June 2017 - Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

Monday, 26 June ccNSO-related sessions
by Kimberly Carlson June 26, 2017

June 26, 2017

Greetings from Johannesburg, South Africa! Here are today's ccNSO-related sessions (listed in local SAST): TLD OPS Standing Committee 8:00-9:00 | Boardroom 1 / 2 https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-boardroom1 Welcome and Multi-Stakeholder Ethos Award Presentation 8:30-900 | Level 4 Foyer * Live Video https://livestream.com/icannmeeting/events/7531023 Joint DNSSEC Workshop / Tech Day 9:00-12:00; 13:30-17:45| Ballroom 3 https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-ballroom3 Joint Lunch 12:15-13:15 | Level 4 Foyer Strategic Operational Planning Working Group 9:00-10:15 | Boardroom 1 / 2 https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-boardroom1 Guidelines Review Committee 10:30-12:00 | Boardroom 1 / 2 https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-boardroom1 ccNSO Council Preparatory Meeting 12:15-13:15 | Boardroom 1 / 2 https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-boardroom1 ccNSO / GNSO Joint Council Meeting 18:30-19:30 | Ballroom 2 (GNSO room) https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-ballroom2 **Local Host Reception** 19:00-12:00 | Exhibition 1 - at the venue No tickets required The full ICANN schedule can be viewed here: https://icann59johannesburg2017.sched.com/ ccNSO meetings wiki, including remote participation details: https://community.icann.org/x/_ifwAw ccNSO Members Day agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/uTvwAw Thank you, Kim ____________________________________________________________________________ ___________________ Kimberly Carlson SO/AC Support Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email Kimberly.Carlson(a)icann.org Skype kimberly.carlson.icann

1 0

FW: [Ext] Final Paper of the CWG on UCTN
by Bart Boswinkel June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

Dear all, Please find included a note from the co-chairs of the cross-community WG on Use of names of country and territories as TLDs on submission of the Final Paper of this WG. Kind regards, Bart From: "Gutierrez, Carlos Raul" <carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se> Date: Friday 23 June 2017 at 12:01 To: "katrina(a)nic.lv" <katrina(a)nic.lv>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "haforrestesq(a)gmail.com" <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com>, "Annebeth B. Lange" <annebeth.lange(a)uninett.no>, Emily Barabas <emilybarabas(a)gmail.com>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Final Paper of the CWG on UCTN Dear Katrina and James, As co-chairs of the Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains (CWG – UCTN) we are pleased to submit its Final Paper (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ctn-final-paper-15jun17-en.pdf)[…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workin…> for discussion within your respective SOs and making a decision on the recommendations of the Working Group. The CWG – UCTN was chartered by the ccNSO and GNSO in 2014, and its objective is, drawing on the collective expertise of the participating community to: 1. Further review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures; 2. Provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs; and 3. Should such a framework be deemed feasible, provide detailed advice as to the content of the framework. Following extensive discussion and consultation with the broader community, as documented in the Final Paper, and throughout its deliberations to date, the CWG has noted an increase in the complexity and divergence of views and interests with respect to the use of names of country and territories as TLDs in all forms (2-letter, 3-letter code and full names). Accordingly, the development of a consistent and uniform definitional framework to guide the definition of rules on the use of country and territory names as top-level domains based on a consensus across the SOs and ACs, has proven difficult to achieve. Further, the CWG notes that its work overlaps with other efforts in the community, and given its limited mandate, the CWG has concluded that it will not be able to develop a consistent and uniform definitional framework. Therefore, the majority of the membership of the Cross-Community Working Group concludes that continuing its work is not conducive to achieving the harmonized framework the charter seeks. Recommendations A substantial majority of the membership of the CWG recommends the ccNSO and GNSO to approve the following recommendations/conclusions: 1. To wind down this CWG, in accordance with and as foreseen in the charter. 2. The ICANN community consolidates all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. 3. Future policy development work must facilitate an all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate in such an important issue. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable. The CWG could not agree on any recommended course on how to organise future work (i.e. how to effectuate recommendation 2 above). Once the ccNSO and GNSO have taken a decision on the recommendations, this information will be included in the form of a final Final Report, together with the Final Paper. This CWG will then close. The co-chairs Annebeth Lange (ccNSO) Heather Forrest (GNSO) Carlos Raul Gutierrez (GNSO) -- i.A. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ================ Mobile +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Apartado 1571-1000, COSTA RICA

