- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

Nomination period open for ICANN Ethos Award
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 11, 2015

Dec. 11, 2015

Dear all, ICANN has opened the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award. This award program, launched in June 2014 in London, seeks to recognize long-standing community members who have served in leadership roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees, and demonstrated collaboration with different Supporting Organizations and/or Advisory Committees. The nomination period for community nominees closes on 12 March 2016. If you are interested in nominating someone you are invite to send an email to ethosaward2016(a)icann.org<mailto:ethosaward2016@icann.org?subject=Multistakeholder%20Ethos%20Award%20Nomination> including: * Name of nominee. * Community of nominee. * Reasons for nomination. The full announcement is available at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-10-en Kind regards, Bart

1 0

50-2015: Guidelines for Developing Reference Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) for the Second Level
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 11, 2015

Dec. 11, 2015

Dear all, Please find included advise from the Triage with respect to Guidelines for Developing Reference Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) for the Second Level. The recommendation is: No Action Please, let me know by Saturday, 11 December, in case you do not agree with Triage suggestion 50-2015. Thank you, Kind regards, Bart == Topic: 50-2015: Guidelines for Developing Reference Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) for the Second Level Originator: ICANN Summary of request: To facilitate and improve consistency of testing and stability of registry operations of new gTLDs, ICANN is developing reference IDN tables in machine readable format, called Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) for the second level, for use in Pre-Delegation Testing and the Registry Service Evaluation Process. Based on the process finalised after public comment, as the first step ICANN is releasing the Guidelines for Developing Reference LGRs for the Second Level: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/comments-lgr-second-level-2015-11-05-… Date received: 5.12.2015 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 15 December Recommended action, if any: No Action Expertise needed, if any: Technical Date of submission to Council: 9.12.2015 Last date of Council decision: 11.12.2015 Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Low

3 3

FW: Translations for CCWG Proposal
by Stephen Deerhake Dec. 10, 2015

Dec. 10, 2015

FYI. /Stephen From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Hillary Jett Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 11:56 AM To: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Translations for CCWG Proposal Hi all, Our team has begun receiving translations of the CCWG Draft Proposal. So far, we have received: * Annex 1, 2, 5, 14 and 15 * Appendix B, C, D, F, G, H All of these resources are located on the wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/eLRYAw) and we are in the process of having them updated on the public comment page (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20 15-11-30-en). I will keep everyone apprised as additional translations come in over the coming days. Thank you! Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>

1 0

selection of candidates to CCT Review Team
by Patrick Myles Dec. 10, 2015

Dec. 10, 2015

Hi Bart/Councillors, A discussion in the GNSO is ongoing in relation to selection/endorsement of candidates for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT). The GNSO is interested to hear how other SO's have gone through this process (of endorsement) so if you could please share some insights to this it would be very helpful. Please also mention if there was any discussion on the number of candidates (and any limitation to that number) from the ccNSO. Candidate list https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct/applications Regards [cid:image002.png@01D13283.C2FED440] Patrick Myles Information Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 55 50 www.centr.org<http://www.centr.org/> - Twitter<https://twitter.com/CENTRnews> - Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/centrnews> - LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/centr> - Skype: pat_centr

2 1

item 9.2 Update CCWG Use of Country and territory names (CTN)
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 10, 2015

Dec. 10, 2015

Dear all, Please find included the update by Annebeth Lange and Paul Szyndler, the ccNSO appointed co-chairs of the CCWG on use of country and territory names. Kind regards, Bart --------------- Update on Cross-Community Working Group on Country and Territory Names As noted in a previous update, the C&TN Working Group concluded its initial deliberations on the first significant element of its work - the current and future use of two-letter codes as TLDs - at the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting. In early August, the WG released a second questionnaire, addressing the use of 3-letter codes as TLDs. It was transmitted to Chairs of all SOs and ACs. The survey closed recently and 32 submissions were received. While responses are still being analysed, there has been a particularly strong response rate from the ccTLD community. Although this positive return appears to validate the "questionnaire" style of consultation of the WG, progress has been slowed by the various internal processes of each SO and AC and the obvious distractions of the IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability work. While the survey was out for community consultation, the WG maintained a schedule of near-fortnightly teleconferences. Most recently, the group's focus was on the further refinement of consultation mechanisms and the need to ensure harmony with other initiatives within ICANN that address the use of geographic names. This included communication between the Chairs of the ccNSO and gNSO Councils and the Chair of the GAC regarding the GAC's Working Group on the Protection of Geographic Names in the new gTLD process. On 13 November, the GAC Chair responded noting the different foci of the Working Groups, agreed with the importance of achieve consistent frameworks and principles relating to the use of names with geographical meaning, and undertook to facilitate greater GAC involvement in the CTNWG. Upcoming work (via calls in mid-December and mid-January) will involve the WG going in to "analysis mode", considering the survey responses that have been received and using these as a basis for subsequent discussions.

