March 2011 - Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

Lunch sponsors sought ccNSO meeting Cartagena
by Gabriella Schittek Sept. 30, 2011

Sept. 30, 2011

Dear all, We are looking for lunch sponsors for the ccNSO members meeting on the 7 and 8 December in Cartagena. If your registry would be interested in sponsoring one of the two ccNSO meeting day lunches, please, let me know! Kind regards, Gabi

2 2

Call for Volunteers Framework of Interpretation Working Group
by Gabriella Schittek April 11, 2011

April 11, 2011

Dear all, The ccNSO is now looking for volunteers for a new Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI WG). At its meeting on 16 March 2011, the ccNSO Council adopted the charter of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group. The FoI WG will follow-up on the work of the Delegation, Re-delegation and Retirement Working Group, which in its final report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/final-report-drd-wg-17feb11-en.pdf) recommends that a "Framework of Interpretation" should be developed for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs to provide the ICANN Board and IANA with guidance on these matters. For more information on the task and the scope of the Working Group, see http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/charter-foiwg-16mar11-en.pdf Membership of the Working Group is open to all representatives of ccTLD managers (members and non-members of the ccNSO) who meet the following criteria: · An ongoing long-term commitment to actively participate in the activities of the Working Group; · An ability and willingness to attend face- to-face meetings and the regular teleconferences. · Commitment to read the background material (full reports) before the activities of the Working Group start. The full reports and other background material can be found at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/drdwg.htm. The ccNSO members of the Working Group will be appointed by the ccNSO Council taking into account the background of the applicants to reflect the diversity of the ccTLD community. The working group will also include participants from the GAC, Regional Organisation representatives, external experts and liaisons from the GNSO, At-Large and the ICANN Board. If you are interested in joining this group, please reply to this email by Friday, 15 April, at the latest. Kind regards, Gabi

2 2

SOP WG comments on ICANN's proposed Framework for FY 2012 Operating Plan and Budget
by Bart Boswinkel March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Dear all, The ccNSO Startegic and Operational Planning working group (SOP WG) has submitted its comments on ICANN proposed Framework for fiscal Year 2012 Operating Plan and Budget. The submission can be found at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggrousp/sop-comments-fy12-ops-plan-framework-3…. According to its charter the SOP WG may as part of its activities take a position and provide input to the public comments forum and relate to ICANN on its own behalf. ccTLD managers collectively or individually, will be invited to endorse or support the position or input of the WG. If you want to comment on the ICANNs Ops Plan Framework, and want to use the SOP WG submission for that purpose, you are invited: * To copy and adjust any part of the SOP WG you want to use, or * Submit a letter in support of the SOP WG submission. As you may know the comment period on the Framework will close 4 April 2011 and more background information on ICANNs proposed Framework can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2012. Kind regards, Bart

1 0

SSR team seeks community input
by Gabriella Schittek March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011

Dear all, ICANN¹s Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team is seeking input from the community on a set of issues (listed at http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/ssr-rt-set-of-issues-21feb11-en. pdf) See announcement for further details: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-9-21feb11-en.htm Public comments are welcome until 6 April 2011. Kind regards, Gabi

1 1

WHOIS Review Team seeks public comments
by Gabriella Schittek March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

Dear all, The WHOIS Review Team is seeking input from the community on following items: Scope of Work and Roadmap Outreach Plan Action Plan List of Key Definitions See announcement for more information: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04mar11-en.htm Feedback can be given at the WHOIS Review Team public session on Wednesday 16 March 2011 at 11 am 12 noon in the Elizabethan A-C meeting room: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22173. A full day face-to-face meeting will also be held on Sunday, 13 March which is public and silent observers are welcome to join: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/21983. Kind regards, Gabi

1 1

Adopted ICANN Strategic Plan Posted
by Gabriella Schittek March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

Dear all, The ICANN Strategic Plan 2011-2014, which was adopted by the ICANN Board in San Francisco is now posted at http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28mar11-en.htm Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

ccNSO Youtube clip San Francisco posted
by Gabriella Schittek March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

Dear all, The ccNSO Youtube clip from the San Francisco is now up at http://www.youtube.com/ccnso As always, many thanks to Kristina for putting these films together! Gabi

1 0

ccNSO Meeting Survey results
by Gabriella Schittek March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

Dear all, The results of the ccNSO meeting day 1 & 2 surveys are now available at: Day 1: http://www.zoomerang.com/Shared/SharedResultsPasswordPage.aspx?ID=L266VZZLZ… Day 2: http://www.zoomerang.com/Shared/SharedResultsPasswordPage.aspx?ID=L266V22GL… Many thanks to all of you who participated! Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

response to NOI
by Chris Disspain March 26, 2011

March 26, 2011

All, Attached is the latest version of the proposed ccNSO response taking into account comments received so far. The deadline is end March. We could usefully provide some more specifics on what actual metrics we would like to see. If you have any ideas of specific metrics please let me know asap along with any other input you may have. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd <tel:1300%20732%20929> T: 1300 732 929 | <tel:03%208341%204112> F: 03 8341 4112 E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: <http://www.auda.org.au/> www.auda.org.au auDA - The Australian Domain Name Administrator Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

1 1

FW: Reactions to ICANN triple x decision
by Gabriella Schittek March 26, 2011

March 26, 2011

Forwarded on behalf of Ron Sherwodd ----------------------------begin message -------------------- >From the ALAC List -- An interesting summary of pre- and post- vote comments on the ICANN board triple x decision. Dear All, the discussion by members of the [ICANN] Board, before the vote, was quite revealing. Here is a brief résumé of positions expressed (not in the order of speakers) : George S., who voted against, offered, by far, the most constructed and forward-looking position, based on 5 points: * The vote was NOT about "adult content". If dot-xxx were not approved, the amount and availability of pornography would not change much; * ICM built its "sponsored" application on what it said was wide community sponsorship. We saw this was not true (the pornography industry spoke strongly against ICM's application). George pointed out that this sponsorship claimed by ICM was a fallacy; * the vote was NOT about "freedom of speech"; * the future of the DNS might be at stake; * ICANN has a duty to uphold the global public interest. ICM can in no way be said to be promoting the global public interest. Bertrand dLC (for) made a dramatic statement, the thrust of which was that if dot-xxx were not approved now, it would find its way through other means, say in a round of new gTLDs, with added inconvenience. Erika M. said that in the current dilemma, with doubts either way, the Board should "take the risk" of saying yes. Katim T. said his position was based on one consideration alone: the Board should not go against the GAC's advice. Kuo-Wei W. supported George's position. Rita R-J (for) made a strong statement, based on one argument: the Board has the obligation to respect its own process. Failing to do so would erode confidence. Ray P. (for) defended the same position as Rita R-J. It is interesting to note that among those who abstained, 3 did so not based on conviction, but because of a conflict of interest (Sébastien B., Ram M., Bruce T.). Since the vote in San Francisco, there have been a large number of reactions and opinions on the Internet. I found the 3 following quite revealing: - George's statement attracted admiration, even from someone like Kieren McCarthy who worked (still works?) for the ICM application : http://twitter.com/kierenmccarthy/status/48812091162886144 - One of the more thoughtful pieces was written by John R. Levine in his blog. This sentence is of special interest, IMO: "I used to have more sympathy for the process argument, but now I've come around to the viewpoint that ICANN's job is to act in the public interest, and if the process conflicts with that, the process is wrong." View his article here: http://jl.ly/ICANN/xxx11.html - India has indicated it will block the whole .xxx domain when it is implemented: http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2011/03/24/l-inde-veut-bloquer-l… Regards, Jean-Jacques. ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0