- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

Invitation to ccTLD Community Cocktail in Dublin on 20 October @19:00 Local time
by Kimberly Carlson Oct. 12, 2015

Oct. 12, 2015

Dear all, On behalf of our sponsors, I would like to remind you that you are all invited to join our ccNSO organized Community Cocktail in Dublin on Tuesday, 20 October between 19:00 and 21:00 local time. The cocktail will take place at the Ely Bar & Brasserie, IFSC - Dublin 1-Atrum Bar (10-12 minute walk from The CCD meeting venue). For those of you who would like to walk there in a group, we will leave from the Convention Centre hotel lobby at 18:45. Should you wish to get there by yourself, please see the directions in the link below, or on the printed invitation. The printed invitations will be handed out during the ccNSO Members Meeting to help you get there, however, you do not need to bring the invitation to enter, just show up! Many THANKS to our generous sponsors who made this event possible: .au, .ca, .kr, .nl, .pr, .tw and VeriSign. Also, a special thanks to our colleagues at IE Domain Registry Limited who have helped organize this event! Kind regards, Kim https://www.google.com/maps/dir/The+Convention+Centre+Dublin+(The+CCD),+Ire…

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
by Chris Disspain Oct. 12, 2015

Oct. 12, 2015

This seems to have dropped off the ccNSO list for some reason. It’s an important discussion IMO. Cheers, Chris > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels > Date: 12 October 2015 22:54:44 AEDT > To: "Jordan Carter" <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>, <sdeerhake(a)nic.as> > Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.net>, accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > > What say you? Do you think that the ccNSO should be able to run a PDP that demands, say, ICANN give a lot of money to ccTLD projects, and not have that subject to question? > > Thanks for re-stating your question Jordan. I have pasted from a number of your previous messages. > > Yes, I think that the ccNSO should be able to run and conclude a PDP that “demands” whatever the cc community requires of ICANN. The same goes for the GNSO. > > My main issue is that I don’t agree with your categorisation that a PDP it is not “subject to question”. > The current process for policy development is a sound model. > It was a hard-won, negotiated model that necessarily involves input from the rest of the community. > A ccPDP includes commentary periods that allow the GNSO, At Large, governments and everyone else to contribute. > It is also subject to clearance via the ICANN Board. > We have a mechanism / system / process in place and the current Accountability work should not subvert it. It sounds awfully like a solution in search of a problem. > > "Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto isn't available." > > This is very dangerous territory. > The question of whether an SO PDP “has no impact on ICANN generally” is subjective and open to all sorts of debate. > Attempting to define what figure “$x per year” is even trickier. It will open up all sorts of arguments regarding community contribution, budget etc. Not a space the CCWG needs to get in to. > Even with the very best intentions, if we are not careful, we risk undermining everything we have achieved so far as a community > > In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others' resources. > > I don’t agree that our interest as cc managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us. That is a very protectionist position that I had hope we have moved beyond. > Our interest is developing the most stable, secure and reliable model that we can all support, and bringing in to question the mechanisms we currently have in place is counter-productive (see my comments above) > If we as a group of ccTLDs can't come to consensus, then there isn't going to be an accountability proposal and isn't going to be a transition. > > At the risk of stating the obvious, at this important juncture, we need to steer clear of such dramatic categorisations. If we cant come to consensus, we all need to look critically at the options before us, negotiate further, and try to arrive at a model that works > > Regards, > > Paul > > > Paul Szyndler | General Manager, International and Government Affairs > .au Domain Administration Limited > T: +61 2 6292 5034 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 | M: +61 402 250 389 > E: paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> > Twitter: @auda <http://twitter.com/auda> | Blog: www.auda.org.au/blog/ <http://www.auda.org.au/blog/> > > auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator > Important Notice > This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. > > > > From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] > Sent: Saturday, 10 October 2015 11:53 AM > To: sdeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> > Cc: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels > > I'd like to repeat my question. We have to think through the specifics and work out what we need to worry about, and what isn't a worry. > > What say you? Do you think that the ccNSO should be able to run a PDP that demands, say, ICANN give a lot of money to ccTLD projects, and not have that subject to question? > > I ask because getting specific about cases is the only way to rule things in or out, and to unlock any possibility of arriving at consensus. > > If we as a group of ccTLDs can't come to consensus, then there isn't going to be an accountability proposal and isn't going to be a transition. > > cheers > Jordan > > > best > Jordan > > > On 9 October 2015 at 22:52, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: >> Hi Stephen, all: >> >> I've been very clear, most lately in a blog post today, that these issues need to be ironed out to consensus before a proposal goes anywhere. >> >> But that means answering tough questions - and the biggest tough question here is whether or not PDP processes needs some quarantine around them. >> >> For instance, I would support a restriction on the bylaws changes veto which said: >> >> "Where a bylaws change arises from an SO PDP, has no impact on ICANN generally, and the budget impact is less than $x per year, the bylaws veto isn't available." >> >> I support that because the intent of the accountability powers is *not* to interfere in PDPs. It is to exercise community control over ICANN and its overall operations. >> >> A PDP with limited financial impact could be usefully excluded to make that clear. >> >> But also, to be clear, aPDP by any SO that demanded a huge call on ICANN resources should in principle be able to be vetoed. >> >> In the end, our interest as cctld managers is to prevent ICANN affecting us and our operations. That's fair. What isn't fair is creating some fantastical right to claim on others' resources. >> >> What say you? >> >> Cheers >> Jordan >> >> On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote: >>> Jordan, >>> >>> I don't think the GNSO would like to be in a position where the ccNSO could muster additional SO/AC support to kill off a PDP that they worked diligently on and got Board buy in for. >>> >>> I think the ccNSO would not like this either. >>> >>> So to me it's not a "hypothetical" but rather, how does the CCWG proposal manage this, because at the