September 2016 - Ccnso-council

Appointment new member SOP WG
by Joke Braeken Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Dear councilors, Please find below a draft resolution, presented to you for an online decision. Appointment new member SOP WG For decision: formal appointment new member SOP WG Irina Danelia (.ru) has applied for membership of the SOP WG. Draft Resolution The ccNSO Council approves membership of Irina Danelia (.ru), of the The Strategic and Operational Planning Working Group (SOP WG) of the ccNSO. The secretariat is requested to inform the chair of the WG and take all other necessary steps to include Irina as a ccNSO appointed member of the WG. Could you indicate whether you want further discussion, or object to it, by 22 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

1 0

ICANN57: ccNSO Members’ Days, call for presenters and session chairs
by Joke Braeken Sept. 14, 2016

Sept. 14, 2016

Dear All, The ccNSO Members’ Meeting takes place on Sunday 6 and Monday 7 November, in Hyderabad, India. An updated version of the ccNSO Members’ Meeting schedule for ICANN57 has been published here: https://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/hyderabad57/agenda.htm. The schedule is not yet final though: The Meetings Programme WG is looking for session chairs for the ccTLD News and Marketing Sessions, as well as for a number of presentations. Please find below an overview of how the sessions currently look like. ccTLD News Session, Sunday 6 November, 11:00-12:00 local Topic: How to stay relevant in a maturing market? Innovation for and by ccTLDs Session Chair: (TBC) - CIRA’s New Product Offerings – How a ccTLD has Reinvigorated Itself in a Maturing Domain Name Market, Byron Holland (.ca) - VeriSign's domain name suggestion tool, David McAuley (Verisign) - Innovation of CNNIC: What we are doing in China, Dr. Ning Kong (.cn) - (TBC) - Q&A, and wrap-up by the session chair Legal session, Monday 7 November, 09:30-10:30 local Topic: the evolving model of Internet governance, local policy development implications for ccTLDs Session Chair: Peter Vergote (.be) - Amendment of Japanese Telecommunications Business Law, Hiro Hotta (.jp) - Data protection and privacy in a world of global consolidation, Thomas Rickert (eco) - (TBC) - (TBC) - Q&A, and wrap-up by the session chair Marketing session, Monday 7 November, 14:05-15:00 local Topic: Domain name statistics & trends Session Chair: (TBC) - DNS health index (TBC) - Statistical monitoring system by .ru, Irina Danelia (.ru) - Registration trends and marketing initiatives for .in, Rajiv Bansal (.in) - (TBC) - Q&A, and wrap-up by the session chair If your registry would like to act as session chair, or give a presentation on one of the aforementioned topics during the ICANN57 ccNSO Member Days, please contact Joke Braeken (joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>). Candidate PRESENTERS are invited to send the following information to Joke Braeken: • Session relevant for your presentation: Marketing, Legal or ccTLD news • Exact title of your presentation: • Full name of the presenter, and company/ccTLD: • Short summary of your presentation (2-3 sentences): • Estimated time needed to present: This information is crucial for the Programme Working Group, in order to be able to plan the schedule. The summary of your presentation will be published online, prior to the meeting. Depending on the amount of proposals, the Programme Working Group cannot always guarantee a slot to all volunteers. Your summary will be very helpful in the selection process. No interpretation services will be provided during the ccNSO Members meeting, therefore please take in consideration that the presentation must be in English. SESSION CHAIR duties: As session chair, you will lead the session, and play a pivotal role in smooth and timely management of the various presentations. Your main role is to encourage the presenter to share their knowledge on the topic, to wrap-up the discussions and the Q&A part at the end of the session, and – if time allows - to encourage participants to have an intellectual discussion on the subject. We look forward to your feedback. 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

1 0

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

Sept. 13, 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

Cancelled - Today's ISTP call
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Dear all, Today's CWG-ISTP call has been cancelled. An email will be sent later in the week to determine timing of the next call. Thank you, Kim

