- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

02-2015: Annual IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Review
by Gabriella Schittek Jan. 20, 2015

Jan. 20, 2015

Dear Councillors, In case you do not agree with Triage recommendation 02-2015: Annual IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Review, please notify this list by 22 January 2015. Kind regards, Gabi > > == > Topic: 02-2015: Annual IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Review > > Originator: ICANN > > Summary of request: ICANN is opening a public comment forum for the annual > review of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process. The input received will be used to > determine appropriate updates to the current version of the Final > Implementation Plan of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process and for the proposed > IDN ccTLD policy, which is currently under consideration. > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/idn-cctld-fast-track-2015-01-15-en > > Date received: 16 January > > Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 24 February 2015 > > Recommended action, if any: Post to email lists for information + Set up > ad-hoc Group to initiate and conduct survey amongst the affected ccTLDs; write > and submit input. > > Expertise needed, if any: Technical, legal > > Date of submission to Council: 20 January 2015 > > Last date of Council decision: 22 January 2015 > > Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Various > > >

1 0

Invitation to ccNSO Newcomer Webinar
by Kristina Nordstrom Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Dear all, You are all invited to participate in a ccNSO Newcomer Webinar prior to the Singapore meeting, to be held on the 27 of January on two occasions: 08:00 UTC and 20:00 UTC. If you wish to participate, just join the session most convenient for your timezone. The webinar is meant to introduce newcomers to the ccNSO and ICANN world, but is open to anyone interested in the function of the ccNSO and its role within ICANN. We will also touch on ccNSO activities at ICANN meetings. Please feel free to forward this information to anyone who might find it useful. You do not need to rsvp, just show up! Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnso2015<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnso2015/> If you need a dial out for either of the sessions please let me know as soon as possible. Two-way audio will be available in the Adobe room. Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

Dial in details Council Call 22 January 12:00 UTC
by Kristina Nordstrom Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Dear all, Please find below the dial in details for the Council call on 22 January at 12:00 UTC. Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnsocouncil/ Please let me know as soon as possible if you need dial out assistance. Two-way audio will be available in the Adobe Room. Dial in toll free via Skype from anywhere in the world using the US number 800 550 6865 and the conference ID. Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

ccNSO Council Call
by Kristina Nordstrom Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

1 0

Updated Agenda and preparation material
by Bart Boswinkel Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Dear all, Please find included a slightly updated agenda and background material. Added to the agenda is a request from the ICANN Board Risk Committee ( item 8 b). The request itself has been included in the background material. FYI: Jordan Carter, Lise Fuhr and Mathieu Weill, the ccNSO appointed co-chairs of the various cross-community working groups, will not be able to participate. Other background material: List of volunteers to be appointed (item 6 and 7 on the agenda) Draft ICANN Board resolution on Name Collisions shared, including introduction ( not part of the draft resolution) Kind regards, Bart

1 0

ALAC Liaison Report
by Gabriella Schittek Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Dear all, Please, find the ALAC Liaison report attached. Gabi

1 0

Liaison report: GNSO Council
by Patrick Myles Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Hi all, Attached is my report on recent discussions/activity from the GNSO Council. It's worth flagging the topic of ICANN revenue produced from new gTLD auctions - considered a timely and to which the GNSO feels cross-community work would be appropriate. See the report for more detail. Regards Patrick