end of the day, we need buy-in from the SO/AC community for the CCWG proposal to go forward, and if there is not an accommodation with respect to SO/Board approved PDPs standing as ICANN policy, not subject to being shot down by other SO/AC members, how do you realistically expect the SOs to provide consensus for the CCWG proposal put forward to the Board, and subsequently, NITA? >>> >>> Just asking… >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> /Stephen >>> >>> From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 4:52 AM >>> To: sdeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> >>> Cc: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> >>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels >>> >>> Important point to think through, thank you for raising it! >>> >>> We must be clear though: what motivation would there be for the entirety of the rest of the community to organise such a veto? >>> >>> Because these are not casual powers. >>> >>> Such a situation would surely only emerge if: >>> >>> A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and >>> >>> B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic of its case. >>> >>> >>> In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the community not be able to say 'go away and think again'? >>> >>> And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn't be met. >>> >>> >>> The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why should that be the case if resources were affected? >>> >>> Jordan >>> >>> On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote: >>>> Greetings Paul, >>>> >>>> With respect to my earlier post, you write: >>>> >>>> [---START---] >>>> With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): >>>> >>>> Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations. >>>> This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO. >>>> However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community. >>>> This is not an inconceivable scenario. >>>> It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs. >>>> This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point). >>>> [---END--] >>>> >>>> Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it is possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later overturned by the Community at large. >>>> >>>> Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an acceptable situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the CCWG members might have in mind to remedy this? I see a difficult road ahead for ccNSO consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently stands. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Stephen Deerhake >>>> AS Domain Registry >>>> GDNS LLC >>>> +1 212 334 3660 <tel:%2B1%20212%20334%203660> >>>> +1 212 656 1983 <tel:%2B1%20212%20656%201983> >>>> sdeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> >>>> sdeerhake(a)gdns.net <mailto:sdeerhake@gdns.net> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Szyndler >>>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:42 AM >>>> To: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> >>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> >>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels >>>> >>>> Thanks Jordan, >>>> >>>> My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear my point about the need for ccTLD engagement. >>>> After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly. >>>> >>>> I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But the voting model has not been discounted. >>>> As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it as an example of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of. >>>> >>>> With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): >>>> >>>> Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations. >>>> This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO. >>>> However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community. >>>> This is not an inconceivable scenario. >>>> It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs. >>>> This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point). >>>> >>>> The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of voting rights and the likelihood of it occurring do not much matter in this case. >>>> The point is that there is the potential for a ccNSO PDP to be vetoed by others. >>>> The only alternative is to excise policy development processes from the currently-proposed accountability model, but would that defeat the purpose of the whole exercise? >>>> >>>> This is just one example of the many strings that need to be brought together and addressed before we all agree on a new model for accountability for a post-NTIA ICANN. >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] >>>> Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM >>>> To: Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>> >>>> Cc: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>>; Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> A comment or two re Paul's note below; >>>> >>>> On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler(a)auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler@auda.org.au>> wrote: >>>>> Eberhard, >>>>> >>>>> I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching commitment to the >>>>> independence and autonomy of ccTLDs. >>>>> However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of balancing this >>>>> independence against the need for engagement with the broader stakeholder >>>>> community. >>>>> >>>>> I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in. >>>>> As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community to arrive at a >>>>> solution for the future stewardship of ICANN (which includes a place for the >>>>> ccNSO) without contributing to that process? >>>>> >>>>> In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we ultimately get >>>>> down to the unsavoury detail of votes and voting mechanisms. >>>>> Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting structure? >>>> >>>> Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather than votes. >>>> >>>>> Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto" a ccPDP? >>>> >>>> This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested any possibility of this. >>>> >>>> What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not occur. >>>> >>>>> Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t care", I believe >>>>> that these issues are of sufficient significance to warrant our collective >>>>> attention. >>>>> >>>>> At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or Accountability >>>>> processes that threatens the existing internal roles or responsibilities of >>>>> ccTLD managers. >>>>> However, I believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because >>>>> these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us can influence >>>>> our environment in the future. >>>> >>>> Agree. >>>> >>>> Jordan >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps I could turn your question back to you. >>>>> I note that you have devoted considerable time, effort and intellectual >>>>> capacity to the CCWG. >>>>> Assuming that the CCWG report doesn’t affect ccTLDs directly, what is it >>>>> about this process that has warranted your dedicated engagement? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Paul >