1 0

ICANN Launches Gender Diversity and Participation Survey
by Joke Braeken June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

Dear all, ICANN has announced the launch of a survey to determine current perceptions of gender diversity in the ICANN community and to identify potential barriers to participation. The purpose of this survey is to inform community discussions on diversity, following calls for additional data on this topic. Items being looked into: to clarify perceptions of diversity and equality, leadership, and inclusiveness, and to understand the degree to which barriers such as familial responsibilities play a role. All community members are invited to share their views – it takes 10 minutes to complete the survey: http://go.icann.org/gendersurvey[go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_gendersurv…> The survey closes on 8 July. Responses will be anonymous and will be used in accordance with ICANN's Privacy Policy[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. This survey is available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. Once the survey results are available, ICANN will share a report with an analysis of gaps, perceptions, and potential next steps. This data will help identify ways to enhance gender diversity and support broad, inclusive participation. Read more: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-06-12-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> 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

Please note an inaccuracy in ICANN's announcement of the triggering of the Rejection Action Petition Period regarding the adoption of the FY 18 ICANN and IANA Budgets and the Five Year Operating Plan Changes
by Stephen Deerhake June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

Greetings all, ICANN has posted an announcement regarding the Board's action Friday during their workshop approving the FY 18 ICANN and IANA Budgets, as well as changes to the Five Year Operating Plan. As I wrote to you yesterday, the ECA has received formal notification of the Board's action by the ICANN Corporate Secretary, thus initiating the 21 day Rejection Action Petition Period as described in Section 2.2(b) of Annex D of the Bylaws. ICANN has posted an announcement of the Board's actions at https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-06-24-en. HOWEVER, ICANN has incorrectly stated in this announcement that the duration of the Rejection Action Petition Period is 28 days. THIS IS INCORRECT. Per Section 2.2(b) of Annex D, the correct period is 21 days. I have written ICANN requesting that a correction be made, but I wanted to bring this error to your attention so that you can properly clear up any confusion within our Community regarding the actual length of the Rejection Action Petition Period as we all begin our discussions around this topic. Best Regards, /Stephen Deerhake

1 0

Rejection Action Board Notices
by Stephen Deerhake June 24, 2017

June 24, 2017

All, Please be advised that pursuant to Article 2.2 of Annex D of the ICANN Bylaws, the ICANN Secretary has today issued Rejection Action Board Notices for the following Board Actions: 1. Approval of the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget 2. Approval of the FY18 IANA Budget 3. Approval of the FY18 Five Year Operating Plan Update This has in turned triggered the start of the 21 Day Rejection Action Petition Period. Best Regards, /Stephen

1 0

ICANN59, avoid long queues: pre-register before heading to the registration desk
by Joke Braeken June 24, 2017

June 24, 2017

Dear all, For those of you attending ICANN59 in person, please log into Registration.icann.org<http://registration.icann.org/> to pre-register for ICANN59 BEFORE you head to the Registration Kiosks. This will avoid long queues at the registration desk. Email verification is now in place for a one-time validation for your registration account. More information: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-19-en 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

Formal request of GAC Opinion or Advice per Annex B Section 8 of the ICANN Bylaws
by Katrina Sataki June 20, 2017

