September 2016 - Ccnso-council

October Council Call
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear Councilors, Please find the details below for the October 13th Council call. Date: 13 October 2016 Time: 19:00 UTC Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: https://participate.icann.org/ccnsocouncil/ (We're cautiously optimistic the new Adobe Connect servers will be ready to use) There will be two-way audio through Adobe. Please let me know if you will require a dial out. Kind regards, Kim Carlson

1 0

FW: NEXT ISTACC call / 8 September @19:00 UTC
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear Council, On behalf of the work group chair, we would like to invite you to join today's ISTACC call. An agenda will be circulated later today. Dial in details can be found below. Thank you and kind regards, Kim -----Original Appointment----- From: Kimberly Carlson Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:16 AM To: Kimberly Carlson; istacc(a)icann.org Cc: Lynn Gravel; Joke Braeken; Lise Fuhr; Bart Boswinkel; Peter Van Roste; Martin Boyle Subject: NEXT ISTACC call / 8 September @19:00 UTC When: Thursday, September 8, 2016 7:00 PM-8:00 PM (UTC) Coordinated Universal Time. Where: https://participate.icann.org/istacc/ UPDATED TIME - SORRY Dear all, Please find below the dial in details for the next ISTACC call scheduled for Thursday, 8 September @19:00 UTC. Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 *Adobe Room: we will be using the "old" AC room https://icann.adobeconnect.com/istacc/ Two-way audio will be available in the Adobe Room. Please let me know if you require a dial out. Kind regards, Kim

1 0

Draft statement/submission proposed IANA Naming Functions Agreement
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear all, As you may have noted the issues identified by the ccTLD members and participants on the CWG-Stewardship have been resolved/discussion is closed to their satisfaction (see informal notes ISTC call 6 September). The only issue still pending are some suggested changes by Paul Kane with respect to the language of section 4.7. The CWG-Stewardship hopes to conclude its deliberations on this topic during its call today. The results of the discussions under auspices of the CWG-Stewardship are reflected in the update prepared by the CWG and its legal advisers, which will be submitted as part of the public comment (document included). As discussed on the Council call last week, the submission of the Council would focus on those issues identified by the ccTLD members and participants: First expressing general support for the resolutions and if and when necessary focus on those issues that needed further discussion/were not resolved. Based on current status, the Council statement could be limited to a general support statement for the update as prepared by the CWG. This should be reflected in the draft for the ccNSO Council. Pending the final discussions today by the CWG itself, please let the list know if you have any issues, suggest changes or are in support of the proposed Council statement. Please note the public comment period closes tomorrow (9 September) 23.59 UTC. Thank you and kind regards, Bart Draft ccNSO Council submission proposed IANA Functions Agreement The ccNSO Council welcomes this opportunity to comment on the proposed IANA Functions Agreement (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-iana-naming-function-a… ). This submission has been considered and endorsed by the ccNSO Council, though does not necessarily represents the consensus view of ccNSO members nor other ccTLDs or ccTLD orgnaisation, some of whom may decide to submit their own comments. The ccTLD operators will be direct customers of the naming services. As such they have a clear and specific interest in the IANA Naming Functions Agreement. The ccNSO Council is very aware of the comments made by representatives of ccTLD community on the CWG-Stewardship on the proposed Agreement (see Annex A) and fully supports these comments made, in particular comments with respect to Section 1.1 (definition of Significantly Interested Parties), and section 4.7 (reference to the Framework of Interpretation of RFC 1591 and reference to the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains). The ccNSO Council closely followed the deliberations of the CWG –Stewardship with respect to these comments and has been appraised by the ccTLD members and participants on the CWG –Stewardship on the progress made to resolve the issues with respect to the 10 August proposal. It is the understanding of the ccNSO Council that from the perspective of the ccTLD members and participants the issues have been resolved in a satisfactory manner. Further it is the understanding of the ccNSO Council that the results are fully reflected in the CWG-Stewardship mark-up version of the 10 August proposed IANA Naming Functions Agreement as submitted by the co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the text proposed is supported by the ccTLD representatives on the CWG-Stewardship. Therefore, the ccNSO Council fully supports the amendments proposed by the CWG-Stewardship with respect to the issues identified by the ccTLD members and participants. The ccNSO Council trusts these suggested changes will be included in the final and effective version of the IANA Naming Function Agreement. Finally, the ccNSO Council congratulates the members and participants of the CWG-Stewardship, its legal advisers, and the ICANN Implementation team with the achieved result to date, despite the pressures from a tight timeline, and difficulty of dealing with parallel processes. On behalf of the ccNSO Council Katrina Sataki (chair) Annex A Issues Identified by ccTLD members and participants CWG-Stewardship draft IANA Naming Function Agreement (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/iana-naming-function-agreement-2016-0…) Section 1.1(oo). In the definition of “Significantly Interested Parties,” the phrase “these parties include, without limitation” should be modified to read “these parties include, but are not limited to” in order to be consistent with the phrasing used in the final FOI report. Section 4.2 requires the Contractor to perform the IANA Naming Function in the US and to demonstrate that all primary operations and systems will remain within the US. Is additional flexibility needed for remote personnel with operational responsibilities outside the US? Section 4.5 has an internal reference to Section 12.3, but that section has been deleted. Section 4.7. For the avoidance of doubt, we propose two modest changes: 1. The reference to the FOI should read: RFC 1591: Domain Name System Structure and Delegation (“RFC 1591”) as interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current Policies and Guidelines Pertaining to 7 the Delegation and Redelegation of Country-Code Top Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 (“FOI”). Any subsequent references should read “RFC 1591 as interpreted by the FOI.” 2. The reference to the GAC Principles should read: “Where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delgation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains (“GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles”). Any subsequent reference to the GAC Principles should read, “where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles.” Section 4.10(a). Is the prohibition on publication of posting of reports and other deliverables practical? As a minimum, PTI should be permitted to post ordinary, scheduled reports in pre-approved formats without ICANN review. Section 5.3(a) prohibits the Contractor from modifying the zone file or associated information without written authorization from ICANN. While that may make sense for some things (adding/deleting gTLDs, e.g.,) it can be - and in the past has been - interpreted to prevent routine changes such as the addition of a new name server by an existing TLD operator. This would obviously be very problematic Section 6.1(c) permits the PTI to redact Board minutes containing material that “is subject to a legal obligation that the Contractor maintains its confidentiality.” There have been recent examples where these kind of confidentiality provisions in ICANN’s contracts with its vendors and consultant prevented community access to information about consultant payments, etc. Is there a way to minimize these kind of redactions? Section 7.1 refers to “delegation, redelegation, and transfer of a TLD. The term “redelegation” should not be used in the context of ccTLDs. Under the FOI, the terms “Delegation,” “Revocation,” and “Transfer” are defined and used to refer to changes of this sort. Section 7.3(c) refers to “SCWG,” which is not defined. Section 8.1 has an internal reference to Section 8.2(a), which does not exist. Section 9.4 contains an internal reference to Section 14.16, which does not exist. Section 10.1(c) appears to introduce the concept of user fees for IANA Naming Function Services. How would this work, and are there adequate constraints on ICANN’s ability to approve and PTI’s ability to impose such fees? Section 12.1 Confidentiality. This provision is extremely broad, covering everything ICANN gives Contractor and all data acquired or developed by Contractor in performing the agreement. Why is this necessary and how can that be reconciled with ICANN’s obligations relating to transparency. For example, it is not even clear that members of the PTI Board, members of the IFR teams, etc. will have access to PTI information. In addition, the current draft deletes the previous Section 12.3 (Request for Information).

