September 2016 - Ccnso-council

Council Minutes - 1 September
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 26, 2016

Sept. 26, 2016

Dear Councilors, Please find, attached, the 1 September 2016 minutes for your review. Kind regards, Kim Carlson

1 0

Decision is needed: CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015)
by Katrina Sataki Sept. 25, 2016

Sept. 25, 2016

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 >

1 0

CCWG Auction Proceeds and our decision not to participate (March 2015)
by Katrina Sataki Sept. 25, 2016

Sept. 25, 2016

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

5 7

WHOIS Review (2016)
by Katrina Sataki Sept. 23, 2016

Sept. 23, 2016

Dear all, As you recall, one of the changes envisioned under the 27 May Bylaws is the role of the ccNSO Council with respect to the specific reviews (ATRT, Security and Stability, WHOIS and consumer protection/competition). Assuming that the 27 May Bylaws will become effective, the role of the ccNSO Council and in particular its Chair with respect to the specific reviews will change. Partly this is already covered in the proposed Guideline: ccNSO Nominations to Specific Review Teams (it will be sent to the ccNSO Council for the adoption before our next call on 13 October), if the ccNSO would decide to participate in a specific review. However, as the ccNSO Council we will still need to take some decisions, which are not covered. Recently Chris reached out to the chairs of the SO/ACs to participate in a SO/AC chair call around the Registration Directory Service Review (a.k.a. WHOIS review). It is my understanding that this review is the next one to be launched (after the SSR review which is in its launching phase now) and will be the first one fully under the new framework. According to the 27 May Bylaws 4.6.e (ii), The Board shall cause a periodic review to assess the effectiveness of the then current gTLD registry directory service and whether its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data. In preparation for the call (as far as I can tell it will be on upcoming Monday but it is not certain yet) I have two questions for you: 1) Do you anticipate a role for the ccNSO/ccTLD community in this specific review? In the previous review we appointed one member (Emily Taylor). It is also my understanding that the broader community is aware that ccTLDs deal with a variety of national data protection and law enforcement regimes and it would be beneficial for the broader community to learn more about our experience. 2) Do you have any specific topics/concerns/views you would like to raise? Please let me know your thoughts by Friday 23rd September! Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina

4 3

proposed Triage recommendation 37-2016, SURVEY: Review of the ICANN At-Large Community (2016 - 2017)
by Joke Braeken Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear Councillors, Please find below the proposed Triage recommendation 37-2016. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of Friday 23 September 2016, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendation. Thank you. = = = = = = = = = = Topic: 37-2016 - SURVEY: Review of the ICANN At-Large Community (2016 - 2017) Originator: At-Large Summary of request: Help make At-Large a more efficient and effective part of the ICANN community – all are invited to take part in the At-Large Review survey: http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/ The At-Large Review is conducted by ITEMS who acts as the independent examiner. Date received: 15 September Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 21 October 2016 Recommended action, if any: send to the following mailing lists: cctldcommunity, ccNSO-members, ccnso-council. Expertise needed, if any: aimed at all Internet end-users with as interest in policy making in connection with the DNS and, in particular, in the role and function of the At-Large Community Date of submission to Triage Committee: 16 September 2016 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 21 September 2016 Date of submission to Council: 21 September 2016 Deadline Council decision: 23 September 2016, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: low = = = = = = = = = = Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: Expression of Interest for Root Zone Evaluation Review Committee (“RZERC”)
by Joke Braeken Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear All, A short reminder about the call for expression of interest for the RZERC. The application process will close next week, on Friday 23 September, 23:59 UTC. More information can be found in the email below, or on https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-09sep16-en.htm 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 Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 9 September 2016 at 09:41 To: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org>, "ccnso-members(a)icann.org" <ccnso-members(a)icann.org>, "ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org" <ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org>, "ccTLDWorld(a)icann.org" <ccTLDWorld(a)icann.org> Subject: Expression of Interest for Root Zone Evaluation Review Committee (“RZERC”) Dear All, 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 ). 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). If you are interested, you should be aware that NO travel funding will be provided. Candidates are requested to submit their application to the ccNSO Secretariat (ccNSOsecretariat(a)icann.org) The application process will close on Friday 23 September, 23:59 UTC. After receiving your application, the Secretariat will send the information received to non- conflicted Councillors individually. The selection process is described in the Guideline. It is the intention that by 4 October 2016 the ccTLD representative on the RZERC will be appointed. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON 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. More background information on RZERC can be found at: https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship-implementation/formation-of-a-root-zon… APPLICATION If you are interested, please send the following to ccNSOsecretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:ccNSOsecretariat@icann.org> : + + + + + + + + + + 1. A filled in Expression of Interest form (see attachment) 2. Your resume, curriculum vitae, or biography 3. Letter from your employer supporting you with respect to the required time commitments to participate actively in the RZERC. 4. If not employed by a ccTLD Manager, demonstrate active backing by a ccTLD manager 5. Statement of interest that identifies potential conflict of interest in your service on the committee + + + + + + + + + + During the period in which the call for Expression of Interest is open, potential candidates can email questions to the ccNSO Secretariat to seek clarification with respect to the expression of interest process or desired qualifications for service on the RZERC. All questions and answers will be posted on a dedicated wiki page: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61611406. Potential applicants are encouraged to submit any such questions as early as possible. 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

