September 2014 - Ccnso-council

CWG IANA Stewardship transitions - member selection
by Byron Holland Oct. 2, 2014

Oct. 2, 2014

Dear Colleagues, After reflecting on our call last week, the difficult discussion, and having heard back from our RO colleagues, I am of the strong opinion that we will have to move forward with the candidates as selected by order of rank in voting. Our RO colleagues will not be able to put forward member and have therefore asked us to proceed with selecting all 5 members. Given there was little appetite or agreement on any type of qualitative selection and that most spoke in favour of simply allowing the vote to stand, this will be that path forward. No selection of 5 people will ever be a perfect representation of our broad community, however the top 5 to provide a widely diverse cross section of cc operators, both ccnso member and unaffiliated, as well as gender, size, business model, and geography. The top 5 ranked candidates are: Erick Iriarte (.pe, LAC, member ccNSO) 12 out of 13 Lise Fuhr (.dk, EU, non-member) 11 Vika Mpisane (.za, AF, member) 11 Paul Kane (.ac, EU, non-member) 7 Staffan Jonson (.se, EU, member) 6 Unless there is a strong objection with equally strong supporting rationale, I propose we move forward with the members we most strongly voted for. Best regards, Byron Byron Holland, President & CEO Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) Twitter: @cira001<mailto:@cira001> Trends, Commentary, Perspective. Stay tuned to cirablog.ca<http://www.cirablog.ca/> www.cira.ca<http://www.cira.ca/>

7 9

Appointment by the ROs of ccTLD rep for the IANA Stewardship Transition ccWG
by Peter Van Roste Sept. 29, 2014

Sept. 29, 2014

Dear members of the ccNSO Council, Since the ccNSO Council call last Thursday/Friday, the Regional Organisations have considered the opportunity that you provided to us to appoint a candidate for the ccWG on the IANA stewardship transition. While we appreciated the opportunity provided to us, the timeframe did not allow us to come to a conclusion. We do not feel comfortable developing a process that would be breaching the same principles that some of us expressed a concern with earlier last week. It would be wrong that while advocating transparency and openness in the ccNSO process, we would ignore those in our own. As a way forward the ROs would endorse the appointment of the 5 candidates that have received the most votes in the ccNSO process. We will collectively and/or individually nominate one or more observers to the group at a later stage. Thank you again for the opportunity, there was just not enough time to perform the task to a standard that we hold. On behalf of the Regional Organisations, Regards, Peter cid:image001.jpg@01CCF0BC.D352D240 Peter Van Roste General Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 5550 - fax +32 2 627 5559 <http://www.centr.org> www.centr.org - twitter: centrnews

1 0

IANA Stewardship Transition Process: Call for Observers cross-community Working Group
by Gabriella Schittek Sept. 29, 2014

Sept. 29, 2014

Dear all, The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions has put out a call for observers to participate in the efforts of this group. In addition to members, who are appointed by the ccNSo and other chartering organizations, anyone interested in the work of this topic, can join as an observer. Observers are expected to actively participate and attend all meetings. The difference between a member and an observer is that any consensus calls or formal decisions, if any, will be limited to the members appointed by the ccNSO / other chartering organizations. Please note that it is the expectation that the cross-community working group will operate as much as possible with the views and consensus support of all participants(embers and observers) as all input and views on this important topic is recognized need to considered. Interested? If you are interested in joining, please contact Grace Abuhamad (grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org) or the ccNSO secretariat <included email address>. All participants (members and observers) will be listed on the CWG's webpage. All observers are also required to submit a Statement of Interest (SOI) following the procedures of their chartering organization, or where that is not applicable for observers, the GNSO Procedures should be followed (see https://community.icann.org/x/cYLg) Next steps The CWG is currently in formation. To date, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Country Code Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) have adopted the charter. The ccNSO is in the process of appointing its members. The Cross- Community WG will have its first meeting (via teleconference) on 6 October at 13.00 UTC, followed by a F2F meeting in Los Angeles during the ICANN meeting (scheduled for Monday 13 October from 12.15 13.45 local time (19.15 22.45 UTC), with remote participation). Both sessions will be recorded and transcribed. Further Information * Charter of Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-stewardship-naming-function-charter-14 aug14-en.pdf> [PDF, 277 KB] * CWG Wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg> * Webpage: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/iana-stewardship-naming.htm * The full announcement can be viewed at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-26-en >

