September 2017 - Ccnso-council

triage recommendations [38 to 42 - 2017]
by Joke Braeken Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear council members, Please find below the proposed triage recommendations [38 to 42 - 2017]. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of 7 September 2017, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendations. Thank you. Topic: 38-2017: Request for Proposal: ICANN Designated Agent for Registrar Data Escrow Services Originator: ICANN Summary of request: ICANN is seeking to identify one or more additional ICANN-designated Registrar Data Escrow (RDE) agent(s) suitable to provide RDE services to accredited registrars. For a complete overview of the RFP including the timeline, please see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-icann-agent-rde-services-17…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> Read more: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-08-17-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Date received: 21 August 2017 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 6 October 2017 (23:59 UTC) Recommended action, if any: share with ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>; ccnso-members(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>; ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> and on the ccNSO social media accounts. Expertise needed, if any: Registrar Data Escrow, gTLD registration data, Registrar Accreditation Agreement Date of submission to Triage Committee: 4 September 2017 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 5 September 2017 Date of submission to Council: 5 September 2017 Deadline Council decision: 7 September, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: low = = = Topic: 39-2017: Comment period, Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings 2021–2023 Originator: ICANN, Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Summary of request: ICANN has proposed dates for Public Meetings to be held in 2021, 2022, and 2023. In choosing meeting dates, ICANN took care to avoid conflicts with global, national, and religious holidays and other community events. The public comment period is an opportunity for the community to review the proposed dates, and bring any concerns or potential conflicts to our attention before we post the official meeting dates. Read more: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/icann-meetings-dates-2017-08-21-en[ic…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> Date received: 22 August 2017 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 2 October 2017 Recommended action, if any: share with ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>; ccnso-members(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>; ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> and on the ccNSO social media accounts. Expertise needed, if any: events, conferences, accountability, transparency Date of submission to Triage Committee: 4 September 2017 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 5 September 2017 Date of submission to Council: 5 September 2017 Deadline Council decision: 7 September, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: low = = = Topic: 40-2017: Proposed Renewal of .MUSEUM Sponsored Registry Agreement Originator: ICANN, Global Domains Division (GDD) Summary of request: ICANN is posting for public comment the proposed agreement for renewal of the 2007 Registry Agreement for .MUSEUM, which is set to expire on 2 November 2017. The renewal proposal is a result of bilateral discussions between ICANN and Museum Domain Management Association (MuseDoma), the Registry Operator for the .MUSEUM TLD). Read more: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/museum-renewal-2017-08-24-en[icann.or…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> Date received: 28 August 2017 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 3 October 2017 (23:59 UTC) Recommended action, if any: share with ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>; ccnso-members(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>; ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> and on the ccNSO social media accounts. Expertise needed, if any: contracted party agreements Date of submission to Triage Committee: 4 September 2017 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 5 September 2017 Date of submission to Council: 5 September 2017 Deadline Council decision: 7 September, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: low = = = Topic: 41-2017: Proposed Changes to the NCUC Charter Originator: ICANN Board of Directors, GNSO, NCUC Summary of request: The purpose of this public comment proceeding is to obtain community input on proposed changes to the charter of the GNSO Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC). The changes have been approved by the membership of the NCUC and are awaiting ICANN Board review and approval. Due to the extent of the revisions and consistent with the ICANN Board Process for Amending GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters, the ICANN Board Organizational Effectiveness Committee has authorized this public comment proceeding. Read more: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ncuc-charter-2017-08-24-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> Date received: 28 August 2017 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 17 Oct 2017 923:59 UTC) Recommended action, if any: none Expertise needed, if any: bylaws Date of submission to Triage Committee: 4 September 2017 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 5 September 2017 Date of submission to Council: 5 September 2017 Deadline Council decision: 7 September, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: low = = = Topic: 42-2017: Webinar: "Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs" (SADAG) Study Originator: ICANN, Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCTRT) Summary of request: Announcement of interactive webinars on 13&14 September, entitled, "The Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs" (SADAG) based on a study commissioned by the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa…> (CCTRT) as part of its examination of consumer trust and effectiveness of safeguards that were built into the New Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Program. In defining the parameters of the study, the CCTRT sought to measure rates of common forms of abusive activities in the domain name system, such as spam, phishing, and malware distribution. The study compares rates of these activities between new and legacy gTLDs, as well as employs inferential statistical analysis to measure the effects of Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC), domain parking, and registration restrictions on abuse rates using historical data covering the first three full years of the New gTLD Program (2014 – 2016). Join the webinar to receive a briefing from the study's researchers on its methodology and findings. Attending the webinars will also allow you to provide feedback and ask clarifying questions prior to submitting your public comment on the study[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…>. This public comment period is scheduled to close on 19 September 2017. The CCTRT will consider the public comments as it works toward developing its final report and recommendations. Read more: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-08-31-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Date received: 28 August 2017 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: webinars on 13&14 September, public comment period is scheduled to close on 19 September 2017. Recommended action, if any: share with ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>; ccnso-members(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>; ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> and on the ccNSO social media accounts. Expertise needed, if any: statistics, DNS Abuse, gTLDs Date of submission to Triage Committee: 4 September 2017 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 5 September 2017 Date of submission to Council: 5 September 2017 Deadline Council decision: 7 September, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: low 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

