October 2012 - Ccnso-council

RE: [ccTLDcommunity] Call for volunteers to ATRT 2
by Burr, Becky Jan. 11, 2013

Jan. 11, 2013

I am extremely interested in this role Becky Burr Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Gabriella Schittek [mailto:gabriella.schittek@icann.org] Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 05:12 AM Eastern Standard Time To: ccnso-members(a)icann.org; cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org Cc: ccNSO Council Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] Call for volunteers to ATRT 2 Dear all, ICANN is inviting interested individuals to apply for the position of a Volunteer Review Team Member on the second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2). Read more at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05oct12-en.htm Applications can be submitted until 5 December 2012. 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

2 5

CcNSO Council Statement on ICANN;'s Consolidated meeting Strategy Proposal
by Bart Boswinkel Nov. 1, 2012

Nov. 1, 2012

Dear all, As discussed on the Council meeting in Toronto, ICANN has opened a public comment on its consolidated Meetings Strategy Proposal see: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-proposal-2012-02oct12-e n.htm The comment period closes at 16 November and the Reply period at 7 December2012. As decided on the Council meeting, the ccNSO Council will submit a ccNSO Council statement. We are now looking for volunteers on the Council who are willing to participate in the drafting team, in particular one or two members who has experience in the past with organizing an ICANN meeting would be welcome. Please indicate by Thursday 1 November if you want to participate, Kind regards, Bart

3 4

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Gr
by Vika Mpisane Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

+1 Regards, Vika Mpisane | Tel: +27 11 314 0077 On 2012/10/31 1:16 PM, "Annebeth Lange" <annebeth.lange(a)uninett.no> wrote: > >I agree. > >I actually think that one of the reasons why it took so long time to >finish the Applicant Guidebook in the new gTLD process was that ccNSO - >or the GAC for that matter - were not invited in from the beginning. >Here we have an opportunity to make heard our view on important issues. >That does not, in my view, mean that it will become binding on the >ccTLDs. But it is healthy that all views are heard at an early stage in >all WGs - whether they are a ccNSO WG or a gNSO WG. > >There might, of course, as Sabine writes, be that people outside our >multistakeholder environment will misunderstand. But this is another >issue, that should be handled aside from participation. > >Kind regards, >Annebeth > > >Annebeth B. Lange >Head of Legal and Policy >UNINETT Norid AS >P.O. Box 6878 St. Olavs plass >NO-0130 Oslo >+47 959 11 559 > > > >On 31.10.2012 11:19, Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote: >> >> I do not agree with the original request from .de and I do not think >>the follow-up >> argument is any good either. >> >> I think the cross constituency participation request from the gNSO is >>very welcome and >> the ccNSO should participate as it sees fit. Just as .de indicates, >>each ccTLD, like .de, >> can join to voice their views at this phase of the process or in any >>later call for >> comments. But it seems weird to bar the ccNSO from participating in the >>process. >> >> As has been mentioned elsewhere, whatever input the ccNSO will give in >>this process does >> not necessarily become binding on the ccTLDs or the (resulting) gTLDs. >> >> I think it is healthy that the gNSO has called for this ccNSO possible >>input, cross >> constituency participation is healthy for ICANN. >> >> Regards, >> >> Paulos >> ====================== >> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda >> NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD >> http://www.registrar.mw >> >> >> On 31 Oct 2012 at 10:10, Sabine Dolderer wrote: >> >>> Hello Eberhard, >>> >>>> Sabine, >>>> >>>> I totally disagree. >>>> >>>> There has been cross constituency participation all along >>>> and none of the gNSO work is binding on ccNSO or ccTLDs in >>>> any way. >>>> >>> as there are existing examples which proofs different and existing >>>irritation at least in >>> the German environment I would argue for much more clarity to avoid >>>further confusion. >>> >>> To point to the existing examples. >>> >>> The ICANN IDN-Guidelines are dealing with registration policy on the >>>second level and >>> are >>> foreseen to become binding for registrations in IDN-ccTLDs (outside >>>the scope of the >>> CCNSO but also without any PDP in the CCNSO) and while they are not >>>binding (and not btw >>> implemented) in ASCII-TLDs like .de with currently 650.000 >>>IDN-registrations on the >>> second level. >>> >>> Change of whois-policy in gTLDs. We saw several publications in the >>>German press about >>> the new whois policy for gTLDs where there at for most journalist it >>>was not clear that >>> they doesn't affect .de and therefore the publications mentioned >>>explicitely the >>> chaneges >>> for .de. >>> >>> Sabine >>> >>>> However perspective often helps. >>>> >>>> And, nothing could be further from the desirable than >>>> shutting down discussion about something like this on any >>>> list. >>>> >>>> Gabi, >>>> >>>> as I can't post the Council list, please post it there. >>>> >>>> >>>> el >>>> >>>> On 2012-10-30 18:47 , Sabine Dolderer wrote: >>>>> Hello Gabi, >>>>> >>>>> we received a couple of invitations to gTLD related policy >>>>> developements during the last couple of weeks "to the >>>>> ccTLD Community to join a policy wg of the gNSO" and I am >>>>> not sure what the intended status is or the result can be. >>>>> From my understanding the ccNSO has no role whatsoever >>>>> with regard to gTLD policy developement nor it has a >>>>> mandate to represent the ccTLD Community as a whole. In >>>>> the consequence - even if we find volunteers - the ccTLD >>>>> Community cannot join. I would suggest to clarify this to >>>>> our collegues from the gNSO. >>>>> >>>>> Nevertheless each individual ccTLD Manager can of course >>>>> choose to participate in gTLD policywork on behalf of >>>>> their individual organisation but to avoid further >>>>> misunderstandings I would advice not to use this list for >>>>> that discussions. >>>>> >>>>> Best Sabine >>>>> >> > >