2 1

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s)
by Chris Disspain Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Hi Roelof, For clarity: >> I sam comfortable waiting for (and as I am a member, contributing to) the >> deliverables of the CCWG, in the expectation that, once accountability is >> enhanced and stewardship transitioned, the outcome of the FoIWG can be >> inputted, with satisfactory results for us ccTLDs Me too. > It looks to me that an acronym confusion is beginning to develop, but if you mean CCWG Accountability, I can say that I don’t know what Chuck and others think, but what I see so far is no tendency at all to focus on cc specific delegation/revocation disputes Yes. Chuck was saying to his colleagues on the CWG that they need to ask the Accountability CCWG to come up with something on del and re-del disputes. Responses from others on these lists indicate that the Accountability CCWG is unlikely to do this which, personally, I think is good as I believe we, the cctlds, should do that following the guidelines in the FoI report. See you in Frankfurt. Cheers, Chris > On 16 Jan 2015, at 23:17, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > It looks to me that an acronym confusion is beginning to develop, but if you mean CCWG Accountability, I can say that I don’t know what Chuck and others think, but what I see so far is no tendency at all to focus on cc specific delegation/revocation disputes > > Cheers, > > Roelof > > From: Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> > Date: vrijdag 16 januari 2015 11:51 > To: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer(a)sidn.nl> > Cc: "cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org" <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org>, ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org>, ccNSO Members <ccnso-members(a)icann.org>, "cctldworld(a)icann.org" <cctldworld(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s) > > Understood Roelof. > > My point is that Chuck and others seem to think that it is the CCWG’s job to come up with something cc-specific re delegation and re-delegation ‘disputes’ rather than higher level accountability mechanisms. If we as a community are happy with that then so be it. If we are not then we need to tell them. > > > Cheers, > > > Chris > > >> On 16 Jan 2015, at 21:01 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl> wrote: >> >> Chris, All, >> >> I would hope that the CCWG comes up with mechanisms that enhance ICANN¹s >> accountability on a higher level than (just) delegation, revocation etc. >> I sam comfortable waiting for (and as I am a member, contributing to) the >> deliverables of the CCWG, in the expectation that, once accountability is >> enhanced and stewardship transitioned, the outcome of the FoIWG can be >> inputted, with satisfactory results for us ccTLDs. >> >> Yes, I am an optimist, life is great >> >> Cheers, >> >> Roelof >> >> >> >> >> On 16-01-15 07:53, "Stephen Deerhake" <SDeerhake(a)nic.as> wrote: >> >>> Chris, >>> >>> Speaking for .as, I can say that the idea that "the CCWG [be tasked] with >>> drafting/creating an accountability process re delegation and >>> re-delegation" >>> is a complete non-starter. >>> >>> How can this be even be a serious consideration of the CCWG? >>> >>> I believe this issue has been addressed by the work of the FoI-WG, and I >>> don't see the need to re-invent the wheel here. Perhaps the larger >>> problem >>> is getting ICANN to acknowledge and endorse the work/findings of the >>> FoI-WG... I've seen scant evidence of this to date. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> /Stephen >>> >>> Stephen Deerhake >>> Director of Registry Services >>> AS Domain Registry >>> GDNS LLC >>> +1 212 334 3660 >>> +1 212 656 1982 (fax) >>> sdeerhake(a)nic.as >>> sdeerhake(a)gdns.net >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: cctldcommunity-bounces(a)cctld-managers.org >>> [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Chris >>> Disspain >>> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 5:58 PM >>> To: ccTLD Community List; ccNSO Council; ccNSO Members; >>> cctldworld(a)icann.org >>> Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG >>> Proposal(s) >>> Importance: High >>> >>> All, >>> >>>> We need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process >>>> that >>> registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of >>> ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation >>> decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local >>> law. >>> >>> >>> I know I keep pressing on this but I want to make sure we all understand >>> before I stop and let it go. >>> >>> Are we, the ccTLDs comfortable with the CCWG drafting/creating an >>> accountability process re delegation and re-delegation? >>> >>> Is this something we should be doing ourselves pursuant to the >>> interpretations of the FoI WG? >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 | W: 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. >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG >>> Proposal(s) >>>> Date: 16 January 2015 01:55:07 AEDT >>>> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, CWG IANA >>>> <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>>> >>>> Alan, >>>> >>>> First let me put in writing the what I said in the last weekend call: >>>> We >>> need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that >>> registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of >>> ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation >>> decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local >>> law. >>> This may be covered by your item 4 (gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal >>> within ICANN prior to the change request going to IANA) although I am not >>> sure that appeals would always have to happen before going to IANA; that >>> would be preferred though. >>>> >>>> Alan - why do you think that this would conflict with item 2 >>>> (Independent >>> certification for delegation and re-delegation requests)? In the case of >>> gTLDs, the decision whether or not a gTLD could be delegated or >>> re-delegated >>> would happen before any certification would occur. The certification >>> would >>> simply confirm that required steps were followed properly. For