldn?t get there,
>>>                     the status quo should prevail.? The letter
>>>                     leaves open the possibility of future community
>>>                     work on this but notes there is no bandwidth or
>>>                     appetite to do so and we don?t want the next
>>>                     round held up.? Help me understand you concern
>>>                     about asking the Board to maintain the status
>>>                     quo until/if the community comes up with a
>>>                     policy on these.
>>>
>>>                     Best,
>>>
>>>                     Paul
>>>
>>>                     *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
>>>                     *On Behalf Of *kurt kjpritz.com
>>>                     <http://kjpritz.com/> via council
>>>                     *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2023 3:45 AM
>>>                     *To:* John McElwaine
>>>                     <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
>>>                     *Cc:* GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>                     *Subject:* Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>>>
>>>                     Hi John:
>>>
>>>                     Thanks for taking time to make this detailed
>>>                     report, and also?thanks to the well-intentioned
>>>                     people that participated in the effort,
>>>                     in?particular, our GNSO representatives. I am
>>>                     not?surprised by the outcome.
>>>
>>>                     I am surprised by the recommendation to pause
>>>                     any release of closed?generics to a future
>>>                     round. Such an action would turn the
>>>                     consensus-based?policy development process?on
>>>                     its head.
>>>
>>>                         1.?I don?t understand how the SO/AC leaders
>>>                         have the authority to?revise the PDP final
>>>                         report recommendation.
>>>
>>>                         The PDP final report (approved by each of
>>>                         the Councillors) stated?that the closed
>>>                         generic decision should be left up to the
>>>                         ICANN Board. The final?report did
>>>                         not?recommend the conflicting direction that
>>>                         the closed generics ban?be continued until a
>>>                         future round.
>>>
>>>                         The Board made an attempt to (re)involve the
>>>                         community by inviting?the GAC and GNSO to
>>>                         develop a solution. With that effort closed,
>>>                         we should?revert back to the final?report
>>>                         recommendations. We should not change
>>>                         the?consensus position developed. Do we
>>>                         think the PDP team would have approved
>>>                         a?recommendation to pause closed?generics
>>>                         for an additional round? (No.)
>>>
>>>                         We have thoroughly discussed the conditions
>>>                         under which a Council?approved final report
>>>                         can be changed (e.g., GGP), and this is not
>>>                         one of?them.
>>>
>>>                         2. ???Continuing the ban on closed generics
>>>                         effectively abandons the?consensus policy
>>>                         model of decision making.
>>>
>>>                         The new gTLD policy developments, in 2007-8
>>>                         and 2016-21 have asked?the questions: (1)
>>>                         should there be a round of TLDs and, if yes,
>>>                         (2) what?restrictions / conditions?should be
>>>                         in place to address SSR, IP, and?competition
>>>                         concerns.
>>>
>>>                         Restrictions and conditions enjoying
>>>                         consensus support were?implemented in the
>>>                         program. (An illustrative example is the RPM
>>>                         IRT, whose?recommendations were?ratified by
>>>                         the community STI.)
>>>
>>>                         During discussions on closed generics, there
>>>                         were people for?barring them, allowing them,
>>>                         and allowing them with restrictions. Pausing
>>>                         any?introduction of closed?generics
>>>                         essentially creates a policy advocated by
>>>                         a?minority (and in any case not enjoying
>>>                         consensus support). The final
>>>                         report?indicated as much.
>>>
>>>                         This result provides an incentive to avoid
>>>                         compromise. Going?forward, those wanting to
>>>                         implement an unsupported policy can refuse
>>>                         to?compromise through a PDP and?subsequent
>>>                         ad-hoc discussions with the hope
>>>                         that?leadership will ?give up? and implement
>>>                         unsupported restrictions.
>>>
>>>                         3.? ???The decision to ban closed generics
>>>                         for an additional round?contradicts the one
>>>                         step the Board took.
>>>
>>>                         The Board direction to the GAC-GNSO team
>>>                         established guardrails,?prohibiting a model
>>>                         that would either ban or provide for the
>>>                         unrestricted?release of closed generics.?We
>>>                         cannot be sure this is where the Board
>>>                         will?land absent input from the GAC-GNSO
>>>                         effort, but we should not erase the
>>>                         chance?that the Board would develop
>>>                         a?balanced decision.
>>>
>>>                     Two additional points:
>>>
>>>
>>>                         1.? ???I do not believe that deferring the
>>>                         issue to the Board will delay?the next
>>>                         round, despite the recent GAC-GNSO detour.
>>>                         The Board has more than a?year to make a call.
>>>
>>>
>>>                         2.? ???I do not believe the Board is
>>>                         exceeding their authority in making?the
>>>                         call. The GNSO specifically assigned the
>>>                         task to the Board as part of their?policy
>>>                         management responsibility. In any event, the
>>>                         Board established that?authority when
>>>                         it?paused closed generics in 2012,
>>>                         contradicting the?Council-approved policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>                     If given the opportunity to participate in a
