August 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights
by Dr Eberhard Lisse Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

Gabi, thank you for posting this. All, I want to place on record, that this needs SIGNIFICANT thought, and considerably more detail than what is provided here. In particular what actual Intellectual Property Rights do they mean, EXACTLY? And I would like to see them in a numbered list :-)-O Most certainly will the root zone (database) on which the NSF is performed, and the contacts database (DEF) NOT fall under this. Without having thought this through to the end, however, I think this is a WS1 item for the CCWG Accountability, and needs to be dsicussed on tonight's call. Fortunately, we have time, the transition has been postponed to 2016-09-30 last Friday http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition greetings, el On 2015-08-18 09:16, Gabriella Schittek wrote: > Dear all, > > ICANN has released a statement regarding the IANA Intellectual Property > Rights: > > === > ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)15 > August 2015 > ICANN supports the IANA Stewardship Transition Group (ICG) proposal and > the underlying proposals from the Community Working Group (CWG), the > Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team and the Planning > for the IANA/NTIA Transition (IANAPLAN) working group. > The ICANN Board is focused on how to implement the Intellectual Property > Rights (IPR) component of the proposal. The Board believes that for > stability and pragmatic operational reasons, the IANA Functions Operator > must have operational control over the IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> domain. > During the transition, ICANN is prepared to transfer full ownership of > the IANA-related trademarks to a neutral third party mutually agreed > among the operational communities with the understanding that ICANN, as > the current IANA Functions Operator, will be granted license to those > trademarks and ICANN will maintain operational control of the IANA.ORG > <http://iana.org/> domain for as long as ICANN remains the IANA > Functions Operator. > If the transfer during the transition affects the timeline, we advise > delay until after the transition. In that event ICANN is ready to hold > the IPR as interim measure but commits to transfer it within 120 days > after the neutral third party is identified by the operational communities. > We believe this is neutral and in the public interest. We look forward > to hearing from anyone in the community. > > === > > See https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en > > > Kind regards, > > Gabi > > > > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org > -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

5 10

ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws
by Steve Crocker Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

