October 2015 - Ccnso-council

New Councillor LAC region replacing Victor: Alejandra Reynoso
by Bart Boswinkel Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Dear all, As Gabi has noted in her email to you, only one (1) candidate was nominated,seconded, and has accepted her nomination: Alejandra Reynoso (.gt). No other candidate was nominated. According to Article IX section 3 .7 and section 4 7 through 9, Alejandra will take the vacant seat per today for the LAC region for the remainder of Victor Abboud's term ( March 2017). Alejandra will be subscribed to the Council list. Kind regards, Bart

1 0

RE: [Cctldworld] [CCWG-ACCT] Dublin schedule changes and work plan
by Byron Holland Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Dear Colleagues, To clarify the current situation and end any potential speculation, this is the current situation as far as I know it. ICANN, based on feedback, is attempting to provide additional sessions on ICANN Accountability in Dublin. As such, yesterday, they convened a meeting of AC and SO Chairs, Stakeholder Groups, Constituency and RALO Chairs, as well as the CWG and CCWG Chairs to discuss possible scheduling and logistics options. A number of options were discussed that ranged from quite intrusive on the existing schedule to minimally invasive to no change at all. As you can imagine given the broad range of participants on the call, there were a range of opinions. As Chair of the ccNSO I spoke against the options that intruded on our Constituency days, but in the spirit of cooperation with other communities as well as a desire to create as many opportunities as possible for our ccTLD colleagues to engage in this important Accountability discussion, I was generally favourable to providing more chances for this dialogue to happen. I thought Jordan Carter (ccNSO member of the CCWG) summed up the current status quite well in his latest blog https://internetnz.nz/blog/hopes-dublin " As we count down the days to Dublin, let’s recommit ourselves to building an accountability settlement that works. Let’s remind ourselves that consensus and being flexible isn’t about “losing” anything and doesn’t have to be about second-bests." And if that includes some basic scheduling flexibility in an attempt to provide additional opportunities for dialogue and understanding on ICANN Accountability then I suggest that our ccTLD community would be well served by showing that flexibility. Best regards, Byron -----Original Message----- From: cctldworld-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cctldworld-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: October-13-15 10:25 AM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Cc: cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org; directors(a)omadhina.net; ccnso-members(a)icann.org; cctldworld(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Cctldworld] [CCWG-ACCT] Dublin schedule changes and work plan I am not speculating about HOW it happened. The issue is what happened and perhaps why. And at least for the latter the how becomes "interesting". At the moment it looks like we were told, today, that we'll be having us a 5-Day CCWG meeting clashing with mainly everything, in particular Transition related activities of at least the ccNSO, ie it's Plan-D :-)-O Hence, and because I can't post the ccNSO Council, I'll cc the lists. greetings, el On 2015-10-13 16:01, Greg Shatan wrote: > The speculation in this thread about how this decision was arrived at > is incorrect. > > ICANN developed a plan with 3 options (A = no disruption, B = moderate > disruption, C = significant disruption) for changing the > ICANN54 schedule to add more time for Accountability-related meetings. > This was not requested (as far as I know) by the CCWG Co-Chairs and > certainly not by the AC/SO leaders. As far as I know, the impetus for > this came from within ICANN. (The AC/SO leaders are the Chairs of each > AC, SO, Stakeholder Group, Constituency and RALO.) The Chairs were > given several days in which to confer with the stakeholders they > represent in order to assess which option(s) they might find > acceptable. > > After that, the call Mathieu mentioned took place. In addition to > AC/SO/SG/C/RALO Chairs, the call included the co-chairs of the CCWG, > CWG and ICG and members of ICANN staff. > > Greg > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na > <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: > > Well, > > I am an Observer to the ccNSO's Program Comittee. As such, I > have indeed observed that Transition related activities take > up a significant amount of the time of the two days of the > ccNSO meeting. > > So James' statement, below, when read in itself, without > context, is not false. > > But, it has nothing to do with springing today's surprise > which would, in fact, make it worse, because these related > events clashing. > > > greetings, el > > > On 2015-10-13 12:45, James Gannon wrote: > > I’m not Mathieu but I know that the ACSO leadership were > > involved as changing the ICNN54 schedule to have a greater > > focus on CCWG activities required a change in the scheduled > > events for each of the Acs and Sos, so there will be items > > removed from the current schedule in order to free up spaces > > for the CCWG to be attended by members and participants from > > the various parts of the community. > > > > -jg [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Cctldworld mailing list Cctldworld(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld

1 0

Invitation to ccTLD Community Cocktail in Dublin on 20 October @19:00 Local time
by Kimberly Carlson Oct. 12, 2015

Oct. 12, 2015

Dear all, On behalf of our sponsors, I would like to remind you that you are all invited to join our ccNSO organized Community Cocktail in Dublin on Tuesday, 20 October between 19:00 and 21:00 local time. The cocktail will take place at the Ely Bar & Brasserie, IFSC - Dublin 1-Atrum Bar (10-12 minute walk from The CCD meeting venue). For those of you who would like to walk there in a group, we will leave from the Convention Centre hotel lobby at 18:45. Should you wish to get there by yourself, please see the directions in the link below, or on the printed invitation. The printed invitations will be handed out during the ccNSO Members Meeting to help you get there, however, you do not need to bring the invitation to enter, just show up! Many THANKS to our generous sponsors who made this event possible: .au, .ca, .kr, .nl, .pr, .tw and VeriSign. Also, a special thanks to our colleagues at IE Domain Registry Limited who have helped organize this event! Kind regards, Kim https://www.google.com/maps/dir/The+Convention+Centre+Dublin+(The+CCD),+Ire…

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
by Chris Disspain Oct. 12, 2015

Oct. 12, 2015

This seems to have dropped off the ccNSO list for some reason. It’s an important discussion IMO. Cheers, Chris > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels > Date: 12 October 2015 22:54:44 AEDT > To: "Jordan Carter" <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>, <sdeerhake(a)nic.as> > Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.net>, accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > > What say you? Do you think that the ccNSO should be able to run a PDP that demands, say, ICANN give a lot of money to ccTLD projects, and not have that subject to question? > > Thanks for re-stating your question Jordan. I have pasted from a number of your previous messages. > > Yes, I think that the ccNSO should be able to run and conclude a PDP that “demands” whatever the cc community requires of ICANN. The same goes for the GNSO. > > My main issue is that I don’t agree with your categorisation that a PDP it is not “subject to question”. > The current process for policy development is a sound model. > It was a hard-won, negotiated model that necessarily involves input from the rest of the community. > A ccPDP includes commentary periods that allow the GNSO, At Large, governments and everyone else to contribute. > It is also subject to clearance via the ICANN Board. > We have a mechanism / system / process in place and the current Accountability work should not subvert it. It sounds awfully like a solution in search of a problem. > > "Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto isn't available." > > This is very dangerous territory. > The question of whether an SO PDP “has no impact on ICANN generally” is subjective and open to all sorts of debate. > Attempting to define what figure “$x per year” is even trickier. It will open up all sorts of arguments regarding community contribution, budget etc. Not a space the CCWG needs to get in to. > Even with the very best intentions, if we are not careful, we risk undermining everything we have achieved so far as a community > > In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others' resources. > > I don’t agree that our interest as cc managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us. That is a very protectionist position that I had hope we have moved beyond. > Our interest is developing the most stable, secure and reliable model that we can all support, and bringing in to question the mechanisms we currently have in place is counter-productive (see my comments above) > If we as a group of ccTLDs can't come to consensus, then there isn't going to be an accountability proposal and isn't going to be a transition. > > At the risk of stating the obvious, at this important juncture, we need to steer clear of such dramatic categorisations. If we cant come to consensus, we all need to look critically at the options before us, negotiate further, and try to arrive at a model that works > > Regards, > > Paul > > > Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs > .au Domain Administration Limited > T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 > E: paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> > Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/> > > auDA – Australia’s 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. > > > > From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] > Sent: Saturday, 10 October 2015 11:53 AM > To: sdeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> > Cc: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels > > I'd like to repeat my question. We have to think through the specifics and work out what we need to worry about, and what isn't a worry. > > What say you? Do you think that the ccNSO should be able to run a PDP that demands, say, ICANN give a lot of money to ccTLD projects, and not have that subject to question? > > I ask because getting specific about cases is the only way to rule things in or out, and to unlock any possibility of arriving at consensus. > > If we as a group of ccTLDs can't come to consensus, then there isn't going to be an accountability proposal and isn't going to be a transition. > > cheers > Jordan > > > best > Jordan > > > On 9 October 2015 at 22:52, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: >> Hi Stephen, all: >> >> I've been very clear, most lately in a blog post today, that these issues need to be ironed out to consensus before a proposal goes anywhere. >> >> But that means answering tough questions - and the biggest tough question here is whether or not PDP processes needs some quarantine around them. >> >> For instance, I would support a restriction on the bylaws changes veto which said: >> >> "Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto isn't available." >> >> I support that because the intent of the accountability powers is *not* to interfere in PDPs. It is to exercise community control over ICANN and its overall operations. >> >> A PDP with limited financial impact could be usefully excluded to make that clear. >> >> But also, to be clear, aPDP by any SO that demanded a huge call on ICANN resources should in principle be able to be vetoed. >> >> In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others' resources. >> >> What say you? >> >> Cheers >> Jordan >> >> On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote: >>> Jordan, >>> >>> I don't think the GNSO would like to be in a position where the ccNSO could muster additional SO/AC support to kill off a PDP that they worked diligently on and got Board buy in for. >>> >>> I think the ccNSO would not like this either. >>> >>> So to me it's not a "hypothetical" but rather, how does the CCWG proposal manage