1 0

GNSO activity update (Dec 2015)
by Patrick Myles Dec. 10, 2015

Dec. 10, 2015

Hi Councillors - Attached (and below for convenience) is the December update of GNSO activities. Please let me know if you have questions. GNSO Activity Update for ccNSO Council Below is a summary of recent discussion and outcomes from the GNSO. The next GNSO meeting will be held 17 December 2015 Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS - GNSO Council approved the draft Charter proposed in the final issue report<https://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-g…> and appoints Susan Kawaguchi as liaison to the group. A call for volunteers will be circulated soon (no later than 4 Jan 2016). More information<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+November…> CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability - on 19 Nov, Thomas Rickert updated Council on briefing materials; CCWG Timeline<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/ccwg-accountability-timeline-19nov1…> Excerpt from Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/charter-excerpt-19nov15-en.pdf> Formal update on progress made IN and After ICANN 54 in Dublin<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-…> CCWG Timeline and next steps<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/ccwg-accountability-timeline-next-s…> but stated that documents do not provide a rationale for choosing the options nor legal memos. - Concern was expressed about the aggressive timeline and the possible impact on the quality and the acceptability of the work within the broader Internet community. - Time allocated on 17th Dec council meeting to discuss high level concerns and 2 additional meetings (14 and 21 Jan) for final review and vote to adopt report New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - the Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue…> on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures has been circulated to the GNSO Council. A potential new PDP Working Group may be tasked with determining what, if any changes may be needed in regards to the existing GNSO's Final Report on Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains. Council are expected to adopt the charter at the next meeting. More information<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31…> CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - A Call for Volunteers to the Competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT) Review Team closed on 13 November 2015, and 26 applicants indicated that they wished to be endorsed as representatives of the GNSO to the Review Team. The GNSO are currently discussing how to endorse candidates<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoaocreview/CCT+Review+GNSO+Candidate…> as well as how many to put forward. They will this and determine which candidates to endorse on their upcoming meeting (17 Dec). They are also interested to understand how other SO's including ccNSO have dealt with this process. New gTLD Auction Proceeds - an updated doc was circulated reflecting public comments<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-new-gtld-auctio…> on this topic. There is general support for a cross community working group. SO/ACs will be contacted to confirm their interest and submit up to 2 volunteers for a drafting team to develop a charter. PPSAI Policy Development Process - The Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf> from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Policy Development Process Working Group has been circulated noting the working group reached full consensus on its final recommendations. Council will vote on the recommendations at their upcoming call. GNSO vice-chair changes - The terms of vice-chairs David Cake and Volker Greimann came to an end and Donna Austin (Registry SG) and Heather Forrest (Intellectual Property Constituency) were selected. Other topics and recent activities - Link with IETF: Council will consider inviting IETF representatives to a meeting in Marrakech to discuss the most effective ways of ensuring there is regular communication/liaison [cid:image001.png@01D13354.B8460100] Patrick Myles Information Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 55 50 www.centr.org<http://www.centr.org/> - Twitter<https://twitter.com/CENTRnews> - Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/centrnews> - LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/centr> - Skype: pat_centr

1 0

Recordings / Notes / Presentation 9 December Webinars
by Kimberly Carlson Dec. 9, 2015

Dec. 9, 2015

Dear all, Please find the notes from both webinars attached. The presentation slides are also attached. Both the Mp3 and Adobe Connect recordings can be found here<http://ccnso.icann.org/calendar#dec>. Thank you, Kim Carlson

1 0

Notes CCWG webinars 9 December 2015 and updated overview outreach efforts
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 9, 2015

Dec. 9, 2015

Dear all, Please find included for your information the notes from todays Webinars for the ccTLD community and the updated outreach efforts overview. Please note the recording, slides and chat conversation wil be [posted in a few hours on the ccNSO website. The secretariat will send out an email to that effect to the community. Kind regards, Bart

