September 2017 - Ccnso-council

Re: [ccnso-council] Upcoming Empowered Community Administration Activity
by Leonid Todorov Sept. 4, 2017

Sept. 4, 2017

Thank you, Stephen, for your most detailed answer and I am sorry you had to spent so much time going through all these calculations. I fully agree with your conclusions and questions that remain unanswered. Indeed, it is hard to find a universally satisfactory solution, and any party can be seemingly discriminated due to the complex tw-channel Board nomination process. One thing is for certain though: your reflections confirm the AFNIC's recent assumptions that the ICANN (and its Board in particular) iis still dominated by NA region. Thank you, L. Leonid Todorov GM l.todorov(a)aptld.org Skype: leonid.todorov Mob/WhatsApp: +7 963 623 4307 APTLD on Twitter: https://twitter.com/aptldnews APTLD on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aptld/ On 3 September 2017 at 22:54, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Stephen, > > Many thanks for the analysis. Interesting scenario that would be worth > discussing in Abu Dhabi (with open minds). > > Regards > > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake(a)nic.as> > wrote: > >> As a further answer to your question, Leonid, let me start by taking a >> look at the current Board composition, and what I understand it’s >> composition will be like after the conclusion of the AGM in Abu Dhabi. >> >> If my analysis of the current and future composition of the Board is >> accurate, then the Board breaks down as follows: >> >> >> >> *Current Board Composition* >> >> M >> >> 11 >> >> 73.33% >> >> F >> >> 4 >> >> 26.67% >> >> White >> >> 9 >> >> 60.00% >> >> N Africa >> >> 2 >> >> 13.33% >> >> Asian >> >> 2 >> >> 13.33% >> >> Latin >> >> 1 >> >> 6.67% >> >> Malaysian >> >> 1 >> >> 6.67% >> >> Africa >> >> 3 >> >> 20.00% >> >> Asia >> >> 4 >> >> 26.67% >> >> Europe >> >> 3 >> >> 20.00% >> >> Latin America >> >> 1 >> >> 6.67% >> >> North America >> >> 4 >> >> 26.67% >> >> >> >> *Post AGM Board Composition* >> >> M >> >> 11 >> >> 73.33% >> >> F >> >> 4 >> >> 26.67% >> >> White >> >> 10 >> >> 66.67% >> >> N Africa >> >> 2 >> >> 13.33% >> >> Asian >> >> 1 >> >> 6.67% >> >> Latin >> >> 2 >> >> 13.33% >> >> Africa >> >> 3 >> >> 20.00% >> >> Asia >> >> 3 >> >> 20.00% >> >> Europe >> >> 3 >> >> 20.00% >> >> Latin America >> >> 1 >> >> 6.67% >> >> North America >> >> 5 >> >> 33.33% >> >> >> >> >> >> So if my analysis is correct (and there was some guesswork involved with >> respect to ethnicity and geographic regions), the sex ratio remains >> unchanged, but the Board becomes whiter, and more North American in make up. >> >> >> >> I’m not sure this is a good thing in aggregate… >> >> >> >> So the question is, does the Board’s makeup pass the “Diversity >> Calculation” present in Section 7.2(b) of the Bylaws? I believe the answer >> is yes, but barely. More significantly however, by over-loading the North >> America representation on the post-AGM board, the NomCom has implicitly >> limited the ability of the other SO/AC’s to pick candidates of their >> choosing. This is because Section 7.5 specifically states that in >> aggregate, no more than 5 board members, selected across all SO/AC’s in >> addition to the NomCom’s selections of seats 1-8, can be from the same >> Geographic region. If my interpretation is correct, all the SO/AC’s as >> well as the NomCom can impact the selection of Board members by the other >> SO/ACs, as well as the NomCom. With the North America