gTLDs I >>> think that any appeal would preferably happen before any certification >>> happened but I suppose it could happen afterwards; those details would >>> need >>> to be defined. I won't try to venture into the ccTLD world. >>>> >>>> On a totally different topic with regard to item 2, I don't think that >>>> is >>> something that we need the Accountability CCWG to deal with that. In my >>> view, that seems to be clearly in our court. Any accountability for a >>> certification decision would probably be covered by general accountability >>> processes. >>>> >>>> Why is item 6 (Ability to Remove Directors) an action that the CWG needs >>> from the CCWG. I agree that we need some specific accountability >>> mechanisms >>> from the CCWG but we don't specifically need the one that would allow for >>> the removal of Directors. That option may provide some of the >>> accountability that the CWG needs but we require that specific option. >>>> >>>> Chuck >>>> >>>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >>>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:12 AM >>>> To: CWG IANA >>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG >>>> Proposal(s) >>>> >>>> I believe that this is the minimalist list of accountability measures or >>> accountability-related processes that would be required based on the two >>> proposals currently under consideration. >>>> >>>> I have explicitly not included the wider list of measures that the CCWG >>>> is >>> considering for possible inclusion in its WS1, specifically those which >>> the >>> community would like to see and for which the IANA transition might >>> provide >>> additional impetus for the Board to approve, but are not absolutely >>> required >>> to ensure that the IANA transition can occur. I recognize that this is a >>> judgement call that not all might agree with. >>>> >>>> During the last of the four weekend meetings, Chuck mentioned one >>> additional issue, and referred to a chat exchange between him and Donna >>> during the third meeting that listed several other potential >>> accountability >>> issues. Unfortunately, that chat transcript was not preserved due to an >>> error in saving it. >>>> >>>> The list of measures for the Contract Co. model is based on the list >>>> that >>> the Co-Chairs created in December, augmented by Chucks suggestion. I do >>> not >>> believe that the December list has been negated by any work done in the >>> interim, but perhaps I have missed something. I could not find a rationale >>> for the inclusion of the first of the three items, but include it here so >>> that the CWG could decide if it is based on a real need associated with >>> the >>> proposal or not. If included, I would suggest the CWG be more specific as >>> to >>> under what conditions it would apply. Chuck's suggestion seems to conflict >>> with the 2nd measure in that the 2nd measure is specified as being >>> binding. >>> I am also not sure if it could possibly be replaced by the more >>> generalized >>> IAP (once the request goes to IANA). >>>> >>>> The requirements for the internal-to-ICANN model are based on my >>> discussions with a number of people over the last weeks. >>>> >>>> Contract Co. Model Requirements >>>> >>>> 1. Independent Review of Board Actions >>>> >>>> Change the ICANN Bylaws to specify that under certain circumstances (to >>>> be >>> defined) the determinations of an Independent Review of Board Actions >>> Panel >>> would be binding and not implemented at the Board's discretions. >>>> >>>> 2. Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests >>>> >>>> This would be a replacement for the authorization function for all >>>> changes >>> to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. >>> The >>> replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and >>> re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision >>> on >>> these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. >>>> >>>> 3. Independent Appeals Panel >>>> >>>> An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested >>>> changes >>> to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still >>> ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal, it is generally agreed >>> that >>> the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may also be a need >>> for >>> an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in question during the >>> appeal process. >>>> >>>> 4. gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal within ICANN prior to the >>>> change request going to IANA >>>> >>>> A Registry could appeal an ICANN decision to delegate or redelegate and >>> gTLD, based on policy not being followed (or presumably contractual terms >>> not being followed). >>>> >>>> Internal-To-ICANN Model Requirements >>>> >>>> This model will require all of the above measures plus the following: >>>> >>>> 5. Control over ICANN Board decisions. >>>> >>>> The ability for ICANN Stakeholders, potentially augmented by other >>> non-ICANN entities, to mandate or overrule, a particular Board decision, >>> or >>> to require that the implementation of such a decision be subject to >>> consideration of an independent, binding review. These measures might need >>> to be augmented by advance notice of such decisions and allow the MS >>> community to react. In the most restricted form, this ability might be >>> restricted to decisions related to IANA, but in reality, it may not be >>> practical to define this scope limitation (ie how to recognize an >>> IANA-related decision). >>>> >>>> 6. Ability to Remove Directors >>>> >>>> The ability of the overall multi-stakeholder community to remove some or >>> all of the Board Directors. In the case of a full Board removal, a >>> mechanism >>> would be required for appointing an Interim Board and then a replacement >>> regular Board. In addition, ACs and SOs could be given the right to recall >>> their appointed Director(s). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >>> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity >>> >>> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >>> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >>> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity >>> >>> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >>> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org >