1 0

A plea for time
by Chris Disspain Oct. 11, 2015

Oct. 11, 2015

Greetings, As we approach ICANN Dublin I have been asked by some of my ccTLD colleagues to set out clearly why as a ccTLD manager I support the Board proposals for improving ICANN's accountability as part of the transition. In essence for me it’s all about time. I believe that we, the community, can get the enhanced accountability we want now without the need for wholesale structural change. I'm not against change or indeed any of the models being proposed but I am against making such changes without carefully considering them over time. There is a significant amount of work to be done before deciding to make such important structural changes and all of that will take time and more research and stress testing and unforeseen consequence analysis and impact analysis. In essence the Board has supported the CCWG’s proposed fundamental bylaws and the binding IRP and has suggested that there be a Community IRP and a further fundamental bylaw setting in place an ongoing improvement mechanism that will allow the community to take the necessary time to consider the structural changes and to have confidence that the proposals arising from such a process will be implemented. I believe that the Community IRP does provide the community with the rights it seeks and that it can be implemented in a timeframe that does not jeopardise the transition. The Community IRP is an independent arbitration process for hearing community claims that the Board has acted outside of its by-laws. Under the process there is a legally enforceable and contractual obligation on ICANN to comply with a decision of the arbitration panel. I believe that the community find ourselves in our current difficult situation because, with the best of intentions, the CCWG’s attorneys have been instructed to come up with models that deliver ‘the highest possible levels of enforcement’. It is not that the Community IRP cannot deliver the enhanced accountability that we want but rather that it is perceived, by some, as inadequate because there is a different mechanism that delivers a higher level of enforceability. The CCWG appears to be requiring a mechanism that allows the community (in whatever guise we finally agree is acceptable) the absolute final say. The right to step over the Board's fiduciary duty without any check or balance in place to allow for the testing of the Board's claim that acting would indeed be in breach of such duty. I firmly believe in the corporate governance structures adopted by most corporate bodies around the world. Board members are appointed to manage the affairs of the organisation on the understanding that they are legally bound to act in the best interests of the organization rather than any one member or community. Such best interests are set out in the by-laws - in ICANN's case for example, the security and stability of the Internet as a whole. The Board has a fiduciary obligations to act in that way. The ICANN Board has proposed the Community IRP as binding arbitration. The CCWG’s attorneys have said that the Board can refuse to implement such a binding arbitration decision if it claims that to implement it would be a breach of its obligations to act in the best interests of ICANN. This is true BUT the community representatives can then go to court and a court will enforce the arbitration decision if it disagrees with the Board's view. In my opinion this is precisely the type of safeguard we need to have in place because it ensures that an elected board made up of representatives of the multi-stakeholder community will always act, first, in the interests of a stable and secure Internet and it puts in place an independent arbiter to decide, in the final analysis, if the community or the board is right. The alternative, it seems to me, is to create, now, a system where fiduciary duty is abandoned and the will of the community holds sway. That is in effect what happens under the membership model as described by the CCWG’s attorneys. This may well be acceptable in the future when all of the nuances have been thought through and the necessary community conflicts and ethics rules, accountability mechanisms and disclosure requirements have been agreed. But it will take time and testing and a fuller discussion. Fiduciary responsibilities and duties are there for a reason. I think that some in the community feel that the Board and ICANN legal sometimes use the ‘cloak’ of fiduciary responsibility to avoid doing what the community wants. Whilst I don’t believe that is true I do empathise with the feeling. To my mind the solution (at least at this time during the transition) is NOT to create a mechanism under which fiduciary duty is held by no one but rather to create a mechanism where the community can test the Board's claims about such duty. The Community IRP as suggested by the Board does just that. I want to stress again that I am not against any of the proposed models put forward by the CCWG. But I can't agree the models at this stage because I don’t believe we have enough detail and I think the community as a whole should take their time in considering making such important changes. And I do not agree with those who claim that "we must do it now because it's our only chance". I am very much looking forward to spending time with my ccTLD colleagues during the Dublin meeting and hope we will have the opportunity to talk, and not just about the transition. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