this, because at the end of the day, we need buy-in from the SO/AC community for the CCWG proposal to go forward, and if there is not an accommodation with respect to SO/Board approved PDPs standing as ICANN policy, not subject to being shot down by other SO/AC members, how do you realistically expect the SOs to provide consensus for the CCWG proposal put forward to the Board, and subsequently, NITA? >>> >>> Just asking… >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> /Stephen >>> >>> From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 4:52 AM >>> To: sdeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> >>> Cc: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> >>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels >>> >>> Important point to think through, thank you for raising it! >>> >>> We must be clear though: what motivation would there be for the entirety of the rest of the community to organise such a veto? >>> >>> Because these are not casual powers. >>> >>> Such a situation would surely only emerge if: >>> >>> A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and >>> >>> B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic of its case. >>> >>> >>> In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the community not be able to say 'go away and think again'? >>> >>> And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn't be met. >>> >>> >>> The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why should that be the case if resources were affected? >>> >>> Jordan >>> >>> On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote: >>>> Greetings Paul, >>>> >>>> With respect to my earlier post, you write: >>>> >>>> [---START---] >>>> With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): >>>> >>>> Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations. >>>> This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO. >>>> However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community. >>>> This is not an inconceivable scenario. >>>> It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs. >>>> This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point). >>>> [---END--] >>>> >>>> Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it is possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later overturned by the Community at large. >>>> >>>> Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an acceptable situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the CCWG members might have in mind to remedy this? I see a difficult road ahead for ccNSO consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently stands. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Stephen Deerhake >>>> AS Domain Registry >>>> GDNS LLC >>>> +1 212 334 3660 <tel:%2B1%20212%20334%203660> >>>> +1 212 656 1983 <tel:%2B1%20212%20656%201983> >>>> sdeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> >>>> sdeerhake(a)gdns.net <mailto:sdeerhake@gdns.net> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Szyndler >>>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:42 AM >>>> To: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> >>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> >>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels >>>> >>>> Thanks Jordan, >>>> >>>> My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement. >>>> After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly. >>>> >>>> I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted. >>>> As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it as an example of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of. >>>> >>>> With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): >>>> >>>> Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations. >>>> This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO. >>>> However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community. >>>> This is not an inconceivable scenario. >>>> It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs. >>>> This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point). >>>> >>>> The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of voting rights and the likelihood of it occurring do not much matter in this case. >>>> The point is that there is the potential for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others. >>>> The only alternative is to excise policy development processes from the currently-proposed accountability model, but would that defeat the purpose of the whole exercise? >>>> >>>> This is just one example of the many strings that need to be brought together and addressed before we all agree on a new model for accountability for a post-NTIA ICANN. >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] >>>> Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM >>>> To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>> >>>> Cc: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>>; Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> A comment or two re Paul's note below; >>>> >>>> On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>> wrote: >>>>> Eberhard, >>>>> >>>>> I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the >>>>> independence and autonomy of ccTLDs. >>>>> However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this >>>>> independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder >>>>> community. >>>>> >>>>> I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in. >>>>> As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a >>>>> solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the >>>>> ccNSO) without contributing to that process? >>>>> >>>>> In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get >>>>> down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms. >>>>> Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure? >>>> >>>> Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes. >>>> >>>>> Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP? >>>> >>>> This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this. >>>> >>>> What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not occur. >>>> >>>>> Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe >>>>> that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective >>>>> attention. >>>>> >>>>> At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability >>>>> processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of >>>>> ccTLD managers. >>>>> However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because >>>>> these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence >>>>> our environment in the future. >>>> >>>> Agree. >>>> >>>> Jordan >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps I could turn your question back to you. >>>>> I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual >>>>> capacity to the CCWG. >>>>> Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it >>>>> about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Paul >

