September 2016 - Ccnso-council

RE: Attendance in Hyderabad?
by Kimberly Carlson Oct. 11, 2016

Oct. 11, 2016

Dear Councilors, Just a friendly reminder to please let me know if you will be attending the Hyderabad meeting in person. I will need to provide remote participation for those who are not attending. For those who are attending in person, among other things, I need a headcount for lunch catering. Thank you, Kim From: Kimberly Carlson Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 8:19 AM To: 'ccnso-council(a)icann.org' <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: Attendance in Hyderabad? Dear Councilors, As mentioned on yesterday's Council call, we would like to get an idea of who will be attending the face-to-face meeting Hyderabad. Please let me know your (projected) arrival and departure days. Thank you and have a good weekend. Kim

4 5

THE TRANSITION IS ON!! Texas court rejected request for temporary restraining order
by Burr, Becky Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:03 PM To: "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] URGENT DECISION NEEDED: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Councillors, Please find the letter below (and attachment) and let me know your thoughts ASAP! As you can see: "This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to be included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one or more COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask that you provide such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying to this email, preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned.” We have adopted the proposal developed by the CWG and I believe we should not refuse to provide such a written confirmation. Any other thoughts/comments (apart from the disappointment with the utmost urgency)? Thank you! Regards, ]{atrina -- € From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>> Date: Thursday 29 September 2016 17:37 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>, "patrik(a)frobbit.se<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>" <patrik(a)frobbit.se<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>>, "jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr(a)etno.eu<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org>>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org<mailto:Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org>>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org<mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org>>, Nathalie Vergnolle <nathalie.vergnolle(a)icann.org<mailto:nathalie.vergnolle@icann.org>>, Yuko Green <yuko.green(a)icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org>> Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Chairs, Please see below a note from the Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. -- Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, As part of the transition implementation work, representatives from the names community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and to govern the relationships amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. These agreements are: - IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. - 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA services.): These agreements allows for the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. - IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement explains the rights and obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. After a public comment period last month, the agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as part of the work was to identify who would be the signatory of the Community Agreement on behalf of the Naming Community. The decision made by the group, with input from CWG external counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. The Instruction Letter says: "This letter confirms the request of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (“CWG”) for the benefit of those of its listed chartering organizations – the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (“SSAC”), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), the At Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) – that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be included herein (each a “Consenting SO/AC” and collectively, the “Names Community”) that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement." This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to be included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one or more COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask that you provide such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying to this email, preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. Thank you for your cooperation, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.

1 0

ccNSO representative on the EC Administration
by Katrina Sataki Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear Mr Jeffrey Cc: Stephen Deerhake Please be informed and I hereby certify that the country code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) has appointed Mr Stephen Deerhake to serve as the ccNSO’s representative on the Empowered Community Administration under Article 6 of the Bylaws adopted by the Board on 27 May 2016. The ccNSO will be reviewing this appointment along with related issues regularly, and you will be advised of any resulting change to this appointment. Regards, Katrina Sataki Chair of the country code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) -- €

1 0

ccNSO representative on the Empowered Community Administrative Committee
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear All, At closure of todays call for volunteers only Stephen volunteered ( thank you!) As agreed and in accordance with the ccNSO Guideline he will be appointed as the ccNSO Reperesentative on the EC Admin Committtee. Katrina will inform ICANN and certify that Stephen has been appointed, as requried by the Bylaws Kind regards, Bart