For more than a decade we have been wrestling with how to best reform Whois and specifically how we might best balance the very legitimate, though often conflicting goals of privacy and transparency, of accuracy and cost, and, in the larger sense, how to achieve overall effectiveness while respecting the values of the broad set of users of the Internet During the CCWG webinar on 4 August 2015[1] I said it would be unacceptable to copy the exact wording of the WHOIS review into ICANN’s Bylaws. This may seem like a very specific detail amidst the myriad of “larger” governance issues included in the CCWG proposal, so some may wonder why this merits attention. I put “larger” in quotes because to many, governance issues seem of premier importance and everything else is subordinate. Well, yes, governance issues are commanding enormous attention, but ICANN is first and foremost an organization that has a very specific mission on behalf of the Internet and its users, and that means we have to pay attention to the substance of what we do. Let me make it clear that we’re committed to improving and strengthening the gTLD registration data system, not weakening it, and I think the language that is currently written into the Whois review could impede long-needed improvements. See the end of this message for some of the actions ICANN and the IETF have taken over the past few years. In proposing to move the AoC Review obligations into ICANN’s Bylaws, the language should be consistent with, and supportive of, the advancements we have made and the goals we have set for ourselves. The AoC[2] language regarding the Whois reviews that was crafted in 2009 states: > 9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. These words, well intentioned at the time they were written, embody the assumption that the architecture of the existing gTLD directory system that uses the WHOIS protocol is appropriate and that improvement is merely a matter of enforcement. I do not believe it is that simple, and I do not believe we should be embedding this assumption into ICANN’s Bylaws. The current wording is tied to the original – may I say “ancient?” – model that is sorely in need of overhaul. I am of the strong opinion that we must not import into ICANN’s Bylaws, the words drafted six years ago. I am concerned that a strict interpretation of the existing language is inconsistent with structural changes to the system, and hence it would be a mistake to continue to use that language. Rather, I feel this is the time to revise those words to fit both the current WHOIS service and the potential future needs for contact information, and to do so in a way that makes it clear to all parties that improvements and strengthening is the right direction for gTLD directory services to evolve. We will shortly propose language that is consistent with the intent of the existing language. It will make clear that we continue to be committed to a strong system and it will include the possibility of significant improvements that may require structural changes to the entire system. Steve Crocker On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors ========================================================== Selected list of actions, including IETF work on WEIRDS, to strengthen the gTLD Directory Services and to build a path toward possible structural improvements. • Board Working Group—Board created a new "Board Working Group on Registration Data Directory Services” to support WHOIS as a strategic priority, oversee implementation/improvement of WHOIS, liaise with GNSO on PDP for next generation registration directory services, and liaise with the next WHOIS Review Team. • Board-Initiated Policy Development—Board adopted a “Process Framework” developed to provide guidance for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations in the EWG Final Report as input/foundation for new gTLD policy. • Next Generation Registration Directory Service—Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (EWG), created under Board direction, issued their report, “A Next-Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS”), after exhaustive research and community consultation, to help redefine the purpose and provision of gTLD registration data, and develop a potential new model to replace today’s WHOIS system. • Preliminary Issue Report—To move forward with the PDP on Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS (above) a Preliminary Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council and is now open for public comment • Two-Pronged Approach to WHOIS—In 2012 the Board adopted a two-pronged approach to address the recommendations of the first WHOIS Review Team, calling for ICANN to (i) continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to WHOIS (See Action Plan), and (ii) create an expert working group to determine the fundamental purpose and objectives of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, to serve as a foundation for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP. • Strategic Priority—WHOIS is emphasized in ICANN’s Strategic Plan and funded in its Operating Plans and Budgets. • RAA— Adoption of a new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, which includes many Compliance and WHOIS related enhancements, such as stricter validation and verification requirements. • Registry Agreements— Adoption of a New gTLD Registry Agreement requiring registrars to use 2013 RAA and incorporate many WHOIS improvements, and transition of 2013 RAA into existing registry agreements. • New IETF Protocol—IETF’s WEIRDS finalized the new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) that will replace the (port-43) WHOIS protocol. • Privacy & Proxy Services—A public comment period recently closed on the Initial Report of a GNSO Working Group on issues relating to the accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers; ICANN has committed to developing and implementing such a program. • Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info—A public comment period recently closed on recommendations from the GNSO’s PDP on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information regarding gTLD non-ASCII script contact information. • WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System—Work is ongoing to develop a WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System (ARS), following-up on the Pilot Study for WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System that was released last year. [1] See https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681 [2] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…

6 7

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Translations Update
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

Dear all, This is just a follow-up note to let you know that the translations of the full compiled proposals have been uploaded to the Wiki. The individual sections have been uploaded for more the past ten days, but it took additional time to format the full version. Please update your communities if they were waiting on the full version. Wiki page for reference: https://community.icann.org/x/pKs0Aw Best, Grace From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 12:40 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Translations Update Dear all, In an effort to shorten the turnaround time for translations, the staff support team has been working closely with ICANN¹s Language Services department and translating the 2nd Draft Report by sections (following on the CCWG¹s drafting methodology). As you¹ll see on the Wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/pKs0Aw> , many of these sections have been translated only days after the Public Comment period opened. We expect to have the translation process completed by the end of next week, including the translations of the full compiled draft. Please share these translations in your regions and encourage non-English speakers to submit comments. Wiki page with translations by section: https://community.icann.org/x/pKs0Aw This turnaround time is unprecedented at ICANN, so let¹s celebrate this historic moment! :) Grace

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws
by Steve Crocker Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