1 0

A plea for time
by Chris Disspain Oct. 11, 2015

Oct. 11, 2015

Greetings, As we approach ICANN Dublin I have been asked by some of my ccTLD colleagues to set out clearly why as a ccTLD manager I support the Board proposals for improving ICANN's accountability as part of the transition. In essence for me it’s all about time. I believe that we, the community, can get the enhanced accountability we want now without the need for wholesale structural change. I'm not against change or indeed any of the models being proposed but I am against making such changes without carefully considering them over time. There is a significant amount of work to be done before deciding to make such important structural changes and all of that will take time and more research and stress testing and unforeseen consequence analysis and impact analysis. In essence the Board has supported the CCWG’s proposed fundamental bylaws and the binding IRP and has suggested that there be a Community IRP and a further fundamental bylaw setting in place an ongoing improvement mechanism that will allow the community to take the necessary time to consider the structural changes and to have confidence that the proposals arising from such a process will be implemented. I believe that the Community IRP does provide the community with the rights it seeks and that it can be implemented in a timeframe that does not jeopardise the transition. The Community IRP is an independent arbitration process for hearing community claims that the Board has acted outside of its by-laws. Under the process there is a legally enforceable and contractual obligation on ICANN to comply with a decision of the arbitration panel. I believe that the community find ourselves in our current difficult situation because, with the best of intentions, the CCWG’s attorneys have been instructed to come up with models that deliver ‘the highest possible levels of enforcement’. It is not that the Community IRP cannot deliver the enhanced accountability that we want but rather that it is perceived, by some, as inadequate because there is a different mechanism that delivers a higher level of enforceability. The CCWG appears to be requiring a mechanism that allows the community (in whatever guise we finally agree is acceptable) the absolute final say. The right to step over the Board's fiduciary duty without any check or balance in place to allow for the testing of the Board's claim that acting would indeed be in breach of such duty. I firmly believe in the corporate governance structures adopted by most corporate bodies around the world. Board members are appointed to manage the affairs of the organisation on the understanding that they are legally bound to act in the best interests of the organization rather than any one member or community. Such best interests are set out in the by-laws - in ICANN's case for example, the security and stability of the Internet as a whole. The Board has a fiduciary obligations to act in that way. The ICANN Board has proposed the Community IRP as binding arbitration. The CCWG’s attorneys have said that the Board can refuse to implement such a binding arbitration decision if it claims that to implement it would be a breach of its obligations to act in the best interests of ICANN. This is true BUT the community representatives can then go to court and a court will enforce the arbitration decision if it disagrees with the Board's view. In my opinion this is precisely the type of safeguard we need to have in place because it ensures that an elected board made up of representatives of the multi-stakeholder community will always act, first, in the interests of a stable and secure Internet and it puts in place an independent arbiter to decide, in the final analysis, if the community or the board is right. The alternative, it seems to me, is to create, now, a system where fiduciary duty is abandoned and the will of the community holds sway. That is in effect what happens under the membership model as described by the CCWG’s attorneys. This may well be acceptable in the future when all of the nuances have been thought through and the necessary community conflicts and ethics rules, accountability mechanisms and disclosure requirements have been agreed. But it will take time and testing and a fuller discussion. Fiduciary responsibilities and duties are there for a reason. I think that some in the community feel that the Board and ICANN legal sometimes use the ‘cloak’ of fiduciary responsibility to avoid doing what the community wants. Whilst I don’t believe that is true I do empathise with the feeling. To my mind the solution (at least at this time during the transition) is NOT to create a mechanism under which fiduciary duty is held by no one but rather to create a mechanism where the community can test the Board's claims about such duty. The Community IRP as suggested by the Board does just that. I want to stress again that I am not against any of the proposed models put forward by the CCWG. But I can't agree the models at this stage because I don’t believe we have enough detail and I think the community as a whole should take their time in considering making such important changes. And I do not agree with those who claim that "we must do it now because it's our only chance". I am very much looking forward to spending time with my ccTLD colleagues during the Dublin meeting and hope we will have the opportunity to talk, and not just about the transition. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> auDA – Australia’s 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 0