2 1

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s)
by Burr, Becky Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

Agree with Roelof Sent from my iPad > On Jan 16, 2015, at 7:17 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > It looks to me that an acronym confusion is beginning to develop, but if you mean CCWG Accountability, I can say that I don’t know what Chuck and others think, but what I see so far is no tendency at all to focus on cc specific delegation/revocation disputes > > Cheers, > > Roelof > > From: Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> > Date: vrijdag 16 januari 2015 11:51 > To: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>> > Cc: "cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org>" <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org>>, ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>>, ccNSO Members <ccnso-members(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>>, "cctldworld(a)icann.org<mailto:cctldworld@icann.org>" <cctldworld(a)icann.org<mailto:cctldworld@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s) > > Understood Roelof. > > My point is that Chuck and others seem to think that it is the CCWG’s job to come up with something cc-specific re delegation and re-delegation ‘disputes’ rather than higher level accountability mechanisms. If we as a community are happy with that then so be it. If we are not then we need to tell them. > > > > Cheers, > > > Chris > > On 16 Jan 2015, at 21:01 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: > > Chris, All, > > I would hope that the CCWG comes up with mechanisms that enhance ICANN¹s > accountability on a higher level than (just) delegation, revocation etc. > I am comfortable waiting for (and as I am a member, contributing to) the > deliverables of the CCWG, in the expectation that, once accountability is > enhanced and stewardship transitioned, the outcome of the FoIWG can be > inputted, with satisfactory results for us ccTLDs. > > Yes, I am an optimist, life is great > > Cheers, > > Roelof > > > > > On 16-01-15 07:53, "Stephen Deerhake" <SDeerhake(a)nic.as<mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>> wrote: > > Chris, > > Speaking for .as, I can say that the idea that "the CCWG [be tasked] with > drafting/creating an accountability process re delegation and > re-delegation" > is a complete non-starter. > > How can this be even be a serious consideration of the CCWG? > > I believe this issue has been addressed by the work of the FoI-WG, and I > don't see the need to re-invent the wheel here. Perhaps the larger > problem > is getting ICANN to acknowledge and endorse the work/findings of the > FoI-WG... I've seen scant evidence of this to date. > > Best, > > /Stephen > > Stephen Deerhake > Director of Registry Services > AS Domain Registry > GDNS LLC > +1 212 334 3660 > +1 212 656 1982 (fax) > sdeerhake(a)nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> > sdeerhake(a)gdns.net<mailto:sdeerhake@gdns.net> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cctldcommunity-bounces(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org> > [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Chris > Disspain > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 5:58 PM > To: ccTLD Community List; ccNSO Council; ccNSO Members; > cctldworld(a)icann.org<mailto:cctldworld@icann.org> > Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG > Proposal(s) > Importance: High > > All, > > We need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process > that > registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of > ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation > decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local > law. > > > I know I keep pressing on this but I want to make sure we all understand > before I stop and let it go. > > Are we, the ccTLDs comfortable with the CCWG drafting/creating an > accountability process re delegation and re-delegation? > > Is this something we should be doing ourselves pursuant to the > interpretations of the FoI WG? > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > > 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 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. > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG > Proposal(s) > Date: 16 January 2015 01:55:07 AEDT > To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, CWG IANA > <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> > > Alan, > > First let me put in writing the what I said in the last weekend call: > We > need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that > registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of > ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation > decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local > law. > This may be covered by your item 4 (gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal > within ICANN prior to the change request going to IANA) although I am not > sure that appeals would always have to happen before going to IANA; that > would be preferred though. > > Alan - why do you think that this would conflict with item 2 > (Independent > certification for delegation and re-delegation requests)? In the case of > gTLDs, the decision whether or not a gTLD could be delegated or > re-delegated > would happen before any certification would occur. The certification > would > simply confirm that required steps were followed properly. For gTLDs I > think that any appeal would preferably happen before any certification > happened but I suppose it could happen afterwards; those details would > need > to be defined. I won't try to venture into the ccTLD world. > > On a totally different topic with regard to item 2, I don't think that > is > something that we need the Accountability