Somewhere between the second and third. Sent by me after internal coordination with my fellow board members and reflecting a consistent stream of board actions over the past few years. We did not, however, pass a formal resolution. My preference is for everyone to focus on the substance of the comment and not so much on the level of authority. Steve Crocker Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 17, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake(a)nic.as> wrote: > > Thank you for this (and I do mean that, having been on the call that you > reference). > > I am a bit confused as to whether or not this is your opinion as an > individual, or as an ICANN Board member, or if you are expressing the > opinion of the ICANN Board. There's a lot of first person expression in > what you have written, but also a lot of "we", indicating 3rd person. And > the conclusion ("On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors") suggests that > this is a statement is being issued by the ICANN Board, and (naturally) > "signed" by it's Chairperson. > > So which is it? > > A personal statement by you as a member of the ICANN Community? > > A personal statement by you as an ICANN Board Member? > > Or a statement by the ICANN Board issued by you as the Chairperson? > > > Best, > > /Stephen Deerhake > > -----Original Message----- > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve > Crocker > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:48 PM > To: Accountability Cross Community > <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)icann.org> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN > Bylaws > > For more than a decade we have been wrestling with how to best reform Whois > and specifically how we might best balance the very legitimate, though often > conflicting goals of privacy and transparency, of accuracy and cost, and, in > the larger sense, how to achieve overall effectiveness while respecting the > values of the broad set of users of the Internet > > During the CCWG webinar on 4 August 2015[1] I said it would be unacceptable > to copy the exact wording of the WHOIS review into ICANN's Bylaws. This may > seem like a very specific detail amidst the myriad of "larger" governance > issues included in the CCWG proposal, so some may wonder why this merits > attention. I put "larger" in quotes because to many, governance issues seem > of premier importance and everything else is subordinate. Well, yes, > governance issues are commanding enormous attention, but ICANN is first and > foremost an organization that has a very specific mission on behalf of the > Internet and its users, and that means we have to pay attention to the > substance of what we do. > > Let me make it clear that we're committed to improving and strengthening the > gTLD registration data system, not weakening it, and I think the language > that is currently written into the Whois review could impede long-needed > improvements. See the end of this message for some of the actions ICANN and > the IETF have taken over the past few years. In proposing to move the AoC > Review obligations into ICANN's Bylaws, the language should be consistent > with, and supportive of, the advancements we have made and the goals we have > set for ourselves. > > The AoC[2] language regarding the Whois reviews that was crafted in 2009 > states: > >> 9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating > to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that > ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access > to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, > billing, and administrative contact information. > > These words, well intentioned at the time they were written, embody the > assumption that the architecture of the existing gTLD directory system that > uses the WHOIS protocol is appropriate and that improvement is merely a > matter of enforcement. I do not believe it is that simple, and I do not > believe we should be embedding this assumption into ICANN's Bylaws. > > The current wording is tied to the original - may I say "ancient?" - model > that is sorely in need of overhaul. I am of the strong opinion that we must > not import into ICANN's Bylaws, the words drafted six years ago. I am > concerned that a strict interpretation of the existing language is > inconsistent with structural changes to the system, and hence it would be a > mistake to continue to use that language. > > Rather, I feel this is the time to revise those words to fit both the > current WHOIS service and the potential future needs for contact > information, and to do so in a way that makes it clear to all parties that > improvements and strengthening is the right direction for gTLD directory > services to evolve. > > We will shortly propose language that is consistent with the intent of the > existing language. It will make clear that we continue to be committed to a > strong system and it will include the possibility of significant > improvements that may require structural changes to the entire system. > > Steve Crocker > > On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors > ========================================================== > > Selected list of actions, including IETF work on WEIRDS, to strengthen the > gTLD Directory Services and to build a path toward possible structural > improvements. > > . Board Working Group-Board created a new "Board Working Group on > Registration Data Directory Services" to support WHOIS as a strategic > priority, oversee implementation/improvement of WHOIS, liaise with GNSO on > PDP for next generation registration directory services, and liaise with the > next WHOIS Review Team. > > . Board-Initiated Policy Development-Board adopted a "Process Framework" > developed to provide guidance for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP to define the > purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration > data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations > in the EWG Final Report as input/foundation for new gTLD policy. > > . Next Generation Registration Directory Service-Expert Working Group on > gTLD Directory Services (EWG), created under Board direction, issued their > report, "A Next-Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS"), after > exhaustive research and community consultation, to help redefine the purpose > and provision of gTLD registration data, and develop a potential new model > to replace today's WHOIS system. > > . Preliminary Issue Report-To move forward with the PDP on Next-Generation > gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS (above) a Preliminary > Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council and is now open for public > comment > > . Two-Pronged Approach to WHOIS-In 2012 the Board adopted a two-pronged > approach to address the recommendations of the first WHOIS Review Team, > calling for ICANN to (i) continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy > and contractual conditions relating to WHOIS (See Action Plan), and (ii) > create an expert working group to determine the fundamental purpose and > objectives of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD > registration data, to serve as a foundation for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP. > > . Strategic Priority-WHOIS is emphasized in ICANN's Strategic Plan and > funded in its Operating Plans and Budgets. > > . RAA- Adoption of a new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, which > includes many Compliance and WHOIS related enhancements, such as stricter > validation and verification requirements. > > . Registry Agreements- Adoption of a New gTLD Registry Agreement requiring > registrars to use 2013 RAA and incorporate many WHOIS improvements, and > transition of 2013 RAA into existing registry agreements. > > . New IETF Protocol-IETF's WEIRDS finalized the new Registration Data > Access Protocol (RDAP) that will replace the (port-43) WHOIS protocol. > > . Privacy & Proxy Services-A public comment period recently closed on the > Initial Report of a GNSO Working Group on issues relating to the > accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers; ICANN has committed to > developing and implementing such a program. > > . Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info-A public comment period > recently closed on recommendations from the GNSO's PDP on Translation and > Transliteration of Contact Information regarding gTLD non-ASCII script > contact information. > > . WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System-Work is ongoing to develop a WHOIS > Accuracy Reporting System (ARS), following-up on the Pilot Study for WHOIS > Accuracy Reporting System that was released last year. > > [1] See https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681 > > [2] > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30- > en > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

