- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Re: [bc-gnso] Leading into Marrakech: An Update from the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 9, 2016

Feb. 9, 2016

Thanks, Chantelle . Since that update was written back on 2-Feb, we’ve made considerable progress on the CCWG recommendations listed as “still under discussion” On today’s CCWG call, we finalized text for all 12 recommendations, to be published as our Final Supplemental proposal. CCWG is working with staff and our lawyers to generate the final document by week of Feb 15, in time for Chartering Organizations (incl GNSO) to consider before (or at Marrakesh). On Rec 11 dealing with Stress Test 18, our final proposal is: The board’s obligation to “try to find a mutually acceptable solution” will only apply for GAC advice that is approved by broad agreement in the absence of any formal objection. For GAC advice that is "approved by broad agreement in the absence of any formal objection”, the ICANN board needs 60% threshold to reject, instead of 50%. That is an increase of 1 board vote, relative to today’s bylaws. It is one vote less than the 2/3 threshold published in the CCWG 3rd draft. Formal Advice from any AC must include a rationale. If the community is considering a challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice, the community decision should not be blocked by the GAC as a decisional participant. So the GAC will not be given a formal decisional role in a community decision on whether to challenge board action based on GAC advice. We designed a process for this carve-out, which I’ll share before our BC call this week. From: <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>> on behalf of Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen(a)icann.org<mailto:chantelle.doerksen@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:53 PM Subject: [bc-gnso] Leading into Marrakech: An Update from the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs For your review. _____________________________ https://www.icann.org/news/blog/leading-into-marrakech-an-update-from-the-c… Leading into Marrakech: An Update from the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN’s Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) has ushered in 2016 with a full schedule and renewed dedication to its mission. Following the release of the staff report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-ccwg-acco…> and the summary of public comments<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-comments-draft-ccwg-acc…>, both of which were published on 8 January, the group wasted no time in setting up a rigorous schedule of conference calls for the rest of the month. The schedule was designed to enable inclusive and informed debates about the input received during the 21-day public comment period and the feedback provided by the six Chartering Organizations of CCWG-Accountability. The dedication of our members and participants, along with the increased involvement by members of the ICANN Board, has allowed us to make significant progress over the past four weeks. The collaborative environment has brought us even closer to our goal of a consensus proposal that will meet the requirements of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and fulfill the dependencies of the CWG-Stewardship in the ICG Final Proposal. Here is the current status of each CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Recommendations: Recommendation #1: Establishing an Empowered Community for Enforcing Community Powers Finalized. Recommendation #2: Empowering the Community Through Consensus: Engagement, Escalation, Enforcement Final comments by CCWG-Accountability. Expect final by February 5th. Recommendation #3: Redefining ICANN’s Bylaws as ‘Standard Bylaws’ and ‘Fundamental Bylaws Finalized. Recommendation #4: Ensuring Community Engagement in ICANN Decision-making: Seven New Community Powers Edits to reflect input on PTI budget (CWG-Stewardship) and indemnification language for removal of Directors by the Empowered Community. Recommendation #5: Changing Aspects of ICANN’s Mission, Commitments and Core Values Still under discussion by the CCWG-Accountability. Recommendation #6: Reaffirming ICANN’s Commitment to Respect Internationally Recognized Human Rights as it Carries Out its Mission Final comments by CCWG-Accountability. Expect final by February 5th. Recommendation #7: Strengthening ICANN’s Independent Review Process Edits to reflect input on applicability to PTI. Recommendation #8: Improving ICANN’s Request for Reconsideration Process Final comments by CCWG-Accountability. Expect final by February 5th. Recommendation #9: Incorporating the Affirmation of Commitments in ICANN’s Bylaws Still under discussion by the CCWG-Accountability. Recommendation #10: Incorporating the Affirmation of Commitments in ICANN’s Bylaws Final draft to be reviewed by lawyers before final comments by CCWG-Accountability. Expect final by February 5th. Recommendation #11: Board Obligations with regards to Governmental Advisory Committee Advice (Stress Test 18) Still under discussion by the CCWG-Accountability. Recommendation #12: Committing to Further Accountability Work in Work Stream 2 Finalized. For the latest versions of all of the recommendations above, visit the CCWG-Accountability wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/8JVlAw>. After consensus has been reached on our few outstanding issues, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a “supplemental” report of the Work Stream 1 Recommendations, including a summary of changes from the Third Draft Report. The supplemental report is currently being developed, and will go through an open and transparent process<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…> of 1) CCWG-Accountability consultation, 2) support staff editing/proofing, 3) co-Chair and Rapporteur finalization, 4) legal review and 5) final publication. Our hope is that the majority of changes from the Third Draft Report will relate to specificities of implementation rather than content, and as such, an additional public comment period will not be necessary before approval by the Chartering Organizations. Our goal is to distribute the supplemental report to our Chartering Organizations in time for consideration and approval on all Work Stream 1 Recommendations at ICANN55 in Marrakech. Keeping in mind the working methods for the various Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, we ask that this be into account as the Chartering Organizations plan their discussions and schedules leading into and during ICANN55. With that said, we encourage any Chartering Organizations that can deliberate and/or approve the Work Stream 1 Recommendations prior to Marrakech to do so. We are grateful for the increased involvement of the ICANN Board as our work has progressed since the Third Draft Report. It has been helpful to understand Board comments in real-time, including ways to ensure any global public interest concerns are debated and considered as the recommendations are being revised. We hope to continue this open dialogue as the supplemental report is finalized, and ask the ICANN Board to be mindful of the timeline as they plan their review period of the Work Stream 1 Recommendations and submission to NTIA. CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, León Sanchez