CCWG to deal with that. In my > view, that seems to be clearly in our court. Any accountability for a > certification decision would probably be covered by general accountability > processes. > > Why is item 6 (Ability to Remove Directors) an action that the CWG needs > from the CCWG. I agree that we need some specific accountability > mechanisms > from the CCWG but we don't specifically need the one that would allow for > the removal of Directors. That option may provide some of the > accountability that the CWG needs but we require that specific option. > > Chuck > > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:12 AM > To: CWG IANA > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG > Proposal(s) > > I believe that this is the minimalist list of accountability measures or > accountability-related processes that would be required based on the two > proposals currently under consideration. > > I have explicitly not included the wider list of measures that the CCWG > is > considering for possible inclusion in its WS1, specifically those which > the > community would like to see and for which the IANA transition might > provide > additional impetus for the Board to approve, but are not absolutely > required > to ensure that the IANA transition can occur. I recognize that this is a > judgement call that not all might agree with. > > During the last of the four weekend meetings, Chuck mentioned one > additional issue, and referred to a chat exchange between him and Donna > during the third meeting that listed several other potential > accountability > issues. Unfortunately, that chat transcript was not preserved due to an > error in saving it. > > The list of measures for the Contract Co. model is based on the list > that > the Co-Chairs created in December, augmented by Chucks suggestion. I do > not > believe that the December list has been negated by any work done in the > interim, but perhaps I have missed something. I could not find a rationale > for the inclusion of the first of the three items, but include it here so > that the CWG could decide if it is based on a real need associated with > the > proposal or not. If included, I would suggest the CWG be more specific as > to > under what conditions it would apply. Chuck's suggestion seems to conflict > with the 2nd measure in that the 2nd measure is specified as being > binding. > I am also not sure if it could possibly be replaced by the more > generalized > IAP (once the request goes to IANA). > > The requirements for the internal-to-ICANN model are based on my > discussions with a number of people over the last weeks. > > Contract Co. Model Requirements > > 1. Independent Review of Board Actions > > Change the ICANN Bylaws to specify that under certain circumstances (to > be > defined) the determinations of an Independent Review of Board Actions > Panel > would be binding and not implemented at the Board's discretions. > > 2. Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests > > This would be a replacement for the authorization function for all > changes > to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. > The > replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and > re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision > on > these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. > > 3. Independent Appeals Panel > > An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested > changes > to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still > ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal, it is generally agreed > that > the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may also be a need > for > an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in question during the > appeal process. > > 4. gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal within ICANN prior to the > change request going to IANA > > A Registry could appeal an ICANN decision to delegate or redelegate and > gTLD, based on policy not being followed (or presumably contractual terms > not being followed). > > Internal-To-ICANN Model Requirements > > This model will require all of the above measures plus the following: > > 5. Control over ICANN Board decisions. > > The ability for ICANN Stakeholders, potentially augmented by other > non-ICANN entities, to mandate or overrule, a particular Board decision, > or > to require that the implementation of such a decision be subject to > consideration of an independent, binding review. These measures might need > to be augmented by advance notice of such decisions and allow the MS > community to react. In the most restricted form, this ability might be > restricted to decisions related to IANA, but in reality, it may not be > practical to define this scope limitation (ie how to recognize an > IANA-related decision). > > 6. Ability to Remove Directors > > The ability of the overall multi-stakeholder community to remove some or > all of the Board Directors. In the case of a full Board removal, a > mechanism > would be required for appointing an Interim Board and then a replacement > regular Board. In addition, ACs and SOs could be given the right to recall > their appointed Director(s). > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l… > > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmanag… > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to > ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org> > > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmanag… > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to > ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org> > > > _______________________________________________ > ccTLDcommunity mailing list > ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmanag… > > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org