1 0

Re: [ccnso-council] Next CWG-ISTP / 13 September @20:00 UTC
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Dear all, Last week we agreed to have a call today to discuss potential issues pertaining to the IANA Services Agreement. As you may have noted Stephen did a check on the technical side of the agreement and did not see any problems. The lawyers on the group were requested to look at the legal side of the Services Agreement to check if there were some issues from their perspective. I do not know if they had an opportunity to do so. If not, suggest we defer todays call to next week, same time (20 September 20.00UTC). Please advise if you want to have a meeting today ( 13 September 20.00 UTC) FYI: The following ccTLD orgs. have submitted a comment on the IAN Naming Functions Agreement: ccNSO Council CENTR See: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-iana-naming-10aug16/ Kind regards, Bart From: kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org When: 22:00 - 23:00 13 September 2016 Subject: [ccnso-council] Next CWG-ISTP / 13 September @20:00 UTC Location: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-istp/ 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

2 1

ICANN Board Brussels Workshop: Open Community Sessions
by Joke Braeken Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Dear all, The next ICANN Board Workshop will be taking place in Brussels, Belgium, from 14-17 September 2016. During the workshop, the Board will be holding a series of open sessions, which will be held on Saturday, 17 September. These sessions will include the following topics: • The Impact of the New Bylaws on ICANN • Accountability Work-Stream 2 (WS2) Topics • A Technical Deep Dive: RIPE to Present • Everyone in the community is invited to join these sessions, which will be listen-only. More details, including the times of each session and ways to join, are available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/2016-board-meetings For more information about the ICANN Board, please go to https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-of-directors. 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 0

FW: ccNSO Council Comment on proposed IANA Naming functions Agreement
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

Dear all, Please find included the submitted comment from the ccNSO Council. At the suggestion of Stephen, the agreed upon text for section 4.7 is included as well for avoidance of doubt ( as a foornote) Checked with submission from CWG co-chairs: it is the same language Kind regards, Bart

1 0

Expression of Interest for Root Zone Evaluation Review Committee (“RZERC”)
by Joke Braeken Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

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 0

Draft Agenda todays call ISTACC
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear all, Included proposed Agenda for todays ISTACC call. Purpose of the call is to inform the broader groups on progress to date and next steps regarding the different work streams around IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancement of ICANN Accountability. Porposed Agenda: 1. Welcome and Roll Call 2. Update Implementation CWG-Stewardship Proposal a. Outcome finalisation IANA Naming Fundtions Agreement discussion ( open issue agreed language, section 4.7) b. Council statement with respect to IANA Naming Function Agreement c. IPR, appointment of members on CCR (any role for the ccNSO?) d. Services Agreement: process for review and providign feed-back e. Work to date ccNSo Guideline Review Committee i. Appointment and approval CSC ii. Call for volunteers RZERC 3. Update progress to date Work Stream 2 Accountability track 4. Implementation ccNSO specific aspects new Bylaws (approved 27 May) and next steps a. Update appointment ICANN Board member b. Selection ccNSO member Empowered Community Administrative Committee c. Selection and appointment members specific reviews d. Upcoming work items 5. Preparation Hyderabad meeting a. CWg Session, includes IANA Naming Functions and Services agreements, SLEs , CSC update, progress implementation, what’s next? b. Accoutability Session: status WS 2, Next steps ccNSO Accountability, other? 6. AOB 7. Closure Final language section 4.7 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 ("GNSO²), as appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and; (b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO²), as appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and; (c) RFC 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ ("RFC 1591²) 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 ("FOI²). 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 Website