3 2

Question to Co-Chairs - Report sections needing editing
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

As I have reviewed the report as part of the ALAC's process at drafting its comment, there are some areas where a section lacks clarity (csuch as the questions I just posed on the budget), and some where all we really need is either editing or minor content changes. These do not (in my mind, warrant being raised in the Public Comment, but also need to be captured and addressed. Two cases in point - Paragraph 415, bullet 2, sub-bullet 2: - This largely refers to actions that will be taken by the "participating" SO/ACs. But the leading sentence about notification really should apply yo ALL SO/ACs, since thay are all supposed to be involved in the discussion. - The sentence fragment "calling for all SOs and ACs that have the right to appoint Directors to select one (or two, depending on their allocation) directors to notify by the close of the Discussion Period of the person[s] it has selected to serve on an Interim Board (for only so long as necessary until a replacement election could be held) should a vote in favor of recall of the entire Board occur, such notice to include a signed statement from the candidate(s) of their willingness to serve and any other information that the Bylaws require Board candidates to provide prior to election." runs on FAR too long and really needs to be broken down into understandable sections. I had a hard time understanding it in English. I shudder to think about how it has been translated into other languages. How should we address such things? Alan

1 0

WEBINAR: Briefing on 2nd Draft CCWG-Accountability Proposal
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 17, 2015

Aug. 17, 2015

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-17-en The CCWG-Accountability published its 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations for 40-day public comment on 3 August 2015. Community feedback is requested on this draft proposal of proposed enhancements to ICANN's accountability framework that the CCWG-Accountability has identified as essential to happen or be committed to before the IANA Stewardship Transition takes place. Community feedback will help the CCWG-Accountability to improve its proposal and carry on with next steps, including Chartering Organizations' endorsement of the CCWG-Accountability recommendations before it is submitted to the ICANN Board during or shortly after ICANN54 in Dublin in October 2015. In order to brief the community on the contents of their 2nd Draft Proposal, the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs hosted two identical briefing webinars on 4 and 7 August at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. To provide the community with an additional opportunity to ask questions, a repeat session will be held on: * 25 August from 18:00 20:00 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+Webinar+on+Se cond+Draft+Proposal&year=&month=08&day=25&hour=18&min=0&sec=0&p1=1440&ah=2> ) The webinar will be conducted in English. Live interpretation services1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-17-en#foot1> are available in Arabic, Chinese2 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-17-en#foot2> , French, Spanish and Portuguese3 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-17-en#foot3> . Webinar Details & How to Attend The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/si-webinar/> . If you are interested in attending the webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to acct-staff(a)icann.org and indicate your language request (if needed). Live interpretation services are available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish and Portuguese. Please note that the webinar will be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be posted on the CCWG-Accountability Wiki here <https://community.icann.org/x/SYtCAw> . Further information For further information about the CCWG-Accountability's work, please seehttps://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg. For further information about the related IANA Stewardship Transition, please seehttps://www.icann.org/stewardship or https://www.ianacg.org <https://www.ianacg.org/> . 1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-17-en#note1> Livestreaming translation in RU will be unavailable for this call. A translation of the transcript will be provided after the meeting 2 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-17-en#note2> ZH interpretation will be available for the first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please join the Virtual Meeting Room and/or English line for the remaining 30 minutes. 3 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-17-en#note3> PT interpretation will be available for the first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please join the Virtual Meeting Room and/or English line for the remaining 30 minutes.