Re: [ccnso-members] Fwd: TPP Treaty: Intellectual Property Rights Chapter - 5 October 2015 - domain names (final text)
by HiroHOTTA Oct. 10, 2015

Oct. 10, 2015

Hi Erick, I see, thanks. Hiro On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 08:51:02 -0500 Erick Iriarte <eiriarte(a)iriartelaw.com> wrote: > Hi Hiro > > apparently that and the title of the paragraph “Domain name cybersquatting" > > Erick > > > El 10/10/2015, a las 3:28, HiroHOTTA <hotta(a)jprs.co.jp> escribio: > > > > Dear Erick, > > > > Thank you for this. > > > > NOTE[20] goes "... such remedies may but need not include , for > > example, revocation, cancellation, transfer, damages, or > > injunctive relief." Has "BUT NEED NOT" been added to the earlier > > version around two years ago? > > > > Regards, > > Hiro > > > > On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:15:18 -0500 > > Erick Iriarte <eiriarte(a)iriartelaw.com> wrote: > >> FYI > >> > >>> Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > >>> > >>> De: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte(a)alfa-redi.org> > >>> Asunto: TPP Treaty: Intellectual Property Rights Chapter - 5 October 2015 - domain names (final text) > >>> Fecha: 9 de octubre de 2015, 11:12:23 GMT-5 > >>> Para: LatinoamerICANN <latinoamericann(a)dgroups.org> > >>> Cc: "ag(a)lactld.org General de LACTLD" <ag(a)lactld.org> > >>> > >>> Paises involucrados: > >>> United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile > >>> US, CA, AU, NZ, SG, JP, MX, PE, CL, BN, VN, MY > >>> > >>> Nota de Prensa de Wikileaks > >>> Texto Chapter Propiedad Intelectual: https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Cha… <https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Cha…> (PDF) > >>> > >>> Article QQ.C.12: {Domain Name Cybersquatting} > >>> > >>> 1. In connection with each Party’s system for the management of its country-code toplevel domain (ccTLD) domain names, the following shall be available: > >>> > >>> (a) an appropriate procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on, or modelled along the same lines as, the principles established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, or that is: (i) designed to resolve disputes expeditiously and at low cost, (ii) fair and equitable, (iii) not overly burdensome, and (iv) does not preclude resort to court litigation; and > >>> > >>> (b) online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants; > >>> > >>> in accordance with each Party’s laws and, where applicable, relevant administrator policies regarding protection of privacy and personal data. > >>> > >>> 2. In connection with each Party’s system for the management of ccTLD domain names, appropriate remedies[20], shall be available, at least in cases where a person registers or holds, with a bad faith intent to profit, a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. > >>> > >>> Note [20] > >>> It is understood that such remedies may but need not include, for example, revocation, cancellation, transfer, damages, or injunctive relief. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ccnso-members] Fwd: TPP Treaty: Intellectual Property Rights Chapter - 5 October 2015 - domain names (final text)
by HiroHOTTA Oct. 10, 2015