1 0

Re: [ccnso-members] Fwd: TPP Treaty: Intellectual Property Rights Chapter - 5 October 2015 - domain names (final text)
by HiroHOTTA Oct. 10, 2015

Oct. 10, 2015

Hi Erick, I see, thanks. Hiro On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 08:51:02 -0500 Erick Iriarte <eiriarte(a)iriartelaw.com> wrote: > Hi Hiro > > apparently that and the title of the paragraph “Domain name cybersquatting" > > Erick > > > El 10/10/2015, a las 3:28, HiroHOTTA <hotta(a)jprs.co.jp> escribio: > > > > Dear Erick, > > > > Thank you for this. > > > > NOTE[20] goes "... such remedies may but need not include , for > > example, revocation, cancellation, transfer, damages, or > > injunctive relief." Has "BUT NEED NOT" been added to the earlier > > version around two years ago? > > > > Regards, > > Hiro > > > > On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:15:18 -0500 > > Erick Iriarte <eiriarte(a)iriartelaw.com> wrote: > >> FYI > >> > >>> Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > >>> > >>> De: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte(a)alfa-redi.org> > >>> Asunto: TPP Treaty: Intellectual Property Rights Chapter - 5 October 2015 - domain names (final text) > >>> Fecha: 9 de octubre de 2015, 11:12:23 GMT-5 > >>> Para: LatinoamerICANN <latinoamericann(a)dgroups.org> > >>> Cc: "ag(a)lactld.org General de LACTLD" <ag(a)lactld.org> > >>> > >>> Paises involucrados: > >>> United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile > >>> US, CA, AU, NZ, SG, JP, MX, PE, CL, BN, VN, MY > >>> > >>> Nota de Prensa de Wikileaks > >>> Texto Chapter Propiedad Intelectual: https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Cha… <https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Cha…> (PDF) > >>> > >>> Article QQ.C.12: {Domain Name Cybersquatting} > >>> > >>> 1. In connection with each Party’s system for the management of its country-code toplevel domain (ccTLD) domain names, the following shall be available: > >>> > >>> (a) an appropriate procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on, or modelled along the same lines as, the principles established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, or that is: (i) designed to resolve disputes expeditiously and at low cost, (ii) fair and equitable, (iii) not overly burdensome, and (iv) does not preclude resort to court litigation; and > >>> > >>> (b) online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants; > >>> > >>> in accordance with each Party’s laws and, where applicable, relevant administrator policies regarding protection of privacy and personal data. > >>> > >>> 2. In connection with each Party’s system for the management of ccTLD domain names, appropriate remedies[20], shall be available, at least in cases where a person registers or holds, with a bad faith intent to profit, a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. > >>> > >>> Note [20] > >>> It is understood that such remedies may but need not include, for example, revocation, cancellation, transfer, damages, or injunctive relief. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ccnso-members] Fwd: TPP Treaty: Intellectual Property Rights Chapter - 5 October 2015 - domain names (final text)
by HiroHOTTA Oct. 10, 2015