1 0

Leading into Marrakech: An Update from the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs
by Chantelle Doerksen Feb. 9, 2016

Feb. 9, 2016

For your review. Kind regards, Chantelle _____________________________ https://www.icann.org/news/blog/leading-into-marrakech-an-update-from-the-cc wg-accountability-co-chairs Leading into Marrakech: An Update from the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN¹s Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) has ushered in 2016 with a full schedule and renewed dedication to its mission. Following the release of the staff report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-ccwg-acco untability-proposal-08jan16-en.pdf> and the summary of public comments <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-comments-draft-ccwg-acc ountability-proposal-08jan16-en.xlsx> , both of which were published on 8 January, the group wasted no time in setting up a rigorous schedule of conference calls for the rest of the month. The schedule was designed to enable inclusive and informed debates about the input received during the 21-day public comment period and the feedback provided by the six Chartering Organizations of CCWG-Accountability. The dedication of our members and participants, along with the increased involvement by members of the ICANN Board, has allowed us to make significant progress over the past four weeks. The collaborative environment has brought us even closer to our goal of a consensus proposal that will meet the requirements of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and fulfill the dependencies of the CWG-Stewardship in the ICG Final Proposal. Here is the current status of each CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Recommendations: Recommendation #1: Establishing an Empowered Community for Enforcing Community PowersFinalized. Recommendation #2: Empowering the Community Through Consensus: Engagement, Escalation, EnforcementFinal comments by CCWG-Accountability. Expect final by February 5th. Recommendation #3: Redefining ICANN¹s Bylaws as Standard Bylaws¹ and Fundamental BylawsFinalized. Recommendation #4: Ensuring Community Engagement in ICANN Decision-making: Seven New Community PowersEdits to reflect input on PTI budget (CWG-Stewardship) and indemnification language for removal of Directors by the Empowered Community. Recommendation #5: Changing Aspects of ICANN¹s Mission, Commitments and Core ValuesStill under discussion by the CCWG-Accountability. Recommendation #6: Reaffirming ICANN¹s Commitment to Respect Internationally Recognized Human Rights as it Carries Out its MissionFinal comments by CCWG-Accountability. Expect final by February 5th. Recommendation #7: Strengthening ICANN¹s Independent Review ProcessEdits to reflect input on applicability to PTI. Recommendation #8: Improving ICANN¹s Request for Reconsideration ProcessFinal comments by CCWG-Accountability. Expect final by February 5th. Recommendation #9: Incorporating the Affirmation of Commitments in ICANN¹s BylawsStill under discussion by the CCWG-Accountability. Recommendation #10: Incorporating the Affirmation of Commitments in ICANN¹s BylawsFinal draft to be reviewed by lawyers before final comments by CCWG-Accountability. Expect final by February 5th. Recommendation #11: Board Obligations with regards to Governmental Advisory Committee Advice (Stress Test 18)Still under discussion by the CCWG-Accountability. Recommendation #12: Committing to Further Accountability Work in Work Stream 2Finalized. For the latest versions of all of the recommendations above, visit the CCWG-Accountability wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/8JVlAw> . After consensus has been reached on our few outstanding issues, the CCWG-Accountability will develop a ³supplemental² report of the Work Stream 1 Recommendations, including a summary of changes from the Third Draft Report. The supplemental report is currently being developed, and will go through an open and transparent process <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20 160120/0e76810a/Timelineandnextsteps-0001.pdf> of 1) CCWG-Accountability consultation, 2) support staff editing/proofing, 3) co-Chair and Rapporteur finalization, 4) legal review and 5) final publication. Our hope is that the majority of changes from the Third Draft Report will relate to specificities of implementation rather than content, and as such, an additional public comment period will not be necessary before approval by the Chartering Organizations. Our goal is to distribute the supplemental report to our Chartering Organizations in time for consideration and approval on all Work Stream 1 Recommendations at ICANN55 in Marrakech. Keeping in mind the working methods for the various Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, we ask that this be into account as the Chartering Organizations plan their discussions and schedules leading into and during ICANN55. With that said, we encourage any Chartering Organizations that can deliberate and/or approve the Work Stream 1 Recommendations prior to Marrakech to do so. We are grateful for the increased involvement of the ICANN Board as our work has progressed since the Third Draft Report. It has been helpful to understand Board comments in real-time, including ways to ensure any global public interest concerns are debated and considered as the recommendations are being revised. We hope to continue this open dialogue as the supplemental report is finalized, and ask the ICANN Board to be mindful of the timeline as they plan their review period of the Work Stream 1 Recommendations and submission to NTIA. CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert, León Sanchez