Oct. 10, 2015

Dear Erick, Thank you for this. NOTE[20] goes "... such remedies may but need not include , for example, revocation, cancellation, transfer, damages, or injunctive relief." Has "BUT NEED NOT" been added to the earlier version around two years ago? Regards, Hiro On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:15:18 -0500 Erick Iriarte <eiriarte(a)iriartelaw.com> wrote: > FYI > > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > > > De: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte(a)alfa-redi.org> > > Asunto: TPP Treaty: Intellectual Property Rights Chapter - 5 October 2015 - domain names (final text) > > Fecha: 9 de octubre de 2015, 11:12:23 GMT-5 > > Para: LatinoamerICANN <latinoamericann(a)dgroups.org> > > Cc: "ag(a)lactld.org General de LACTLD" <ag(a)lactld.org> > > > > Paises involucrados: > > United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile > > US, CA, AU, NZ, SG, JP, MX, PE, CL, BN, VN, MY > > > > Nota de Prensa de Wikileaks > > Texto Chapter Propiedad Intelectual: https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Cha… <https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Cha…> (PDF) > > > > Article QQ.C.12: {Domain Name Cybersquatting} > > > > 1. In connection with each Party’s system for the management of its country-code toplevel domain (ccTLD) domain names, the following shall be available: > > > > (a) an appropriate procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on, or modelled along the same lines as, the principles established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, or that is: (i) designed to resolve disputes expeditiously and at low cost, (ii) fair and equitable, (iii) not overly burdensome, and (iv) does not preclude resort to court litigation; and > > > > (b) online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants; > > > > in accordance with each Party’s laws and, where applicable, relevant administrator policies regarding protection of privacy and personal data. > > > > 2. In connection with each Party’s system for the management of ccTLD domain names, appropriate remedies[20], shall be available, at least in cases where a person registers or holds, with a bad faith intent to profit, a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. > > > > Note [20] > > It is understood that such remedies may but need not include, for example, revocation, cancellation, transfer, damages, or injunctive relief. > > > > > >

1 0

Your Input Needed: Extended Nomination Period LAC Region
by Gabriella Schittek Oct. 10, 2015

Oct. 10, 2015

Dear Councillors, As you know, the Nomination Period to the ccNSO Council ended on Tuesday, 6th October. By that date, all regions had received valid nominations. Following the nomination period, the nominees are asked to formally accept their nomination. Unfortunately, one of the nominees, Maria Antonieta Chavarria, .cr (nominated for the LAC region, term ending March 2019) could not accept her nomination. See email below. This means that the LAC region does not have any nominee for the Council term, ending March 2019. In the past, in similar situations (when a region did not have a valid nominee by the end of the nomination period), the ccNSO Council once decided to extend the nomination period for all regions (2008: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-report-12dec08.pdf) and in two cases, to extend the nomination period only for the affected region (2011: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-report-27oct11-en.pdf; 2013: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-report-16dec13-en.pdf) Basing on this, I, as Nominations Manager, therefore suggest to extend the Nomination Period to the 18 October for the Latin American Region only. In case there are any objections to this suggestion, I would be grateful if you could let me know by the end of Tuesday, 13 October. If no objections received, I understand that the proposed way forward has been approved. I know the given timeline is extremely short, but as we hope to be able to present a Latin American candidate at the scheduled Q&A session for ccNSO Council Nominees in Dublin, we need to find compromise solutions. Kind regards, Gabi From: María Antonieta Chavarría <machavar(a)nic.cr> Date: Friday 9 October 2015 16:25 To: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Reminder: Nomination to ccNSO Council > Dear Gabriella, > > Thanks a lot for the opportunity, but I can not accept the nomination to the > ccNSO Council, because the .cr Board does not allow me. > > Best regards, > María Antonieta >