DECISION NEEDED: Joint ccNSO-SSAC response to the ICANN Board
by Katrina Sataki Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear Councillors, On our last call Hiro informed us that the EPSRP working party concluded its work and the SSAC was in the process to decide whether to adopt the paper prepared by the working party. Hiro also indicated that he would submit the final paper to chair once adopted by SSAC. I am pleased to inform you that Hiro has formally sent me the paper after he and I were informed that SSAC has adopted the document (included) "as is". So now it is up to us. According to our internal rules (https://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines-council-practices-09feb17-en.pdf) and as agreed at our last call on 24 August we will take an email decision. I therefore propose the following resolution: Proposed Resolution Background In its letter dated 24 April 2017, the ICANN Board of Directors noted divergent views of the SSAC and ccNSO with respect to the following topics: Interpretation of RFC 6912; On similarity findings, and On mitigation measures. The Board suggested the ccNSO and SSAC collaboratively arrive at conclusions on these 3 issues and requested a joint briefing to further the Board's understanding of the topic. The ccNSO and SSAC agreed to set up a working party with two members from each group tasked to develop a common position on the 3 topics, if feasible. Both the ccNSO Council and SSAC would approve the document according to their own rules and procedures and then would send and present it to the Board. The Chair of the ccNSO and ccNSO members on the working party were informed that SSAC has adopted the Joint ccNSO SSAC Response to ICANN Board on EPSRP as proposed by the working party. Decision. The ccNSO Council suports the observations and recommendations of the working party and adopts the Joint ccNSO-SSAC Response to ICANN Board on EPSRP as proposed by the working party. The ccNSO Council particularly welcomes the proposed changes to section 5.6.3 of the current version of the Fast Track Implementation Plan (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-cctld-implementation-plan-0 5nov13-en.pdf ). The ccNSO Council request its Chair to inform the Chair of SSAC accordingly, and jointly submit the Joint Response. The ccNSO Council thanks and congratulates the members of the working party: Suzanne Woolf (SSAC), Jeff Bedser (SSAC), Hiro Hotta (ccNSO), Wafa Dahmani (ccNSO), for their work on the paper and for finding a common position. According to our rules this resolution will be considered adopted if none of us raises objections by 8 September 2017 23.59 UTC or, in case at least one of us raises an objection by a majority vote. So, please let your voice be heard on this topic, preferably as soon as possible but no later than 8 September 23.59 UTC. Thank you! Kindest regards, ]{atrina