1 0

Call for Volunteers SSR2-RT (Second - Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS - Review Team)
by Joke Braeken Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear all, (This e-mail is a reminder of the e-mail previously sent to you on 26 July) As part of its Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) requirements, ICANN is seeking applicants to serve on the Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR2) Review Team as a volunteer member. Read more here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2016-06-30-en Candidates are asked to submit their applications to reviews(a)icann.org<mailto:reviews@icann.org> by 15 August 2016, 23:59 UTC. SSR2 Review - How to Apply? Interested individuals are invited to provide the following: • A resume (maximum three pages), detailing relevant work and/or academic experience, as well as subject matter knowledge; • A letter of motivation detailing your interest in serving on the Review Team and what you will bring to the team. Please include any experience participating in previous ICANN reviews; • A Statement of Interest; • Specify the Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee with which you are affiliated; Email application materials to reviews(a)icann.org<mailto:reviews@icann.org>. More information on the scope of, and expertise expected of volunteers to serve on this Review Team is specified in the Call for Volunteers: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2016-06-30-en This call is intended for individuals interested in applying for a position of Review Team Member, in representation of a Supporting Organization (S0) or Advisory Committee (AC), or as an independent expert. ICANN has recently adopted new Bylaws that are not yet effective that introduce new selection processes for AoC review teams. Accordingly, this Call for Volunteers, as well as the timelines described below, may be updated by ICANN during this application period to reflect these new procedures, if and when they become effective. We will keep you updated as needed. The key dates to keep in mind are: • Call for volunteers published – 30 June 2016 • Deadline to apply for Review Team- 15 August 2016 • Publication of Applicants - 15 September 2016 • Review Team selected and announced- November 2016 • 1st Review Team meeting- December 2016 • Final report issued - estimated December 2017 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 2

Adobe Connect recording ICANN57 webinar
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 7, 2016

