September 2015 - Ccnso-council

Call for volunteers, ICANN's IDN Review Committee
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Dear all, ICANN has requested the ccNSO to seek and appoint two volunteers on the IDN Implementation Guidelines review team. Purpose of the group is to update the IDN Guidelines 2011 to take into account the changes in for example the terminology around IDN's and language tables. Those interested in participating should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: * DNS and IDNA protocols * IDN language or script tables, including variants and label level rules * IDN policy * IDN implementation * IDN label registration process and registration data * IDN related SSR issues, including string similarity * IDN usability challenges and universal acceptance You can view the ICANN announcement/call for volunteers here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en>. If you are interested in joining this working group, please let us know by 9 October 2015. In the event more than two volunteers put their name forward during the call for volunteers, the ccNSO Council will select the two members by an email decision making process. Background The IDN Implementation Guidelines address the IDN registration policies and practices, designed to minimize the risk of cybersquatting and consumer confusion, and respect the interests of communities using local languages and scripts. These Guidelines are for registry operators to implement IDNs at the second level. An overview of the Guidelines can be found at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/implementation-guidelines-2012-02-25-… The Guidelines may be relevant for relevant for all ccTLD who allow IDN's and in particular IDN ccTLDs who are encouraged to follow the Guidelines through the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process, but are not obliged to do so. Kind regards, Kim Carlson

1 0

ICANN Policy Update September
by Kristina Nordstrom Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Dear all, ICANN's Policy Update for September is now available here: https://www.icann.org/resources/newsletter/policy-update-2015-09-28-en Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

ccNSO Council in Dublin / Remote Participation
by Kristina Nordstrom Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Dear all, The ccNSO Council will meet in Dublin on following occasions. Should you wish to participate in any of these meetings remotely, please let me know as soon as possible (and in that case don't forget to specify which meeting you want to attend). Sunday 18 October ccNSO Council Preparatory Meeting 11:00-12:00 IST local time (10:00-11:00 UTC) Sunday 18 October ccNSO Council Workshop 12:00-13:00 IST local time (11:00-12:00 UTC) Sunday 18 October Joint ccNSO/ALAC Meeting 16:45-17:30 IST local time (17:45-16:30 UTC) Monday 19 October Joint ccNSO/GNSO Council Meeting 17:00-18:30 IST local time (16:00-17:30 UTC) Wednesday 21 October ccNSO Council Meeting 16:00-18:00 IST local time (15:00-17:00 UTC) All ccNSO related meetings for Dublin will be posted here: http://ccnso.icann.org/calendar#oct. Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

Phase One results from Economic Study Evaluating Competition in Domain Name Space
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Dear all, On 28 September ICANN published the findings from the study "Phase 1 Assessment of the Competitive Effects Associated with the new gTLD Program". This study is intended to set a baseline for measuring competition in the domain name marketplace to be compared against changes that may be found a year later. The full report can be found at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/competitive-effects-phase-one-asse…. The study was conducted by Analysis Group, which was retained by ICANN, and is in response to three recommended metrics that the ICANN Board has adopted for inclusion in the competition, consumer choice and consumer trust review of the New gTLDProgram, as mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments. The complete announcement on the report can be found at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-09-28-en ICANN also invites public comment on the report (see: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/competitive-effects-assessment-2015-0…) The comments will be used to guide Phase 2, which will be conducted in approximately a year's time to determine if there are changes or trends in the marketplace.That assessment will further consider how the New gTLDProgram has impacted competition in the DNS. Kind regards, Bart

1 0

Dublin Agenda
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Dear all, The first draft of the ccNSO Meetings Agenda for Dublin has now been published: http://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/dublin54/agenda.htm Please, revisit it regularly, as it will be continuously updated closer to the meeting. Kind regards, Kim Carlson

1 0

Announcement NomCom appointees to: ICANN Board and ccNSO Council
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Dear all, ICANn's 2015 Nominating Committee has announced its selections for nine leadership positions, including the appointment of Christelle Vaval from Haiti to the ccNSO Council, and Rafael Ibarra, George Sadowski and Lousewies van der Laan to the ICANN Board of directors. The announcement can be viewed here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-09-25-en Christelle Vaval will take the seat of Jordi Iparraguirre at eh end of the ICANN Dublin meeting. Christelle's biography can be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nomcom-bios-2015-09-25-en#christelle-… Kind regards, Bart Boswinkel

1 0

Please confirm your attendance - Council call 24 September
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 26, 2015

Sept. 26, 2015

Dear all, As a reminder, the Council call is scheduled on 24 September @ 12:00 UTC - details below. We have received three apologies so far and we need to get an idea of how many Councilors will be in attendance. If you require a dial out, please let us know as soon as possible. Kind regards, Kim Carlson 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. To join toll free via Skype use the number 800 550 6865 and follow the instructions.