3 8

Re: [ccnso-council] PLEASE VOTE: Joint ccNSO-SSAC response to the ICANN Board
by Eng. Abibu Ntahigiye Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear Chair, In favor. rgds ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eng. Abibu R. Ntahigiye; CEO, tzNIC; (Mob.) +255 784 279 511; (Office) +255 22 277 265 9 On Sep 4, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Katrina Sataki wrote: Dear Councillors, As Ching has voted against the resolution, now according to our internals rules we need to vote as only by majority vote we can adopt the response to the Boards letter prepared by the working party and that is already adopted by SSAC. May I ask the Councillors to pro-actively express your position? Dear Secretariat, please count the votes and publish the fact of voting (not the actual vote!) on our wiki space. Currently there are three votes: - Hiro Hotta IN FAVOUR - Ching Chao AGAINST - Katrina Sataki IN FAVOUR. Kind regards, ]{atrina From: <ccnso-council-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> Date: Thursday, 31 August 2017 at 19:58 To: <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] DECISION NEEDED: Joint ccNSO-SSAC response to the ICANN Board Dear Councillors, On our last call Hiro informed us that the EPSRP working party concluded its work and the SSAC was in the process to decide whether to adopt the paper prepared by the working party. Hiro also indicated that he would submit the final paper to chair once adopted by SSAC. I am pleased to inform you that Hiro has formally sent me the paper after he and I were informed that SSAC has adopted the document (included) as is. So now it is up to us. According to our internal rules (https://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines-council-practices-09feb17-en.pdf) and as agreed at our last call on 24 August we will take an email decision. I therefore propose the following resolution: Proposed Resolution Background In its letter dated 24 April 2017, the ICANN Board of Directors noted divergent views of the SSAC and ccNSO with respect to the following topics: Interpretation of RFC 6912; On similarity findings, and On mitigation measures. The Board suggested the ccNSO and SSAC collaboratively arrive at conclusions on these 3 issues and requested a joint briefing to further the Boards understanding of the topic. The ccNSO and SSAC agreed to set up a working party with two members from each group tasked to develop a common position on the 3 topics, if feasible. Both the ccNSO Council and SSAC would approve the document according to their own rules and procedures and then would send and present it to the Board. The Chair of the ccNSO and ccNSO members on the working party were informed that SSAC has adopted the Joint ccNSO SSAC Response to ICANN Board on EPSRP as proposed by the working party. Decision. The ccNSO Council suports the observations and recommendations of the working party and adopts the Joint ccNSO-SSAC Response to ICANN Board on EPSRP as proposed by the working party. The ccNSO Council particularly welcomes the proposed changes to section 5.6.3 of the current version of the Fast Track Implementation Plan (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-cctld-implementation-plan-0… ). The ccNSO Council request its Chair to inform the Chair of SSAC accordingly, and jointly submit the Joint Response. The ccNSO Council thanks and congratulates the members of the working party: Suzanne Woolf (SSAC), Jeff Bedser (SSAC), Hiro Hotta (ccNSO), Wafa Dahmani (ccNSO), for their work on the paper and for finding a common position. According to our rules this resolution will be considered adopted if none of us raises objections by 8 September 2017 23.59 UTC or, in case at least one of us raises an objection by a majority vote. So, please let your voice be heard on this topic, preferably as soon as possible but no later than 8 September 23.59 UTC. Thank you! Kindest regards, ]{atrina _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council <17 August EPSRP Response DRAFT FINAL[1].pdf>_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council

