February 2016 - Ccnso-council

Topics Board- ccNSO Meeting
by Bart Boswinkel March 1, 2016

March 1, 2016

Dear all, Please find included list of topics for discussion with the ICANN Board: 1. Views of the Board with respect to launch of WS 2 2. The need for Cost management / PMO for the CCWG and CWG efforts 3. ccNSO Policy Develop Processes on retirement of ccTLDs and Review Mechanism for decisions relating to delegation, revocation& transfer and retirement of ccTLDs (informational) Kind regards, Bart

1 1

Visa issue / Remote participation
by Ching Chiao Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

Dear Council Colleagues, Bart, Up to now I've not yet received the visa on arrival approval from the Moroccan local host. The request was filed prior to 12-Feb and so far no response from the host. ICANN travel support has graciously helped me chase many times, but with no result. As much as I'd like to be back to Marrakech and join you all, the airfare already went up and it gives me very little time to make necessary arrangement before traveling, I can only participate the meeting thru Adobe Connect or teleconference. I look forward to another product week, with deep regret for not being able to make it personally this time. Thank you very much. Ching -- Ching Chiao Founder and CEO www.*Brandma*.co 中域国际集团 +886.918.211372 || +86.135.20187032 Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei

1 0

The ICANN IS-SSR department published its activities report for 2H 2015
by Joke Braeken Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

Dear all, ICANN's Identifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (IS-SSR) department published its activities report for the second half of calendar 2015 (2H 2015). You can find the 2H 2015 report here<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/is-ssr-update-2h-2015-26feb16-e…> [PDF, 429 KB]. This reports describe the activities that are performed to maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet's global identifier systems. These activities include collaboration with, global security and operations groups and public safety communities where ICANN staff serves in several roles. For more information about IS-SSR click https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/is-ssr-2014-11-24-en. Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org

1 0

Publication of the final report on the Domain Name System for the Middle East and Adjoining Countries
by Joke Braeken Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

Dear all, ICANN announced the publication of the final report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-dns-study-26feb16-en.pdf> [PDF, 8.38 MB] on the Domain Name System (DNS) for the Middle East and Adjoining Countries (MEAC). The "Middle East DNS Study" was completed after receiving feedback on the initial draft, which was published before the ICANN54 meeting in Dublin. The report presents findings on the current state of the Internet and the domain name industry in the MEAC region. ICANN selected a consortium led by the .eu Registry (EURid), with support from Emily Taylor Internet Research, Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property and Oxford Information Labs, to conduct the DNS study. The report will be discussed at ICANN55 at the DNS Industry in the Middle East <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/tue-middle-east-dns> session on Tuesday, 8 March, from 16:30–18:00 (WET). Read the full announcement here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-02-26-en Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>

1 0

nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award: closes on 12 March 2016
by Joke Braeken Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

Dear all, In December 2015, ICANN opened the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award. This email serves as a friendly reminder that the nomination period for community nominees closes on 12 March 2016. ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award, launched in June 2014 in London, seeks to recognize long-standing community members who have served in leadership roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees, and demonstrated collaboration with different Supporting Organizations and/or Advisory Committees. If you are interested in nominating someone you are invite to send an email to ethosaward2016(a)icann.org<mailto:ethosaward2016@icann.org> including: * Name of nominee. * Community of nominee. * Reasons for nomination. The full announcement is available at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>

1 1

Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship
by Byron Holland Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

Dear Colleagues, Please see the attached note from the CWG-Stewardship confirming that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 meets their conditionality requirements. Best regards, Byron From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: February-29-16 5:19 AM Subject: Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship Importance: High Dear CCWG-Accountability members, participants, and co-chairs, Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship Final Transition Proposal We write in response to your group's recent publication of the Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations (the "Final Proposal"). We have prepared this in our capacities as co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). Please see our full response attached to this email. The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal submitted for approval to the chartering organizations on 11 June 2015 is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the CCWG-Accountability. Specifically, as recognized in the Final Proposal, the CWG-Stewardship Final Transition Proposal sets forth ICANN accountability requirements regarding Community Empowerment Mechanism, IANA Functions Budget, IANA Function Reviews, Customer Standing Committee ("CSC"), Separation Process, Appeals Mechanism, and Post-Transition IANA ("PTI"), as well as Fundamental Bylaws. This document is and should be viewed as an element of the agreed-upon working methods of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. Thank you for resolving each of the issues raised in our comment letter relating to your group's publication of its third draft proposal (the "Third Draft Proposal") and for all your hard work in reaching consensus. As you know, we rely on your work and our trust in the work of your group is vital in permitting us to focus on the essential aspects of our work on the stewardship transition. In summary, we confirm that the Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal. Congratulations on your Final Proposal and thank-you again all for your collaboration and cooperation throughout this extended period of intense work. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship

1 0

Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship
by Bart Boswinkel Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

Dear all, Please find included the letter from the CWG -Stewardship to the co-chairs of the CCWG - Accountability to confirm that the the Final Supplemental Proposal on Work Stream 1 meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship Final transition Proposal. Apologies for cross-posting, Kind regards, Bart Boswinkel ccNSO ------------------------- Dear CCWG-Accountability members, participants, and co-chairs, Confirmation that the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship Final Transition Proposal We write in response to your group's recent publication of the Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations (the "Final Proposal"). We have prepared this in our capacities as co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). Please see our full response attached to this email. The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal submitted for approval to the chartering organizations on 11 June 2015 is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the CCWG-Accountability. Specifically, as recognized in the Final Proposal, the CWG-Stewardship Final Transition Proposal sets forth ICANN accountability requirements regarding Community Empowerment Mechanism, IANA Functions Budget, IANA Function Reviews, Customer Standing Committee ("CSC"), Separation Process, Appeals Mechanism, and Post-Transition IANA ("PTI"), as well as Fundamental Bylaws. This document is and should be viewed as an element of the agreed-upon working methods of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. Thank you for resolving each of the issues raised in our comment letter relating to your group's publication of its third draft proposal (the "Third Draft Proposal") and for all your hard work in reaching consensus. As you know, we rely on your work and our trust in the work of your group is vital in permitting us to focus on the essential aspects of our work on the stewardship transition. In summary, we confirm that the Final Proposal meets the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal. Congratulations on your Final Proposal and thank-you again all for your collaboration and cooperation throughout this extended period of intense work. Yours sincerely, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship

1 0

Re: The Currently Re-Finalized Proposal as Hardcopy
by Nigel Roberts Feb. 29, 2016

Feb. 29, 2016

IMO this is essential .. I would certainly need one to be able to properly carry out my scrutiny my role in the subsequent 2 days. Sent from my iPad > On 29 Feb 2016, at 08:30, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Co-Chairs. > > can you please arrange that the participants and members coming to Marrakesh find a single pages (back empty) hardcopy of the Proposal on their desk at Friday's F2F? Does not have to be bound, but if it is in a ring binder please make it available in A4 and corresponding 2 Ring Binder (the famous Leitz Ordner) and Letter/3 Ring Binder (US). > > Or at least for those who would like one. > > If it's bound why not put it into the ICANN goodie bag? > > el > > -- > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4

1 0

FW: Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
by Stephen Deerhake Feb. 28, 2016