1 0

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Gr
by Dr Paulos Nyirenda Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

On 31 Oct 2012 at 12:08, Sabine Dolderer wrote: > Hello Paulos, > > > Von: "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos(a)sdnp.org.mw> > > > As has been mentioned elsewhere, whatever input the ccNSO > > the question then would be how the "input of the ccNSO" will be defined by whom? Is > there a process? Where can I find it? I am not a lawyer but I can point to Article IX of the ICANN bylaws as one such possible place, which says "The role of the ccNSO Council is to administer and coordinate the affairs of the ccNSO ... " and members of the ccNSO elect members to the council to do such things. So, my expectation is that whoever the ccNSO chooses to act as invited by the gNSO will have the mandate provided by the ccNSO council based on this bylaw. > > I think it is healthy that the gNSO has called for this ccNSO possible input, cross > > constituency participation is healthy for ICANN. > > The input from different stakeholders might be healthy. To claim that these stakeholders > always represent the group they are member of is not the case and should therefore > avoided. Well, great then, my understanding is that the ccNSO here is being considered as one such (important) stakeholder. Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw > > Sabine > > > > > Regards, > > > > Paulos > > ====================== > > Dr Paulos B Nyirenda > > NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD > > http://www.registrar.mw > > > > > > On 31 Oct 2012 at 10:10, Sabine Dolderer wrote: > > > > > Hello Eberhard, > > > > > > > > > > > Sabine, > > > > > > > > I totally disagree. > > > > > > > > There has been cross constituency participation all along > > > > and none of the gNSO work is binding on ccNSO or ccTLDs in > > > > any way. > > > > > > > > > > as there are existing examples which proofs different and existing irritation at > least in > > > the German environment I would argue for much more clarity to avoid further > confusion. > > > > > > To point to the existing examples. > > > > > > The ICANN IDN-Guidelines are dealing with registration policy on the second level > and > > > are > > > foreseen to become binding for registrations in IDN-ccTLDs (outside the scope of the > > > CCNSO but also without any PDP in the CCNSO) and while they are not binding (and not > btw > > > implemented) in ASCII-TLDs like .de with currently 650.000 IDN-registrations on the > > > second level. > > > > > > Change of whois-policy in gTLDs. We saw several publications in the German press > about > > > the new whois policy for gTLDs where there at for most journalist it was not clear > that > > > they doesn't affect .de and therefore the publications mentioned explicitely the > > > chaneges > > > for .de. > > > > > > Sabine > > > > > > > However perspective often helps. > > > > > > > > And, nothing could be further from the desirable than > > > > shutting down discussion about something like this on any > > > > list. > > > > > > > > Gabi, > > > > > > > > as I can't post the Council list, please post it there. > > > > > > > > > > > > el > > > > > > > > On 2012-10-30 18:47 , Sabine Dolderer wrote: > > > > > Hello Gabi, > > > > > > > > > > we received a couple of invitations to gTLD related policy > > > > > developements during the last couple of weeks "to the > > > > > ccTLD Community to join a policy wg of the gNSO"and I am > > > > > not sure what the intended status is or the result can be. > > > > > From my understanding the ccNSO has no role whatsoever > > > > > with regard to gTLD policy developement nor it has a > > > > > mandate to represent the ccTLD Community as a whole. In > > > > > the consequence - even if we find volunteers - the ccTLD > > > > > Community cannot join. I would suggest to clarify this to > > > > > our collegues from the gNSO. > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless each individual ccTLD Manager can of course > > > > > choose to participate in gTLD policywork on behalf of > > > > > their individual organisation but to avoid further > > > > > misunderstandings I would advice not to use this list for > > > > > that discussions. > > > > > > > > > > Best Sabine > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: latin America strategy
by Vika Mpisane Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