June 20, 2017

Dear Thomas, As we have indicated during our joint meeting in Copenhagen, the ccNSO Council has initiated one (1) ccNSO Policy Development Process (ccPDP) to develop and recommend both a policy on the retirement of ccTLDs and on a review mechanism for decisions pertaining to the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs. The decision of the ccNSO Council is published and can be found at: <https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-ccnso-council-meeting-15mar17 -en.pdf> https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-ccnso-council-meeting-15mar17- en.pdf (Resolution 127-03 under agenda item 11). Please also find attached the Issue Report. After careful consideration of the Issue Report, the ccNSO Council decided to focus the attention first on the retirement of ccTLDs and then on the review mechanism. The work under the ccPDP will be organized through working groups. Their charters are included in the Issue Report. In a separate letter the members of the GAC will be invited to get involved in the effort in a way most convenient to them, with the understanding that participants from the GAC will not represent views of the GAC. As this Policy Development Process is organized through working groups and hence no Task Force, as foreseen in Annex B of the ICANN bylaws, is formed, I formally request you on behalf of the ccNSO Council, to offer opinion or advice on the Issue Report. At a later stage in the process, the ccNSO Council will invite the GAC to provide opinion or advice on the final report. On behalf of the ccNSO Council, Katrina Sataki

3 2

Draft Agenda Council meeting 29 June 2017
by Bart Boswinkel June 20, 2017

June 20, 2017

Dear all, Please find included the first draft agenda. Please note I have included already a categorization of items: * Consent items * For discussion and /or decision * Updates * Closing related. Closer to the meeting I will send additional materials Kind regards, Bart Draft Agenda ccNSO Council Meeting 29 June 2017, 9.00 local time version 2 1) Welcome and Apologies Attendance list is available at: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/attendance.htm 2) Minutes and Actions Minutes 18 May 2017. Action items 3) Overview: inter-meeting Council decisions - Appointment of the team to develop Terms of Reference for the CSC charter review Proposed items consent part 4) PDP: Appointment chair and co-chair In accordance with charter PDP WG Retirement the WG members have nominated Nigel Roberts as chair and Eberhard Lisse as vice-chair. 5) Terms of Reference for review of the CSC charter Update, for discussion and / or adoption 6) Appointment: Jacques Latour as the Chair of TLD-OPS Steering Committee Cristian Hesselman will step down at the end of the meeting as chair of the TLD OPS steering committee. The members of this group unanimously nominated Jacques Latour. 7) Extension mandate of the CCWG Accountability See letter CCWG chairs, was deferred from last meeting. 8) Call for volunteers: ccNSO appointed member to NomCom FY 18 The ccNSo will need to appoint a member to the NomCom for FY 2018 nomination process. Joerg Schweiger (current member) is not eligible. Decision: call for volunteers NomCom FY 2018. For discussion and decision 9) Adoption: Final Paper of the Cross-community WG Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs 9.1 Discussion and or adoption final paper (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ctn-final-paper-15jun17-en.pdf ) 9.2 Discussion recommendation Study Group CTN Letter to the Board to request continued exclusion of country and territory names in subsequent new gTLDs rounds. For discussion and / or decision. Background: In September 2014 the Study Group recommended Council: In light of the need for further work on the treatment of country and territory names, the complexity of the issue at hand and the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, it is also recommended that the ccNSO Council request that the ICANN Board extend the current rule in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook regarding the exclusion of all country and territory names in all languages, for consecutive rounds of new gTLD applications. Council adopted this recommendation in 2014. Given the establishment of the CCWG UCTN, Council did not pursue this recommendation, awaiting the outcome of the deliberations and recommendations of the CCWG. 10) Discussion and Adoption: Guideline: ccNSO Procedure for the Exercise of the Empowered Community’s rights to Approve Specified Actions For discussion and/or decision. 11) Further steps with respect to .cr case 12) Participation of the ccNSO in the Abu Dhabi meeting For discussion and decision, taking into account results of the community discussions. 13) Progress Terms of Reference review CSC charter Update and possibly for adoption 14) ccNSO as Decisional Participant: Approval Action Fundamental Bylaw change For discussion and preliminary decision ( how and when does ccNSO want to decide) Update & next steps How and when to decide to Support, Abstain or object to Fundamental Bylaw change ( email, conference call, other means, within 21 days window post ICANN 59 the decision wil have to be communicated to the ECA) Background: the ccNSO (Council) has a 21 days period to Support, Abstain or object to Fundamental Bylaw change. This period starts at the end of the Community Forum period (Thursday 29 June, 23.59 local time Johannesburg). If the ccNSO decision is taken post this window, I.e communicated to the ECA, by definition the ccNSO has abstained. Updates 15) Update: FAQ by the GAC Underserved Regions 16) Update amendment charter CWG Internet Governance 17) Council Updates 17.1 Chair Update 17.2 Vice-Chair Update 17.3 Councilors Update 17.4 Regional Organizations Update 17.5 Secretariat update 18) PDP update/ progress 19) CSC, RZERC and ECA 19.1 CSC update (Byron) 19.2 RZERC update 19.3 ECA update (other than approval action) 20) WG update 20.1 Programme WG 20.2 GRC update 20.3 SOPWG update 20.4 TLD-OPS update 20.5 CCWG Auction Proceeds 20.6 CWG Internet Governance 21) Liaison Updates 21.1 GNSO Update (written update). 22.2 ALAC Update (written update). Closing 22) AOB - Prepare Board and Council elections decisions for upcoming meeting 23) Next meetings * Thursday 20 July 18.00 UTC * Thursday 21 September 12.00 UTC 24) Thank you’s 25) Adjourn