1 0

FW: CCWG Accountability Draft Report
by Byron Holland Dec. 9, 2015

Dec. 9, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Please see the note below from the CCWG co-Chairs. Best regards, Byron From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: December 9, 2015 11:57 AM To: jbladel(a)godaddy.com; Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch; alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca; louie(a)louie.net; Byron Holland; 'Patrik Fältström' Cc: Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; 'ACCT-Staff'; gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org; olof.nordling(a)icann.org; julia.charvolen(a)icann.org; tom(a)acig.com.au; staff(a)atlarge.icann.org; carlos.reyes(a)icann.org; kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org; Bart Boswinkel; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org Subject: CCWG Accountability Draft Report Dear all, On 30 November, the CCWG-Accountability delivered its third Draft Proposal to the ICANN community for consideration. The proposal includes twelve recommendations and annexes describing each of these in detail. As previously announced, the comment period - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20… - is two-fold: firstly It invites Chartering Organization to indicate their endorsement of the proposed Work Stream 1 recommendations to ICANN's accountability and secondly It seeks feedback from the broader public. To assist the community in considering its proposal the CCWG-Accountability held two informational webinars on 2 December, which were attended by a diverse set of community members (140 attendees including 56 who were neither member nor participants to the CCWG). Session archives and list of attendees can be found on the wiki page at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984258. The CCWG-Accountability encourages individuals to channel their comments through their respective SO/ACs to streamline the processing of input and avoid duplication of comments. However, any individual, whether or not they are part of a Chartering Organization or an SO/AC, is welcome to provide their comments with respect to the CCWG-Accountability's proposal. As indicated in the CCWG-Accountability Charter: Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. The CCWG-Accountability considers this Draft Proposal to be the Final proposal unless significant concerns are raised by Chartering Organizations. As the case may be, the CCWG-Accountability might then amend the proposal to address these and post a supplementary report for approval by the Chartering Organizations. In an effort to clearly identify the level of support for the recommendations the CCWG-Accountability would request that input clearly indicate your position on each of the twelve recommendations. Should a Chartering Organization, in its process to approve the proposal, identify any significant concerns that would require it to reject a specific recommendation, the CCWG-Accountability would request that such concerns be communicated to it as soon as possible even if the approval process in the Chartering Organization is not yet completed. This would allow the CCWG-Accountability to begin addressing any such concerns while advising the other Chartering Organizations of the situation. The CCWG-Accountability would also like to remind the Chartering Organizations that the language proposed in the recommendations for ICANN Bylaw revisions, which affects all of the recommendations, are conceptual in nature at this stage. The CCWG-Accountability's external legal counsel and the ICANN legal team will draft final language for these revisions to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws (Fundamental/Standard Bylaws). As such the CCWG-Accountability is asking the Chartering Organizations to focus on approving the core concepts of the recommendations and not specific wording or implementation details. Any comments or issues on implementation should be clearly identified as such and will be considered for the implementation phase. Given the time constraints the CCWG-Accountability is working to we would appreciate indications of support, if formal approval is not possible, from Chartering Organizations in a timeframe that is generally consistent with the official closing date of 21 December. The CCWG-Accountability recognizes that the internal process requirements of the Chartering Organizations may only allow these to provide formal approval of the proposal in the early days of January which would be acceptable if an indication of support has been provided. Following the conclusion of the public comment period (21 December - 23:59 UTC), the CCWG-Accountability will assess the level of support received and attempt to reconcile differing input, if any, from the Chartering Organizations. Should a Supplementary Report be necessary, the CCWG-Accountability would inform the Chartering Organizations of this promptly. We look forward to your input on our Draft Proposal. For your information, to facilitate responses as well as enable the collection and aggregation of input, a survey was created for the community's use - see https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ccwg-acct-draftproposal. Should you wish to organize an informational webinar for your membership, we are more than happy to schedule a meeting. As always, feel free to contact us should you have any questions. Thanks Best regards CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs Thomas Rickert Leon Sanchez Mathieu Weill

1 0

49-2015: Proposed Implementation of GNSO Thick Whois Consensus Policy Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display of RDDS (Whois) Output for All gTLDs
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 9, 2015

Dec. 9, 2015

Dear all, Please find included advise from the Triage Committee with respect to Proposed Implementation of GNSO Thick Whois Consensus Policy Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display of RDDS (Whois) Output for All gTLDs The recommendation is: No Action Please, let me know by Saturday, 11 December, in case you do not agree with Triage suggestion 49-2015. Thank you, Kind regards, Bart Full summary Triage Committee == Topic: 49-2015: Proposed Implementation of GNSO Thick Whois Consensus Policy Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display of RDDS (Whois) Output for All gTLDs Originator: ICANN Summary of request: Community input is sought on the proposed implementation of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Thick Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) recommendation, approved by the ICANN Board, requiring the consistent labeling and display of Whois Output for all gTLDs: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-output-2015-12-03-en Date received: 4 December 2015 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 18 January 2015 Recommended action, if any: No Action Expertise needed, if any: Administrative, managerial Date of submission to Council: 9 December 2015 Last date of Council decision: 11 December 2015 Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Low

1 0