>>>                     discussion on this?issue, I would oppose the
>>>                     recommendation that the issue should be paused,
>>>                     and closed?generics banned for the?reasons
>>>                     stated above. I would support the final report
>>>                     recommendation that the issue be decided by the
>>>                     Board.
>>>
>>>
>>>                     Sincerely,
>>>
>>>                     Kurt
>>>
>>>                         On 10 Aug 2023, at 7:33 am, John McElwaine
>>>                         via council <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>                         Dear Councilors,
>>>
>>>                         As GNSO Council liaison to the ALAC-GAC-GNSO
>>>                         Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generic
>>>                         gTLDs, I wanted to update you on the latest
>>>                         developments on this project. On 7 July
>>>                         2023, after discussions amongst themselves
>>>                         that I also participated in, Sebastien (in
>>>                         his capacity as GNSO Chair), Jonathan Zuck
>>>                         (ALAC Chair) and Nico Caballero (GAC Chair)
>>>                         sent the attached letter to the participants
>>>                         in the dialogue. For reasons set out in the
>>>                         letter, and in response to questions that
>>>                         the dialogue participants had referred to
>>>                         them (also noted in the letter), the three
>>>                         Chairs have collectively decided that it
>>>                         will be neither necessary to continue with
>>>                         the dialogue to develop a final framework
>>>                         nor initiate further policy development work
>>>                         on this topic.
>>>
>>>                         The dialogue participants have discussed the
>>>                         Chairs? joint letter and agreed to conclude
>>>                         their work as requested, including producing
>>>                         an outcomes report to ensure that the work
>>>                         to date is thoroughly documented.
>>>                         Participants also agreed to forward the
>>>                         Chairs? letter to all the commenters that
>>>                         submitted input on the draft framework
>>>                         (viz., Tucows, RySG, BC, ISPCPC, ALAC and
>>>                         GAC), and have invited those commenters that
>>>                         wish to engage with the group to join their
>>>                         next call to clarify any significant
>>>                         concerns they raised in the feedback they
>>>                         provided.
>>>
>>>                         The staff team that is supporting the
>>>                         dialogue is currently preparing a draft
>>>                         outcomes report for the group to review. The
>>>                         group intends for the outcomes report to
>>>                         serve as an introduction and summary of
>>>                         their work, including expressly clarifying
>>>                         that the draft framework the group published
>>>                         in June 2023 does not reflect agreed
>>>                         outcomes but, rather, was a product of
>>>                         compromise that was reached in the interests
>>>                         of soliciting community feedback on the
>>>                         various elements and points included in the
>>>                         draft framework. The outcomes report will
>>>                         also include all the community feedback that
>>>                         were submitted in full, links to the group?s
>>>                         community wiki space and other relevant
>>>                         documentation, and the participants?
>>>                         feedback on the consensus building
>>>                         techniques and approaches that were used for
>>>                         the dialogue.
>>>
>>>                         The group hopes to wrap up its work by
>>>                         September, in line with its previous plan to
>>>                         conclude the dialogue and final framework by
>>>                         end-Q3 2023. I understand that Sebastien,
>>>                         Nico and Jonathan will also be sending a
>>>                         separate communication to the ICANN Board
>>>                         that reflects the decision they took and, as
>>>                         stated in the letter, expressing the
>>>                         collective view that:
>>>
>>>                         (1) closed generic gTLDs should not be
>>>                         viewed as a dependency for the next round;
>>>
>>>                         (2) until there is community-developed
>>>                         policy, the Board should maintain the
>>>                         position from the 2012 round (i.e., any
>>>                         applications seeking to impose exclusive
>>>                         registry access for "generic strings" to a
>>>                         single person or entity and/or that person's
>>>                         or entity's Affiliates (as defined in
>>>                         Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement)
>>>                         should not proceed*;*and
>>>
>>>                         (3) should the community decide in the
>>>                         future to resume the policy discussions,
>>>                         this should be based on the good work that
>>>                         has been done to date in the facilitated
>>>                         dialogue.
>>>
>>>                         Sebastien and I will be happy to answer any
>>>                         questions you may have on the letter, the
>>>                         Chairs? decision and the proposed next
>>>                         steps. You may also wish to check in with
>>>                         the representatives that each of your
>>>                         Stakeholder Groups appointed to the dialogue
>>>                         for further information.
>>>
>>>                         Finally, I am sure I speak for all of us
>>>                         when I say that we are very grateful to the
>>>                         dialogue participants and the staff support
>>>                         team for all the hard work and consensus
>>>                         building that resulted in a detailed and
>>>                         substantive, if preliminary, draft
>>>                         framework. I also hope that the
>>>                         participants? feedback on the methods and
>>>                         techniques used in the dialogue, as well as