1 0

FILED: BC comment on amending Registry Agreements for .STUDY, .COURSES, .LAMBORGHINI, .VOLKSWAGEN, .BUGATTI, .AUDI and .DELTA
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 28, 2016

Jan. 28, 2016

Today we filed our comment on amending Registry Agreements for .STUDY, .COURSES, .LAMBORGHINI, .VOLKSWAGEN, .BUGATTI, .AUDI and .DELTA (see below and here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BC-comment-on-amending-R…>). As of tonight’s deadline, the BC was the only comment filed on this issue. (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2015-12-15-en> to comments page) Many thanks to Andy Abrams for drafting this comment for the BC —— The ICANN Business Constituency (“BC”) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed amendments to the .STUDY, .COURSES, .LAMBORGHINI, XN--3OQ18VL8PN36A, .VOLKSWAGEN, .BUGATTI, .AUDI and .DELTA registry agreements submitted through the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) on 11-Sept-2015, 01-Oct-2015, 08-Oct-2015, 08-Oct-2015, 08-Oct-2015, 08-Oct-2015, 08-Oct-2015, and 02-Nov-2015, respectively, and posted for public comment on 01-September-2015 at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2015-09-01-en . The .LAMBORGHINI, XN--3OQ18VL8PN36A, .VOLKSWAGEN, .BUGATTI, .AUDI and .DELTA Requests In their respective RSEP requests, Registry Operators Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A, Volkswagen (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Bugatti International SA, AUDI Aktiengesellschaft, and Delta Air Lines, Inc. seek the release of all country and territory names, as defined in Section 4 of Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, at all levels of the .LAMBORGHINI, XN--3OQ18VL8PN36A, .VOLKSWAGEN, .BUGATTI, .AUDI and .DELTA TLDs. The BC fully supports these requests submitted by .BRAND registries. The BC has consistently supported the release of country and territory names at all levels in .BRAND TLDs; this comment aligns with those prior comments. See Business Constituency, Comment on Neustar's Proposal for Country and Territory Names<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ctn-release-neustar-19sep14/pdfjYdQmb…> (Nov. 8, 2014); Business Constituency, Comment on the Release of Country and Territory Names in the .BMW and .MINI TLDs<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bmw-mini-amendment-11dec14/msg00001.h…> (Jan. 24, 2015); Business Constituency, Comment on Release of Country and Territory Names for the .EMERCK, .BERLIN, and .HAMBURG TLDs<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-emerck-hamburg-berlin-amendment-02mar…> (April 1, 2015); Business Constituency, Comment on Release of Country and Territory Names for the .HONDA, .AXA, .EPSON, .HSBC, .XYZ and .COLLEGE TLDs<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ctn-release-tlds-31mar15/msg00000.html> (April 28, 2015); Business Constituency, Comment on Release of Country and Territory Names for the .SONY, .ARCHI, .BIO and .SAARLAND TLDs<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BC-comment-on-Release-of…> (June 14, 2015); Business Constituency, Comment on Release of Country and Territory Names for the .KOMATSU and .RICOH TLDs<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/comment-on-proposed-amen…> (June 14, 2015); Business Constituency, Comment on Release of Country and Territory Names for the .GLOBAL, .BNPPARIBAS, .BRIDGESTONE and .FIRESTONE TLDs<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/BC-comment-on-geo-names-…> (August 2, 2015); Business Constituency, Comment on Release of Country and Territory Names for the .BROTHER .GEA .ACO .SECURITY .PROTECTION .THEATRE and .RENT TLDs<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Comment-on-geo-names-in-…> (Oct. 22, 2015). As set forth in our previous comments supporting similar RSEP requests, the BC believes that the use of country and territory names will allow .BRAND registries to create customized and relevant localized content for consumers in various countries and regions across the world, especially in developing nations