3 2

Re: [ccnso-council] Your Input Needed: Extended Nomination Period LAC Region
by Vika Mpisane Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Hi Gabi, Without the benefit of having looked at the bylaws if they address this scenario, I think your suggested way forward makes good sense to me. I therefore support it. Regards, Vika Mpisane | ZADNA | +27 11 314 0077 ext. 602 From: <owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org> on behalf of Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 09 October 2015 at 18:00 To: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Your Input Needed: Extended Nomination Period LAC Region Dear Councillors, As you know, the Nomination Period to the ccNSO Council ended on Tuesday, 6th October. By that date, all regions had received valid nominations. Following the nomination period, the nominees are asked to formally accept their nomination. Unfortunately, one of the nominees, Maria Antonieta Chavarria, .cr (nominated for the LAC region, term ending March 2019) could not accept her nomination. See email below. This means that the LAC region does not have any nominee for the Council term, ending March 2019. In the past, in similar situations (when a region did not have a valid nominee by the end of the nomination period), the ccNSO Council once decided to extend the nomination period for all regions (2008: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-report-12dec08.pdf) and in two cases, to extend the nomination period only for the affected region (2011: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-report-27oct11-en.pdf; 2013: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-report-16dec13-en.pdf) Basing on this, I, as Nominations Manager, therefore suggest to extend the Nomination Period to the 18 October for the Latin American Region only. In case there are any objections to this suggestion, I would be grateful if you could let me know by the end of Tuesday, 13 October. If no objections received, I understand that the proposed way forward has been approved. I know the given timeline is extremely short, but as we hope to be able to present a Latin American candidate at the scheduled Q&A session for ccNSO Council Nominees in Dublin, we need to find compromise solutions. Kind regards, Gabi From: María Antonieta Chavarría <machavar(a)nic.cr> Date: Friday 9 October 2015 16:25 To: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Reminder: Nomination to ccNSO Council > Dear Gabriella, > > Thanks a lot for the opportunity, but I can not accept the nomination to the > ccNSO Council, because the .cr Board does not allow me. > > Best regards, > María Antonieta >

1 0

ccNSO Councillors volunteering to serve on Travel Funding committee or to oversee ccNSO Membership Application Process
by Bart Boswinkel Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Dear all, As you will know Jordi's term as NomCom appointed ccNSO Councillor will end at the closure of the Dublin ICANN meeting. As you will also know Jordi is serving on the Travel Funding Committee and oversees the ccNSO membership application process. In order to avoid vacancies Council would need to appoint another Councillor at its meeting in Dublin ( Wednesday 21 October). To make this feasible we kindly request Councillors to put their name forward for these two functions. The role of the travel funding committee, in particular the role of the committee itself, is described in the travel funding guideline, which can be found at: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding. Currently, the other members of the Travel Funding Committee are: Dotty (NA region) and Katrina (EU Region). According to travel funding guideline, members of the travel funding committee should preferably from different Geographic Regions. The ccNSO membership Application process is described at: http://ccnso.icann.org/applications/form.htm If you have any questions either for Jordi or the secretariat with respect to one of the functions, please do not hesitate to contact us directly. It is my understanding that both functions are not very time consuming. If you are interested please send an email to the list, indicating for which role you are interested. Thank you and kind regards, Bart

1 0