>>>                         other lessons learned from the experience,
>>>                         will provide the GNSO Council and community
>>>                         with useful information that we can put into
>>>                         practice in future policy discussions.
>>>
>>>                         Best regards,
>>>
>>>                         John
>>>
>>>                         *Confidentiality Notice*
>>>                         This message is intended exclusively for the
>>>                         individual or entity to which it is
>>>                         addressed. This communication may contain
>>>                         information that is proprietary, privileged,
>>>                         confidential or otherwise legally exempt
>>>                         from disclosure. If you are not the named
>>>                         addressee, you are not authorized to read,
>>>                         print, retain, copy or disseminate this
>>>                         message or any part of it. If you have
>>>                         received this message in error, please
>>>                         notify the sender immediately either by
>>>                         phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail
>>>                         and delete all copies of this message.
>>>
>>>                         <Message from ALAC GAC ?GNSO Chairs to
>>>                         Closed Generics Facilitated Dialogue
>>>                         Participants - FINAL - 5 August 2023
>>>                         (002).pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>                         council mailing list
>>>                         council at gnso.icann.org
>>>                         <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>                         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>                         <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
>>>
>>>                         _______________________________________________
>>>                         By submitting your personal data, you
>>>                         consent to the processing of your personal
>>>                         data for purposes of subscribing to this
>>>                         mailing list accordance with the ICANN
>>>                         Privacy Policy
>>>                         (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
>>>                         <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and
>>>                         the website Terms of Service
>>>                         (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
>>>                         <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You
>>>                         can visit the Mailman link above to change
>>>                         your membership status or configuration,
>>>                         including unsubscribing, setting
>>>                         digest-style delivery or disabling delivery
>>>                         altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>
>>>                     This email originated from outside the firm.
>>>                     Please use caution.
>>>
>>>                     _______________________________________________
>>>                     council mailing list
>>>                     council at gnso.icann.org
>>>                     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>
>>>                     _______________________________________________
>>>                     By submitting your personal data, you consent to
>>>                     the processing of your personal data for
>>>                     purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
>>>                     accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
>>>                     (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the
>>>                     website Terms of Service
>>>                     (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
>>>                     visit the Mailman link above to change your
>>>                     membership status or configuration, including
>>>                     unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>>>                     disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a
>>>                     vacation), and so on.
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             council mailing list
>>>             council at gnso.icann.org
>>>             https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
>>>             processing of your personal data for purposes of
>>>             subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the
>>>             ICANN Privacy Policy
>>>             (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website
>>>             Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos).
>>>             You can visit the Mailman link above to change your
>>>             membership status or configuration, including
>>>             unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>>>             disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation),
>>>             and so on.
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         council mailing list
>>>         council at gnso.icann.org
>>>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
>>>         processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing
>>>         to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy
>>>         Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the
>>>         website Terms of Service
>>>         (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
>>>         Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>>>         configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
>>>         delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a
>>>         vacation), and so on.
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230820/4f4a9d76/attachment.htm>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 11:38:50 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 18:38:50 +1000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Update on the Grant Program
 Implementation
In-Reply-To: <BN0PR02MB8111DAE63E9C5EB7127FC391C51AA@BN0PR02MB8111.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <B3AA24C1-DD00-4B33-94D4-21215EBB4186@icann.org>
 <8837514A-CAB6-49AF-BB90-02C039A0E8A1@icann.org>
 <BN0PR02MB8111DAE63E9C5EB7127FC391C51AA@BN0PR02MB8111.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeVLa7f+jNevuVLVaK1Xwyfh8tRZB87KzB3XPVyYhptYfg@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Sebastien--- via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023, 7:03 pm
Subject: [council] FW: Update on the Grant Program Implementation
To: COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG <council at gnso.icann.org>, GNSO-Chairs <
gnso-chairs at icann.org>, gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>