1 0

Re: [Cctldworld] [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s)
by Chris Disspain Jan. 16, 2015

Jan. 16, 2015

I’m beginning to think that I may have a blind spot here. Help me to figure this out. > Just for clarification, the CWG group is _very_ gTLD Registry focused... and Chuck is very gTLD Registry orientated. Agreed. So the remarks by Chuck re ccTLDs are surprising. > The gTLDs want the CWG Accountability Group to have a role in determining an Appeals process, whereas it was recognised that ICANN's role with respect to (the majority of) ccTLD reassignment was non-existent. How does that sit with Chuck’s suggest that the CCWG... >>>> provide an accountability process that registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of >>>> ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation >>>> decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local >>>> law. Unless I’m misreading this then it is saying that coming up with such a process is the job of the CCWG. > The goal of the CWG should be to create a light weight structure of service delivery - as discussed (and agreed) in Frankfurt. Agreed that this is the CWG’s role. Chuck’s point was about the expectations of the CCWG on Accountability. Cheers, Chris On 16 Jan 2015, at 22:43 , Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane(a)icb.co.uk> wrote: > Chris > > Just for clarification, the CWG group is _very_ gTLD Registry focused... and Chuck is very gTLD Registry orientated. > > During yesterday's call it was recognised that (the majority of) ccTLDs Registries have a very different relationship with ICANN than that of gTLDs Registries. > > The gTLDs want the CWG Accountability Group to have a role in determining an Appeals process, whereas it was recognised that ICANN's role with respect to (the majority of) ccTLD reassignment was non-existent. > > The goal of the CWG should be to create a light weight structure of service delivery - as discussed (and agreed) in Frankfurt. > Over the holiday period the process has been captured and the simple (accountable) structure has become seriously over-complicated. Overburdening the structure is a game currently being played by some to sink the initiative, or capture it, and time is needed to redress the balance and loose the excess baggage. > > IMHO it is out of scope for the IANA Accountability process to have a sanction to remove an ICANN Director - but this also needs more time to play out. > > Best > > Paul > > > Chris Disspain wrote: >> Understood Roelof. >> >> My point is that Chuck and others seem to think that it is the CCWG’s job to come up with something cc-specific re delegation and re-delegation ‘disputes’ rather than higher level accountability mechanisms. If we as a community are happy with that then so be it. If we are not then we need to tell them. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Chris >> >> >> On 16 Jan 2015, at 21:01 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: >> >>> Chris, All, >>> >>> I would hope that the CCWG comes up with mechanisms that enhance ICANN¹s >>> accountability on a higher level than (just) delegation, revocation etc. >>> I am comfortable waiting for (and as I am a member, contributing to) the >>> deliverables of the CCWG, in the expectation that, once accountability is >>> enhanced and stewardship transitioned, the outcome of the FoIWG can be >>> inputted, with satisfactory results for us ccTLDs. >>> >>> Yes, I am an optimist, life is great >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Roelof >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 16-01-15 07:53, "Stephen Deerhake" <SDeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>> wrote: >>> >>>> Chris, >>>> >>>> Speaking for .as, I can say that the idea that "the CCWG [be tasked] with >>>> drafting/creating an accountability process re delegation and >>>> re-delegation" >>>> is a complete non-starter. >>>> >>>> How can this be even be a serious consideration of the CCWG? >>>> >>>> I believe this issue has been addressed by the work of the FoI-WG, and I >>>> don't see the need to re-invent the wheel here. Perhaps the larger >>>> problem >>>> is getting ICANN to acknowledge and endorse the work/findings of the >>>> FoI-WG... I've seen scant evidence of this to date. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> /Stephen >>>> >>>> Stephen Deerhake >>>> Director of Registry Services >>>> AS Domain Registry >>>> GDNS LLC >>>> +1 212 334 3660 >>>> +1 212 656 1982 (fax) >>>> sdeerhake(a)nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> >>>> sdeerhake(a)gdns.net >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: cctldcommunity-bounces(a)cctld-managers.org >>>> [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Chris >>>> Disspain >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 5:58 PM >>>> To: ccTLD Community List; ccNSO Council; ccNSO Members; >>>> cctldworld(a)icann.org >>>> Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG >>>> Proposal(s) >>>> Importance: High >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>>> We need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process >>>>> that >>>> registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of >>>> ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation >>>> decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local >>>> law. >>>> >>>> >>>> I know I keep pressing on this but I want to make sure we all understand >>>> before I stop and let it go. >>>> >>>> Are we, the ccTLDs comfortable with the CCWG drafting/creating an >>>> accountability process re delegation and re-delegation? >>>> >>>> Is this something we should be doing ourselves pursuant to the >>>> interpretations of the FoI WG? >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 | W: 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. >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >>>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG >>>> Proposal(s) >>>>> Date: 16 January 2015 01:55:07 AEDT >>>>> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, CWG IANA >>>>> <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>>>> >>>>> Alan, >>>>> >>>>> First let me put in writing the what I said in the last weekend call: >>>>> We >>>> need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that >>>> registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of >>>> ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation >>>> decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local >>>> law. >>>> This may be covered by your item 4 (gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal >>>> within ICANN prior to the change request going to IANA) although I am not >>>> sure that appeals would always have to happen before going to IANA; that >>>> would be preferred though. >>>>> >>>>> Alan - why do you think that this would conflict with item 2 >>>>> (Independent >>>> certification for delegation and re-delegation requests)? In the case of >>>> gTLDs, the decision whether or not a gTLD could be delegated or >>>> re-delegated >>>> would happen before any certification would occur. The certification >>>> would >>>> simply confirm that required steps were followed properly. For gTLDs I >>>> think that any appeal would preferably happen before any certification >>>> happened but I suppose it could happen afterwards; those details would >>>> need >>>> to be defined. I won't try to venture into the ccTLD world. >>>>> >>>>> On a totally different topic with regard to item 2, I don't think that >>>>> is >>>> something that we need the Accountability CCWG to deal with that. In my >>>> view, that seems to be clearly in our court. Any accountability for a >>>> certification decision would probably be covered by general accountability >>>> processes. >>>>> >>>>> Why is item 6 (Ability to Remove Directors) an action that the CWG needs >>>> from the CCWG. I agree that we need some specific accountability >>>> mechanisms >>>> from the CCWG but we don't specifically need the one that would allow for >>>> the removal of Directors. That option may provide some of the >>>> accountability that the CWG needs but we require that specific option. >>>>> >>>>> Chuck >>>>> >>>>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >>>>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icannorg] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:12 AM >>>>> To: CWG IANA >>>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG >>>>> Proposal(s) >>>>> >>>>> I believe that this is the minimalist list of accountability measures or >>>> accountability-related processes that would be required based on the two >>>> proposals currently under consideration. >>>>> >>>>> I have explicitly not included the wider list of measures that the CCWG >>>>> is >>>> considering for possible inclusion in its WS1, specifically those which >>>> the >>>> community would like to see and for which the IANA transition might >>>> provide >>>> additional impetus for the Board to approve, but are not absolutely >>>> required >>>> to ensure that the IANA transition can occur. I recognize that this is a >>>> judgement call that not all might agree with. >>>>> >>>>> During the last of the four weekend meetings, Chuck mentioned one >>>> additional issue, and