1 0

Council Recording
by Kristina Nordstrom Sept. 28, 2014

Sept. 28, 2014

Dear all, Please find below the recording of the Council call held on 25 September 2014. http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-council-20140925-en.mp3 Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

51-2014: Draft document from GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names
by Gabriella Schittek Sept. 27, 2014

Sept. 27, 2014

Dear Councillors, Please, let me know by Wednesday, 1 October in casey you do not agree with Triage recommendation 51-2014: Draft document from GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names. Thanks! Gabi > > == > Topic: Draft document from GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names > > Originator: GAC > > Summary of request: The GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names (which is a > Sub-group of the GAC Working Group on Future New gTLDs) has developed a draft > document for future New gTLD rounds outlining several public policy aspects > related to geographic names and is currently seeking community input on the > document at http://tinyurl.com/kzt8kbg. A previous version of this draft was > presented in a public session during the London ICANN/GAC meetings and a > similar session is planned for the October ICANN/GAC meetings in Los Angeles. > > Date received: 24 October 2014 > > Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 31 October 2014 > > Recommended action, if any: Post to email list for information (done); ask > ccNSO representatives to the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of > Country/Territory Names as TLDs to consider drafting input. > > Expertise needed, if any: Legal, managerial > > Date of submission to Council: 26 September 2014 > > Last date of Council decision: 30 September 2014 > > Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Middle > > >

1 0

Status of Action Items
by Kristina Nordstrom Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

Dear all, Please find below a list of the action items from the previous Council meeting and their status. There are no outstanding actions. Action 97-01: The Secretariat to inform Juhani Juselius and the NomCom about Juhani's re-appointment to serve another term on the NomCom. Completed Action 97-02: The Chair to inform the other SO/AC chairs about the ccNSO adoption of the charter for the Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. Completed Action 97-03: The ccNSO Secretariat to send out a call for self-nominations to the Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions, announce the call on the ccNSO website and publish the names of nominees upon receipt. Completed Action 97-04: The Secretariat to create a webpage for the new IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability Coordination Committee. Completed Action 97-05: The Chair to publish a blog post on the ccNSO website that explains how the different working groups and committees around the IANA stewardship transition relates to one another and how community members can participate in the discussions. Completed Action 97-06: The Secretariat to update the ccTLDWorld(a)ICANN.ORG<mailto:ccTLDWorld@ICANN.ORG> email list to the extent that all subscribers are allowed to post to the list. Completed Action 97-07: The Secretariat to inform the ccTLD community about the possibility to join the Join the ICANN Accountability and Governance Cross-Community Group by subscribing to a dedicated email list at the ICANN website. Completed Action 97-08: The Chair to, on behalf of the Council, send a letter to ICANN explaining that a single seat reserved for the ccTLD community on the ICANN Accountability & Governance Coordination Group will not be enough to represent the cc perspective, and that the lack of travel support will limit the number of possible participants from the ccTLD community. Overtaken by events Kind regards, Kristina

3 2

Final Statement, including amendment Byron suggested
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

1 0

Draft ccNSO Council Statement to be submitted Accountability Process (item 7 on the agenda)
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