Dear Council Colleagues,



Please find below an email I received from Xavier Calvez with updates on
the Grant Program Implementation. This will be discussed as our last AOB
next week.

Given our usual time squeeze at the end of our meetings, please make sure
you come ready with questions ? possibly sending them in advance to ensure
we can source answers.



Kindly,





*Sebastien Ducos*

GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager

[image: signature_1974744916]

+33612284445

France & Australia

sebastien at registry.godaddy





*From: *Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez at icann.org>
*Date: *Saturday, 12 August 2023 at 01:22
*To: *XXX

*Cc: *Tripti Sinha <tripti.sinha at board.icann.org>, Maarten Botterman <
maarten.botterman at board.icann.org>, Sally Costerton <
sally.costerton at icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>, Giovanni
Seppia <giovanni.seppia at icann.org>
*Subject: *Update on the Grant Program Implementation



Dear SO/AC Chairs,



I am contacting you in your capacity as Chairs of the Chartering
Organizations of the Cross-Community Working Group on Auction Proceeds
(CCWG-AP). After the CCWG-AP concluded its work in 2020, each Chartering
Organization approved the report before it was provided to the ICANN Board
for consideration. As you may have seen in blog posts and community
sessions, the ICANN Board adopted the CCWG-AP recommendations, and ICANN
org is working toward implementation. Attached you will find an update that
I sent to the former members of the CCWG-AP (as appointed by your
organizations).



Last month, the ICANN Board Chair also sent an email to the former members
of the CCWG-AP to inform them of the Board?s intention to direct ICANN org
to change the implementation path of the CCWG-AP?s Recommendation 7, which
was focused on limiting the use of ICANN?s accountability mechanisms to
challenge individual application decisions made by the independent
assessment panel. As part of its recommendation, the CCWG-AP included that
this limitation should be achieved through changing the ICANN Bylaws on the
Reconsideration Request and Independent Review Processes to specify this
carve out. Instead of touching ICANN?s core accountability mechanisms in
the Bylaws, the ICANN Board intends to now direct ICANN org to achieve this
recommendation through the applicant terms and conditions that grant
applicants will agree to when submitting their grant application. More
information can be found in the attached email.



Because the Board is looking to direct ICANN org to implement the CCWG-AP?s
recommendation to limit access to ICANN?s accountability mechanisms in a
different manner than the CCWG-AP contemplated, the Board agreed it was
important to give advance notice to those who formed that
recommendation. At the same time, acknowledging that the chartering
organizations approved the CCWG-AP Final Report and its recommendations, we
are also providing this information directly to the Chartering
Organizations. In addition, we will make sure that an email exchange with
one of the former CCWG-AP members in response to the Chair?s email is moved
to a publicly archived mailing list so that there is a transparent record
of these communications. A copy of that exchange is also provided for your
reference.



The Board recognizes the significance of its forthcoming action - both in
terms of maintaining the community working group?s recommendation to limit
access to ICANN?s accountability mechanisms and in identifying a new,
limited path forward to doing so that does not involve changes to these
most fundamental of ICANN Bylaws. When taken, the Board?s resolution will
be accompanied by a detailed rationale acknowledging the uniqueness of this
situation along with the Board?s acknowledgement that contracts should only
be considered as tools for limiting the use of ICANN?s accountability
mechanism when the community has recommended that access to accountability
mechanisms be limited in specific circumstances.



The ICANN org team looks forward to providing further public updates on the
progress of the ICANN Grant Program across various communication avenues.
The creation of the former CCWG-AP members list is one of them, as is this
email to you. Recognizing that the former members of the CCWG-AP now act in
their individual capacity, please let us know if you are comfortable in
having them engage in this conversation or whether it should be
held differently.