1 0

Agenda for Call #49 on 18 August at 19:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 17, 2015

Aug. 17, 2015

Dear all, Looking forward to our call at 19:00 UTC on 18 August. Here below is the proposed agenda: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Update on Public Comment Review 3. Human Rights Work Party (Leon/Nigel) a. Update b. Schedule and Work Plan 4. Resilience Analysis of the Community Mechanism 5. AOB 6. Closing Remarks Best, Grace

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #48, 11 August
by Kimberly Carlson Aug. 17, 2015

Aug. 17, 2015

Dear all, Please note the following correction to Action Item: Becky to produce correction The corrected ACTION ITEM should read: Becky to produce comparison to existing Bylaws Thank you, Best regards, Kim Carlson From: Kimberly Carlson Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 7:41 AM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Cc: acct-staff(a)icann.org Subject: Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #48, 11 August Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT meeting #48 - 11 August will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/jY9CAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you Best regards, Kim ACTION Items ACTION ITEM CoChairs to double check whether there are areas on which the CCWG can shed more light and to reach out to ICG to ensure the community has appropriate information. ACTION ITEM: Kavouss to send his calendar source to staff and Cochairs to determine error. ACTION ITEM: Staff to accommodate a webinar mid public comment period. ACTION ITEM: Subgroup to gather language that has been suggested and to put together a strawman text (Bylaw) along with rationale for CCWG discussion by mid September. This timeline will allow for conclusion in final report. Nigel is to coordinate. ACTION ITEM: Thomas is to follow up on Kavouss' suggestion to have analysis subgroups for PC2. ACTION ITEM: Kavouss to send details on report gaps. ACTION ITEM - Becky to produce correction ACTION ITEM: Share any items you believe need clarification in the report to the list Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 1. Greg Shatan and Nigel Roberts on phone. Reminder: you are invited to fill in your statement of interest if incomplete. Staff is happy to assist. 2. Webinars You are encouraged to spread the archives of the webinar. It is important that we get as much visibility as possible and as much community feedback as possible. There is a possibility to add another webinar towards the end of public comment period. Please let your respective communities know that we are happy to accommodate. We have received interesting questions from participants. They have been captured. Q&A will be published on our wiki. We are applying final touches and it will be published shortly after this call. Feedback: - Invitations should be sent in UTC. Conflicting messages were sent in other webinars: e.g. PTI related comment on ICG webinar. Suggestion to review questions and answers. If answers require further clarification, we may want to consider providing further clarification. The document is complex even for those who have folllowed CCWG carefully. The third webinar should be scheduled 15 days prior to deadline. ACTION ITEM CoChairs to double check whether there are areas on which the CCWG can shed more light and to reach out to ICG to ensure the community has appropriate information. ACTION ITEM: Kavouss to send his calendar source to staff and Cochairs to determine error. ACTION ITEM: Staff to accommodate a webinar mid public comment period. PC2 We have received two comments and will begin analyzing the comments before the comment period ends. PC1 PC1 responses are being reviewed by Rapporteurs are finalizing comments. The report is due on 19 August. Comments have made their way into the recently published report - as appropriate. We are confirming work that has already been done. This group is being transparent to community about how comments were processed. Feedback: - We should not be focusing on this now. --> We committed to providing detailed analysis and response. - We need to record what we have done. It is a part of completion process. It is essential to document it. - It is unfortunate we did not focus on responses as we did work. We have to do this. 3. Human Rights There was a very vivid discussion about HR. We agreed to include a reference to human rights in our report acknowledging that there is more work to be done (see section in Work Stream 2). We have not been able to come up with