1 1

ccTLD representative on the CCG
by Katrina Sataki Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Dear Lise, It is my pleasure to inform you that the ccNSO Council nominates Maarten Simon, .nl as the ccTLD representative on the CCG for at least one (1) year term. Maarten has actively participated in the transition work as a member of the CWG. He is also a member of the CWG Client Committee. He has a general legal background and even though he is not an IPR expert, he has general knowledge of the field. Kindest regards, Katrina Sataki Chair of the ccNSO

1 0

Cancellation ISTC Call Tuesday 20 September 20.00 UTC (was: CCG Representatives - Call for Nominations)
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Dear all, Yesterday Katrina send an email on the Nomination of Maarten Simon ( SIDN, and ccNSO appointed member of the CWG). Stephen raised the point about the requirements. Furhter, although there are discussions aroudn the transistion, currently the only issue to discuss by the ISTC group was the nomination of the ccTLD candiate. As this has been adressed by the email nomination of Maarten, this evenings call is cancelled and deferred. Kind regards, Bart From: <cwg-istp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Date: Monday 19 September 2016 at 13:39 To: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org>, "cwg-istp(a)icann.org" <cwg-istp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Cwg-istp] Call ISTC Tuesday 20 September 20.00 UTC (was: CCG Representatives - Call for Nominations) Dear all, As you will recall the call from last week was deferred. Noting that ccNSO Council needs to take action to nominate candidate based on email from Lise, and inform the group. This could be done by email or phone. So question does the group want to have a call tomorrow at the by now standard time 20.00 UTC? Please advise Kind regards, Bart From: <cwg-istp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <Fuhr(a)etno.eu> Date: Sunday 18 September 2016 at 10:39 To: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Cc: "cwg-istp(a)icann.org" <cwg-istp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Cwg-istp] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Representatives - Call for Nominations Dear All, We have previously discussed the CCG representatives and if the ccNSO should go for one of the seat. As earlier stated I believe it is important that the ccTLDs and the gTLDs are represented by one member each. In the CWG there have been some discussion about the co-chairs and Greg Shatan being interim CCG representatives of the naming community – this has as you can read below created some concern. (Please read Jonathan’s email below this one too) I therefore ask the ISTP and the ccNSO council to consider a representative that fulfils the requirements listed by Jonathan below. I think Maarten Simon from SIDN could fulfil this role. Furthermore Paul Kane has expressed that if no one came forward he could also volunteer for this. The timeframe for choosing is short we have a call next Thursday and would like to have nominations before to the CWG – Tuesday 23.59 UTC. I know Maarten is willing to step in so unless you have concerns about the process I think we should put his name forward and Paul could be alternate (I don’t know if we will have alternates). It is possible to at any time after the transition to make a more formal procedure and have a more open process. But given the time and that this is more about having a representative in place I am not so concerned about choosing one from the CWG without an formal election procedure. I am available for a call if needed and please don’t hesitate to ask any questions or send comments. Best, Lise From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: 16 September 2016 18:54 To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Representatives - Call for Nominations All, During the course of the past few CWG meetings, we have discussed the appointment of CCG Representatives from the Naming Community (see Attached). We now have a revised version of the appointment letter (also attached) As you will recall, we need three named representatives, one of whom will be a co-chair. There are no specific skill sets defined for the reps but discussions have centred around three areas of knowledge / expertise: 1. Familiarity with and understanding of the work of this CWG to date i.e. the CWG IANA Stewardship. 2. Specific familiarity with and understanding of the work of the CWG as it relates to the IANA intellectual property rights. 3. General intellectual property expertise / experience only required for the CCG Rep that will serve in the role as CCG Co-Chair. At the last meeting, we agreed that we could work with a temporary solution which would entail appointing the two CWG Co-chairs (Lise Fuhr & myself) as well as Greg Shatan (as CCG Co-Chair). If we do not receive nominations / volunteers, we will work with this solution until the next available opportunity to make a change, likely the next ICANN meeting. However, there were reservations expressed about the above and it was felt to be desirable to see if we could find alternative nominations / volunteers to the above, particularly with respect to replacing Lise & myself. Finally, my understanding is that we have agreed that the two CCG Reps (other than the c-chair) should derive one from each of the ccTLD and gTLD communities. There is no such stipulation with regard to the CCG Co-Chair. This is a call for nominations (or self-nominations) for individuals willing to serve as CCG Reps. If any nominees do have specific intellectual property experience (which may qualify them as a current or future CCG co-chair) that will be helpful to highlight. Therefore, in the nomination, please state: - Name - Affiliation to ccTLD OR gTLD community - Specific intellectual property experience (Yes or no) Please provide nominations to the CWG IANA mailing list by 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 20 September 2016. Thank-you. Jonathan On behalf of the co-chairs Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson

2 1

Call ISTC Tuesday 20 September 20.00 UTC (was: CCG Representatives - Call for Nominations)
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

Dear all, As you will recall the call from last week was deferred. Noting that ccNSO Council needs to take action to nominate candidate based on email from Lise, and inform the group. This could be done by email or phone. So question does the group want to have a call tomorrow at the by now standard time 20.00 UTC? Please advise Kind regards, Bart From: <cwg-istp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <Fuhr(a)etno.eu> Date: Sunday 18 September 2016 at 10:39 To: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Cc: "cwg-istp(a)icann.org" <cwg-istp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Cwg-istp] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Representatives - Call for Nominations Dear All, We have previously discussed the CCG representatives and if the ccNSO should go for one of the seat. As earlier stated I believe it is important that the ccTLDs and the gTLDs are represented by one member each. In the CWG there have been some discussion about the co-chairs and Greg Shatan being interim CCG representatives of the naming community – this has as you can read below created some concern. (Please read Jonathan’s email below this one too) I therefore ask the ISTP and the ccNSO council to consider a representative that fulfils the requirements listed by Jonathan below. I think Maarten Simon from SIDN could fulfil this role. Furthermore Paul Kane has expressed that if no one came forward he could also volunteer for this. The timeframe for choosing is short we have a call next Thursday and would like to have nominations before to the CWG – Tuesday 23.59 UTC. I know Maarten is willing to step in so unless you have concerns about the process I think we should put his name forward and Paul could be alternate (I don’t know if we will have alternates). It is possible to at any time after the transition to make a more formal procedure and have a more open process. But given the time and that this is more about having a representative in place I am not so concerned about choosing one from the CWG without an formal election procedure. I am available for a call if needed and please don’t hesitate to ask any questions or send comments. Best, Lise From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: 16 September 2016 18:54 To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Representatives - Call for Nominations All, During the course of the past few CWG meetings, we have discussed the appointment of CCG Representatives from the Naming Community (see Attached). We now have a revised version of the appointment letter (also attached) As you will recall, we need three named representatives, one of whom will be a co-chair. There are no specific skill sets defined for the reps but discussions have centred around three areas of knowledge / expertise: 1. Familiarity with and understanding of the work of this CWG to date i.e. the CWG IANA Stewardship. 2. Specific familiarity with and understanding of the work of the CWG as it relates to the IANA intellectual property rights. 3. General intellectual property expertise / experience only required for the CCG Rep that will serve in the role as CCG Co-Chair. At the last meeting, we agreed that we could work with a temporary solution which would entail appointing the two CWG Co-chairs (Lise Fuhr & myself) as well as Greg Shatan (as CCG Co-Chair). If we do not receive nominations / volunteers, we will work with this solution until the next available opportunity to make a change, likely the next ICANN meeting. However, there were reservations expressed about the above and it was felt to be desirable to see if we could find alternative nominations / volunteers to the above, particularly with respect to replacing Lise & myself. Finally, my understanding is that we have agreed that the two CCG Reps (other than the c-chair) should derive one from each of the ccTLD and gTLD communities. There is no such stipulation with regard to the CCG Co-Chair. This is a call for nominations (or self-nominations) for individuals willing to serve as CCG Reps. If any nominees do have specific intellectual property experience (which may qualify them as a current or future CCG co-chair) that will be helpful to highlight. Therefore, in the nomination, please state: - Name - Affiliation to ccTLD OR gTLD community - Specific intellectual property experience (Yes or no) Please provide nominations to the CWG IANA mailing list by 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 20 September 2016. Thank-you. Jonathan On behalf of the co-chairs Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson

4 3

Decision needed: ccTLD representative on the CCG
by Katrina Sataki Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