region tapped out at >> the proscribed limit of 5 by the NomCom’s recent selections, it appears >> that no one from the North America region, from ANY SO/AC, may stand for >> Board election within their SO/AC in the immediate future. >> >> >> >> I think what we are seeing here is an outcome no one really anticipated >> as the bylaws were being drafted. Here’s a question for you: Assume for >> example’s sake that the Board currently has 4 Europeans on it. Further, >> assume that two SO/AC’s hold Board elections within their respective SO/AC, >> and both the winning candidates are European. If my interpretation of 7.5 >> is correct, then the Diversity Calculation for the Board fails. What >> happens? Which candidate gets seated? What does the other SO/AC do? >> >> >> >> I hope this answers your question. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Stephen Deerhake >> >> AS Domain Registry >> >> GDNS, LLC >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Leonid Todorov <l.todorov(a)aptld.org> >> *Date: *Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 11:35 >> *To: *Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake(a)nic.as> >> *Cc: *"ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> >> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] Upcoming Empowered Community >> Administration Activity >> >> >> >> Thank you, Stephen: >> >> >> >> as an observer to the Council, may I ask a brief question as to whether >> there is a geographic diversity-related requirement/limitation applicable >> in a situation in which the NomCom selects two Board members that >> represent the same region. >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> >> Leonid >> >> >> Leonid Todorov >> GM >> >> l.todorov(a)aptld.org >> Skype: leonid.todorov >> >> Mob/WhatsApp: +7 963 623 4307 <+7%20963%20623-43-07> >> >> APTLD on Twitter: https://twitter.com/aptldnews >> >> APTLD on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aptld/ >> >> >> >> On 2 September 2017 at 17:31, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake(a)nic.as> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> >> >> I am writing to you in my capacity as the ccNSO representative to the >> Empowered Community Administration. >> >> >> >> Please be advised that the 2017 Nominating Committee has made a decision >> regarding ICANN Board Seats 7 and 8, as follows: >> >> >> >> Board Seat 7: Avri Doria (North America) >> >> Board Seat 8: Sarah Deutsch (North America) >> >> >> >> Also, please be advised that they have selected Marita Moll (North >> America) for the upcoming NomCom vacancy on the ccNSO Council. >> >> >> >> There is no action required of the ccNSO Council in this matter. Under >> the Bylaws the Empowered Community Administration must formally notify the >> ICANN Secretary of the selection by the Nominating Committee of the >> individuals designated to fill Board seats 7 and 8. >> >> >> >> Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Stephen Deerhake >> >> AS Domain Registry >> >> GDNS, LLC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccnso-council mailing list >> Ccnso-council(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccnso-council mailing list >> Ccnso-council(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council >> > > > > -- > Barrack O. Otieno > +254721325277 > +254733206359 > Skype: barrack.otieno > PGP ID: 0x2611D86A > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ccnso-council] [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. 3, 2017