Oct. 10, 2015

Dear Erick, Thank you for this. NOTE[20] goes "... such remedies may but need not include , for example, revocation, cancellation, transfer, damages, or injunctive relief." Has "BUT NEED NOT" been added to the earlier version around two years ago? Regards, Hiro On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:15:18 -0500 Erick Iriarte <eiriarte(a)iriartelaw.com> wrote: > FYI > > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > > > De: Erick Iriarte <eiriarte(a)alfa-redi.org> > > Asunto: TPP Treaty: Intellectual Property Rights Chapter - 5 October 2015 - domain names (final text) > > Fecha: 9 de octubre de 2015, 11:12:23 GMT-5 > > Para: LatinoamerICANN <latinoamericann(a)dgroups.org> > > Cc: "ag(a)lactld.org General de LACTLD" <ag(a)lactld.org> > > > > Paises involucrados: > > United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile > > US, CA, AU, NZ, SG, JP, MX, PE, CL, BN, VN, MY > > > > Nota de Prensa de Wikileaks > > Texto Chapter Propiedad Intelectual: https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Cha… <https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Cha…> (PDF) > > > > Article QQ.C.12: {Domain Name Cybersquatting} > > > > 1. In connection with each Party’s system for the management of its country-code toplevel domain (ccTLD) domain names, the following shall be available: > > > > (a) an appropriate procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on, or modelled along the same lines as, the principles established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, or that is: (i) designed to resolve disputes expeditiously and at low cost, (ii) fair and equitable, (iii) not overly burdensome, and (iv) does not preclude resort to court litigation; and > > > > (b) online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants; > > > > in accordance with each Party’s laws and, where applicable, relevant administrator policies regarding protection of privacy and personal data. > > > > 2. In connection with each Party’s system for the management of ccTLD domain names, appropriate remedies[20], shall be available, at least in cases where a person registers or holds, with a bad faith intent to profit, a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. > > > > Note [20] > > It is understood that such remedies may but need not include, for example, revocation, cancellation, transfer, damages, or injunctive relief. > > > > > >

1 0

Your Input Needed: Extended Nomination Period LAC Region
by Gabriella Schittek Oct. 10, 2015

Oct. 10, 2015

Dear Councillors, As you know, the Nomination Period to the ccNSO Council ended on Tuesday, 6th October. By that date, all regions had received valid nominations. Following the nomination period, the nominees are asked to formally accept their nomination. Unfortunately, one of the nominees, Maria Antonieta Chavarria, .cr (nominated for the LAC region, term ending March 2019) could not accept her nomination. See email below. This means that the LAC region does not have any nominee for the Council term, ending March 2019. In the past, in similar situations (when a region did not have a valid nominee by the end of the nomination period), the ccNSO Council once decided to extend the nomination period for all regions (2008: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-report-12dec08.pdf) and in two cases, to extend the nomination period only for the affected region (2011: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-report-27oct11-en.pdf; 2013: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-report-16dec13-en.pdf) Basing on this, I, as Nominations Manager, therefore suggest to extend the Nomination Period to the 18 October for the Latin American Region only. In case there are any objections to this suggestion, I would be grateful if you could let me know by the end of Tuesday, 13 October. If no objections received, I understand that the proposed way forward has been approved. I know the given timeline is extremely short, but as we hope to be able to present a Latin American candidate at the scheduled Q&A session for ccNSO Council Nominees in Dublin, we need to find compromise solutions. Kind regards, Gabi From: María Antonieta Chavarría <machavar(a)nic.cr> Date: Friday 9 October 2015 16:25 To: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Reminder: Nomination to ccNSO Council > Dear Gabriella, > > Thanks a lot for the opportunity, but I can not accept the nomination to the > ccNSO Council, because the .cr Board does not allow me. > > Best regards, > María Antonieta >