consensus language and have provided language that was in discussion (paragraph 152). We have set up a mailing-list for discussing this issue. We have discussed whether we should be meeting in Dublin. The objective is to discuss expectation of WG. Feedback: - We cannot amend PC2 but we should be prepared to discuss in Dublin. We should look into Human Rights as a whole. - The subgroup needs to come up with a simple statement for Bylaws. We need to flesh out a set of topics that will need to covered in WS2. - What does Human Rights mean in ICANN context? We have to know what we are saying when we put this statement into the Bylaws. Board has underlying documents to explain what bylaws is. A lot needs to be done in terms of implementation. - On our to-do list: 1) Bylaw change; 2) common understanding of what we are putting into Bylaw (understanding of what fundamental rights is) ; 3) identify list for Work Stream 2. We must draw clear delineated boundaries. - We have to be aware that we are putting this for technical and business community, not for diplomats. We need to be careful as well in context of independent review panel. We are getting caught up in definitions. - Remain high level, not simple. We should avoid political motivation. - We need to clarify in which field it can be applied and in which it cannot be applied to avoid any polemics. CONCLUSION: Agree on high level statement. ACTION ITEM: Subgroup to gather language that has been suggested and to put together a strawman text (Bylaw) along with rationale for CCWG discussion by mid September. This timeline will allow for conclusion in final report. Nigel is to coordinate. 4 PC2 We will be using PC1 tool for consistency. Staff is incorporating comments as they arrive. Staff will implement timezone rotation to ensure it is up-to-date asap. Staff will also be providing weekly summary of input received to Chairs/Rapporteurs. Feedback: - Suggest using subgroups for analysis. ACTION ITEM: Thomas is to follow up on Kavouss' suggestion to have analysis subgroups for PC2. 5. Outreach This agenda item is to give you the opportunity to relay comments you have received from your communities. Early warning system helps us a great deal. - Note: there is possibility to post comment to NTIA. Feedback: - Presentation of Core Values: columns should include existing 11 core values and amendments to these. Comparison is needed. Detected report gaps: example: 211-228 ACTION ITEM: Kavouss to send details on report gaps. - We need to include original ones (third column). It is very confusing. ACTION ITEM - Becky to produce correction. - Suggestion to have a repository for issues. Use a simple English approach (e.g. compact is very difficult to understand). Proofreading is desirable. ACTION ITEM: Share any items you believe need clarification in the report to the list. - Report puts GAC in a disadvantage position. --> We are not changing anything with GAC advice. There is no intention to marginalize GAC advice 6. A.O.B /

1 0

Upcoming Q4 Stakeholder Call on 20 August at 14:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 12, 2015

Aug. 12, 2015

Dear all, As you know, ICANN has an Quarterly Stakeholder Calls. This Q4 call is next week on 20 August at 14:00 UTC. The agenda and registration information is available here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-07-30-en. Even if you are not able to attend the call live, it¹s good to register so you get sent the direct link for the recording later. Best, Grace

1 0

Translated Webinar Slide Decks + Transcripts
by Hillary Jett Aug. 12, 2015

Aug. 12, 2015

Hi all, Please find attached last weeks Webinar Slide Deck translated into Arabic, Chinese, French, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. We have started getting in transcripts from the two Webinars so far we have English, French, Spanish and Portuguese posted, with Russian, Arabic and Chinese on the way. Both transcripts and translated slide decks are located on the Webinar Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/SYtCAw. Additionally, if you have not already, please take a look at the Second Draft Documents page for translated versions of the chapters of the 2nd Draft Proposal: https://community.icann.org/x/pKs0Aw. Let me know if you have any questions! Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> . STAY UPDATED <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status> . FOLLOW <https://twitter.com/icann> . ENGAGE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved> . Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org

1 0