1 0

FW: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement
by Stephen Deerhake Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Below please find the final language regarding Section 4.7 of the Names Agreement, just adopted by the CWG in their call (still on-going). Best Regards, /Stephen -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Trang Nguyen Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 10:27 AM To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg(a)icb.co.uk>; Christopher Disspain <chris(a)disspain.id.au> Cc: cwg-client(a)icann.org; CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement ICANN is fine with the proposed edits to Section 4.7 of the Naming Function Agreement. 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 ("GNSO²), as appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and; (b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO²), as appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and; (c) RFC 1591: /Domain Name System Structure and Delegation/ ("RFC 1591²) 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 ("FOI²). 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 Website.² A conforming change would be applicable to A.1.d.iii as well. -----Original Message----- From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg(a)icb.co.uk> Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 1:19 PM To: Christopher Disspain <chris(a)disspain.id.au> Cc: "CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org" <CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function Agreement >as appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and > >Quoting Christopher Disspain <chris(a)disspain.id.au>: > >> Hi Paul, >> >> What are the actual amendments you are suggesting, please? >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> >> > On 7 Sep 2016, at 19:53, Paul M Kane - CWG >> > <paul.kane-cwg(a)icb.co.uk> >> wrote: >> > >> > On reflection and following consultation with colleagues I'd like >> > to >>make a >> few >> > small amendments to my earlier statement so 4.7 IMHO should read: >> > >> > >> > "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 ("GNSO²), as >> > appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and; >> > (b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO²), as >> > appropriate under ICANN¹s Bylaws and; >> > (c) 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 Website." >> > >> > I hope members of the CWG will find this minor correction >> > acceptable >>and >> > suitable for adoption tomorrow. >> > >> > Best >> > >> > Paul >> > >> > >> > >> > correct my earlier >> > >> > Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>: >> > >> >> I flagged this because I suspected there might be a concern and I >>didn't >> want >> >> there to be any late surprises that might cause unnecessary delays. >>At >> the >> >> same time, let me be clear that this is not my issue so I look >>forward to >> >> seeing the resolution. >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] >> >> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 9:28 AM >> >> To: Gomes, Chuck >> >> Cc: Burr, Becky; Mueller, Milton L; Lindeberg, Elise; >> >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> >> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function >> >> Agreement >> >> >> >> Thanks Chuck (and apologies all once again for being late to the >>call) >> >> >> >> I think we need to qualify 4.7 with regard to ccNSO members and >> non-members - >> >> ICANN Bylaws respect the diversity of the ccTLD community and it >> >> is appropriate that the Naming Functions Agreement does too so ... >> >> I'd >> propose: >> >> >> >> "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 >> >> (b) the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO") in so >>far as >> >> they apply to ccNSO members, and; >> >> (c) 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 Website." >> >> >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>: >> >> >> >>> Paul, >> >>> >> >>> In light of your concerns, are you okay with the following from >> >>> the paragraph >> >>> below: "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) . . . and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization >>("ccNSO")"? >> >>> >> >>> " 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 Website." >> >>> >> >>> Chuck >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] >> >>> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 5:40 PM >> >>> To: Burr, Becky >> >>> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Lindeberg, Elise; >> >>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> >>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function >>Agreement >> >>> >> >>> Just for clarity.... non-ccNSO members are not bound or impacted >>by >> >>> ICANN Policies and this is respected in ICANN's own Bylaws. Also >> >>> current ccNSO members who disagree with ICANN Policy can cease >>their >> >>> membership and not be >> >>> impacted: >> >>> From ICANN's Bylaws..... >> >>> Subject to clause 4(11), ICANN policies shall apply to ccNSO >>members >> >>> by virtue of their membership to the extent, and only to the >>extent, >> >>> that the policies (a) only address issues that are within scope >> >>> of >>the >> >>> ccNSO according to Article IX, Section 6 and Annex C; (b) have >> >>> been developed through the ccPDP as described in Section 6 of >> >>> this >>Article, >> >>> and (c) have been recommended as such by the ccNSO to the Board, >>and >> >>> (d) are adopted by the Board as policies, provided that such >>policies >> >>> do not conflict with the law applicable to the ccTLD manager >> >>> which >> shall, >> >> at all times, remain paramount. >> >>> In addition, such policies shall apply to ICANN in its activities >> >>> concerning ccTLDs. >> >>> (ARTICLE IX, Section 4, Clause 10). >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Most