Dear Councillors, As those who are following the discussions of the CWG-Stewardship have already noted, one of the topics that needs to be resolved is the transfer of Intellectual property rights (IPRs) with respect to "IANA" in the event of a separation of IANA. For this purpose it has been agreed that the IETF trust would be entrusted the IPRs and for various reasons an advisory committee (CCG) would be created to focus specifically on the IANA IPRs (see informal notes of the ISTC call from 6 September). The CCG would include 3 members from the RIR community, 3 from the IETF and 3 from the naming community. Its role would be to advise the IETF Trustees if it ever comes to a separation. As said and as part of the process the naming community will need to appoint 3 members, one of whom will be from the ccTLD community. It became clear only last Friday (16 September) that the preferred option of the CWG was that this person could be suggested by the ccNSO Council. Lise has reached out to us and asked us to nominate a ccTLD related person as one of the 3 members from the naming community. Further, the ccNSO appointed members and participants on the CWG have no objection to nominate Maarten Simon from SIDN given his legal background and his work on the client committee of the CWG. As indicated in the email, the nomination period will close tomorrow (20 September) at 23.59 UTC. So unless you have an objection and share it on the list by noon UTC tomorrow, I would like to suggest that we nominate Maarten Simon for the period of at least one (1) year, until the ccNSO Council has adopted a permanent arrangement for nomination/appointment. At the same time, please note that the Guidelines Review Committee will be working on a guideline to ensure a procedure for a more transparent and predictable nomination process. Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina From: cwg-istp-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-istp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 11:39 AM To: ccnso-council(a)icann.org Cc: cwg-istp(a)icann.org Subject: [Cwg-istp] FW: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Representatives - Call for Nominations Importance: High Dear All, We have previously discussed the CCG representatives and if the ccNSO should go for one of the seat. As earlier stated I believe it is important that the ccTLDs and the gTLDs are represented by one member each. In the CWG there have been some discussion about the co-chairs and Greg Shatan being interim CCG representatives of the naming community - this has as you can read below created some concern. (Please read Jonathan's email below this one too) I therefore ask the ISTP and the ccNSO council to consider a representative that fulfils the requirements listed by Jonathan below. I think Maarten Simon from SIDN could fulfil this role. Furthermore Paul Kane has expressed that if no one came forward he could also volunteer for this. The timeframe for choosing is short we have a call next Thursday and would like to have nominations before to the CWG - Tuesday 23.59 UTC. I know Maarten is willing to step in so unless you have concerns about the process I think we should put his name forward and Paul could be alternate (I don't know if we will have alternates). It is possible to at any time after the transition to make a more formal procedure and have a more open process. But given the time and that this is more about having a representative in place I am not so concerned about choosing one from the CWG without an formal election procedure. I am available for a call if needed and please don't hesitate to ask any questions or send comments. Best, Lise From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: 16 September 2016 18:54 To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CCG Representatives - Call for Nominations All, During the course of the past few CWG meetings, we have discussed the appointment of CCG Representatives from the Naming Community (see Attached). We now have a revised version of the appointment letter (also attached) As you will recall, we need three named representatives, one of whom will be a co-chair. There are no specific skill sets defined for the reps but discussions have centred around three areas of knowledge / expertise: 1. Familiarity with and understanding of the work of this CWG to date i.e. the CWG IANA Stewardship. 2. Specific familiarity with and understanding of the work of the CWG as it relates to the IANA intellectual property rights. 3. General intellectual property expertise / experience only required for the CCG Rep that will serve in the role as CCG Co-Chair. At the last meeting, we agreed that we could work with a temporary solution which would entail appointing the two CWG Co-chairs (Lise Fuhr & myself) as well as Greg Shatan (as CCG Co-Chair). If we do not receive nominations / volunteers, we will work with this solution until the next available opportunity to make a change, likely the next ICANN meeting. However, there were reservations expressed about the above and it was felt to be desirable to see if we could find alternative nominations / volunteers to the above, particularly with respect to replacing Lise & myself. Finally, my understanding is that we have agreed that the two CCG Reps (other than the c-chair) should derive one from each of the ccTLD and gTLD communities. There is no such stipulation with regard to the CCG Co-Chair. This is a call for nominations (or self-nominations) for individuals willing to serve as CCG Reps. If any nominees do have specific intellectual property experience (which may qualify them as a current or future CCG co-chair) that will be helpful to highlight. Therefore, in the nomination, please state: - Name - Affiliation to ccTLD OR gTLD community - Specific intellectual property experience (Yes or no) Please provide nominations to the CWG IANA mailing list by 23h59 UTC on Tuesday 20 September 2016. Thank-you. Jonathan On behalf of the co-chairs Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson

1 0