3 2

Re: [ccnso-council] Your Input Needed: Extended Nomination Period LAC Region
by Vika Mpisane Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Hi Gabi, Without the benefit of having looked at the bylaws if they address this scenario, I think your suggested way forward makes good sense to me. I therefore support it. Regards, Vika Mpisane | ZADNA | +27 11 314 0077 ext. 602 From: <owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org> on behalf of Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 09 October 2015 at 18:00 To: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Your Input Needed: Extended Nomination Period LAC Region Dear Councillors, As you know, the Nomination Period to the ccNSO Council ended on Tuesday, 6th October. By that date, all regions had received valid nominations. Following the nomination period, the nominees are asked to formally accept their nomination. Unfortunately, one of the nominees, Maria Antonieta Chavarria, .cr (nominated for the LAC region, term ending March 2019) could not accept her nomination. See email below. This means that the LAC region does not have any nominee for the Council term, ending March 2019. In the past, in similar situations (when a region did not have a valid nominee by the end of the nomination period), the ccNSO Council once decided to extend the nomination period for all regions (2008: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-report-12dec08.pdf) and in two cases, to extend the nomination period only for the affected region (2011: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-report-27oct11-en.pdf; 2013: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-report-16dec13-en.pdf) Basing on this, I, as Nominations Manager, therefore suggest to extend the Nomination Period to the 18 October for the Latin American Region only. In case there are any objections to this suggestion, I would be grateful if you could let me know by the end of Tuesday, 13 October. If no objections received, I understand that the proposed way forward has been approved. I know the given timeline is extremely short, but as we hope to be able to present a Latin American candidate at the scheduled Q&A session for ccNSO Council Nominees in Dublin, we need to find compromise solutions. Kind regards, Gabi From: María Antonieta Chavarría <machavar(a)nic.cr> Date: Friday 9 October 2015 16:25 To: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Reminder: Nomination to ccNSO Council > Dear Gabriella, > > Thanks a lot for the opportunity, but I can not accept the nomination to the > ccNSO Council, because the .cr Board does not allow me. > > Best regards, > María Antonieta >

1 0

ccNSO Councillors volunteering to serve on Travel Funding committee or to oversee ccNSO Membership Application Process
by Bart Boswinkel Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Dear all, As you will know Jordi's term as NomCom appointed ccNSO Councillor will end at the closure of the Dublin ICANN meeting. As you will also know Jordi is serving on the Travel Funding Committee and oversees the ccNSO membership application process. In order to avoid vacancies Council would need to appoint another Councillor at its meeting in Dublin ( Wednesday 21 October). To make this feasible we kindly request Councillors to put their name forward for these two functions. The role of the travel funding committee, in particular the role of the committee itself, is described in the travel funding guideline, which can be found at: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding. Currently, the other members of the Travel Funding Committee are: Dotty (NA region) and Katrina (EU Region). According to travel funding guideline, members of the travel funding committee should preferably from different Geographic Regions. The ccNSO membership Application process is described at: http://ccnso.icann.org/applications/form.htm If you have any questions either for Jordi or the secretariat with respect to one of the functions, please do not hesitate to contact us directly. It is my understanding that both functions are not very time consuming. If you are interested please send an email to the list, indicating for which role you are interested. Thank you and kind regards, Bart