1 0

URGENT DECISION NEEDED: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right
by Katrina Sataki Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear Councillors, Please find the letter below (and attachment) and let me know your thoughts ASAP! As you can see: "This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to be included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one or more COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask that you provide such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying to this email, preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned.” We have adopted the proposal developed by the CWG and I believe we should not refuse to provide such a written confirmation. Any other thoughts/comments (apart from the disappointment with the utmost urgency)? Thank you! Regards, ]{atrina -- € From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday 29 September 2016 17:37 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv>, "patrik(a)frobbit.se" <patrik(a)frobbit.se>, "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr(a)etno.eu>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, Nathalie Vergnolle <nathalie.vergnolle(a)icann.org>, Yuko Green <yuko.green(a)icann.org> Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Chairs, Please see below a note from the Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. -- Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, As part of the transition implementation work, representatives from the names community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and to govern the relationships amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. These agreements are: - IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. - 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA services.): These agreements allows for the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. - IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement explains the rights and obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. After a public comment period last month, the agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as part of the work was to identify who would be the signatory of the Community Agreement on behalf of the Naming Community. The decision made by the group, with input from CWG external counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. The Instruction Letter says: "This letter confirms the request of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (“CWG”) for the benefit of those of its listed chartering organizations – the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (“SSAC”), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), the At Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) – that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be included herein (each a “Consenting SO/AC” and collectively, the “Names Community”) that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement." This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to be included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one or more COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask that you provide such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying to this email, preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. Thank you for your cooperation, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.

9 9

RE: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
by Katrina Sataki Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear Marika, Jonathan, Alan, Thank you for your message and invitation to review the proposed charter. As you pointed out in your email, in March 2015 the ccNSO Council decided not to participate in the cross-community working group on the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. After reviewing the proposed charter, the ccNSO Council respectfully acknowledged the excellent job done by the drafting committee. Further, the ccNSO Council revisited its decision of March 2015. After careful consideration of all arguments, taking into account the importance of the use of the auction funds and contribution that ccTLDs with experience in comparable projects could bring to the cross-community working group, I am pleased to inform you that the ccNSO now anticipates to participate in the cross-community working group as a chartering organization and will consider the charter for adoption at its upcoming meeting on 13 October 2016. On behalf of the ccNSO Council, Katrina Sataki Chair of the ccNSO From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 7:41 PM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv>; thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch; paf(a)netnod.se; James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>; louie(a)louie.net; tsinha(a)umd.edu; bverd(a)verisign.com; alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca; Oscar Robles <oscar(a)lacnic.net> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>; Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>; Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>; Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes(a)icann.org>; Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org>; dt-cwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org Subject: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Sending on behalf of Jonathan Robinson, new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair: Dear SO/AC Chairs, On behalf of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team (DT), we are delighted to submit to you and your respective SO/ACs, the proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds. As you may recall, representatives of all ICANN SO/ACs, apart from the ccNSO (which decided not to take part in the DT effort), participated in the DT deliberations (see <https://community.icann.org/x/AR_AAw> https://community.icann.org/x/AR_AAw for DT members). This proposed charter is the result of extensive input and deliberations, including careful review of input that was received as part of the cross-community session at ICANN 56 in Helsinki (see <https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw)> https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw) and we believe it now represents a careful balance between the different viewpoints and perspectives, including from both the DT Members and the ICANN Board liaisons to the DT. As such, the DT would like to request you review the proposed charter with this careful balance in mind and only flag to the DT any pertinent issues that would prevent your respective SO/AC from adopting this charter. We would like to request you highlight such pertinent issues by 30 September 2016 at the latest, including an indication of when you anticipate your respective SO/AC to be in a position to consider the charter for adoption following 30 September, provided that no pertinent issues have been identified by any of the ICANN SO/ACs. Of course, should you have any clarifying questions, please do not hesitate to respond to this message. The DT looks forward to receiving your feedback. Best wishes, Jonathan Robinson, DT Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair

1 0

Final reminder FW: [ccnso-council] ccNSO appointed member on the RZERC : selection procedure after closure EoI
by Joke Braeken Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear all, This e-mail is a final reminder that the deadline for the RZERC selection process, described in the email below, is next week, Monday 3 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC. Instructions on how to select candidates can be found below. Do not hesitate to contact me, should you have questions. Thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday 28 September 2016 at 11:01 To: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: Reminder - action required FW: [ccnso-council] ccNSO appointed member on the RZERC : selection procedure after closure EoI Dear members of the council, A reminder that the deadline for the RZERC selection process, described in the email below, is next week, Monday 3 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC. You are invited to compile a list of the candidates, based on the Selection Criteria and in order of preference. The most preferred candidate will receive 3 points, the second 2 points and your least preferred candidate 1 point. If, in your view, a particular candidate does not meet the criteria, there is no need to include the name of that candidate in your list. However, in this case the most preferred will still receive 3 points, the second one 2 points. To select your candidates, you are supposed to take into account and be guided by the selection criteria in the call for volunteers (included for reference here: https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-rzerc-guideline-01sep16-en.pdf[…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workin…> ) Please send your list to ccnsosecretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnsosecretariat@icann.org>, with subject line “RZERC Selection”, NO LATER THAN MONDAY 3 OCTOBER 2016, 17:00 UTC Thank you! Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org From: <owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Date: Monday 26 September 2016 at 16:06 To: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] ccNSO appointed member on the RZERC : selection procedure after closure EoI Dear All, As you will recall Katrina, is the interim member of the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC), which has been established a part of the IANA Stewardship Transition. Following adoption of the ccNSO Guideline, the CCNSO Council launched a call for Expression of Interest (EoI) to seek one (1) ccNSO appointed member on the RZERC from the ccTLD community. This person will replace Katrina. At closure of the call for volunteers (Friday 23 September, 23:59 UTC), 3 community members put their name forward, in alphabetical order: · Jaap Akkerhuis · Luis Diego Espinoza · Peter Koch Please note that both Jaap and Luis Diego are not directly involved with a ccTLD, but have received support from a ccTLD (see their applications). In a separate email I will forward the applications to you individually. In the balance of this email you will find the procedure for selecting the candidate and the call for volunteers, which includes the selection criteria (marked). Kind regards, Joke Braeken + + + + + SELECTION PROCEDURE + + + + + A. Selection phase by Councillors On Monday 26 September 2016 all Councillors eligible to select will receive all applications received by Friday 23 September 23:59 UTC. These will be sent to you individually. Next steps? You are invited to compile a list of the candidates, based on the Selection Criteria and in order of preference. The most preferred candidate will receive 3 points, the second 2 points and your least preferred candidate 1 point. If, in your view, a candidate does not meet the criteria, you do not have to include the name, in which case the most preferred will still receive 3 points, etc. To select your candidates, you are supposed to take into account and be guided by the selection criteria in the call for volunteers (included for reference here: https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-rzerc-guideline-01sep16-en.pdf[…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workin…> ) Please send your list to ccnsosecretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnsosecretariat@icann.org>, with subject line “RZERC Selection”, NO LATER THAN MONDAY 3 OCTOBER 2016, 17:00 UTC B. Administrative Procedure After having received your list to the ccNSO Secretariat, we will acknowledge receipt of your email. The acknowledgement will include