Please let me know any question you may have.



Kind regards,



Xavier



In copy:

Tripti Sinha, ICANN Board chair

Maarten Botterman, ICANN Board member, chair of the Board Caucus on the
Grant Program

Sally Costerton, ICANN President and CEO

David Olive, SVP Policy Development and Support

Giovanni Seppia, VP Implementation Operations





Xavier Calvez

ICANN

*SVP Planning and CFO*

*12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300*

*Los Angeles, California 90094*

*USA *

*Office phone:* +1 310 301 5800

*Cell phone:* +1 805 312 0052

*Skype:* Xavier.calvez.icann














_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230821/84e02a0c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 44606 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230821/84e02a0c/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 44606 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230821/84e02a0c/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez at icann.org>
Subject: Update on the Grant Program Implementation 
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:48:31 -0700
Size: 17332
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230821/84e02a0c/attachment.eml>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Message from Tripti Sinha to Former CCWG-AP Members
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:49:39 -0700
Size: 43538
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230821/84e02a0c/attachment-0001.eml>

From PolicyCalendar at icann.org  Mon Aug 21 14:15:57 2023
From: PolicyCalendar at icann.org (ICANN Policy Calendar)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 11:15:57 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] 15 Minute REMINDER-NCSG Policy Call | 21 August at 11:30
 UTC
Message-ID: <18b3dd8b2f6a433d9bd5ee3dd5dbcaf2@icann.org>

Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 21 August at 11:30 UTC.

Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09
Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584
Passcode: i!y7.qx&#43;11

One tap mobile
&#43;16699006833,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (San Jose)
&#43;12532158782,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (Tacoma)
PHONE ONLY DETAILS:
Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/ayKmeftWg
Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584
Phone only Passcode: 7740925615

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230821/1ae671c2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 2399 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230821/1ae671c2/attachment.ics>

From andrea.glandon at icann.org  Thu Aug 24 21:00:41 2023
From: andrea.glandon at icann.org (Andrea Glandon)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 18:00:41 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN78 Meet with PSWG
Message-ID: <E44726F7-C086-49BA-A41E-4848D03128F6@icann.org>

Hello!

GAC staff support has reached out to me regarding noncommercials meeting with the PSWG group at ICANN78, if the group is interested. The dates they are looking at are Saturday, 21 October & Sunday, 22 October. On Saturday there sessions for IDNs EPDP, EPDP Phase 2 Small Team, Transfer Policy Review, Subsequent Procedures IRT, Joint At-Large & GNSO session, and GNSO celebration sessions. Sunday is a bit more open in the morning with GNSO working sessions. In the afternoon is the NCSG PC session. Please let me know first if you would like to meet and second if Saturday or Sunday sounds better.

Thanks!
Andrea Glandon
Policy Operations Coordinator
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Skype ID:  acglandon76



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230824/61350df2/attachment.htm>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Fri Aug 25 09:54:54 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 16:54:54 +1000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] ICANN78 Meet with PSWG
In-Reply-To: <E44726F7-C086-49BA-A41E-4848D03128F6@icann.org>
References: <E44726F7-C086-49BA-A41E-4848D03128F6@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeXqcw2bCxUz60V7us0bHrioOn+bZadqPoxA3LKOkP6J8Q@mail.gmail.com>

I think a meeting sounds good and Sunday looks less busy for NCSG

Warmly,
Tomslin



On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 04:00, Andrea Glandon via NCSG-EC <
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Hello!
>
>
>
> GAC staff support has reached out to me regarding noncommercials meeting
> with the PSWG group at ICANN78, if the group is interested. The dates they
> are looking at are Saturday, 21 October & Sunday, 22 October. On Saturday
> there sessions for IDNs EPDP, EPDP Phase 2 Small Team, Transfer Policy
> Review, Subsequent Procedures IRT, Joint At-Large & GNSO session, and GNSO
> celebration sessions. Sunday is a bit more open in the morning with GNSO
> working sessions. In the afternoon is the NCSG PC session. Please let me
> know first if you would like to meet and second if Saturday or Sunday
> sounds better.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> *Andrea Glandon*
>
> Policy Operations Coordinator
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> *Skype ID:*  acglandon76
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230825/6d2813aa/attachment.htm>