Sept. 7, 2016

Dear all, Please find below the AC recording of the ICANN57 Hyderabad webinar held today on the 7 September 2016 at 1500 UTC: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6q5uzq0qay/ We have also included the webinar slides to review. If you have any additional questions please visit https://meetings.icann.org; email meetings(a)icann.org<mailto:meetings@icann.org> or for Visa specific questions icann57visasupport(a)icann.org<mailto:icann57visasupport@icann.org>. Thank you and kind regards, Kim Carlson

1 0

Next CWG-ISTP / 13 September @20:00 UTC
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 7, 2016

Sept. 7, 2016

Dear all, The next CWG-ISTP call will be Tuesday, 13 September at 20:00 UTC. Please find the access details below: Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 2838 Adobe Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-istp/ There will be two-way audio available through Adobe. Please let me know if you require a dial out. Thank you, Kim

1 0

Informal notes ISTP call 6 September 20.00 UTC
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 7, 2016

Sept. 7, 2016

Dear all, Please find included the informal notes from CWG ISTP Call - 6 September @20:00 UTC Kind regards, Please note that discussion around 4.7 is continuing on-line Bart Informal Notes -------------------------------- Apologies: Becky Burr, Katrina Sataki Agenda 1. Welcome & Roll call All in chat are in room 2. Naming Function Agreement – A: Open issues Naming Function Agreement Current status following the 1 September CWG call (Included is overview, of items re IANA Naming Functions Agreement as shared with CWG in preparation of the 1 September CWG call). During this ISTC call run over the items and assess whether CWG reached agreement or issue is still under discussion / open. Discussion: no agreement on wording Discussion on call focuses on 4.7 in the Naming Function Agreement Stephen Deerhake (text suggested by Becky): Section 4.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders. Contractor shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component of the IANA Naming Function that have been defined, or after the date of this Agreement are further defined, by (a) the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”) and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), and (b) RFC 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ (“RFC 1591”) as interpreted by the Framework of Interpretation of Current Policies and Guidelines Pertaining to the Delegation and Redelegation of Country-Code Top Level Domain Names, dated October 2014 (“FOI”). In addition to these policies, Contractor shall, where applicable, consult the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains (“GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles”). Contractor shall publish documentation pertaining to the implementation of these policies and principles on the IANA Webs Other comment change consult for apply Awaiting further draft Lise: specific wording is the one list above Issue Paul raised for discussion: Paul email find a mail how to deal with it. Paul Kane: what he tries he does to do ensure position of all ccTLD whetehr member or non-member of ccNSO and ensure no decision by a non-accountable body like PTI. Framework should respect the Bylaws and constrains the way in which PTI delivers service to the community with accountability. On another list discussion Considerable discussion CWG call . CWG did not agree on words. Regardless, CWG does not do the words. Specific input through Council or through CWG. Wording in next version is Becky Burr version (see above). To have clarity about limitation Martin: Action on Paul to say whether he is in line with Becky's wording. Flag where there are deficiencies Reasonable approach within ccNSO. Limitations in ccNSO are defined in Bylaws. Put words in front of CWG and then put in front of lawyers on how to include. Lise: Wording needs to be discussed and agreed before hand Wording put before group: Contractor shall apply the policies for the Root Zone Management component of the IANA Naming Function that have been defined, or after the date of this Agreement are further defined, by (a) the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”) and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”) as they apply to ccNSO members , Group on the call no objections to proposed language. PTI needs to accoutanbility, ensure that PTI can not take decisions without any accountability. More holistic view needed. B. Status Issues identified Becky, Paul and Stephen Need and substance Council statement in support of the work of ccTLDs participating CWG. Items suggested by the ccTLDs participating in CWG work accepted All considered "closed" no need to revisit, with exception of full agreement on 4.7. 3. Services agreement, preliminary findings, if any Stephen: Why discrepancies between documents (Sidley comments refer to version of agreement not shared with CWG to date). Suggestion to contact Trang or Yuko Lise no new version yet Paul K: Service Agreement needs to be reviewed carefully parameters, and hooks for details that will be filled in later. Need to be scrutinize. Issue with discussion is tight deadline and no public comment Request to feed in information to this group. Stephen will inform Group as best as he can on his findings. Discussion Services Agreement major item next call (see below) 4. IPR – appointment of names community members to CCG IPR is going to be with IETF. Council will be established that will advise. This council will have 9 members (3 from Naming community, 3 from RIR community, 3 IETF community) to advise Trust on how IANA IPR if and when necessary. Tricky because you need to be legal entity, and for various (legal) reasons ICANN needs to be contractor. The CWG needs to find a way on how to choose the 3 members. Sidley is working on instructions for ICANN and others. It will be handed over from CWG to chairs of the chartering organisations. Allan: beyond point of signatories, naming community needs to select members. Paul: the CCG (IANA Community coordination group): trust for holding he name. Although it can not hold the name. Trustees need to be appointed to make to it work. In Paul's opinion chartering orgs need to select the role of trustees. Highly unlikely people need ever to do anything. Lise: Be aware of using term trustee in relation to CCG, better call them CCG members. CCG will be advising the IETF trust. Suggestion is to suggest members from Chartering orgs. Not issue for ccTLDs 5. AOB Open issue 4.7. Present amendment language to group. Use ISTACC * Thursday 8 September 19.00 UTC to inform this group and others on call on latest. 6. Next call Tuesday 13 September 20.00 UTC Main topic: Services agreement Annex: Agenda CWG call upcoming Thursday 1. Status Update (Chairs) 2. Implementation Update · Staff update 3. Key Issues (with Sidley) · Naming Functions Agreement · Services Agreement · IANA IPR 4. Client Committee 5. AOB

