Thanks a lot Steve. Just an update as the GNSO Council agenda for the 15th of January has been published today here <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+15+January+20...> . I have a full morning schedule with meetings before our call, so not sure if I will have enough time to revise before we start. I will do my best. Thanks, G. *Gabriela Szlak * *Skype:* gabrielaszlak *Twitter: @*GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2015-01-07 13:24 GMT-03:00 Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>:
Here's a Policy Calendar for the BC member call on 8-Jan-2015
*Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process* Recently filed:
On 22-Dec we filed <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-MADRID-prop...> comments <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-CWG-proposa...> on the Community WG on Naming-related IANA functions, draft transition proposal <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en>. Thanks to Aparna Sridhar for leading this draft. Now waiting on staff summary of the comments. (more at the end of this email)
On 24-Dec we filed comments <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-MADRID-prop...> on proposed launch programs for .MADRID (link <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/madrid-alp-application-2014-11-11-en>) Thanks to Steve Coates for leading this draft.
On 9-Dec we sent a letter <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/BC-comment-on-safeguards-...> to ICANN board in support of ALAC’s call to freeze delegation of new gTLDs in regulated industries. On 19-Dec ICANN’s board replied <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-greenberg-19...> to ALAC, promising engagement but declining to stop the subject TLD delegations.
Current ICANN Public Comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>here <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-comment-2012-02-25-en>. Selected open comment opportunities below:
1. Reply comments on Board Working Group Report for NomCom (link <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en>). Reply period closes 9-Jan-2015. The BC filed <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bwg-nomcom-21aug14/pdf1orQuZk6DX.pdf>initial comments <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/BC-comment-on-BWG-NomCom-...> on 13-Nov. The GNSO Council will submit a reply comment <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16956.html>based on a letter drafted by John Berard.
2. Renewal of .JOBS sponsored TLD registry agreement (link <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/jobs-renewal-2014-12-09-en>). Reply period closes 20-Jan.
3. Release of country and territory names in .BMW and .MINI gTLDs. (link <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bmw-mini-amendment-2014-12-11-en>) Reply period closes 23-Jan.
4. Translation/transliteration of contact data, PDP Initial report. (link <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-1...>) Comments due 1-Feb.
5. WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report (link <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-ars-pilot-2014-12-23-en>). Comments due 27-Feb.
Note: BC members are encouraged to file their own comments. The BC selects topics based on member interest.
--- *Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our **representatives on GNSO Council* Gabi Szlak and Susan Kawaguchi are our Councilors.
Next GNSO Council meeting is 15-Jan-2015, at 18:00 UTC. Agenda <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-15jan15-en.htm> and motions were not yet posted as of 7-Jan.
*---* *Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG)* Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison.
Intersessional meeting of the GNSO non-contract party house in Washington DC, Jan 12-13, 2015. (agenda attached)
BC outreach event in Washington DC, 14-Jan-2015
*CCWG on enhancing ICANN Accountability:*
As the community demanded, ICANN created a cross-community working group ( CCWG <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Ac...>) to design accountability enhancement that ICANN needs before NTIA hands-over the IANA functions. David Fares worked on the charter <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter>, which includes "Stress testing <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Stress+Tests+from+the+Business+Constituency>”. The CCWG wiki page is here <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Ac...> .
In the CCWG, Steve DelBianco represents the CSG (Commercial Stakeholder Group) and was asked to lead Work Area 2 to document accountability suggestions generated over last several months. Steve generated a list <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416471>.
The CCWG is debating accountability enhancements needed BEFORE the IANA transition, known as Work Stream 1 (WS1). Steve proposed this rationale to designate whether in work stream 1 or 2:
Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancements that must be in-place or firmly committed before IANA transition occurs. All other items are Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.
Some CCWG members are concerned that ICANN Board would reject significant new accountability mechanisms. Steve proposed that the IANA transition creates unique leverage over the board, and that we should not miss this opportunity. On 6-Dec the CCWG consensus was not to ask the board any formal question at this point.
Steve will attend the CCWG face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt Jan 18-20.
*CWG on IANA Transition (Naming-related functions)*
The CWG is holding an "intensive work weekend" Jan 10-11.
Phil Corwin notes: On substance, there was majority support for most of the initial plan but less so for Contract Co. There was broad agreement that the plan lacked adequate details, that the process was going too fast, and that it was impossible to make a meaningful final judgment until we had the interrelated accountability proposal to look at. The CWG is taking an internal survey on how to react to the comments and will be working throughout next weekend to meet its January 15 deadline for submission to the ICG. See Phil’s recent CircleID post on this topic (link <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150105_haste_makes_waste_icann_on_cwg_iana_t...> ).