Dear Jian, ('ve decided to share the response with ccNSO council, as we discussed this a bit when we prepared for the Board meeting in Toronto) Yes I travelled safely back to Joburg. I suppose you also travelled safely back to CN. Please find attached the email I received from Erick Ahon (former LACTLD GM) about the LAC strategy. It seems it's an initiative driven by Rodrigo de la Parra ICANN's VP: LAC. I'm not sure how far the strategy has progressed, but I suppose ccNSO councillors from LAC (Margerita, Eduardo) or Carolina (LACTLD GM) can provide you & the Council with an update. Regards, Vika Mpisane | Tel: +27 11 314 0077 From: Jian Zhang <jian(a)aptld.org> Date: Thursday 25 October 2012 8:58 AM To: Vika Mpisane <vika(a)zadna.org.za> Subject: latin America strategy Dear Vika: Hope you have nice trip back home. Could you share with me the outreach strategy of Latin America you mentioned to me during Toronto meeting? thanks Jian Zhang General Manager APTLD tel: +86-13911685680 skype: jian0607 www.aptld.org

4 6

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Gr
by Dr Paulos Nyirenda Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

I do not agree with the original request from .de and I do not think the follow-up argument is any good either. I think the cross constituency participation request from the gNSO is very welcome and the ccNSO should participate as it sees fit. Just as .de indicates, each ccTLD, like .de, can join to voice their views at this phase of the process or in any later call for comments. But it seems weird to bar the ccNSO from participating in the process. As has been mentioned elsewhere, whatever input the ccNSO will give in this process does not necessarily become binding on the ccTLDs or the (resulting) gTLDs. I think it is healthy that the gNSO has called for this ccNSO possible input, cross constituency participation is healthy for ICANN. Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 31 Oct 2012 at 10:10, Sabine Dolderer wrote: > Hello Eberhard, > > > > > Sabine, > > > > I totally disagree. > > > > There has been cross constituency participation all along > > and none of the gNSO work is binding on ccNSO or ccTLDs in > > any way. > > > > as there are existing examples which proofs different and existing irritation at least in > the German environment I would argue for much more clarity to avoid further confusion. > > To point to the existing examples. > > The ICANN IDN-Guidelines are dealing with registration policy on the second level and > are > foreseen to become binding for registrations in IDN-ccTLDs (outside the scope of the > CCNSO but also without any PDP in the CCNSO) and while they are not binding (and not btw > implemented) in ASCII-TLDs like .de with currently 650.000 IDN-registrations on the > second level. > > Change of whois-policy in gTLDs. We saw several publications in the German press about > the new whois policy for gTLDs where there at for most journalist it was not clear that > they doesn't affect .de and therefore the publications mentioned explicitely the > chaneges > for .de. > > Sabine > > > However perspective often helps. > > > > And, nothing could be further from the desirable than > > shutting down discussion about something like this on any > > list. > > > > Gabi, > > > > as I can't post the Council list, please post it there. > > > > > > el > > > > On 2012-10-30 18:47 , Sabine Dolderer wrote: > > > Hello Gabi, > > > > > > we received a couple of invitations to gTLD related policy > > > developements during the last couple of weeks "to the > > > ccTLD Community to join a policy wg of the gNSO" and I am > > > not sure what the intended status is or the result can be. > > > From my understanding the ccNSO has no role whatsoever > > > with regard to gTLD policy developement nor it has a > > > mandate to represent the ccTLD Community as a whole. In > > > the consequence - even if we find volunteers - the ccTLD > > > Community cannot join. I would suggest to clarify this to > > > our collegues from the gNSO. > > > > > > Nevertheless each individual ccTLD Manager can of course > > > choose to participate in gTLD policywork on behalf of > > > their individual organisation but to avoid further > > > misunderstandings I would advice not to use this list for > > > that discussions. > > > > > > Best Sabine > > > > >

1 0

FW: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members
by Gabriella Schittek Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