1 0

PLEASE VOTE: Joint ccNSO-SSAC response to the ICANN Board
by Katrina Sataki Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear Councillors, As Ching has voted against the resolution, now according to our internals rules we need to vote as only by majority vote we can adopt the response to the Board’s letter prepared by the working party and that is already adopted by SSAC. May I ask the Councillors to pro-actively express your position? Dear Secretariat, please count the votes and publish the fact of voting (not the actual vote!) on our wiki space. Currently there are three votes: - Hiro Hotta – IN FAVOUR - Ching Chao – AGAINST - Katrina Sataki – IN FAVOUR. Kind regards, ]{atrina From: <ccnso-council-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> Date: Thursday, 31 August 2017 at 19:58 To: <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] DECISION NEEDED: Joint ccNSO-SSAC response to the ICANN Board Dear Councillors, On our last call Hiro informed us that the EPSRP working party concluded its work and the SSAC was in the process to decide whether to adopt the paper prepared by the working party. Hiro also indicated that he would submit the final paper to chair once adopted by SSAC. I am pleased to inform you that Hiro has formally sent me the paper after he and I were informed that SSAC has adopted the document (included) “as is”. So now it is up to us. According to our internal rules (https://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines-council-practices-09feb17-en.pdf) and as agreed at our last call on 24 August we will take an email decision. I therefore propose the following resolution: Proposed Resolution Background In its letter dated 24 April 2017, the ICANN Board of Directors noted divergent views of the SSAC and ccNSO with respect to the following topics: Interpretation of RFC 6912; On similarity findings, and On mitigation measures. The Board suggested the ccNSO and SSAC collaboratively arrive at conclusions on these 3 issues and requested a joint briefing to further the Board’s understanding of the topic. The ccNSO and SSAC agreed to set up a working party with two members from each group tasked to develop a common position on the 3 topics, if feasible. Both the ccNSO Council and SSAC would approve the document according to their own rules and procedures and then would send and present it to the Board. The Chair of the ccNSO and ccNSO members on the working party were informed that SSAC has adopted the Joint ccNSO SSAC Response to ICANN Board on EPSRP as proposed by the working party. Decision. The ccNSO Council suports the observations and recommendations of the working party and adopts the Joint ccNSO-SSAC Response to ICANN Board on EPSRP as proposed by the working party. The ccNSO Council particularly welcomes the proposed changes to section 5.6.3 of the current version of the Fast Track Implementation Plan (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-cctld-implementation-plan-0… ). The ccNSO Council request its Chair to inform the Chair of SSAC accordingly, and jointly submit the Joint Response. The ccNSO Council thanks and congratulates the members of the working party: Suzanne Woolf (SSAC), Jeff Bedser (SSAC), Hiro Hotta (ccNSO), Wafa Dahmani (ccNSO), for their work on the paper and for finding a common position. According to our rules this resolution will be considered adopted if none of us raises objections by 8 September 2017 23.59 UTC or, in case at least one of us raises an objection by a majority vote. So, please let your voice be heard on this topic, preferably as soon as possible but no later than 8 September 23.59 UTC. Thank you! Kindest regards, ]{atrina _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council

4 3

Joint ccNSO SSAC Response to ICANN Board on EPSRP
by Peter Vergote Sept. 4, 2017

Sept. 4, 2017

Dear all, Please note that I’m in favor of the proposed resolution. Best regards, Peter Peter Vergote Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager +32 16 29 89 28 +32 474 790096 www.dnsbelgium.be<http://www.dnsbelgium.be/> [ns_punt_belgium_rgb]

1 0

ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process
by Joke Braeken Sept. 4, 2017

Sept. 4, 2017

Dear all, ICANN issued an update[newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> on the review of the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process. Community Priority Evaluation is a method to resolve string contention, described in full detail in section 4.2 of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB)[newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>. The evaluation determines if the community based application qualifies to earn priority and eliminate all non-community applicants in the contention set as well as any other non-prevailing community applicants. In CPE, the application is evaluated against the following four criteria: * Community Establishment; * Nexus between Proposed String and Community; * Registration Policies, * and Community Endorsement. The evaluations were conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The EIU was selected for this role because it offers premier business intelligence services, providing political, economic, and public policy analysis to businesses, governments, and organizations across the globe. At various times in the implementation of the New gTLD Program, the ICANN Board has considered aspects of CPE process, including certain concerns that some applicants have raised regarding the process. On 17 September 2016[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>, the ICANN Board directed the President and CEO, or his designees, to undertake a review of the process by which ICANN has interacted with the CPE provider. In his letter of 26 April 2017 to concerned parties[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> [PDF, 405 KB], Chris Disspain, the Chair of the Board Governance Committee, provided additional information about the scope and status of the review. Below is additional information about the review, as well as the current status of the CPE process review. On 2 June 2017[newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>, the ICANN organization published an update on the Review. Below is the current status of the Review since the last update. Current Status of the Review The 2 June 2017 update[newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> made clear that the Review is being conducted in two parallel tracks by FTI Consulting Inc.’s (FTI)[fticonsulting.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fticonsulting.com_&…> Global Risk and Investigations Practice (GRIP) and Technology Practice. The work of the first track, which focuses on gathering information and materials from the ICANN organization, has been completed. The work of the second track, which focuses on gathering information and materials from the CPE provider, is still ongoing. The interview process of the CPE provider personnel that had involvement in CPEs has been completed. FTI is also working with the CPE provider to obtain the reference materials for the evaluations that are the subject of pending Reconsideration Requests[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The CPE provider has been producing documents on a rolling basis. FTI is currently evaluating whether the CPE provider’s production is complete. Once the underlying information and data collection is complete, FTI anticipates that it will be able to inform ICANN of its findings within two weeks. Recently, the ICANN Board and the ICANN organization have received numerous inquiries for documentation and information about the Review. These inquiries have been and will continue to be addressed through ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP), and are published on the DIDP page at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/transparency-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The ICANN Board recognizes the desire by many to conclude this Review and proceed with the process. The ICANN Board also looks forward to concluding the Review and proceeding as appropriate. For more information about the CPE process, please visit https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe[newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>. Read the announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-09-01-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