a ballot number and date of receipt. On 3 October 2016 (after 17.00 UTC) an overview list will be circulated in the following format: - Ballot numbers, - Date ballots were received, - level of preference per candidate. As agreed by Council the candidate receiving most support is considered to be selected. + + + + + CALL FOR EXPRESSION OF INTEREST + + + + + At its meeting on 1 September, the ccNSO Council approved the ccNSO Guideline: ccNSO Actions Respecting the Root Zone Evaluation Review Committee. (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-rzerc-guideline-01sep16-en.pdf[…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workin…>). At the same meeting, the Council launched the call for Expression of Interest (EoI) to seek one (1) ccNSO appointed member on the Root Zone Evaluation Review Committee ("RZERC") from the ccTLD community (independent of membership of the ccNSO). This person, when appointed will replace the interim ccNSO appointed member. The term of appointment will be three (3) years. A member may be re-appointed for two additional terms (in total 3 terms). Candidates should be aware that NO travel funding will be provided. Candidates were requested to submit their application to the ccNSO Secretariat (ccNSOsecretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:ccNSOsecretariat@icann.org>). The application process closed on Friday 23 September, 23:59 UTC. After having received the applications, the Secretariat will send the information received to non-conflicted Councillors individually. It is the intention that by Tuesday 4 October 2016 the ccTLD representative on the RZERC will be appointed. + + + + + BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RZERC, and ccTLD PARTICIPATION IN THE RZERC + + + + + ICANN has established a Root Zone Evaluation Review Committee to review and provide input regarding proposed architectural and operational changes to the root zone and as determined necessary by the RZERC, propose architectural and operational changes to the root zone for consideration by the ICANN Board. The RZERC will consider issues raised to the RZERC to identify any potential security, stability or resiliency risks to the architecture and operation of the root zone. The RZERC will coordinate with the committee's respective organizations and communities, and if appropriate, external experts, to ensure that relevant bodies were involved in decision-making and ensure that relevant expertise was available. The RZERC will coordinate a public consultation process for operational and architectural changes that impose potential risk to the security, stability, or resiliency of the root system (as identified by one or more committee members and agreed by a simple majority of members). This public consultation process regarding the proposed changes, including the identified risks, will be organized via the ICANN public comment forum. The RZERC will act as a consultation body for ICANN during the issuance and consideration of an RFP for the Root Zone Maintainer, if needed. The RZERC will coordinate with the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) as needed. In accordance with the adopted charter of the RZERC (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/revised-rzerc-charter-08aug16-e…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> , the ccNSO shall select 1 member to the committee. The committee membership is the following: - The Chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, or Chair’s delegate   - The Chair of the Root Server System Advisory Committee, or Chair’s delegate   - The Chair of the Address Supporting Organization, or Chair’s delegate   - The Chair of the Internet Engineering Task Force, or Chair’s delegate   - One representative selected by the Registries Stakeholder Group of the Generic Names Supporting Organization   - One representative selected by the Country Code Names Supporting Organization   - One representative of the organization identified to serve as the Root Zone Maintainer   - One ICANN Board member   - One senior IANA Function Operator administrator or their delegate   More background information on RZERC can be found at: https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship-implementation/formation-of-a-root-zon…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_stewa…> On behalf of the ccNSO Secretariat, Kind regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DQ…> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso…> http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org&d=DQMGa…>