From manju at nii.org.tw  Fri Aug 25 11:25:32 2023
From: manju at nii.org.tw (=?UTF-8?B?6Zmz5pu86Iy5IE1hbmp1IENoZW4=?=)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 16:25:32 +0800
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] ICANN78 Meet with PSWG
In-Reply-To: <CAM8DdeXqcw2bCxUz60V7us0bHrioOn+bZadqPoxA3LKOkP6J8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E44726F7-C086-49BA-A41E-4848D03128F6@icann.org>
 <CAM8DdeXqcw2bCxUz60V7us0bHrioOn+bZadqPoxA3LKOkP6J8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMeQZi29wspa+=BBRJ__cr27KtsrhWtDzkWBgzj6T_TjX76oxg@mail.gmail.com>

+1 to meeting on Sunday.

Thank you Andrea!

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 14:55 Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think a meeting sounds good and Sunday looks less busy for NCSG
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
>
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 04:00, Andrea Glandon via NCSG-EC <
> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>>
>>
>> GAC staff support has reached out to me regarding noncommercials meeting
>> with the PSWG group at ICANN78, if the group is interested. The dates they
>> are looking at are Saturday, 21 October & Sunday, 22 October. On Saturday
>> there sessions for IDNs EPDP, EPDP Phase 2 Small Team, Transfer Policy
>> Review, Subsequent Procedures IRT, Joint At-Large & GNSO session, and GNSO
>> celebration sessions. Sunday is a bit more open in the morning with GNSO
>> working sessions. In the afternoon is the NCSG PC session. Please let me
>> know first if you would like to meet and second if Saturday or Sunday
>> sounds better.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> *Andrea Glandon*
>>
>> Policy Operations Coordinator
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> *Skype ID:*  acglandon76
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230825/7b68d466/attachment.htm>

From jumaropi at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 26 03:48:55 2023
From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 00:48:55 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] ICANN78 Meet with PSWG
In-Reply-To: <CAMeQZi29wspa+=BBRJ__cr27KtsrhWtDzkWBgzj6T_TjX76oxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E44726F7-C086-49BA-A41E-4848D03128F6@icann.org>
 <CAM8DdeXqcw2bCxUz60V7us0bHrioOn+bZadqPoxA3LKOkP6J8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMeQZi29wspa+=BBRJ__cr27KtsrhWtDzkWBgzj6T_TjX76oxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <741647709.361587.1693010935229@mail.yahoo.com>

I agree with meeting PSWG on Sunday?

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 3:25, ??? Manju Chen<manju at nii.org.tw> wrote:   _______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230826/048bec10/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sat Aug 26 22:56:05 2023
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie E Perrin)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:56:05 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] ICANN78 Meet with PSWG
In-Reply-To: <CAMeQZi29wspa+=BBRJ__cr27KtsrhWtDzkWBgzj6T_TjX76oxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E44726F7-C086-49BA-A41E-4848D03128F6@icann.org>
 <CAM8DdeXqcw2bCxUz60V7us0bHrioOn+bZadqPoxA3LKOkP6J8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMeQZi29wspa+=BBRJ__cr27KtsrhWtDzkWBgzj6T_TjX76oxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab558794-d09b-7d38-eada-b47e8ce17d12@mail.utoronto.ca>

+1 for me too!

Stephanie

On 2023-08-25 4:25 a.m., ??? Manju Chen wrote:
> +1 to meeting on Sunday.
>
> Thank you Andrea!
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 14:55 Tomslin Samme-Nlar 
> <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     I think a meeting sounds good and Sunday looks less busy for NCSG
>
>     Warmly,
>     Tomslin
>
>
>
>     On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 04:00, Andrea Glandon via NCSG-EC
>     <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>
>         Hello!
>
>         GAC staff support has reached out to me regarding
>         noncommercials meeting with the PSWG group at ICANN78, if the
>         group is interested. The dates they are looking at are
>         Saturday, 21 October & Sunday, 22 October. On Saturday there
>         sessions for IDNs EPDP, EPDP Phase 2 Small Team, Transfer
>         Policy Review, Subsequent Procedures IRT, Joint At-Large &
>         GNSO session, and GNSO celebration sessions. Sunday is a bit
>         more open in the morning with GNSO working sessions. In the
>         afternoon is the NCSG PC session. Please let me know first if
>         you would like to meet and second if Saturday or Sunday sounds
>         better.
>
>         Thanks!
>
>         *Andrea Glandon*
>
>         Policy Operations Coordinator
>
>         Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>         *Skype ID:*acglandon76
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         NCSG-EC mailing list
>         NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230826/0b558497/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Tue Aug 29 13:47:43 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 12:47:43 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG WS2 Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <00918B17-04A9-4F38-A20B-0DA5A8399A01@icann.org>
References: <00918B17-04A9-4F38-A20B-0DA5A8399A01@icann.org>
Message-ID: <87ece0c2-8406-26a1-a629-256ceb54e0ea@Julf.com>