Changing the Keys for the Internet’s Addressing System – Don’t Get Locked Out
by Joke Braeken Sept. 4, 2017

Sept. 4, 2017

Dear all, For the first time ever, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is about to change the cryptographic keys that help secure the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). Read the announcement: https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2017-08-16-en "It is critical that Internet Service Providers and network operators around the world make certain they are ready for this change as failure to do so can result in their users being unable to look up domain names and thus be unable to reach any site on the Internet" said David Conrad, ICANN's Chief Technology Officer. Conrad added, "Network operators should ensure they have up-to-date software, have enabled DNSSEC, and verified that their systems can update their keys automatically or they have processes in place to manually update to the new key by 1600 UTC on 11 October 2017." The changing, or "rolling" of the key, is an important step in keeping the global DNS safe and secure. It is very much in line with commonly accepted operational practices that ensure that important security infrastructure can support changing password if the need were to ever arise. "We've launched a testing platform so network operators can make certain that they are ready for the key roll well ahead of October 11," said Conrad. That testing platform can be accessed at: https://go.icann.org/KSKtest[go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.icann.org_KSKtest&d…>. Internet users should contact their ISP or network operators to make certain they are ready for the key change. ICANN has been working with technical partners such as the Regional Internet Registries, Network Operations Groups, and domain name registries and registrars as well as others in the Internet ecosystem, such as the Internet Society and Internet trade associations, to make certain that those around the world who may be impacted by the key roll are aware of the pending change. ICANN Chief Executive Officer Göran Marby has sent correspondence to more than 170 government officials including regulators and participants in ICANN's Government Advisory Committee, asking that they make certain the network operators in their respective countries are aware and ready for the key change. To learn more about the pending Key Roll, go here: https://www.icann.org/kskroll[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_kskroll&…>. To join the conversation on Twitter use #KeyRoll. 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

ICANN 2017 Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by Joke Braeken Sept. 4, 2017

Sept. 4, 2017

Dear All, The ICANN 2017 Nominating Committee (NomCom) announced its selections for eight leadership positions within ICANN. The selections include: ICANN Board of Directors Avri Doria (North America) Sarah Deutsch (North America) At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Hadia Elminiawi (Africa) Kaili Kan (Asia, Australia, Pacific Islands) Richardo Holmquist (Latin America, Caribbean Islands) Council of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Marita Moll (North America) Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Carlos Gutierrez (Latin America, Caribbean Islands) Syed Ismail Shah (Asia, Australia, Pacific Islands) Read the announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-09-01-en Selectee photos and biographies will be posted to icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFa…> in the coming days. Those selected will take up their positions after the end of ICANN’s Annual General Meeting, which will take place during ICANN60, scheduled for 28 October – 3 November in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. There will be an announcement coming soon about the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) Board seats, which is also part of the Nominating Committee work for this year. The Nominating Committee is charged with recruiting and selecting a portion of ICANN’s leadership. The Nominating Committee is mandated to ensure that ICANN’s overall leadership is diverse in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective. Selectees should have the following basic criteria: * Have integrity, objectivity, and sound judgment. * Support decision-making within groups. * Work effectively in English. * Understand ICANN’s mission and operation. * Are committed to ICANN’s success. * Have experience in world affairs. * Contribute to cultural, professional, and geographic expertise. * Can work long and hard, generally as volunteers, for the global public trust. Regional Breakdown of Applicants The 2017 Nominating Committee received 99 applications from candidates all over the world (36 women and 63 men) during its nomination period. This nominating period took place from 11 January 2017 to 21 March 2017. The regional breakdown of this year's candidates is: 16 from Africa 23 from Asia, Australia, Pacific Islands 25 from Europe 13 from Latin America, Caribbean Islands 22 from North America To learn more about the Nominating Committee, visit http://nomcom.icann.org/[nomcom.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nomcom.icann.org_&d=DwM…>. 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