7 10

Complete set of questions from ICG to CWG-IANA
by Keith Davidson Sept. 26, 2015

Sept. 26, 2015

Apologies for length of message and multiple postings... The following is the complete set of questions / clarifications sought by the ICG from the CWG-IANA, primarily on the Names Proposal. Cheers Keith --------------------- RZM 1) Due to concerns expressed in the public comment period, the ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to inform us whether or not the Verisign/ICANN proposal (available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pro…) for revising Root Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the transition proposal. 2) The names part of the proposal contains subtle but significant discrepancies in the way it describes the roles of the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) and the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM). It also seems to contain different requirements for a process to change those roles. Paragraph 1158 in Part 1 of the transition proposal describes the RZM and the IANA functions operator as separate “roles” with distinct functions, and says "should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, that such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation." On the other hand Annex S, the Draft Proposed Term Sheet (page 136), describe the IFO and RZM as "two roles that are performed by two different entities," and adds "any amendment to the roles and responsibilities of PTI and the RZM ... will require approval of the ICANN board [and the members of ICANN or a special IFR].” Which of these two approaches better reflects the consensus of the names operational community: the one embodied in Annex S or the one embodied in paragraph 1158? Paragraph 1158 does not clearly rule out having the RZM and IFO in the same organization, as long as the "roles" and "functions" are distinct. Whereas Annex S suggests (in bracketed language) that any change or merger in the roles would be subject to community accountability, 1158 suggests only a “wide community consultation.” The ICG would like to know what is meant by a wide community consultation. Is it the same as a public comment period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate. ccTLDs 3) We received comments on Section P1.II.A.i., “Affected IANA Service (ccTLDs)” about the references to Internet Coordination Policy 1 (ICP-1) and the work of the Framework of interpretation Working Group (FOIWG). The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations in the report of the FOIWG and so paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended to reflect this, replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.” Please let us know if you agree to this amendment. 4) The ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005). This appears to be a friendly drafting amendment, bringing the document into line with recently updated policy and we would therefore ask the CWG whether Part 1 of the combined proposal could be adapted accordingly. If the CWG agrees to adapt its proposal, please send us verbatim text for paragraph 1036 and any associated footnotes so that we know precisely how to edit the text in the combined proposal. 5) We have also received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283). This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT. While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member. In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement. If the CWG agrees with this suggestion and wishes to amend its proposal, please send us verbatim text to reflect the associated amendment. PTI 6) The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination mechanisms or new ones. Can the names operational community provide such a commitment? If so, the ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal. 7) Please could you clarify whether or not compliance by ICANN and/or PTI is mandatory when decisions or recommendations are made by an IFR or Special IFR process. 8) Comments regarding the PTI board fall in two broad categories, one about the boardâs powers and another one about which members get selected to the board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what the actual member selection process should be. We note that the board composition and selection procedures have been extensively discussed within the CWG and should be elaborated in detail during the implementation phase. Paragraph 1112 of the proposal says: âAs a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors and have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.â This phrasing implies that it is the PTI itself rather than the PTI board that will have "the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.â However, from the underlying legal expertise (from Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers as being applied to the PTI board. Weâd like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. If so, we would propose amending the sentence by replacing âandâ with âwhoâ as follows: âAs a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors who have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.â 9) Some comments raise concerns in the context of the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and independent directors) that the ICANN board and the PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by each seeking to hold the other board responsible. Paragraph 1113 in Part 1 indicates that the PTI board will be responsible for ensuring that the PTI "fulfills its responsibilities under the IANA functions contract with ICANN.â Could the CWG provide an unambiguous statement as to which of the two boards will ultimately be held accountable for ensuring that the IANA functions are carried out appropriately? Please include verbatim text amendments to Part 1 if you believe that would be appropriate to clarify this point. Scope 10) The CWG-Stewardship proposal uses the terms "IANA Functions Operator" and "IFO" in a way that appears to refer to the operator of the IANA Naming Functions, and not necessarily to the operator of other IANA functions, such as the IANA Numbering Functions or the IANA Protocol Parameters Functions. Please could you clarify whether or not these terms, in the CWG-Stewardship proposal, are intended to refer only to the names portion of the IANA functions. 11) Please could you clarify whether or not the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) applies only to the names portion of the IANA functions. 12) Please could you clarify whether or not the IANA Functions Review (IFR) and Special IFR apply only to the names portion of the IANA functions. 13) The .ARPA domain is used for special purposes. Please could you clarify whether or not the .ARPA domain will be included in the CSC and IFR processes. <end>

1 0

Update CCWG Country and territory names
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 25, 2015

Sept. 25, 2015

Dear all, Please find included the written update from the ccNSO appointed co-chairs of the CCWG Use of Country and Territory Names, Annebeth Lange and Paul Szyndler Kind regards, Bart ---------------- Update on Cross-Community Working Group on Country and Territory Names At ICANN Buenos Aires, the C&TN Working Group concluded its initial deliberations on the first significant element of its work - the current and future use of two-letter codes as TLDs. Although all elements of the group's work are subject to ongoing revision until it delivers a Final Report, there was a pleasing level of preliminary agreement on maintaining the status quo. That is, 2-letter codes should be reserved for current, and possibly future, ccTLDs, according the ISO3166 list. This preliminary outcome was based not only on the WG's discussions, but also the feedback received from the community in response to a questionnaire issued by the group. The WG also provided updates to the GAC and other community stakeholders, in order to minimise confusion between our work and other initiatives relating to geographic terms. In order to maintain the momentum of its work, the WG has convened a regular schedule of (approximately fortnightly) teleconferences since Buenos Aires. In early August, the WG released a second questionnaire, addressing the use of 3-letter codes as TLDs. It was transmitted to Chairs of all SOs and ACs. The use of 3-letter codes as TLDs (and implications for country names) is a far more complicated issue than 2-letter codes. The WG expects to release both an explanatory note on historical uses of these codes, and an updated overall progress report, in advance of the Dublin meeting. The group will also focus on a preliminary discussion of 3-letter code use at that meeting. As a procedural aside, it is useful for Council to note that the "questionnaire" style of consultation of the WG has been only moderately successful. Although the WG is not formally issuing a "call for public comment" at each stage of its work, it is attempting to be as consultative as possible. However, these consultations have been slowed considerably by the differing engagement and approval processes of each SO and AC - which are only calibrated to cope with slower, formal consultation processes.

2 1

Chat notes and recording - ccNSO Council Call 24 September
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Dear all, Here is the recording from today's Council Call: http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-council-24sep15-en.mp3 A copy of the chat notes can be found below. Kind regards, Kim Carlson Kimberly Carlson:Hello, and welcome to today's Council Call Ron Sherwood:Good morning, Kimberly Kimberly Carlson:Good morning Barrack Otieno AfTLD:Hi Kim Barrack Otieno AfTLD:Hello Ron Maureen Hilyard:Good morning all Barrack Otieno AfTLD:Morning Maureen soule:Good morning all Jordi Iparraguirre:hello! soule:hello barrack Kimberly Carlson:Peter, glad you could join after all Peter Van Roste:Hi EVeryone! I won't be able to speak, but will use the chat when relevant. 5258:hello, acnnot hear anoyone... 5258:that's leonid Kristina Nordstrom:Hi Leonid, did you lose audio on adobe connect or on the phone line? 5258:adobe Lesley:Good afternoon everyone Kristina Nordstrom:It is working for me. Please try to close AC and restart Barrack Otieno AfTLD:Hello Soule Kristina Nordstrom:Hi Lesley! 5258:this is leonid. I am fine now.. Kristina Nordstrom:Super Celia Lerman:Hi to everyone young-eum:Hi. apoligies for joining late young-eum:I just e-mailed my report to the council list young-eum:I don't have audio access yet abibu (.tz):Hi all, sorry for being late. soule:hello abibu young-eum:I now have audio access. Keith:Hi all - even though I apologiswd, I am in here for a few minutes margarita:bello margarita:hello Peter Van Roste:NTIA has a funny way of sharing an opinion while underlining that they won't comment... Lesley:I have also encouraged people Peter Van Roste:No updates from CENTR. Thanks. Barrack Otieno AfTLD:No updates from AfTLD Lesley:thanks all! young-eum:Thanks everyone! abibu (.tz):thank u all. Jordi Iparraguirre:thank you, bye! soule:thanks all Ron Sherwood:Thank you all, Bye Katrina Sataki:thank you! bye! soule:bye soule:aurevoir Byron:Bye all, see you in dublin Leonid:Bye!

1 0