1 0

Re: [ccnso-council] Decision is needed: CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015)
by Katrina Sataki Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear Councillors, Let me remind you that your decision is needed regarding the CCWG Auction Proceeds should we revise our decision from March 2015 or not. So far there are three Councillors in favour and three against. If you wish to vote in favour, please do respond to this email by 30 September 12.00 UTC. I do not wish to influence your decision but I think I should note a couple of things that were brought to my attention: 1. there are ccTLDs that are willing and ready to participate in this CCWG and would welcome if the ccNSO was a chartering organisation 2. ccTLDs will be able to share their experience and contribute to the work of the CCWG even if the ccNSO does not become a chartering organisation 3. Some ccTLDs operate also new gTLDs and thus the impartiality of the ccNSO may be questioned if the ccNSO becomes a chartering organisation. Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina From: <owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> Date: Sunday 25 September 2016 22:33 To: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Decision is needed: CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) Dear Colleagues, Your decision is needed! There is a unanimous decision of the ccNSO Council from March 2015 not to participate in the CCWG Auction Proceeds (we have informed other communities about this decision). In response to the request we received from the co-chairs of the CCWG Auction Proceeds, Becky and Chris expressed support and arguments in favour of active participation. To reverse the Council decision we would need at least majority of Councillors voting in favour of that. Currently (if I interpret your votes correctly) we have: Becky in favour (of reversing the decision) Katrina against Demi against Souleymane - against May I ask other Councillors to voice their opinions? If you believe that circumstances have changed and in order for ccTLDs to contribute and share their experience meaningfully there is a need for the ccNSO to join as a chartering organisation, please vote in favour of reversing the Council decision. If you think that ccTLDs can contribute without the ccNSO being a chartering organisation, vote against. No vote will be counted as a vote against reversing the decision. Thank you very much! Kind regards, ]{atrina From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> Date: Sunday 25 September 2016 20:03 To: Chris Disspain <chris(a)disspain.uk>, Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> Cc: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) +1 J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> From: Chris Disspain <chris(a)disspain.uk> Date: Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:28 AM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz>, "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015) Hi Katrina, In an ideal word I think it would be good for the ccTLDs to be a chartering organisation so that we can be involved in the development of and sign off¹ on something that is likely to be a significant development in ICANN. I think being a part owner¹ of the mechanism or entity that results from the this ccwg would be of benefit to ccTLDs in the future. Cheers, Chris > On 22 Sep 2016, at 18:33, Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> wrote: > > > As far as I know, some ccTLDs have already shared their experience and I am > sure will gladly do so in the future. > > Becky, Chris, I am not sure I understood your remarks do you think there is > a need to reconsider the Council decision and participate in the WG as a > chartering organisation? Or, according to initial plan, informing and > encouraging individual ccTLDs to share their experience would suffice? > > Thanks! > > Regards, > > ]{atrina > > > > From: Chris Disspain <chris(a)disspain.uk> > Date: Thursday 22 September 2016 19:39 > To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> > Cc: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv>, ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to > participate (March 2015) > > I agree with Becky. I understand that there could be workload issues for > ccTLDs that would mitigate against participating but I do think it is > important to remember that an ICANN wide Foundation or or Fund is a > possible/likely outcome and ccTLD input into the scope of such an entity would > be extremely valuable. > > Happy to go into more detail of that¹s helpful. > > > Cheers, > > Chris > >> On 22 Sep 2016, at 16:52, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> wrote: >> >> I think that ccTLDs have a lot to offer in this process. There is no >> understanding or expectation that the contributors (gTLD applicants) will >> control or benefit from the auction proceeds. The CCWG will need to develop >> the objectives for use of the proceeds. I could easily imagine that capacity >> building for struggling ccTLDs might fit into those objectives. I think the >> cc¹s have a lot to add to this process. >> >> >> >> J. Beckwith Burr >> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer >> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 >> Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz >> <http://www.neustar.biz/> >> >> From: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> >> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 11:35 AM >> To: "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> >> Subject: [ccnso-council] CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to >> participate (March 2015) >> >> Dear All, >> >> We have been approached by the co-chairs of the Drafting Team for the charter >> of the Auction proceeds cross-community working group. >> >> The ccNSO Council is asked the following questions: >> - Whether it has any pertinent issues with the proposed charter (attached) >> - Whether it intends to adopt the charter and hence become one of the >> chartering organizations. >> >> In March 2015 we decided NOT to participate in the cross-community working >> group. The main reason is that ccTLDs did not contribute to the proceeds of >> the auction, and hence participation is considered out of scope (see attached >> letter dated 21 May 2015). At the same time the ccNSO Council did acknowledge >> that some ccTLDs have extensive experience in dealing with funds such as the >> auction proceeds and this experience could be beneficial to the process. We >> agreed that, once the charter was adopted, we would convey an invitation to >> individual ccTLDs and those related to ccTLDs with an interest and experience >> in this area. >> >> In my view the reasons not to participate as a chartering organization still >> stand, and therefore there is no need to reconsider the decision we made in >> 2015. Any other thoughts? >> >> If you do not object, I suggest that we stick to our original decision and >> inform the co-chairs accordingly. >> >> Please let me know if you believe that we should choose an alternative course >> of action by Monday. >> >> Thank you! >> >> Kind regards, >> >> ]{atrina >

10 12

Re: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board
by Demi Getschko Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