1 0

FW: On behalf of CCWG-Accountability Cochairs - Update
by Bart Boswinkel Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Dear all, This was just send on behalf of the CCWG Accountability co-chairs, Kind regards, Bart From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Friday 9 October 2015 10:53 To: "byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>" <byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>> Cc: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, Kristina Nordstrom <kristina.nordstrom(a)icann.org<mailto:kristina.nordstrom@icann.org>>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org<mailto:kimberly.carlson@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: On behalf of CCWG-Accountability Cochairs - Update On behalf of CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs Dear colleagues, As indicated in our recent statement<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/chairs-statement-from-the-cross-community-w…>, the CCWG-Accountability held a meeting in Los Angeles on 25-26 September to begin analysis of feedback received on our Second Draft Proposal and to advance work towards finalizing our Work Stream 1 recommendations. In consideration of the input we still need to review and further dialogue necessary to resolve a number of outstanding issues, we regret to inform you that we will not be in a position to deliver our Work Stream 1 Recommendations for your consideration at ICANN54 in Dublin. Given the current situation, the CCWG-Accountability's goals for Dublin are to refine the 2nd Draft Proposal based on conclusions made from the public comment results and to continue to engage with the community. To ensure that we can utilize ICANN54 to continue to address issues and iron out details, we are currently working to adjust our meeting schedule to allow for more opportunities for discussion and engagement, including within the SOs and ACs. The CCWG-Accountability Work Parties (WPs) are actively evaluating comments and preparing materials for robust discussions and measures are being taken to ensure we are obtaining outside expertise for consideration. Depending on the outcome of our meetings in Dublin, the group will assess where we stand and will determine whether a third public comment period is needed to corroborate our conclusions, or whether we may proceed with the finalization and delivery. Our current assessment indicates that should we need to go through an additional call for input, we would send our Work Stream 1 Recommendations in February 2016. If no call for input is required, we could be in a position to deliver in November 2015. We are cognizant that the CCWG-Accountability report is the last piece of the puzzle to enable transmission of a proposal to NTIA. Rest assured that we are strongly committed to delivering our recommendations as soon as possible and will keep you apprised of our progress. The CCWG-Accountability welcomes the opportunity to meet with you to discuss our recommendations, share updates and to answer any questions. We are happy to join any existing discussions you may already have planned for Dublin, or please advise whether you are in a position to add this to your ICANN54 agenda. Alternatively, we could schedule a conference call prior to or post Dublin should you run into scheduling difficulties. We thank you for your understanding and invite you to contact us should you have any questions or concerns. Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León

1 0

Fwd: Re: ccNSO membership application .tk
by Jordi Iparraguirre Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Dear fellow Councillors, we have received a new membership application, now from .tk (Tokelau). They have no pending IANA issues. Please feel free to state your comments. .tk application will be added as an agenda item for our next Council meeting in Dublin. Many thanks in advance, jordi ———————————— Application for Membership Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Confirmation E-mail: tealofi.enosa(a)gmail.com <mailto:tealofi.enosa@gmail.com> cctld: Tokelau (.tk) To: ccNSO Membership c/o ICANN Secretary Date: 2 October 2015 Regarding: ccNSO Membership ------------ With this letter, I, Tealofi Enosa declare that Telecommunications Tokelau Corporation (Teletok) is the ccTLD manager (as defined in the ICANN bylaws, (Article IX Section (4)(1)) for the Tokelau (.tk) and wishes to apply for membership of the ccNSO and that I am duly authorized to make and sign this application for membership on behalf of Telecommunications Tokelau Corporation (Teletok). Telecommunications Tokelau Corporation (Teletok) hereby recognizes the role of the ccNSO within the ICANN structure, and agrees, for the duration of its membership in the ccNSO to: (a) adhere to the rules of the ccNSO, including membership rules; and (b) adhere to ICANN Bylaws as they apply to ccTLDs (Article IX and Annexes B and C of the ICANN bylaws. Telecommunications Tokelau Corporation (Teletok) understands that: (i) membership in the ccNSO is independent of any individual relationship a ccTLD manager has with ICANN or the ccTLD manager's receipt of IANA services. (Article IX Section (4)(3)); and (ii) currently there are no fees payable for ccNSO membership. However, under the ICANN bylaws (Article IX Section (7) (3)), the ccNSO could in the future, subject to members approval, establish membership fees. Signed by Tealofi Enosa for and on behalf of Telecommunications Tokelau Corporation (Teletok): Name of ccTLD Manager: Telecommunications Tokelau Corporation (Teletok) Name of Representative: Tealofi Enosa Name of Primary Contact: CEO Teletok Primary Contact Address: Teletok, Fenuafala, Fakaofo, Tokelau Primary Contact Telephone Number: +6903101 Primary Contact E-Mail: tealofi.enosa(a)gmail.com <mailto:tealofi.enosa@gmail.com> *DEFINITION: 1) A ccTLD Manager is the person or organisation referred to in the IANA database entry for a ccTLD under the current heading "Sponsoring Organisation". 2) Where the Sponsoring Organisation is listed in the IANA database as an individual person then that person is the Representative. Where the Sponsoring Organisation is listed in the IANA database as an organisation then the Representative is the individual person who is completing the application form for the organisation and is authorised to do so by the organisation. 3) The Primary Contact is the main contact for the member and should be either the Administrative Contact or Technical Contact listed in the IANA database for the ccTLD. -----------------------

2 1