Dear all, Please included the draft prepared by the drafting team under chairmanship of Mathieu Weill. Kind regards, Bart Draft Statement ======================== The ccNSO Council welcomes ICANN's decision to conduct a public consultation on the proposed "Enhancing Accountability" process and appreciates the responses to various questions posed by the community. As we have previously stated, improved accountability is both a means and a prerequisite for ICANN to achieve its 2016-2020 strategic vision statement, to "enable ICANN to be trusted by all stakeholders." It goes without saying that any process intended to enhance and reinforce trust must itself be trusted. Over time and through experience, ICANN stakeholders have come to trust the cross-community working group (CCWG) process. Having participated in and listened carefully to the exchange of views between ICANN staff and the SO/AC/SGs on this point over the past several weeks, the ccNSO Council is not persuaded that the "community working group" proposed by ICANN improves upon or offers any benefits or advantages over the trusted CCWG model. The main argument for creating the "community working group" appears to be ensuring the inclusion of persons in the process, who consider themselves either not affiliated with a Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee or a "newcomer". Serious thought needs to be given to how to enable these persons to engage in the process as a whole effectively and in a way that does not undermine the existing engagement structure. Accordingly, we call on the staff and board to endorse the creation of a standard CCWG as the locus for bottom-up, multistakeholder development of mechanism to enhance ICANN's accountability. As a standard CCWG, participating SO/AC/SGs should be charged with developing the group's charter, including the scope of its responsibility. Consistent with the NetMundial conclusions, the goal of the Enhancing Accountability process should be to ensure that a system of checks and balances is in place to ensure that ICANN operates in accordance with an agreed set of principles and that meaningful redress is available to those who are harmed by ICANN actions or inactions in contravention of those principles. The CCWG should have full authority to explore and recommend approaches to achieve that goal. The CCWG should have authority to determine the size and structure of the group, as well as its working methodology. Given the importance of the work to be undertaken and the need to work to deadline, the ccNSO believes that ICANN should provide support for an independent secretariat, including a non-voting CCWG chair. It is also the view of the Council that the CCWG should select the Chair, who should have demonstrated skills and experience in chairing. Ideally, the CCWG itself should be responsible for selecting, through an open nomination process, non-voting advisors with predefined expertise ("Accountability Advisors"). In the interests of time, however, we acknowledge the potential utility in kicking off the selection process before the CCWG is set up. Icann could usefully identify a pool of experts, among which the CCWG could select its Advisors, as soon as the CCWG is set up. The ccNSO Council also believes that the paramount concern should be to look for independent experts with a proven track record in their area of expertise. In this context we urge ICANN to reconsider its proposal not to compensate the Accountability Advisors. Under the circumstances, the ccNSO agrees that smaller subgroups consisting of members identified by the SO/AC/SGs and the Accountability Advisors could be formed within the CCWG in order to organize and deliver research and expert advice needed by the CCWG, as well as interface more intensely with ICANN and its counsel on accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG, or liaise with the IANA Transition working group, etc. The ccNSO has previously stated that adequate accountability mechanisms relative to the IANA Stewardship Transition must be in place at the time of the IANA transition in one year from now. We have also recognized that the potential recommendations and mechanisms to enhance ICANN's accountability may be broader i.e. not limited to accountability mechanisms related to the IANA Stewardship Transition Process and it may take time to considerable time to implement all of these recommendations and mechnisms. Accordingly, we also recommend that the CCWG and any coordinating body should work closely with ICANN to identify those mechanism that must be in place for a successful IANA Stewardship Transition agree to prioritize the implementation of those mechanisms. In addition the CCWG and any coordinating body should also agree on a timeline for full implementation, which may extend beyond the IANA functions transition. We understand that the ICANN Board must reach agreement on the process it will use to consider and act on recommendations developed through this process. The community has expressed a strong preference to have a clearly defined process, including dialogue and consultation with the community before any recommendation is rejected. The ccNSO Council believes that the presumption should be that community recommendations will be accepted absent a compelling legal reason for rejection. We urge the Board to develop and publish for public comment its proposed methodology for considering and acting on accountability-related recommendations in the very near term, in any case before the process has commenced fully. As a suggestion the Board may look at the processes and mechanisms used to consider and act upon policy recommendations developed through the policy development processes of the Supporting Organizations and defined through the ICANN Bylaws.