Are we OK with signing off this?

	Julf


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	NCSG WS2 Recommendations
Date: 	Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:04:33 +0000
From: 	Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
To: 	Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>
CC: 	Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>, Daniel Gluck 
<daniel.gluck at icann.org>, Alperen Eken <alperen.eken at icann.org>



Dear Julf,

We are writing to follow up on the NCSG?s continuing implementation of 
those Work Stream 2 (WS2) recommendations that were directed towards the 
community. As you know, implementation of all WS2 recommendations 
involves work by the ICANN Board, the org and the community. You can 
find information about the work that is being done regarding WS2 
Implementation here 
<https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Implementation>, including 
progress reports.

With regard to community implementation of the relevant recommendations, 
you may recall that ICANN org conducted a mapping inventory of *WS2 
Recommendations 2 and 6 (**Good Faith* 
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-2-good-faith-guidelines-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf>*and 
**Accountability* 
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-annex-6-soac-final-recs-27mar18-en.pdf>*)*for 
each Supporting Organization (SO), Advisory Committee (AC), Regional At 
Large Organization (RALO), GNSO Stakeholder Group (SG), and GNSO 
Constituency (C). As we noted when first circulating each group?s 
initial inventory, our objective in preparing it was to assist with each 
group?s implementation of these two WS2 recommendations by providing it 
with a draft list of its existing procedures and asking that each group 
*confirm the accuracy of the list and determine if further work by your 
group is needed*. Please *acknowledge and formally sign off the 
recommendation, if no formal objections are raised, the status quo will 
be deemed accepted*. You can find your group?s inventory here 
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xxPZjIjrjLBiKjcgWKbhhxWhbsBdcRudCqRDl4W5UlY/edit?usp=sharing>on 
this link.

The inventory is intended to be a*gap analysis* of the above-noted WS2 
recommendations, mapped to your group?s current governance documents 
(e.g. your Charter or group bylaws) and, where applicable, operating 
procedures. Our colleagues who support the other SOs/ACs, including the 
GNSO Council, are conducting the same exercise with these groups to 
ensure that the community inventorying is done in a uniform format.

As a next step, we will be happy to support your group in this effort. 
If there is a specific point of contact or any particular members of 
your group that we should be working with, we will be grateful if you 
can let us know who they are. We would also like to suggest 15 September 
2023**as a possible due date to aim for completing the initial inventory 
review for Recommendation 6. *Please let us know if you would like us to 
schedule a call with you or your group?s representatives to discuss the 
inventory* *and next steps.*

Best regards,

Alperen Eken (On behalf of the team supporting WS2 community 
implementation efforts)



From andrea.glandon at icann.org  Tue Aug 29 15:24:55 2023
From: andrea.glandon at icann.org (Andrea Glandon)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 12:24:55 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN78 Meet with PSWG
In-Reply-To: <E44726F7-C086-49BA-A41E-4848D03128F6@icann.org>
References: <E44726F7-C086-49BA-A41E-4848D03128F6@icann.org>
Message-ID: <85E8471F-F366-42F9-BE33-F58D79D98929@icann.org>

Thank you everyone!

It looks like we have support for meeting with the PSWG on Sunday, 22 October. I will reach out to the GAC staff.

Kind Regards,
Andrea


From: Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
Date: Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 13:00
To: "ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is" <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>, "ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
Cc: Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
Subject: ICANN78 Meet with PSWG

Hello!