Forwarded on behalf of Eberhard Lisse. From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> Reply-To: "el(a)lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>" <el(a)lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:04 AM To: Sabine Dolderer <dolderer(a)denic.de<mailto:dolderer@denic.de>> Cc: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org<mailto:gabriella.schittek@icann.org>>, "'cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:'cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org>'" <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org>>, "'ccnso-members(a)icann.org<mailto:'ccnso-members(a)icann.org>'" <ccnso-members(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members Sabine, I totally disagree. There has been cross constituency participation all along and none of the gNSO work is binding on ccNSO or ccTLDs in any way. However perspective often helps. And, nothing could be further from the desirable than shutting down discussion about something like this on any list. Gabi, as I can't post the Council list, please post it there. el On 2012-10-30 18:47 , Sabine Dolderer wrote: Hello Gabi, we received a couple of invitations to gTLD related policy developements during the last couple of weeks "to the ccTLD Community to join a policy wg of the gNSO" and I am not sure what the intended status is or the result can be. >From my understanding the ccNSO has no role whatsoever with regard to gTLD policy developement nor it has a mandate to represent the ccTLD Community as a whole. In the consequence - even if we find volunteers - the ccTLD Community cannot join. I would suggest to clarify this to our collegues from the gNSO. Nevertheless each individual ccTLD Manager can of course choose to participate in gTLD policywork on behalf of their individual organisation but to avoid further misunderstandings I would advice not to use this list for that discussions. Best Sabine

3 2

Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members
by Gabriella Schittek Oct. 30, 2012

Oct. 30, 2012

Dear all, The GNSO is inviting the ccTLD Community to join a new working group on the Protection of Certain International Organisation names in all GTLDs. For more information and instructions on how to participate, see below. Kind regards, Gabi === http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29oct12-en.htm Call for Volunteers: IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members Date: 29 October 2012 Introduction At its meeting on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. (see 20121017-2<http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-2>). The GNSO Council decided at this meeting that a group of volunteers should now be convened to draft the charter for the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group, which is to be approved by the GNSO Council. Task of the Drafting Team The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing a charter for the PDP Working Group on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. The Charter should include, at a minimum, the following elements as specified in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf>: Working Group identification; Mission, Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization, and; Rules of Engagement. The proposed charter will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Upon completion of the Charter by the Drafting Team, the Working Group will then begin execution of the Charter. Volunteers If you are interested to participate, please send an email to the GNSO Secretariat<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>. You will be required to complete a Statement of Interest<http://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs> in order to participate. It is proposed that the group meet each Wednesday at 18:00 UTC for two hours. Background Information on the Issue The ICANN Board has requested policy advice from the GNSO Council and the GAC on whether special protections should be afforded for the names and acronyms of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement ("RCRC"), the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") and/or International Government Organizations ("IGOs"). In September 2011, the GAC sent advice to the GNSO with a proposal for granting second level protections based upon the protections afforded to IOC/RCRC at the first level during the initial round of new gTLD applications, and that such protections are permanent. As a result of the GAC proposal submitted to the GNSO, the GNSO IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was formed and created a set of recommendations for protecting the IOC/RCRC names at the second level of the initial round new gTLDs, including the initiation of an "expedited PDP" to determine appropriate permanent protections for the RCRC and IOC names. The latest inquiry to examine the issue of protecting IGO names emerged as a result of a request from the ICANN Board in response to letters received from the OECD and other IGOs in December 2011. Specifically, IGOs are seeking ICANN approval of protections at the top level that, at a minimum, are similar to those afforded to the RCRC and IOC in the Applicant Guidebook. In addition, IGOs are seeking a pre-emptive mechanism to protect their names at the second level. On 11 March 2012, the ICANN Board formally requested that the GNSO Council and the GAC provide policy advice on the IGO's request. The Final Issue Report was submitted by ICANN Staff on 1 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…) and in this report a number of issues are outlined that will need further consideration during the PDP. The GNSO Council approved the IGO-INGO PDP at its 17 October 2012 meeting. Recommended Reading for Volunteers * Final Issue Report on the Protection of IGO Names<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…> * GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: ccNSO Counclors - FYI
by Gabriella Schittek Oct. 29, 2012

Oct. 29, 2012

Forwarded on behalf of Ron Sherwood. From: Ron Sherwood <ron(a)vitechnicalservices.com<mailto:ron@vitechnicalservices.com>> Date: Monday, October 29, 2012 1:15 AM To: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org<mailto:gabriella.schittek@icann.org>> Subject: ccNSO Counclors - FYI Dear ccNSO Councilors: For those who may not yet have seen the statement by VeriSign CEO Jim Bizdos, titled: ".Com Pricing Through 2018 Uncertain as USG Reviews Renewal Contract" I enclosed the following link the the ICA Report. http://internetcommerce.org/USG_Review_DotCom_Renewal [Courtesy of the ALAC list] Ron Sherwood, (ccNSO/ALAC Liaison)

1 0

ccNSO @ ICANN Toronto
by Kristina Nordstrom Oct. 26, 2012

Oct. 26, 2012

Dear all, Please find below a little potpourri of the Toronto meeting from the usual ccNSO perspective. See you in Beijing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDuy-j0AGKs&feature=plcp Kind regards, Kristina

1 0