1 0

Letter Byron and Jonathan as Co-Chairs Drafting Team CWG IANA Stewardship Transition Process
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

Dear all, Please find included email letter from Byron and Jonathan Robinson, chair of the GNSO to the chair of the ICG ( and members on ICG appointed by ccNSO and GNSO). Byron asked me to forward it to you. It is par tof the material around the IANA Stewardship Transition Process, Kind regards, Bart ============================ From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01 To: 'alissa(a)cooperw.in<mailto:'alissa(a)cooperw.in>'; 'mbashir(a)mbash.net<mailto:'mbashir(a)mbash.net>'; 'Patrik Falstrom -' Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:'wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>'; 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -'; 'mnuduma(a)yahoo.com<mailto:'mnuduma(a)yahoo.com>'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle(a)nominet.org.uk<mailto:martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk>); 'Xiaodong Lee:'; 'keith(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:'keith(a)internetnz.net.nz>' Subject: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG Importance: High Dear Alissa, Patrik, Mohamed, We are taking this opportunity to write you, given our previous roles as co-chairs of the of the drafting team that prepared the charter for the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions. We want to update you on the progress we have made and make one important comment on the timelines set out in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals (RFP) published on September 8 2014. We in the naming community have followed the historic IANA transition process very closely. Mindful of the challenging timelines inherent in the process, we have moved very quickly to come together as a naming community. At ICANN 50 in London in June 2014, the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and the SSAC came together to establish a drafting team to prepare a charter for what will become the CWG. Through frequent meetings, we were pleased to be able to finalise a charter for the CWG by mid-August 2014. The charter has been approved by the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and SSAC, each in accordance with its own rules and procedures, and we are now calling for volunteers as members and observers, again according to each SO and AC’s rules and procedures. In addition, the GAC has been invited to participate in the CWG and is actively considering the invitation. With the establishment of the CWG, we expect to be able to provide a proposal from the naming community. While we believe that we have made a good start, ensuring the engagement of such a broad community in such an important and overarching exercise is necessarily time consuming. Even though many of the chartering SO/AC’s have yet to complete their procedures for selecting working group members, we have nevertheless decided to move forward and schedule our first CWG meeting right before (as well as a second meeting during) ICANN 51 in Los Angeles. After this initial F2F meeting, we may not have another opportunity to meet face to face until ICANN 52 in February. We would not anticipate that the CWG itself could approve a transition proposal without at least one such face to face meeting and potentially a public consultation of the community. Please also be aware that before a proposal could be formally transmitted to the ICG, it will also be necessary for the chartering SO/AC’s to approve it through their respective processes. Therefore, while we intend to urge that the CWG devote considerable time and energy to developing a proposal, it will be quite challenging, some would say impossible, to meet the January 15, 2015 target deadline for formal proposals set out in the ICG’s RFP. We do hope that shortly upon formation of the CWG we will be able to come back to you with a proposed timetable. It follows that the CWG will not be in a position to review the RFP or request any clarifications by the deadline of 24 September, but hopefully you are willing to accommodate any questions that the CWG may have following its formation. The CWG’s charter provides for a very open process, including no limitations on observers (regardless of affiliation) at any of our meetings. We have no doubt that the naming community members on the ICG will actively monitor the work of our CWG and provide the ICG with regular updates on our progress. Should you have any questions or require further clarification, we would be pleased hear from you and to respond accordingly. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson & Byron Holland Co-Chairs Drafting Team of the Charter for a CWG to develop an IANA stewardship transition proposal

1 0

Reminder: Dial in details Council call 25 September 12:00 UTC
by Kristina Nordstrom Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

Dear all, This is a reminder of the dial in details for the ccNSO Council Call today on 25 September at 12:00 UTC. Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnsocouncil/ Two-way audio will be available in the Adobe Room. Kind regards, Kristina

2 1