1 0

FW: [SOAC-Leaders] REPLY REQUESTED: Message from Göran Marby on ICANN Meeting Venue Selection
by Katrina Sataki June 20, 2017

June 20, 2017

FYI From: Katrina Sataki [mailto:katrina@nic.lv] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 1:29 PM To: 'David Olive' <david.olive(a)icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org> >; 'soac-leaders(a)icann.org' <soac-leaders(a)icann.org <mailto:soac-leaders@icann.org> > Cc: 'Nick Tomasso' <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org <mailto:nick.tomasso@icann.org> >; 'Sally Costerton' <sally.costerton(a)icann.org <mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org> >; 'Duncan Burns' <duncan.burns(a)icann.org <mailto:duncan.burns@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [SOAC-Leaders] REPLY REQUESTED: Message from Göran Marby on ICANN Meeting Venue Selection Dear Göran, David, All, Thank you for bringing this up! These are very important issues and they need to be properly discussed. But first, I would like to note the following: - The current meeting strategy is effective since March 2016, ICANN 55. The meeting strategy was the result of a long and intense debate and arrived before the public discussion on the IANA Stewardship Transition started. Two years ago the ccNSO decided to review the meeting strategy and the way the ccNSO implemented it at the end of this year, i.e., after 6 consecutive meetings. Would be interesting to know if other SO/ACs are also planning to look back on the way the new strategy work for their respective SO/ACs and, if yes, what their conclusions are. These conclusions may have a major impact on the questions you raised. - The important questions about meeting venues will be discussed during the ccNSO meeting at ICANN 59 with the ccTLD community present. The reason for this discussion is that since ICANN 57 some in the ccNSO community have explicitly raised similar questions and expressed concerns with respect to the choice of the venue of ICANN 60. - If I understand it correctly, the issue of meetings and the meetings venue is also part of the deliberation of the CCWG WS 2 discussion on the FOI-HR. So, in response to your questions and without preempting the outcome of the discussions of the ccTLD community present at ICANN 59 and the CCWG work, I agree that we are now at a time that the criteria for the choice of meeting venues need to be discussed and clarified. However, this only makes sense if the current practice of rotation and meetings structure have been reviewed. Only after confirmation of this strategy the selection criteria for specific venues come into play. Having said this, I will add in my personal capacity that I cannot agree with the current interpretation of principles for selection of meeting venues, i.e., that the ONLY principle for selecting meeting venues is geographic rotation. The Bylaws state that “ICANN must operate [..] for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, [..] through open and transparent processes [..]”. In addition one of ICANN’s core values is “Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest...” and “...respecting internationally recognized human rights ...”. The Bylaws also clearly say that “The Commitments and Core Values are intended to apply in the broadest possible range of circumstances.” So, if as a result of the choice for a meeting venue people of certain age, colour, sex, religion, nationality, are not allowed to participate on equal footing, I do not see how the value of geographic rotation (which definitely needs to be implemented too) outweighs the basic principles of openness, broad participation and the global nature of the internet. Kindest regards, ]{atrina From: soac-leaders-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:soac-leaders-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:soac-leaders-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Olive Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4:46 PM To: soac-leaders(a)icann.org <mailto:soac-leaders@icann.org> Cc: Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org <mailto:nick.tomasso@icann.org> >; Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org <mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org> >; Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org <mailto:duncan.burns@icann.org> > Subject: [SOAC-Leaders] REPLY REQUESTED: Message from Göran Marby on ICANN Meeting Venue Selection Dear SO/AC Leaders: As I’ve discussed with you during our calls, I have over the last couple of months received many questions about our criteria for ICANN Meeting venue selection. As established in the ICANN strategy, the goal is to rotate them among ICANN’s five geographic regions on a regular basis. The practice has been to avoid, as best as possible, major religious and national holidays, and related Internet industry events that could have an impact on participation. We also take the security of participants seriously. ICANN Meetings are to some extent complicated to arrange, mostly due to the logistics. Since there are so many sessions running concurrently, a meeting venue large enough to accommodate them, and available over our meeting dates, must be found. In addition, at times there are other challenges such as changing visa regulations, and requests for additional sessions before and during the meeting. For planning purposes, we confirm meeting sites and publish dates several years in advance. For your information, here are the current decided meeting locations and dates: * ICANN59 26-29 Jun 2017 Johannesburg * ICANN60 28 Oct - 3 Nov 2017 Abu Dhabi * ICANN61 10-15 Mar 2018 San Juan * ICANN62 25-28 Jun 2018 Panama City * ICANN63 20-26 Oct 2018 Barcelona Also, as information (as many have asked), on average an ICANN Meeting costs US$4M. So now to my question: Do you think it is timely to open up a broader discussion about adding rules on how to choose meeting venues: factors such as gender issues, democratic principles, and strict rules in observance of religious holidays, etc., have been among the questions that have been raised. And, how do you anticipate such a discussion to take place? I look forward to supporting you. Best regards, Göran Marby ----------------------------- David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Managing Director ICANN Regional Office –Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 <tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 <tel:+90.533.341.6550>