with predominantly non-English-speaking populations. This geographic segmentation will not only bring greater efficacy to .BRAND TLDs, but it will benefit businesses and consumers alike by fueling economic development in regions which currently have limited choice with respect to linguistically and culturally tailored domain names and content. In addition, we firmly believe that the release of country and territory names for .BRAND TLDs will enhance security and trust in online commerce by permitting businesses to exercise more control over the security and stability of their customized web sites. Finally, the BC considers that use of country and territory names within a .BRAND registry will always avoid confusion with an official government web property. Indeed, the very basis of the .BRAND TLD model is for the brand to serve a unique source identifying function at the top-level, and for geographic names to serve a purely descriptive function at the second level. Thus, especially given the context of the underlying commercial sites, consumers directed to country.brand domain names will always be aware that they are engaging with a geographically-targeted version of a company’s official web site as opposed to a government property. The BC also notes the historical availability of country and territory names at all levels in all legacy TLDs. .BRAND TLDs should be afforded the same opportunity to allocate such names, given that the risk of abuse or confusion by the use of such names in a .BRAND registry is low. The .STUDY and .COURSES Requests In its RSEP request, Registry Operator Open Universities Australia Pty Ltd seeks the release of all country and territory names, as defined in Section 4 of Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, at all levels of the .STUDY and .COURSES TLDs. The .STUDY and .COURSES requests are distinct from the RSEP requests discussed above because they relate to open TLDs, as opposed to .BRAND TLDs or geographic TLDs. In our view, the historical availability of country and territory names at all levels in all legacy TLDs still militates in favor of a presumptive approval of the request for the release of country and territory names. However, in recognition of the fact that the geographic segmentation and non-confusion arguments set forth in the previous sections are less persuasive for open TLDs than for .BRANDs or geographic TLDs, we believe that the presumption of approval may be overcome by a particular government’s objection to the release of its country or territory name. In contrast, for .BRAND and .GEO TLDs, the BC strongly believes that the presumption of approval should only be able to be rebutted upon a showing of a justified and well-supported objection that convincingly demonstrates probable harm and/or confusion due to the use of its country or territory name at the second level. Thus, given the above rationale, to the BC the central question is one of degree, whereby restricted-access TLDs, such as .BRANDS and geographic TLDs, should enjoy the strongest presumption of approval (rebutted only upon justified and well-supported governmental objections), whereas purely open TLDs should enjoy a lesser presumption of approval (rebutted upon any governmental objection). In the future, in order to make the requested delineation more clear, the BC would support bifurcating similar public comment periods on country and territory names into buckets corresponding to restricted access TLDs, such as .Brands or geographic TLDs, versus purely open TLDs. These comments were drafted by Andy Abrams and approved in accordance with our charter.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on gTLD Marketplace Health Index Proposal
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 22, 2016

Jan. 22, 2016

Today we filed our BC comment on ICANN’s gTLD Marketplace Health Index Proposal (attached and here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BC-comment-on-gTLD-Marke…>) Thanks to drafters Angie Graves and Paul Mitchell, and editors Andy Abrams, Olga Yaguez Denise Michel, and Phil Corwin.