Second Version of Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone (RZ-LGR-2) Released
by Joke Braeken Sept. 4, 2017

Sept. 4, 2017

Dear all, ICANN is pleased to announce that the second version of Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> (RZ-LGR-2) has been released. RZ-LGR comprises of rules which define a set of criteria for determining valid Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) labels for the DNS Root Zone and their variant labels. The first version (RZ-LGR-1), released in March 2016, integrated the Arabic script. RZ-LGR-2 integrates five additional scripts, Ethiopic, Georgian, Khmer, Lao and Thai. These label generation rules have been defined by the respective community-based Generation Panels and evaluated by the Integration Panel, following the Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> [PDF, 1.4MB]. As additional script proposals for the RZ-LGR are developed and meet the requirements for integration, new versions of the RZ-LGR will be released. Further mechanisms are being investigated for determining how the variant labels may be allocated to those who have applied for top-level domains. Read more: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-08-17-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

Fwd: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda and Master List of Proposed Issues for Upcoming Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting at 13:00 UTC 30 August 2017
by Nigel Roberts Sept. 4, 2017

Sept. 4, 2017

Colleagues There is a persistent thread in the WS2 jurisdiction sub-group which appears to be calling for the IANA to have legal immunity for all actions it takes in respect of ccTLD management. In my opinion such a move would completely eviscerate the agreement that allowed the ccTLDs to return to ICANN in 2003 (after abandoning the model previously) and disturb the delicate balance that allows us to exist and function. There is clearly a lack of understanding existing about ICANN's relationship to ccTLDs in other parts of ICANN, and I can't help wondering that it's partly our doing. In the days of the DNSO, the other constituencies knew us. But since the formation of the gNSO/ccNSO, there has (naturally, since it's been 15 years) a turnover of people. Notwithstanding this, this push for more control over us doesn't appear to be going away, despite the best efforts of myself and Jordan. The Chairman is inviting "other ccNSO members" to input their views. (I think one view has to be that the ccNSO has responsbility for ccTLD matters, not the gNSO, ALAC or any other part of ICANN) I fear this recommendation for IANA and ICANN to have immunity is now possible to make into the final report of this WG, and we really need to talk about this! Thoughts?? -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda and Master List of Proposed Issues for Upcoming Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting at 13:00 UTC 30 August 2017 Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 00:12:32 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> To: Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> CC: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org>, Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> Nigel, Thank you for your comments. It would be good for the Subgroup to understand more about this concern, and to hear the views of other ccNSO members on this as well. Greg On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: Greg I find it quite strange that this subgroup appears to be discussing what the ccNSO should be doing (or not). It's a fundamental of the relationship between ccTLDs (and ICANN) that ICANN cannot interfere in ccTLD policy or impose policy on ccTLDs. Subsidiarity applies - that is to say ccTLD policy is developed at local level by we, the ccTLDs ourselves. Only in a very small set of, well defined circumstances may ICANN policy apply to ccTLDs, and then only to those ccTLDs that are members of the ccNSO, and only whilst they remain a member. This is the susbtance of the 2003 Montreal Agreement. It's only a happy co-incidence that Jordan and I are members of this WG and can engange. I would caution this group to take no actions that might be construed as presuming upon the delicate balance between ICANN and ccTLDs. Imposing sweeping and untested solutions to hypothetical problems on ccTLDs from outside will not, I suspect, be that well received, and in particular the suggestion that our forthcoming ccNSO PDP be coupled with immunity for ICANN. Nigel Roberts On 03/09/17 22:13, Greg Shatan wrote: Thiago, As an inital matter, please keep in mind that, as I just sent to Jorge: "This is intended to be a census/list of the proposed issues, primarily to confirm that we did not miss any proposed issues." The notes came from staff and from me. With regard to this major topic, can you first confirm whether you have withdrawn the proposed issue listed as "“In Rem” jurisdiction of US courts over ccTLDs"? I believe that was the case, but hope you can confirm that so that I do not have to review the email list. I've clarified in the Google Doc that the note "Subset of potential issue of US Courts generally" applies only to the first bullet point (it would apply to the first two bullet points if the "in rem" proposed issue is not being withdrawn.) With regard to the note that "There appear to be no examples of this," I looked at your linked email but did not see any examples. I did see your assertion below and in that linked email that "US organs can possibly interfere with ICANN's ccTLD management, regardless of whether that has already happened." I have added this to the note. If you have examples where this has already happened this would be helpful to the overall discussion. I've also added to the note to reflect your view that a ccNSO PDP should be accompanied by immunity. With regard to your last point, the third bulletpoint proposed issue already referenced enforcement by domestic agencies. I've added more of your language there to further clarify the point. I think this takes your comments into account in editing the document. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>>> wrote: Dear Greg, Dear All, Without prejudice to further comments we may have regarding how the proposed issues have been assembled and are individually portrayed, let me react to the "notes" (you?) entered in respect to the "ccTLD issue". It says "Subset of potential issue of US Courts generally. There appear to be no examples of this. The ccNSO will have a PDP on developing a dispute resolution system, which could address this as these are excluded from IRP as requested by the ccNSO (similar to ASO)". To my understanding, the note is one-sided and expresses the views of only a handful of participants, as I explain below. To portray it without the reactions and comments that abounded in the list in response to these views might inappropriately influence the subsequent work of the subgroup on this issue. For example, one such reaction has been the acknowledgment, even on the part of the staunchest opponents to any change to the status quo, that US organs can possibly interfere with ICANN's ccTLD management, regardless of whether that has already happened. (I invite you to look at what I believe is a fair summary of the issue here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html>>). This is without mentioning other reactions and comments challenging (or at least nuancing) such assertion as that "there appears to be no examples of this", as is portrayed in the note. The same must be said in relation to the note's suggestion that a "PDP on developing a dispute resolution system ... could address this". In fact, Jordan's email, who was the person who mentioned the PDP work by the ccNSO, never really said that the ccNSO PDP "could address" the very issue that US organs can possibly interfere with ICANN's ccTLD management. On the contrary, several participants in the subgroup concurred that a ccNSO PDP would in fact "complement" our work in addressing the issue of US jurisdiction over ccTLDs, and this has not been challenged by anyone. (I invite you to look here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001441.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001441.html> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001441.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001441.html>> ; see also the language I suggested accommodating the all views here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html>>, all of which I believe should not go ignored in any explanatory note to the issue that purports to be neutral) Finally, on the broader "ccTLD issue", contrary to the original proposal and subsequent exchanges in the mailing list, the issue is being portrayed in the table as if the only problem identified against ICANN's ccTLD management lay in action in "US courts", as an expression of US "prescriptive" and "adjudicatory" jurisdiction. Here again the "note" is inaccurate, as it states that the issue is a "subset of potential issue of US Courts generally". If the issue is a subset of anything, it is a subset of US jurisdiction generally, which includes US enforcement jurisdiction, which is territorial and exclusive in character, and may be exercised outside domestic courts, for example through US enforcement and regulatory agencies. (In addition to the links above, I also invite you to look here http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001469.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001469.html> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001469.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001469.html>>) In respect to all other issues more generally, a similar reference to "US enforcement jurisdiction" as part of the issues identified is lacking, despite the exchanges in the mailing list proposing and discussing it. Thank you for taking the above into account. Best regards, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>>] Em nome de Greg Shatan Enviada em: quarta-feira, 30 de agosto de 2017 01:09 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda and Master List of Proposed Issues for Upcoming Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting at 13:00 UTC 30 August 2017 All: I have attached the agenda and the master list of proposed issues, collated from all of the recent submissions on the list and in the Google Doc. As a first order of business, we need to confirm that all submissions have been found and added to this list. Please review this before the meeting if possible. Thanks! I look forward to our upcoming meeting. Greg _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>

2 3