2 1

online decision formal appointment new member CCWG CTN
by Joke Braeken Sept. 7, 2016

Sept. 7, 2016

Dear councilors, Please find below a draft resolution, presented to you for an online decision. Appointment new member CCWG use of country and territory names as TLDs For decision: formal appointment new member CCWG CTN Rosalìa Morales (.cr), has applied for membership of the CCWG CTN. Draft Resolution The ccNSO Council approves membership of Rosalìa Morales (.cr), of the cross-community working group on use of country and territory names as TLDs. The secretariat is requested to inform the co-chairs of the WG and take all other necessary steps to include Rosalìa as a ccNSO appointed member of the WG. Could you indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it, by 13 September 2016 17.00 UTC? Thank you and 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

10 9

Re: [ccnso-council] REMINDER: Next CWG-ISTP call is TODAY @20:00 UTC
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Dear all, Please find included draft agenda for this evenings call: 1. Welcome & Roll call 2. Naming Function Agreement – · Current status following he 1 September CWG call (Included is overview, of items re IANA Naming Functions Agreement as shared with CWG in preparation of the 1 September CWG call). During this ISTC call run over the items and assess whether CWG reached agreement or issue is still under discussion / open. · Suggested direction of travel for a basic ccNSO Council statement: the ccNSO Council is aware that draft of IANA Naming Functions Agreement as published for public comments has caused comments by the ccTLD members and participants on the CWG. The Council is also aware that these comments were extensively discussed with Implementation team and full CWG, and assuming that, as agreed, all comments will be implemented as agreed in the agreement, Council welcomes and supports the outcome of those internal deliberations of the CWG. If not all concerns have been addressed (as listed in the table mentioned above), then list those items in the second part of a Council statement and include a rationale why Council believes the Agreement should be changed to address concerns. 3. Services agreement, preliminary findings, if any 4. IPR – appointment of names community members to CCG 5. AOB 6. Next call From: <owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org> on behalf of Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 6 September 2016 at 14:33 To: "cwg-istp(a)icann.org" <cwg-istp(a)icann.org>, "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org>, Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv>, Jay Daley <jay(a)nzrs.net.nz>, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca> Subject: [ccnso-council] REMINDER: Next CWG-ISTP call is TODAY @20:00 UTC Dear all, Just a friendly reminder, the next CWG-ISTP call will be TODAY, 6 September at 20:00 UTC. Please find the access details below: Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 2838 Adobe Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-istp/ There will be two-way audio available through Adobe. Please let me know if you require a dial out. Thank you, Kim

1 0

Re: [ccnso-council] RE: REMINDER: Next CWG-ISTP call is TODAY @20:00 UTC
by Burr, Becky Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Apologies, I will not be able to make this call today. 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: Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org<mailto:kimberly.carlson@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 8:42 AM To: "cwg-istp(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-istp@icann.org>" <cwg-istp(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-istp@icann.org>>, "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>>, Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>, Jay Daley <jay(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:jay@nzrs.net.nz>>, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>> Subject: [ccnso-council] RE: REMINDER: Next CWG-ISTP call is TODAY @20:00 UTC Just a reminder, this call is TODAY, sorry for any confusion. Thank you, Kim From: Kimberly Carlson Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 6:01 AM To: 'cwg-istp(a)icann.org<mailto:'cwg-istp(a)icann.org>' <cwg-istp(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-istp@icann.org>>; 'ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:'ccnso-council(a)icann.org>' <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>>; 'Katrina Sataki' <katrina(a)nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>; 'Jay Daley' <jay(a)nzrs.net.nz<mailto:jay@nzrs.net.nz>>; 'Byron Holland' <byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>> Subject: REMINDER: Next CWG-ISTP call is TODAY @20:00 UTC Dear all, Just a friendly reminder, the next CWG-ISTP call will be TODAY, 6 September at 20:00 UTC. Please find the access details below: Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann_&d=…> Conference ID: 2838 Adobe Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-istp/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.adobeconnect.com…> There will be two-way audio available through Adobe. Please let me know if you require a dial out. Thank you, Kim

1 0