In line with what Bill wrote below, I will take the opportunity to disclosure that personally I would like to nominate Chris Disspain for one more term at the Board (even without knowing if he will accept or not) . Chris did always an excellent job in defending the interests of the cc community and gave an invaluable contribution in keeping the Internet one and open. best demi On 9/29/16 6:16 AM, J. William Semich wrote: > Katrina: > > With due respect, I disagree with this perspective. > > From my personal experience over the past two decades of involvement with the ccTLD community, it is my impression that members do not step forward to run for the board because they are happy with the current members' service and see no good purpose or reason for a change. > > Our 2 current board members are excellent examples of this reasoning. They have worked long and hard, with commitment and dedication to the ccTLD community, and have shown they can represent the community remarkably well and with great energy and valuable experience. Why make a change just for the sake of change? > > No reason. > > Best regards, > > Bill Semich > .nu domain > > > On Sep 28, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> wrote: > >> Answering Mathieu’s question whether the ccNSO Council has discussed elections and the lack of volunteers – yes, we have. But I would re-phrase Mathieu’s concern slightly. I do not think it would be entirely correct to say that the absence of choice for members is a strong warning signal. The choice is not something that can and should be administratively or artificially imposed by somebody. It is up to the members to provide this choice. Why members do not step forward certainly is a strong warning signal. Lack of volunteers and volunteers fatigue is a constant concern. We have used to the extent of ‘abused’ the same people over and over again. I can understand why they do not volunteer for more work very well. I can only wholeheartedly thank everybody who contribute to the work of the ccNSO and hope that other members (and non-members) will be inspired by all those wonderful people who do a lot of heavy lifting on behalf of the ccTLD community! >

2 1

Re: [ccnso-council] Re: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board
by Burr, Becky Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

If I might add the perspective of someone just joining the Board, we should not underestimate the value of having ccNSO Board members who serve the full three terms. The relative seniority and expertise of the ccNSO reps, because we do not randomly change them out as some constituencies do, ensures that the concerns and interests of ccTLD managers are taken very seriously by the Board as a whole. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 9/29/16, 9:45 AM, "Katrina Sataki" <katrina(a)nic.lv> wrote: > >Bill, > > >I completely agree with you - we have selected excellent Board members! >Thank you very much for pointing this out! > >But I was talking about volunteers in a broader sense - to serve on the >ccNSO Council, to participate in the work of various working groups; and >even to give presentations at the ccNSO Meetings, to participate in >discussions, etc. > >Thank you again! > >Kind regards, > >]{atrina > >On 29/09/16 15:16, "J. William Semich" <owner-ccnso-members(a)icann.org on >behalf of bill(a)nunames.nu> wrote: > >> >>Katrina: >> >>With due respect, I disagree with this perspective. >> >>From my personal experience over the past two decades of involvement with >>the ccTLD community, it is my impression that members do not step forward >>to run for the board because they are happy with the current members' >>service and see no good purpose or reason for a change. >> >>Our 2 current board members are excellent examples of this reasoning. >>They have worked long and hard, with commitment and dedication to the >>ccTLD community, and have shown they can represent the community >>remarkably well and with great energy and valuable experience. Why make a >>change just for the sake of change? >> >>No reason. >> >>Best regards, >> >>Bill Semich >>.nu domain >> >> >>On Sep 28, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> wrote: >> >>> Answering Mathieu¹s question whether the ccNSO Council has discussed >>>elections and the lack of volunteers yes, we have. But I would >>>re-phrase Mathieu¹s concern slightly. I do not think it would be >>>entirely correct to say that the absence of choice for members is a >>>strong warning signal. The choice is not something that can and should >>>be administratively or artificially imposed by somebody. It is up to the >>>members to provide this choice. Why members do not step forward >>>certainly is a strong warning signal. Lack of volunteers and volunteers >>>fatigue is a constant concern. We have used to the extent of Œabused¹ >>>the same people over and over again. I can understand why they do not >>>volunteer for more work very well. I can only wholeheartedly thank >>>everybody who contribute to the work of the ccNSO and hope that other >>>members (and non-members) will be inspired by all those wonderful people >>>who do a lot of heavy lifting on behalf of the ccTLD community! > > >

1 0