referred to a chat exchange between him and Donna >>>> during the third meeting that listed several other potential >>>> accountability >>>> issues. Unfortunately, that chat transcript was not preserved due to an >>>> error in saving it. >>>>> >>>>> The list of measures for the Contract Co. model is based on the list >>>>> that >>>> the Co-Chairs created in December, augmented by Chucks suggestion. I do >>>> not >>>> believe that the December list has been negated by any work done in the >>>> interim, but perhaps I have missed something. I could not find a rationale >>>> for the inclusion of the first of the three items, but include it here so >>>> that the CWG could decide if it is based on a real need associated with >>>> the >>>> proposal or not. If included, I would suggest the CWG be more specific as >>>> to >>>> under what conditions it would apply. Chuck's suggestion seems to conflict >>>> with the 2nd measure in that the 2nd measure is specified as being >>>> binding. >>>> I am also not sure if it could possibly be replaced by the more >>>> generalized >>>> IAP (once the request goes to IANA). >>>>> >>>>> The requirements for the internal-to-ICANN model are based on my >>>> discussions with a number of people over the last weeks. >>>>> >>>>> Contract Co. Model Requirements >>>>> >>>>> 1. Independent Review of Board Actions >>>>> >>>>> Change the ICANN Bylaws to specify that under certain circumstances (to >>>>> be >>>> defined) the determinations of an Independent Review of Board Actions >>>> Panel >>>> would be binding and not implemented at the Board's discretions. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests >>>>> >>>>> This would be a replacement for the authorization function for all >>>>> changes >>>> to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. >>>> The >>>> replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and >>>> re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision >>>> on >>>> these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Independent Appeals Panel >>>>> >>>>> An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested >>>>> changes >>>> to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still >>>> ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal, it is generally agreed >>>> that >>>> the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may also be a need >>>> for >>>> an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in question during the >>>> appeal process. >>>>> >>>>> 4. gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal within ICANN prior to the >>>>> change request going to IANA >>>>> >>>>> A Registry could appeal an ICANN decision to delegate or redelegate and >>>> gTLD, based on policy not being followed (or presumably contractual terms >>>> not being followed). >>>>> >>>>> Internal-To-ICANN Model Requirements >>>>> >>>>> This model will require all of the above measures plus the following: >>>>> >>>>> 5. Control over ICANN Board decisions. >>>>> >>>>> The ability for ICANN Stakeholders, potentially augmented by other >>>> non-ICANN entities, to mandate or overrule, a particular Board decision, >>>> or >>>> to require that the implementation of such a decision be subject to >>>> consideration of an independent, binding review. These measures might need >>>> to be augmented by advance notice of such decisions and allow the MS >>>> community to react. In the most restricted form, this ability might be >>>> restricted to decisions related to IANA, but in reality, it may not be >>>> practical to define this scope limitation (ie how to recognize an >>>> IANA-related decision). >>>>> >>>>> 6. Ability to Remove Directors >>>>> >>>>> The ability of the overall multi-stakeholder community to remove some or >>>> all of the Board Directors. In the case of a full Board removal, a >>>> mechanism >>>> would be required for appointing an Interim Board and then a replacement >>>> regular Board. In addition, ACs and SOs could be given the right to recall >>>> their appointed Director(s). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >>>> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>>> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >>>> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ccTLDcommunity mailing list >>>> ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org >>>> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >>>> ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe(a)lists.cctld-managers.org >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cctldworld mailing list >> Cctldworld(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld >>

1 0