1 0

FILED: BC Comment on Proposed Supplementary Registration Proxy Service for gTLDs Operated by XYZ.COM
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 22, 2016

Jan. 22, 2016

Today we filed our BC comment on the Proposed Supplementary Registration Proxy Service for gTLDs Operated by XYZ.COM (attached and here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BC-comment-on-registrati…> ) Thanks to drafters Andy Abrams, Aparna Sridhar, Tim Chen, and Phil Corwin. Comment period closes today, and as of now we are the ONLY comment filed (see all comments here<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-registration-proxy-10dec15/>)!

1 0

REMINDER: Ethos Award Nomination Period Announcement - Nominations Close 12 March 2016
by Chantelle Doerksen Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en Nomination Period Opens For ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award | Award Targeted for ICANN 56 | Nominations Close 12 March 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en#> ICANN is pleased to announce the opening of the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award. This award program, launched in June 2014 in London, seeks to recognize long-standing community members who have served in leadership roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees, and demonstrated collaboration with different Supporting Organizations and/or Advisory Committees. The Multistakeholder Ethos Award will recognize ICANN participants who have deeply invested in consensus-based solutions, acknowledging the importance of ICANN's multistakeholder model of Internet governance, and contributed in a substantive way to the higher interests of ICANN's organization and its community. The nomination period for community nominees opens today, 10 December 2015 and closes on 12 March 2016. Community members interested in submitting a nomination are invited to send an email to ethosaward2016(a)icann.org <mailto:ethosaward2016@icann.org?subject=Multistakeholder%20Ethos%20Award%20 Nomination> including: * Name of nominee. * Community of nominee. * Reasons for nomination. Please note that the reasons outlining the candidate's merit for the nomination may be as brief or as long as required. Candidates for the award will demonstrate at least five years of participation in the ICANN Community. A panel of community members is being gathered to help review all community nominations and determine the best candidate(s) for the award(s). The decisions of the panel will be made based on the following criteria: 1. Demonstrated multistakeholder volunteer service via working groups or committees. 2. Demonstrated spirit of collaboration through engagement with other community members with the aim of consensus building. 3. Demonstrated facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair, cordial and collegial manner. 4. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness. Please submit your nominations via email to ethosaward2016(a)icann.org <mailto:ethosaward2016@icann.org?subject=Multistakeholder%20Ethos%20Award%20 Nomination> . Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2016 at ICANN56 Panama City. For more insights on the award program, please consult the ICANN Community Wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/qCDxAg> .

1 0

Timing of CCWG-Accountability
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 18, 2015

Dec. 18, 2015

On yesterday’s BC call, Phil and I mentioned the board’s comments on CCWG-Accountability proposal might affect timing of the transition. Below is the transcript of how the board and CEO responded to my question. Essentially, we (the community) control the timing. So if we want to take more time, we make the call. Steve DelBianco: Thanks, David, Cherine, and Steve. It's a question about your expectations on how these comments will affect the timing of the process. As you're probably well aware, the Executive team at ICANN was quite clear with the CCWG leadership. You had an urgency with respect to dates of getting it to the Board, getting it to NTIA. And actually, we really took that on. This started in Dublin, where we really took on a very aggressive schedule. And I'm wondering whether you have an expectation--or even discussed it at the Board level, an expectation that resolving some of the concerns that you've raised and adding the details which you'd asked for will probably cause us to slip on the deadlines we set, the aspirations we set while in Dublin. And we are comfortable with that, and we'll do what we have to do to accommodate not only the Board but all the Chartering Organizations that are really the driving force behind CCWG. But, I'm just interested to know if you discussed it and have an expectation about what this does to the timing. Thank you. Cherine Chalaby: Steve, this is Cherine. Thank you. I will--I'll ask our Chairman, Steve Croker, to respond to that. Steve? Steve Crocker: Thank you, Cherine, and thank you for the question, Steve. Well, as you properly point out, we're--we've got two competing forces here. One is to get it done quickly, and the other is--or in a timely fashion. The other is to get it done right. And that's kind of the classic squeeze. We have very purposefully and carefully limited the set of things that we are pushing hard on here. We would hope that a relatively brief engagement on these matters would lead to a fairly rapid resolution. And I don't think that it's helpful for us to concentrate too much on saying what happens in the extreme. Should we--if we take an absolute position that timing is everything and therefore the substance of the proposal is compromised if we can't meet that timing, I'm not prepared to say that at all. This is definitely not transition at any cost. And on the other hand, we're all involved, I think quite constructively, in trying to move this process forward in a timely fashion and get on with it. I think it serves no one's interest to have the delays--to have this process delayed and extended. The risks to all parties and all purposes just increase at that point. So, I'd rather focus on the content of what we're saying and then to find a way to move forward as rapidly as possible. Cherine Chalaby: Thank you, Steve. At Steve's side, you would like to add a word or two on this issue, Fadi? Fadi Chehade: Yes. Hi, Cherine. Thank you. Thank you, Steve, as well for your comment. I just would like to answer Steve with a couple of points. This is a comment period. And my assumption is that CCWG, I'm sure in its planning, assumed people will indeed submit comments. And I think that's what the Board is doing in good faith. And so did ALAC signal at the same time as the Board that they have been working diligently on their own comments. And others have indicated, even before the Board submitted its comments, that they have comments coming. So, this is, I think, expected. And I'm presuming this is all part of the planning for the CCWG. Now, in terms of the--your comment that staff has been putting, I guess, pressure on the timeline, let me be very clear. The timeline has been set by the community. When the request came from NTIA to ask when did the community think it needs to end this process, it's in fact the community that has determined the timelines. All we are doing is working within the community's timeline to give people a sense of what needs to be done, whether it's from our side or from the NTIA side or from the implementation side in order to meet the community's own timeline. That is our commitment to you. So if, in any of our communications of such timelines we left anybody with the sense that we are putting pressure, frankly that is simply a misunderstanding. We are simply managing to the community's timeline to lapse the contract on September 30th, 2016. And we've been simply sharing, accordingly, how the process will go and what are the steps in order to make sure, you know, just in normal project management mode within the direction of the community, everyone is clear on the timeline ahead.