Feb. 28, 2016

FYI, it seems our colleagues in the gNSO are having a bit of buyer's remorse with respect to a particular aspect of the CCWG "final" report, and are requesting further work be undertaken, as indicated in the attached letter to the CCWG co-chairs from Keith Drazek. I really don't see how we can commit the ccNSO to such a moving target. Best, /Stephen PS: FYI, subsequent to the publication of this correspondence, additional CCWG participants have signed onto it. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 3:04 PM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue Hi Thomas, Mathieu and Leon. I'm submitting the following on behalf of the undersigned members/participants from the GNSO: --------------------------------------------- Dear CCWG-Accountability Chairs, We are very concerned with the response of the Board to the request for clarification regarding the need to adjust the thresholds for the Empowered Community to exercise its powers if the number of decisional participants is less than 5 SOACs. Currently the text in Annex 1 and 2 regarding this possibility is ambiguous: "The thresholds presented in this document were determined based on this assessment. If fewer than five of ICANN's SOs and ACs agree to be decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support may be adjusted. Thresholds may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs." In our view, there is no question that the thresholds must be adjusted if there are fewer than five decisional participants. We have acknowledged repeatedly and operated under the assumption that there should not be a requirement of unanimous support for the Empowered Community to exercise its powers. Yet, if there are less than five decisional participants, unless the thresholds are adjusted it would require unanimous support for the Empowered Community to: * Reject a proposed Operating Plan/Strategic Plan/Budget; * Recall the entire Board of Directors; and * Reject an ICANN Board decision relating to reviews of IANA functions, including the triggering of any PTI separation process. These powers are central to ensuring that ICANN remains accountable to the Empowered Community. This matter is too critical to the primary purpose of the CCWG-Accountability proposal to remain unclear. As the Board has noted in its own formal comments, "Leaving this issue for future consideration raises the potential for renegotiation of the community thresholds. This potential for renegotiation adds a level of instability and a lack of predictability." Although it has a superficial resemblance to the recent debate over thresholds in the GAC carve-out, we believe it is fundamentally different. There is a great distinction between an SO or AC choosing to not participate, and an SO or AC being blocked from participation in a specific instance, as was the case in the case of the GAC carve-out. We were willing to accept a unanimous threshold for Board recall in the unique circumstances of the GAC carve-out, where the GAC was blocked from participation, but we believe firmly that if any SO or AC elects, whether through a conscious decision or an inability to decide, to not participate, then the non-unanimity principle must be upheld. However, as we saw with the debate over the thresholds in the GAC carve-out, this could be a contentious issue. It is far better to resolve this matter now (and during the drafting of bylaws), prior to the official transfer of the proposal to NTIA, than to delay it when it could have significant negative ramifications on the transition through a failure to resolve it during the implementation phase. Therefore, we respectfully request that the current text in Annex 1 and Annex 2 be edited to replace "may" with "shall" and add an additional explanatory clause: "The thresholds presented in this document were determined based on this assessment. If fewer than five of ICANN's SOs and ACs agree to be decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support shall be adjusted to prevent the need for unanimous support among the decisional Participants to exercise any of the seven Community powers. Thresholds may also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs." Signed, Phil Corwin Steve DelBianco Keith Drazek James Gannon Robin Gross Ed Morris Brett Schaefer Greg Shatan Matthew Shears

3 2

FW: [ccnso-members] RELEASE: Sen. Cruz: ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade Is Misleading the United States Senate
by Byron Holland Feb. 26, 2016

Feb. 26, 2016

Dear El, Thanks for the note. I can assure you that I have spoken to Allan about the email as his inference and labeling was inappropriate. As I am sure you will agree, we should hold every member of our community to the same standard. The "corner" it will be for all who speak inappropriately of others:=) Cheers, Byron -----Original Message----- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.NA] Sent: February-24-16 11:01 AM To: Allan MacGillivray; Byron Holland; ccnso-members(a)icann.org; ccnso-council(a)icann.org Cc: el(a)lisse.NA; paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com Subject: Re: [ccnso-members] RELEASE: Sen. Cruz: ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade Is Misleading the United States Senate Dear Byron, thank you for posting the press release. Will you please explain to your staff member how the multi stakeholder process works? You have my permission to send him to stand in the corner, but not to spank him. Even conservative think tankers may make as much trouble as me :-)-O, or anyone else. However, this is public knowledge plastered all over the place My personal opinion is that Mr Chehadé's response (if you can call it that) is at the least ill advised but most likely hubris in order to alienate either the next (chronically pissed off) President of the US or a VERY pissed off junior Senator from Alberta, who may just have a point here. As he may have had on the root zone issue. The troublemaker reads in copy. el On 2016-02-24 16:36, Allan MacGillivray wrote: > There is a guy on the CCWG list, Paul Rosenzweig, from a conservative > think tank in DC. He got the press release directly from a Cruz > staffer and sent it to the CCWG list yesterday. And guess who is one > of the CCWG trouble makers, Paul Roesenzweig....... > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network. > *From: *Byron Holland > *Sent: *Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:25 AM > *To: *ccNSO Members; ccnso-council(a)icann.org > *Subject: *[ccnso-members] RELEASE: Sen. Cruz: ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade > Is Misleading the United States Senate > > > > FYI > >> >> _Press(a)cruz.senate.gov <mailto:Cruz_Press@cruz.senate.gov>> >> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 23, 2016 6:25 PM >> *Subject: *RELEASE: Sen. Cruz: ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade Is >> Misleading the United States Senate [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0