1 0

join the drafting team - ccNSO statement: Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone Version 2 (RZ-LGR-2) out for public comments
by Joke Braeken June 20, 2017

June 20, 2017

Dear all, The ccNSO Secretariat is looking for volunteers to join a drafting team, to draft a ccNSO Statement in response to the request for public comments described below. If interested, you are kindly invited to contact the ccNSO Secretariat ccnsosecretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnsosecretariat@icann.org> at your earliest convenience, latest next week Wednesday 21 June (23:59 UTC). Purpose: To determine valid top-level Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) labels and their variant labels, the community had finalized the Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-lgr-procedure-20mar13-en.… ) The Procedure requires community-based Generation Panels (GPs), organized for relevant scripts, to convene and propose specific rules. These rules are evaluated and then integrated into the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR) by the Integration Panel (IP). Current status: The Integration Panel (IP) has successfully evaluated the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) Proposals (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lgr-proposals-2015-12-01-en ) for five additional scripts, Ethiopic, Georgian, Lao, Khmer and Thai, submitted by the respective GPs, following the release of these individual proposals for public comments. The IP has integrated these proposals, along with Arabic script already integrated into the first version of the Root Zone LGR (RZ-LGR-1: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/root-zone-lgr-2015-06-21-en ), to develop the second version of the Root Zone LGR (RZ-LGR-2: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/lgr/lgr-2-overview-01jun17-en.pdf ) Next steps: As per the Procedure, RZ-LGR-2 is being released for public comments to gather community feedback for its finalization. Close date of the public comments is 24 Jul 2017 23:59 UTC. Suggested is to submit a ccNSO statement, to support IDN ccTLDs and ccTLDs that offer IDNs. (Applicable guideline: “ccNSO Guideline: ccNSO Statements”: https://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines-statements-30mar16-en.pdf ) Read more: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rz-lgr-2-2017-06-06-en and in this related announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-06-06-en 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 1