Sept. 3, 2017

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>> > 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>). > 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> > ; 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>, > 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>) > > 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>] 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 > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >

1 0

Upcoming Empowered Community Administration Activity
by Stephen Deerhake Sept. 3, 2017

Sept. 3, 2017

Greetings, I am writing to you in my capacity as the ccNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration. Please be advised that the 2017 Nominating Committee has made a decision regarding ICANN Board Seats 7 and 8, as follows: Board Seat 7: Avri Doria (North America) Board Seat 8: Sarah Deutsch (North America) Also, please be advised that they have selected Marita Moll (North America) for the upcoming NomCom vacancy on the ccNSO Council. There is no action required of the ccNSO Council in this matter. Under the Bylaws the Empowered Community Administration must formally notify the ICANN Secretary of the selection by the Nominating Committee of the individuals designated to fill Board seats 7 and 8. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake AS Domain Registry GDNS, LLC

3 5

cNSO Activity Summary | August 2017
by Kimberly Carlson Sept. 1, 2017

Sept. 1, 2017

ccNSO Activity Summary August 2017 ICANN60: Meeting page <https://meetings.icann.org/en/abudhabi60> , Register <https://registration.icann.org/register.php?id=abudhabi60> ccNSO ICANN60 wiki space <https://community.icann.org/x/cwshB> Please contact the Tech WG <mailto:ccnso-techwg@icann.org> if you are interested in presenting at Tech Day Working/Study Group Meeting Output: Recordings of various Working Group Meetings can be found here: http://ccnso.icann.org/calendar 31 August - ccPDP on Retirement Working Group Telephone Conference - Mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-pdp-retirement-31aug17-en.mp3> and Wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/OxwhB> 28 August - Guidelines Review Committee Telephone Conference Mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-grc-28aug17-en.mp3> and Wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/jBYhB> 22 August Meetings Programme Working Group Telephone Conference Mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-programme-22aug17-en.mp3> 17 August ccPDP on Retirement Working Group Telephone Conference - Mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-pdp-retirement-17aug17-en.mp3> and Wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/gQghB> 14 August Guidelines Review Committee Telephone Conference Mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-grc-14aug17-en.mp3> and Wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/yX7wAw> 1 August TLD OPS Standing Committee Telephone Conference Mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-tld-ops-01aug17-en.mp3> ccNSO Council: ccNSO Council preparation material and output can be found here: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/minutes.htm 24 August - ccNSO Council Call recording <https://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-council-24aug17-en.mp3> and wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/XQwhB> ccNSO Council Decisions and Resolutions: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions-resolutions.htm ccNSO Council Wiki space <https://community.icann.org/x/BiyAAw> Links and Announcements regarding the IANA Stewardship Transfer and ICANNs Accountability Process: IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation Page <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation> CSC Reports and Findings <https://www.icann.org/en/csc/reports> ICANN Launches New Empowered Community Webpages <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-25-en> Other Announcements: Root Zone KSK Rollover <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ksk-rollover/#overview> ICANN61 Fellowship Application Round Now Open <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-08-04-en> Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Review Final Report <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-08-08-en> Request for Proposal: PTI Service Organization Control Audits <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-08-11-en> Request for Proposal: Human Rights Impact Assessment RFP <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-08-15-en> Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings 2021 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-08-21-en> 2023 Introducing the New Accountability Indicators <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/introducing-the-new-accountability-indicato rs> blog by Susanna Bennett Improvements to the Quarterly Stakeholder Updates <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/improvements-to-the-quarterly-stakeholder-u pdates> blog by Göran Marby Do You Have a Domain Name? Here's What You Need to Know (Part 1) <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/do-you-have-a-domain-name-here-s-what-you-n eed-to-know-part-1> blog by Trang Nguyen ____________________________________________________________________________ ___________________ Kimberly Carlson SO/AC Support Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email <mailto:Kimberly.Carlson@icann.org> Kimberly.Carlson(a)icann.org Skype kimberly.carlson.icann

1 0

ccNSO Council letter to the GNSO Council regarding WT5
by Katrina Sataki Sept. 1, 2017

Sept. 1, 2017

Dear James, On behalf of the ccNSO Council I am sending you a letter regarding the Working Track 5. By adopting the final paper published by the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as TLDs (CCWG UCTN) the ccNSO supported the recommendation of the CCWG UCTN that further work on the development of a consistent and uniform framework to guide the definition of rules on the use of country and territory names as top level domains, is needed. The ccNSO designated Annebeth Lange, .no, to serve as a co-leader of a new Working Track 5 (WT5) within the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group. We look forward to working with the GNSO and other SO/ACs in the next effort to address the use of country and territory names as top-level domains. However, the ccNSO Council strongly believes that this effort will succeed and will be acceptable only if certain requirements are met. Kind regards, Katrina Sataki

1 0

Draft letter to GNSO Council re Work Track 5 Subsequent procedures PDP
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 1, 2017

Sept. 1, 2017

Dear all, As follow-up from yesterday’s Council meeting, you’ll find included the draft letter to the GNSO Council regarding the participation of the ccNSO in Work Track 5. If you have any comments, please send them to the list by Thursday 31 August 2017. Goal is to send out the letter by 3 September 2017. Thank you and kind regards, Bart Boswinkel

6 7