GAC staff support has reached out to me regarding noncommercials meeting with the PSWG group at ICANN78, if the group is interested. The dates they are looking at are Saturday, 21 October & Sunday, 22 October. On Saturday there sessions for IDNs EPDP, EPDP Phase 2 Small Team, Transfer Policy Review, Subsequent Procedures IRT, Joint At-Large & GNSO session, and GNSO celebration sessions. Sunday is a bit more open in the morning with GNSO working sessions. In the afternoon is the NCSG PC session. Please let me know first if you would like to meet and second if Saturday or Sunday sounds better.

Thanks!
Andrea Glandon
Policy Operations Coordinator
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Skype ID:  acglandon76



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230829/68ef00f3/attachment.htm>

From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Tue Aug 29 17:00:34 2023
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 10:00:34 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN78 Meet with PSWG
In-Reply-To: <85E8471F-F366-42F9-BE33-F58D79D98929@icann.org>
References: <E44726F7-C086-49BA-A41E-4848D03128F6@icann.org>
 <85E8471F-F366-42F9-BE33-F58D79D98929@icann.org>
Message-ID: <2eee0e86-05b7-fc76-e05d-2f7bcb39881e@KathyKleiman.com>

I can make it too.? Tx Andrea!

- Kathy

On 8/29/2023 8:24 AM, Andrea Glandon wrote:
>
> Thank you everyone!
>
> It looks like we have support for meeting with the PSWG on Sunday, 22 
> October. I will reach out to the GAC staff.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Andrea
>
> *From: *Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 13:00
> *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is" <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>, 
> "ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> *Cc: *Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
> *Subject: *ICANN78 Meet with PSWG
>
> Hello!
>
> GAC staff support has reached out to me regarding noncommercials 
> meeting with the PSWG group at ICANN78, if the group is interested. 
> The dates they are looking at are Saturday, 21 October & Sunday, 22 
> October. On Saturday there sessions for IDNs EPDP, EPDP Phase 2 Small 
> Team, Transfer Policy Review, Subsequent Procedures IRT, Joint 
> At-Large & GNSO session, and GNSO celebration sessions. Sunday is a 
> bit more open in the morning with GNSO working sessions. In the 
> afternoon is the NCSG PC session. Please let me know first if you 
> would like to meet and second if Saturday or Sunday sounds better.
>
> Thanks!
>
> *Andrea Glandon*
>
> Policy Operations Coordinator
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> *Skype ID:*acglandon76
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230829/84706c0d/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Thu Aug 31 22:14:38 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 21:14:38 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat 14 appointment
Message-ID: <a7afe24d-1cbb-31f3-9b27-93a4567abdf2@Julf.com>

Dear EC and PC,

It is my pleasure to announce that after a very long process
the NCSG and CSG have agreed to jointly appoint Chris Buckridge
to Board Seat 14.

We thank Paul McGrady, as the NCPH NCA, for all his help in
the process, and Lori Schulman and Mason Cole from the CSG,
as well as all of you in the NCSG Executive Committee and Policy
Committee for your hard work and cooperative spirit, but I
especially want to thank Matthew Shears for his excellent work
during his two terms on the Board, and for his patience and
tolerance with this drawn-out process and all the associated
uncertainty.

	Julf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Board Seat 14 Notification.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 20163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230831/7da2e543/attachment.pdf>

From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Thu Aug 31 23:54:53 2023
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:54:53 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat 14 appointment
In-Reply-To: <a7afe24d-1cbb-31f3-9b27-93a4567abdf2@Julf.com>
References: <a7afe24d-1cbb-31f3-9b27-93a4567abdf2@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <7e3ce8d6-2eeb-db9f-b489-9700bdb7017f@KathyKleiman.com>

Congratulations, Julf and our NCSG Team!? This was a long and arduous 
process.? Congratulations on the outcome, and thank you!

Best, Kathy

On 8/31/2023 3:14 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> Dear EC and PC,
>
> It is my pleasure to announce that after a very long process
> the NCSG and CSG have agreed to jointly appoint Chris Buckridge
> to Board Seat 14.
>
> We thank Paul McGrady, as the NCPH NCA, for all his help in
> the process, and Lori Schulman and Mason Cole from the CSG,
> as well as all of you in the NCSG Executive Committee and Policy
> Committee for your hard work and cooperative spirit, but I
> especially want to thank Matthew Shears for his excellent work
> during his two terms on the Board, and for his patience and
> tolerance with this drawn-out process and all the associated
> uncertainty.
>
> ????Julf
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc