January 2016 - Ccnso-council

Final call for Sponsors - cocktail Marrakech
by Kimberly Carlson Jan. 29, 2016

Jan. 29, 2016

Dear all, We will determine, next week, whether or not we are able to move forward with the cocktail in Marrakech. In the meantime, we are making one last request for sponsors. Any amount is appreciated and thank you to those who have offered assistance. Please let us know as soon as possible if you're able to help. Kind regards, Kim Carlson

1 0

Call for Volunteers: GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Kimberly Carlson Jan. 28, 2016

Jan. 28, 2016

Dear all, Please see the call for volunteers below. Kind regards, Kim Carlson Call for Volunteers: GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a PDP Working Group (WG) to develop recommendations for New generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Subsequent Procedures. The GNSO Council approved the WG's charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-24jun14-en.pdf> [PDF, 603 KB] on 21 January 2016, tasking this PDP to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed. What This Team Will Do The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group (WG) is tasked with calling upon the community's collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to determine what, if any, changes may need to be made to the existing Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm> policy recommendations from 8 August 2007. As the original policy recommendations as adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board have "been designed to produce a systemized and ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains", those policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy recommendations via this PDP. The work of this PDP WG follows the efforts of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG), which identified a set of issues/subjects for a future PDP WG to consider in their deliberations and recommend whether to: * Clarify, amend or override existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidance; * Develop new policy recommendations; * Supplement or develop new implementation guidance. As part of the PDP WG deliberations, the PDP WG should consider at a minimum, the subjects detailed in the Final Issue Report. These subjects have been organized in groupings suggested by the DG that may facilitate deliberations on related subjects. However, additional work methods, such as those described in the Final Issue Report, or other methods identified by the PDP WG may be more appropriate to undertake the work. In addition to the work of the PDPWG, a number of new gTLD review efforts are underway which may have an impact on the work of this PDP WG. Therefore, this PDP WG should not be limited to the issues identified by the DG and should take into account the findings from the parallel efforts external to the PDP WG. How This Team Will Work ICANN WGs use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this PDP WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be made available to the public. The mailing list for the PDP WG will be archived publicly. The group will collaborate using a public workspace for draft materials and all final work products and milestones will be documented on the WG's wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PD…>. The PDP WG is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> [PDF, 349 KB] as well as the GNSOPDP Manual<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-24jun15-en.pdf> [PDF, 260 KB]. How to Participate There are two ways to volunteer: * Individual Members - anyone interested can volunteer to join the PDP WG as a WG member, regardless of whether they are members of the ICANN community. Members are expected to actively contribute to mailing list conversations as well as meetings - it is anticipated that the PDP WG will at a minimum meet on a weekly basis via teleconference. Members are expected to provide essential input to the process. Members will be required to provide a Statement of Interests (SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>). * Mailing list observers - for those who are merely interested in monitoring the WG's conversations, there is the possibility to sign up as a mailing list "observer" which offers read-only access to the mailing list. Mailing list observers will not be permitted to post, will not receive invitations to the various meetings or calls of the WG and will not have to complete a Statement of Interest. At any point in time, a mailing list observer can join the WG as a member simply by informing the GNSO Secretariat. In addition, there will be opportunities to provide input through public consultations and public comment processes that the PDP WG is expected to organize. How to Join If you are interested in joining the WG as an individual participant or mailing list observer, please fill in the sign up form<http://goo.gl/forms/FRNZ4pSQl9> or send the PDF document<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-pdp-27jan16…> [PDF, 76 KB] filled in to the GNSO Secretariat<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. All members and observers will be listed on the PDP WG's wiki page. Next Steps In its motion, the GNSO Council directed that this call for volunteers be circulated as widely as possible in order to ensure broad representation and participation in the WG. This call will remain open until the PDP WG convenes for the first time. At this juncture, it is anticipated that the PDP WG may convene online in late February 2016. Following that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with the PDP WG's work plan, which it is expected to develop as one of its first tasks. Further Information and Preparation For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are strongly encouraged to review the following materials prior to the first meeting of the PDP WG. * The Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue…> [PDF, 1.38 MB] * The approved charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-charter-21j…> [PDF, 196 KB] * Materials available at the PDP WG's wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PD…>, such as the 2007 Final Report and other relevant information. Background In 2005, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) began a Policy Development Process (PDP) to consider the introduction of new gTLDs. The two-year PDP process resulted in a set of 19 GNSO policy recommendations for implementing new gTLDs. In order to implement the policy recommendations of the GNSO, a number of draft Applicant Guidebooks (AGBs) were developed by ICANN staff in consultation with the community.In June 2011, ICANN's Board of Directors approved the final AGB and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program. The New gTLD Program application window opened on 12 January 2012 and a total of 1930 complete applications were received. The first set of Initial Evaluation results were released on 22 March 2013, followed by the first set of new gTLD delegations on 21 October 2013. All applications have now completed the evaluation process and as of mid January 2016, there are nearly 900 gTLDs delegated and approximately 450 applications still proceeding through the remaining steps of the program. Although the 2012 round is ongoing, efforts to examine the round have already begun, which included the creation of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG)<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2015/non-pdp-new-gtld>. The DG was created by the GNSO Council to discuss the experiences gained from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program and to identify subjects that might lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent application procedures. The DG prepared its final deliverables, which included a set of subjects that it anticipated would be analyzed in detail in the context of an Issue Report. On 24 June 2015 the GNSO Council passed a resolution requesting the drafting of a Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. In accordance with the PDP Rules, the Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015. Following review of the public comments received, the Staff Manager updated the Issue Report accordingly and submitted the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration. The GNSO Council officially initiated the PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures on 17 December 2015, followed by adoption of the PDP WG's charter on 21 January 2016.

1 0

FW: [ccnso-council] Fwd: Work of CWG
by Peter Van Roste Jan. 28, 2016

Jan. 28, 2016

Lise had asked me if this came through. Since I didn't receive it I am forwarding to the list again. Regards, Peter From: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr(a)etno.eu<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>> Date: 27 January 2016 at 22:23:49 GMT+1 To: 'Byron Holland' <byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>> Cc: "paul.kane(a)icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane@icb.co.uk>" <paul.kane(a)icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane@icb.co.uk>>, "ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>>, 'Martin Boyle' <Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Fwd: Work of CWG Dear Byron, Paul and ccNSO council, I will gladly provide you all with an update. Regarding the ccTLD members call it is correct that we could not find a date since I was busy Monday - Wednesday and Maarten is on holiday the other dates. Maybe we can have some help from ccNSO staff to schedule a call next week - maybe by doing a Doodle. 21st December the CWG sent our response to the CCWG proposal. The CCWG is at the moment working hard on implementing this response and other input into the draft proposal - and ICANN staff is tracking this implementation. The CCWG work with a first and second reading and have meetings twice a week. Because of this very intensive work plan from the CCWG - we the CWG were asked by the CCWG chairs to review the issues we had raised in our December response - on fly so to speak. We discussed this way of working in the CWG and agreed on reviewing the document by sending them to the CWG list. Therefore Jonathan and I have sent out the documents regarding the CWG budget requirement, the separation power and IRP for further review to the CWG on email list - as agreed on our last CWG call 12th January. So the CCWG proposal on the requirements in question have been circulated to the CWG list and I am surprised to hear that Paul is not receiving them. I have checked with CWG staff and the CWG mailing list includes two of Pauls email addresses - paul.kane(a)icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane@icb.co.uk> and paul.kane-cwg(a)icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> . To be precise the documents the CWG has to review in relation to how the CCWG proposal is implementing the requests from the CWG are all sent to the cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> list. Regarding the budget and the separation power we only received 3 replies from the group - Martin Boyle, Chuck Gomes and Andrew Sullivan. All three replies were regarding the budget. After the deadline the three replies were sent to the CCWG with the CWG copied. I strongly believe that we actually enforced the text regarding the budget by making it more detailed on what to include in the PTI budget so I cannot recognise the perception that the safeguards have been watered down. Furthermore we have had a lengthy discussion online regarding the IRP and how to implement this so both issues in relation to ccTLDs and gTLDs were covered by an appeal mechanism. For these comments we had a dead-line Monday evening 23.59 UTC. The CWG are sending the documents to the whole CWG list and not only to a small subset of members. I have copied Martin Boyles last submission to the list regarding the IRP. Paul raised the problem about not receiving the emails at our last call. Paul and I will have a call tomorrow and I hope to be able to help him receive the emails on the list. To summarise: * I agree with Paul there is a need to have frequent calls with the ccTLD members and participants of the CWG and I hope that we can start having these on a regular basis with the help from ccNSO staff. * The CCWG draft proposal as published in December needed some additional text to implement our requirements in a satisfying way, but this additional text is being written into the proposal by the CWG advising the CCWG on these matters by the methods explained above. * I do not find that the CWG's proposal has been manipulated nor the safeguards watered down. If you need more update on this issue or questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Lise -----Original Message----- From: Byron Holland [mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca] Sent: 27 January 2016 18:32 To: Lise Fuhr Cc: paul.kane(a)icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane@icb.co.uk>; ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Fwd: Work of CWG Hi Lise, As CWG Co-Chair, could you please provide an update on the concerns that Paul has raised? Thank you, Byron -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: January-26-16 1:44 PM To: ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Cc: paul.kane(a)icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane@icb.co.uk> Subject: [ccnso-council] Fwd: Work of CWG Paul Kane has asked me to forward this to the ccNSO council. Somewhat concerning . . . What thoughts to Councillors have? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Work of CWG Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:13:19 +0000 From: pkane(a)cdns.net<mailto:pkane@cdns.net> To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> CC: Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> Quick update It is good to have our 5th member back - welcome Maarten. There are so many moving parts and the unique ccTLD position is being ignored/weakened. I proposed we had a ccTLD reps coordination call this week but Lise is busy (obviously starting her new job she is going to be busy) and Maarten is away on a skiing holiday - no reply from the others. Update - the CWG Stewardship members are being asked to review the latest transition documents in their entirety to determine if they are happy with the (revised) Accountability proposals and the updated CWG proposal to ascertain if it meets their needs in advance of our next call. For the record, the CWG's proposal has been manipulated (by whom I do not know) and some of the safeguards have been watered down. At our last call (Thursday 21st Jan) I asked that all docs for review be immediately sent to the CWG Stewardship mailing list so _all_ members (not a small subset) had the opportunity to review and make a determination if the ICANN and the PTI's obligations had been reinstated. I advised that I was willing to review the docs last weekend but the docs have NOT been published on the CWG Stewardship mailing list... so I have NOT seen the latest docs. The current strategy seems to be to work with a small subset and obscure the details (and infer acquiescence), so the transition can stay on course. For the record I am NOT in a position to lend my support to the current proposal as I do not know the details of the (current) revised proposal. Our ccTLD coordination call has been postponed and our mailing list is silent ..... :-( Best Paul

1 0

Fwd: Work of CWG
by Nigel Roberts Jan. 27, 2016

Jan. 27, 2016

Paul Kane has asked me to forward this to the ccNSO council. Somewhat concerning . . . What thoughts to Councillors have? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Work of CWG Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:13:19 +0000 From: pkane(a)cdns.net To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> CC: Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> Quick update It is good to have our 5th member back - welcome Maarten. There are so many moving parts and the unique ccTLD position is being ignored/weakened. I proposed we had a ccTLD reps coordination call this week but Lise is busy (obviously starting her new job she is going to be busy) and Maarten is away on a skiing holiday - no reply from the others. Update - the CWG Stewardship members are being asked to review the latest transition documents in their entirety to determine if they are happy with the (revised) Accountability proposals and the updated CWG proposal to ascertain if it meets their needs in advance of our next call. For the record, the CWG's proposal has been manipulated (by whom I do not know) and some of the safeguards have been watered down. At our last call (Thursday 21st Jan) I asked that all docs for review be immediately sent to the CWG Stewardship mailing list so _all_ members (not a small subset) had the opportunity to review and make a determination if the ICANN and the PTI's obligations had been reinstated. I advised that I was willing to review the docs last weekend but the docs have NOT been published on the CWG Stewardship mailing list... so I have NOT seen the latest docs. The current strategy seems to be to work with a small subset and obscure the details (and infer acquiescence), so the transition can stay on course. For the record I am NOT in a position to lend my support to the current proposal as I do not know the details of the (current) revised proposal. Our ccTLD coordination call has been postponed and our mailing list is silent ..... :-( Best Paul

5 5

Volunteers Selection Panel Multistakeholder Ethos Award
by Bart Boswinkel Jan. 27, 2016

Jan. 27, 2016

Dear all, Included a call for volunteers for Selection Panel ICANN’s Multistakeholder Ethos Award. ICANN is looking for two volunteers from the ccNSO. Last year Young Eum Lee was appointed by the ccNSO. Kind regards, Bart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 12 January 2016 18:04 To: Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>>, Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, Subject: Request For Community Selection Panel Participants 2016 Multistakeholder Ethos Award Program Dear Byron, James, Patrik, Brad, Tripti, Thomas, Alan and Louie: In November, I alerted you to the beginning of the 2016 Multistakeholder Ethos Award effort. You may have seen the announcement of the award nomination period posted on ICANN.org on 10 December - see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en. Community nominations have started coming in and we are looking forward to organizing this year’s selection panel prior to the ICANN Public Meeting in Marrakech. I originally offered you all the opportunity to provide me with up to 2 selection panelists from each of your communities by January 11th. We now have a bit more time and I will now be able to accept panelist appointments from you up to a week later than planned - 18 January. We were able to have 10 selection panelists for last year’s award. I hope we can match that number again this year. Please pass on to me the names and email addresses of any panel appointees from your communities by the 18th. Best regards, David

1 1

GAC views on CCWG Accountability 3rd Proposal
by Bart Boswinkel Jan. 26, 2016

Jan. 26, 2016

Dear all, Those of you interested: the GAC has just has made public its views on the CCWG Accountability 3rd Proposal, Kind regards, Bart

1 0

GNSO Council Response to CCWG-ACCT Third Draft Proposal
by Patrick Myles Jan. 23, 2016

Jan. 23, 2016

FYI - GNSO response to CCWG-ACCT Third Draft Proposal attached.

1 0

Sponsors needed for ccTLD Cocktail in Marrakech
by Kimberly Carlson Jan. 22, 2016

Jan. 22, 2016

Dear all, Sorry for the multiple emails. We are still way below the amount needed for the ccTLD cocktail in Marrakech. Any amount you can contribute will be greatly appreciated. We will be making a determination whether or not we will have a cocktail in Marrakech in the next week or two. Kind regards, Kim Carlson

1 0

Informal notes ccNSO Council meeting 21 January 2016, noon UTC
by Bart Boswinkel Jan. 22, 2016

Jan. 22, 2016

ccNSO Council Call on 21 January @12:00 UTC, Informal notes Agenda 1. ) Apologies Ching Chiao, Keith Drazek Quorate Not attending: Nigel Roberts, Young Eum Lee, Vika Mpisane Reminder that attendance will be made more prominent, including none attendance without apologies 2) Minutes and Actions All actions are completed Minutes 10 December Council meeting have been published 3) Stewardship Transition and Accountability Processes Lise and Mathieu on previous call. Not much has happened since 23 December 2015. In addition ISTACC call (14 January 2016) notes have been circulated to Council ( informal notes) The ccNSO Council Statement circulated, Mathieu expressed appreciation. Letter was also circulated to the GNSO Council to inform their discussion. Both the CCWG and GNSO have bene informed the ccNSO Council Statement was broad consensus, but not unanimous decision. Any questions? 3.1 CWG Stewardship 3.1.1 confirmation Replacement Staffan Jonson We have Draft resolution. Byron also draw attention to fact that of current 5 members appointed some (2) of the members stopped participating some time ago, although as part of the application process commitment to participate was asked. Voice of the ccTLD community is therefore not heard to the full. Only 3 members participated actively. Call for volunteers, based on selection process Maarten Simon is preferred candidate. Motion Moved: Keith Seconder : Lesley Any discussion Adopted unanimously 3.2 Update CCWG Accountability Update CCWG Accountability Becky: CCWG works very hard. Meting schedule has doubled. Effort focused to close any particular gaps. Issues with stress test 18. Schedule/Timeline unclear right now Questions? None. Marrakesh meeting: Several sessions on CCWG and CWG and interrelationship. How these sessions will look like depends on how world unfolds Critical factor now how CCWG evolves 3.3 ICG Update (Keith Davidson) Keith: ICG was in hybernation, woke up 13 January awaiting the output CCWG. Lot of discussion. Some want to file current report with ICANN Board. Majority wants to await conclusion CCWG WS 1 work. ICG will NOT meet formally in Marrakesh Questions? None 4) FOI implementation update At previous call Keith and Becky have raised questions and issues from IANA staff pertaining to FOI. Keith: Referred to FOI paper on this topic in the pack of prep material. The questions were initially discussed at 10 December meeting. Questions in the paper. Any comments? Lesley: Read note with interest. Based on her former experience she noted that Information needs to be kept private: inundated with spam. Alejandra: I think the person to be contacted is the Legal Representatives and this information should be private. Whether it is kept in the same database it doesn´t matter. Action All: Provide feed-back to Becky and Keith by mail 5) Meeting B advisory ccNSO Programme WG This is first year new Meeting Strategy. Programme WG ws asked to provide advice Katrina: Initially wanted to run survey. However as result of Dublin session. Unclear how meeting B will look like. Also with Transition on-going during first meeting B. Next year (2017) probably first year actually first meeting B. Keith: reduce ccNSO members meeting, move to more cross-community work? At this stage it is hard to say. Possibly more meetings. Byron: Question for topic of conversation with other groups. Action: Include in agenda with other SO/AC. Draft resolution Mover: Becky Seconder: Stephen Keith abstains: member of Strategy group that proposed the changed structure. Carried with one (1) abstention (Keith) Peter Vergrote: If no Sunday meetings at meeting B, will Council meet in advance of the meeting. Response: has not been considered yet. For discussion in Marrakesh. Action staff: put discussion on schedule Council meetings at Meeting B on agenda. 6) ccNSO PDP on retirement of ccTLDs and on IRP for decisions on delegation, revocation and transfer of ccTLDs 10 December started to discuss.Staff has Mapped out the PDP process. Duration at least 10 months Core question: Combine or treat the topics separately. Will be on agenda in the year ahead. Discussion to thinking at this time: Keith: There is a bit of chicken and egg situation. Should ccNSO proceed to IRP process or start. Review Mechanism is foreseen in RFC 1591, needs to be spelled out, or other way around. Interlinking between topics (retirement and review mechanism), could be done by sequencing within one PDP. Peter VanRoste: hearing from members that it is on the agenda makes some GAC members nervous. Need for a statement Action: clarifying statement from Council on PDP Lesley: Whilst we should get on rather sooner or later. Experience has shown that he 10 months as suggested in paper is very optimistic. Further paper also suggested it could be Fast Tracked: would be quite concerned if Fast Tracked as it signals the need that PDP itself needs to reviewed. 7) Council Updates 7.1 Chair Update Call with GNSO leadership. First time. In large part get to know counterpart: new leadership team at GNSO side. Focus on CCWG UCTN and CCWG progress 7.2 Vice-Chair Update No update 7.3 Councilors Update None 7.4 Regional Organizations Update Peter VanRoste: Next week GAC meeting in Brussels EURid on the agenda to present Outreach efforts very minimal. Organisers informed acordingly. Agenda meeting: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Public+Safety+Working+Group?pre… Intermediary space. Will CENTR report out on. Peter will add it to the intermediary slot Carolina: Update from LACTLD concerning the creation of four working groups: legal, marketing, policy and technical which will hopefully have a good fit with ccNSO meetings for example, among others. 7.5 Staff Update Joke Braeken, new member ccNSo secretariat on the call 8) WG updates 8.1 GRC (Guideline review committee, Katrina Sataki) Katrina: good progres. Before Marrakesh submit a set of documents for consideration Prepare a presentation for community GRC now works on NomCom and Board appointment No Questions 8.2 CCWG Updates - Use of country and territory names (written update, co-chairs CTN), in pack. - CWG on CCWG Principles (Becky Burr): Draft proposal for discussion by the group today ( 21 January). 8.3 Program WG update (Katrina Sataki) Katrina: First draft has been published. Pretty set. Sessions around CCWG, CWG and implementation need to be set. Also Intention to provide a one pager on latest proposal to ccTLDs. Marketing and legal session are pretty set ccTLD news sessions still need to be filled more No meeting with GAC Meeting with ICANN Board on the agenda. Questions? None 8.4 EPSRP WG (written update, chair EPSRP): written update will follow Other updates, if any: written TLD-OPS update will follow. 9) Liaison Updates Written updates 9.1 GNSO Liaison (Patrick Myles). Written update will be send to the list 9.2 ALAC Liaison (Ron Sherwood). Written update in pack and provided by Ron 10) Work plan Work plan update. January 2016 Work plan in pack 11) Date of Next Meetings 11.1 Next Council meetings * 18 February 2016, noon UTC * 09 March 2016. 17.00 local time Marrakesh ( f-2-f) meeting * April meeting TBD in cooperation with new chair, and vice chairs, and taking into account need to accommodate time-zones new Council. 11.2 Council and other meetings, ICANN Marrakesh meeting (5 - 10 March 2016) * ccNSO Council Prep meeting, Sunday 6 March, 12.00-12.30 local time. * ccNSO-ALAC meeting, Sunday 6 March 2016 17:00-17:30 * Joint ccNSO-GNSO Council meeting: Monday 7 March 2016, 12.15-13.45 12) AOB Peter: members, signals that ICANN is on the way of cancelling Marrakesh meetingResponse: No inclination /signal to cancel the meeting Call for volunteers on Ethos: Call for volunteers will be resend again to the list. Succession planning; Byron announced he will not stand again as chair of the ccNSO. The Council needs to think about replacement, it is time to plan now! 13) Adjourn Call ended 13.05 UTC

1 0

CCWG Accountability - additional GNSO views on rec 11
by Patrick Myles Jan. 22, 2016

Jan. 22, 2016

For those interested in more detail on the GNSO conversation on recommendation 11 (CCWG Accountability) - below are selected points made over the past 48 hours. You'll no doubt see the GNSO drafter letter to CCWG co-chairs soon enough but let me know if you don't and I'll forward it. Rec #11 GNSO position on this is nuanced. Most SG/C comments noted the 2/3rds vote of the Board requirement to reject GAC advice as a deal-breaker. Some SGs and Cs said they did support other components of Rec #11, specifically the definition of GAC Consensus as Lacking Formal Objection. GNSO response therefore appears to be broad opposition to the 2/3rds vote threshold, and support/non-opposition to keep the current definition of GAC Consensus. In effect, the GNSO wants to preserve the status quo on both points. Selected points made by councillors: - It is not so much recommendation 11 itself that generates concern (although I feel compelled to point out that recommendation 11 was adopted in a straw poll in a call with a higher than normal percentage of GAC members, and has been opposed by nearly a 2-1 margin in public comments) but rather the combination of recommendations 1, 10 and 11 that causes concern. Recommendation 1 allows the GAC to fully participate in the community mechanism on equal terms with the other SOACs. Recommendation 10 allows the GAC to avoid the accountability reviews other SOACs are subject to. Recommendation 11 not only allows the GAC to maintain its special advisory role but increases the weight it must be given. - Transition should not be used to enhance government authority. - The RySG and BC indicated a willingness to support the 2/3 threshold IF certain other terms were included, so it's not accurate to say everyone in the GNSO does not support 2/3 at all. We may not support the proposal as currently written, but that doesn't mean 2/3 won't receive some support pending incorporation of those recommended changes. - The current definition of GAC consensus is their current operating procedure, but that definition IS OPEN TO CHANGE BY THE GAC at any time. Incorporating that definition into the bylaws is brand new, and it is the other half of the ST-18 package (with the 2/3 threshold). Regards [cid:image001.png@01D13CD0.2D58E640] Patrick Myles Information Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 55 50 www.centr.org<http://www.centr.org/> - Twitter<https://twitter.com/CENTRnews> - Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/centrnews> - LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/centr> - Skype: pat_centr

1 0