1 0

Ethos Award Nomination Period Announcement: Nominations Close 12 March 2016
by Chantelle Doerksen Dec. 10, 2015

Dec. 10, 2015

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en Nomination Period Opens For ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award | Award Targeted for ICANN 56 | Nominations Close 12 March 2016 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en#> ICANN is pleased to announce the opening of the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award. This award program, launched in June 2014 in London, seeks to recognize long-standing community members who have served in leadership roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees, and demonstrated collaboration with different Supporting Organizations and/or Advisory Committees. The Multistakeholder Ethos Award will recognize ICANN participants who have deeply invested in consensus-based solutions, acknowledging the importance of ICANN's multistakeholder model of Internet governance, and contributed in a substantive way to the higher interests of ICANN's organization and its community. The nomination period for community nominees opens today, 10 December 2015 and closes on 12 March 2016. Community members interested in submitting a nomination are invited to send an email to ethosaward2016(a)icann.org <mailto:ethosaward2016@icann.org?subject=Multistakeholder%20Ethos%20Award%20 Nomination> including: * Name of nominee. * Community of nominee. * Reasons for nomination. Please note that the reasons outlining the candidate's merit for the nomination may be as brief or as long as required. Candidates for the award will demonstrate at least five years of participation in the ICANN Community. A panel of community members is being gathered to help review all community nominations and determine the best candidate(s) for the award(s). The decisions of the panel will be made based on the following criteria: 1. Demonstrated multistakeholder volunteer service via working groups or committees. 2. Demonstrated spirit of collaboration through engagement with other community members with the aim of consensus building. 3. Demonstrated facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair, cordial and collegial manner. 4. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness. Please submit your nominations via email to ethosaward2016(a)icann.org <mailto:ethosaward2016@icann.org?subject=Multistakeholder%20Ethos%20Award%20 Nomination> . Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2016 at ICANN56 Panama City. For more insights on the award program, please consult the ICANN Community Wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/qCDxAg> .

1 0

BC comment on New gTLD Implementation Review Draft Report
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 9, 2015

Dec. 9, 2015

Today we filed the attached comment on the New gTLD Implementation Review Draft Report Thanks to Andrew Harris for drafting, and to Steve Coates, Andy Abrams, and Denise Michel for edits.

2 1

FILED: BC comment on Removal of Searchable Whois Service from .MEET Registry
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

Today we filed our comment on Removal of Searchable Whois Service from .MEET Registry Agreement (attached). Thanks to Steve Coates, Tim Chen and Susan Kawaguchi for drafting.

1 0