non-ccNSO ccTLDs are content for the ccNSO to develop >> >>> Polices that best serve their interest and provided that is >> >>> respected (and there is no attempt to burden non-ccNSO ccTLDs) I >> >>> learn from ccNSO members that they are content with the amended >> >>> text proposed and adopted during the CWG call on the 1st September. >> >>> >> >>> (sorry for being late to the call and I hope this enables us to >> >>> move >> >>> forward) >> >>> >> >>> Best >> >>> >> >>> Paul >> >>> >> >>> Quoting "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>: >> >>> >> >>>> I will defer to Paul on that >> >>>> 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: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes >> >>>> <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> >> >>>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 2:23 PM >> >>>> To: Becky Burr >> >>>> <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, >> >>>> "Mueller, Milton L" >> >>>> <milton(a)gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, >> >>>> "Lindeberg, Elise" >> >>>> <elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>>, >> >>>> "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" >> >>>> <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> >> >>>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function >> >>>> Agreement >> >>>> >> >>>> This looks fine to me Becky but I do have a totally different >> >>>> question. Will the non-ccNSO member ccTLD registries have >> >>>> problem with the inclusion of ccNSO developed policies? As you >> >>>> know, I am out of my realm here but I am aware of the concerns >> >>>> Paul Kane has been expressing and am curious if they are comfortable with this. >> >>>> >> >>>> Chuck >> >>>> >> >>>> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] >> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 1:52 PM >> >>>> To: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Lindeberg, Elise; >> >>>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >> >>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function >> >>>> Agreement >> >>>> >> >>>> How about the following: >> >>>> >> >>>> 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, >> >>>> apply 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 Website. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> 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: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes >> >>>> <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> >> >>>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 1:49 PM >> >>>> To: "Mueller, Milton L" >> >>>> <milton(a)gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>, >> >>>> Becky Burr >> >>>> <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, >> >>>> "Lindeberg, Elise" >> >>>> <elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>>, >> >>>> "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" >> >>>> <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> >> >>>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function >> >>>> Agreement >> >>>> >> >>>> It definitely should not be listed as a policy. Any reference >> >>>> to them would have to avoid any implication that they are policy. >> >>>> >> >>>> Chuck >> >>>> >> >>>> >>From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce >> >>>> s@ icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On >> >>>> Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L >> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 11:14 AM >> >>>> To: Burr, Becky; Lindeberg, Elise; >> >>>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >> >>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function >> >>>> Agreement >> >>>> >> >>>> It is important. I think the best solution would be to remove >> >>>> the GAC principles from the list of applicable policies, since >> >>>> it is >>not >> >>>> an ICANN policy >> >>>> >> >>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >> >>>> Professor, School of Public >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >Policy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__spp.gatech.e >du_ >&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP >8WD >DkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT6-5RqZdXQjReQ&s=UGPIljPlrovfxu2P >tWi >IFwEdA6lWGvBi9GEiDFAeFaM&e=> >> >>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >> >>>> Internet Governance Project >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >http://internetgovernance.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url >?u= >http-3A__internetgovernance.org_&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62 >cJF >Oifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vSY4qEFfQeM3_MOt9BqsxTQdh1NcsT >6-5 RqZdXQjReQ&s=OfTBX8dRLVEfPtfPtAeajH_Q7Xyncu8iKVRZl3vBx44&e=> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounce >> >>>> s@ icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On >> >>>> Behalf Of Burr, Becky >> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 11:08 AM >> >>>> To: Lindeberg, Elise >> >>>> <elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>>; >> >>>> Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; >> >>>> trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>; >> >>>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >> >>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function >> >>>> Agreement >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I want to step back and explain why this change was offered and >>why >> >>>> it is important. There is a fundamental problem with the >>reference >> >>>> to the GAC Principles in Section 4.7 of the Naming Functions >>Agreement. >> >>>> Section 4.7 lists the "policies" that IANA is required to apply. >> >>>> Simply put, the GAC Principles are important GAC Advice - but >> >>>> they are not ICANN policy. They have never been considered by >> >>>> any of >>the >> >>>> policy development bodies authorized in the ICANN Bylaws, and >> >>>> they have not been adopted by the ICANN Board. The ccTLD >> >>>> participants who offered the revised wording attempted to >> >>>> address the problem adding a clear >> >>> link back to the GAC's own language in Section 1.3. >> >>>> Alternatively, you could simply remove the GAC Principles from >> >>>> the list of applicable "policies." >> >>>> >> >>>> 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: <Lindeberg>, Elise >> >>>> <elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no>> >> >>>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 9:33 AM >> >>>> To: >>"Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" >> >>>> <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >> >>>> >, "trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>" >> >>>> <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>>, >> >>>> "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" >> >>>> <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> >> >>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function >> >>>> Agreement >> >>>> >> >>>> +1, Jorge >> >>>> >> >>>> Elise >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >Fra:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@ic >ann .org>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] >> >>>> På vegne av >> >>>> Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >> >>>> Sendt: 1. september 2016 09:21 >> >>>> Til: trang.nguyen(a)icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>; >> >>>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >> >>>> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Naming Function >> >>>> Agreement >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks for this info. >> >>>> >> >>>> May we be informed why the solution offered to the discussion on >>4.7. >> >>>> (how to best refer to the 2005 GAC Principles) apparently >> >>>> ignores the comments made by several members and participants of >> >>>> this >>group, >> >>>> while it takes up the suggestions made by other participants? >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks and regards >> >>>> >> >>>> Jorge >> >>>> >> >>>> >>Von:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces >> >>>> @i cann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] Im >> >>>> Auftrag von Trang Nguyen >> >>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. September 2016 05:49 >> >>>> An: CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> >> >>>> Betreff: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] Naming Function >> >>>> Agreement >> >>>> >> >>>> All, >> >>>> >> >>>> Forwarding email from Sidley regarding the the Naming Function >> >>>> Agreement for your review. >> >>>> >> >>>> Best, >> >>>> >> >>>> Trang >> >>>> >> >>>> From: >> >>>> >><cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org>> >> >>>> on >> >>> behalf of "Hofheimer, Joshua T." >> >>>> <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> >> >>>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:32 PM >> >>>> To: Client <cwg-client(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>>, >> >>>> "jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" >> >>>> <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, 'Lise >>Fuhr' >> >>>> <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> >> >>>> Subject: [client com] Naming Function Agreement >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear Client Committee, >> >>>> >> >>>> Attached please find a revised draft of the Naming Function >> >>>> Agreement, marked against the version ICANN put out for public >> >>>> comment. This draft reflects the negotiation of various items >> >>>> between ICANN and Sidley, as well as ICANN's response to the >> >>>> comments provided previously by Paul Kane, Becky Burr and other >>CWG >> >>>> participants. ICANN has prepared an chart reflecting a number >> >>>> of items for which it is seeking confirmation from the CWG >> >>>> Client Committee that the particular item may be considered closed out. >> >>>> Although the chart appears lengthy, >> >>> that is merely because it contains the historical context of >> >>>> discussion for each item. ICANN plans to review these items on >>the >> >> call >> >>>> tomorrow, and for our part, Sidley has no further edits to >> >>>> request if the CWG is satisfied with ICANN's proposed handling >> >>>> of the matters on the >> >>> chart. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thank you, >> >>>> Josh >> >>>> >> >>>> JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER >> >>>> Partner >> >>>> >> >>>> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP >> >>>> +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) >> >>>> +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) >> >>>> +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) >> >>>> jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >www.sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www. >sid >ley.com&d=DQMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmr >xdY >ahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=FPQR1Kinldf2JW141QOgAICaJbdCiJtDYLdhqqPGM2A&s=5BeRy1BHt >wrv >C2TIKe2dYjVBBZajZZqkESlWtHuAYBU&e=> >> >>>> [SIDLEY] >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >*********************************************************************** >*** >************************** >> >>>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information >> >>>> that is privileged or confidential. >> >>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail >>and >> >>>> any attachments and notify us immediately. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >*********************************************************************** >*** >************************** >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1