- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

Sponsors Sought for ccTLD Cocktail Event in Singapore!
by Kristina Nordstrom Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Dear all, We are now looking for sponsors for the ccNSO organised ccTLD Community Cocktail on Tuesday night, 10 February in Singapore! Should your registry be interested in sponsoring this event, please let me know as soon as possible. Any amount is welcome and appreciated! Kind regards, Kristina

1 1

63-2014: Initial Report from the GNSO's PDP Working Group on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information
by Kristina Nordstrom Dec. 22, 2014

Dec. 22, 2014

Dear Councillors, Please, can I have your feedback by 30 December 12.00 noon UTC in case you do not agree with Triage recommendation 63-2014: Initial Report from the GNSO's PDP Working Group on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information. Thanks and kind regards, Kristina == Topic: 63-2014: Initial Report from the GNSO's PDP Working Group on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Originator: GNSO Summary of request: The Working Group has published its Initial report that contains its discussion and put the arguments it has gathered to the community. The report provides both detailed arguments in favor and opposing mandatory transformation and indicates that a majority of the Working Group currently recommends against mandatory transformation and/or transliteration of Contact Information. https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-… Date received: 17 October 2014 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 1 February 2015 Recommended action, if any: No action Expertise needed, if any: Legal Date of submission to Council: 23 December 2014 Last date of Council decision: 30 December 2014 Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Low

1 0

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Alternative proposal to the CWG transition plan
by Chris Disspain Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

Yes el, with pleasure Chris Disspain CEO - auDA > On 19 Dec 2014, at 16:20, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na> wrote: > > Chris, > > can I forward to CCWG-Accountability? > > el > > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > >> On Dec 19, 2014, at 04:58, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Over the next couple of days auDA will be finalising its comments on the CWG proposal. As part of those we will be putting forward an alternative proposal. That proposal is below and also attached as a word document. I would welcome and very much appreciate input and feedback from ccTLD colleagues on our draft alternative. Like the CWG one, there is more work to do on it and detail to be filled in but I think it stands as a viable way forward that might, as a whole, be more palatable to some ccTLDs than the CWG proposal. Of course I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong before, once or twice. >> >> >> IMPORTANT - As you know, I’m on the ICANN Board. The below proposal and the comments auDA will make on the CWG proposal come from auDA. The proposal has nothing to do with the ICANN Board and has not been discussed with the ICANN Board. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> auDA’s Alternative Proposal to CWG Transition Plan >> >> Assumptions: >> >> 1. In a limited number of circumstances (such as 'gross incompetence' or ‘material breach’) there should be an option for the IANA function to be transferred from ICANN to another operator - The Nuclear Option. >> >> 2. There should be an enhancing of the current functional separation of the IANA function from the rest of ICANN - Functional Separation. >> >> 3. There should be a TLD registry operator centric standing committee to liaise with and oversee the IANA functions operator on administrative and service level functions - The Customer Standing Committee. >> >> 4. There should be an independent, binding arbitration mechanism to handle certain disputes - Appeals. >> >> 5. There should be a separate review body to review any ccTLD revocation and delegation (formally referred to as re-delegation) - The ccTLD Review Body >> >> Note - there is a further assumption that the ICANN Accountability working group will deal with ICANN wide accountability recommendations (for example a Board spill mechanism) and that such matters are best dealt with there. It is clear that any fully formed transition proposal from the CWG has to be inextricably linked to the work of that Accountability WG and therefore the timing of the work of the groups needs to become aligned. >> >> >> Proposal: >> >> 1. The Nuclear Option - Where the IANA functions operator is grossly negligent or incompetent or in material breach of its obligations under agreed service level commitments or performance indicators, it needs to be possible for the IANA function to be moved to a new operator. >> >> This could be achieved by the creation of a ‘Golden Bylaw’, similar to the corporate concept of a golden share (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_share) The Golden Bylaw would give the TLD registry operators the right, in certain circumstances, to require ICANN to put the IANA function out to re-bid. The Golden Bylaw would set out at least: >> >> a) the requirements to trigger the re-bid process - FOR EXAMPLE a vote of over 75% of ccTLD registry operators and 75% of gTLD registry operators >> >> b) what would need to happen to trigger the TLD registry operator’s vote - FOR EXAMPLE a petition by more than 15% of TLD registry operators >> >> c) the composition of a Re-Bid Committee that would oversee the vote and the subsequent re-bid and decide who the successful bidder was. The Re-Bid Committee could, FOR EXAMPLE, comprise of 20 registry operators (split between ccTLDs and gTLDS) plus a representative from each of the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and RSSAC >> >> d) the basis upon which the Golden Bylaw itself could be changed - FOR EXAMPLE only by a vote of over 75% of ccTLD registry operators and 75% of gTLD registry operators >> >> e) the other aspects of this proposal set out below. >> >> 2. Functional Separation - The current levels of functional separation of the IANA function from the rest of ICANN can be enhanced as part of the transition in a number of ways including: >> >> a) the IANA department having its own discrete budget >> >> b) the IANA department having its own legal advisors and independent legal advice. >> >> 3. Customer Standing Committee - This committee would provide the day-to-day liaison between the IANA functions operator and the TLD registry operators. It could be made up of an equal number of ccTLD and gTLD registry operators plus a representative from each of the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and RSSAC. It would perform, at least, the following tasks: >> >> a) work with the IANA functions operator to agree service levels and performance indicators >> >> b) review and re-negotiate the service levels and performance indicators at agreed intervals >> >> c) receive reports on and monitor the IANA functions operator’s performance with respect to the service levels and the performance indicators >> >> d) conduct a regular IANA functions operator budget review. >> >> 4. Appeals - To deal with disputes that arise in respect to matters covered by 3 above there should be a binding arbitration mechanism utilising the services of an independent arbitration organisation. >> >> 5. The ccTLD Review Body - The ccTLD community needs to work to come to consensus on the review body contemplated by the Framework of Interpretation WG. Whilst it may not be essential that this work is done by the time of the transition, it is essential that the appeals mechanism set out in 4 above is clearly understood to not be that ccTLD Review Body. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

1 0

Alternative proposal to the CWG transition plan
by Chris Disspain Dec. 19, 2014

Dec. 19, 2014

All, Over the next couple of days auDA will be finalising its comments on the CWG proposal. As part of those we will be putting forward an alternative proposal. That proposal is below and also attached as a word document. I would welcome and very much appreciate input and feedback from ccTLD colleagues on our draft alternative. Like the CWG one, there is more work to do on it and detail to be filled in but I think it stands as a viable way forward that might, as a whole, be more palatable to some ccTLDs than the CWG proposal. Of course I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong before, once or twice. IMPORTANT - As you know, I’m on the ICANN Board. The below proposal and the comments auDA will make on the CWG proposal come from auDA. The proposal has nothing to do with the ICANN Board and has not been discussed with the ICANN Board. 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 auDA’s Alternative Proposal to CWG Transition Plan Assumptions: 1. In a limited number of circumstances (such as 'gross incompetence' or ‘material breach’) there should be an option for the IANA function to be transferred from ICANN to another operator - The Nuclear Option. 2. There should be an enhancing of the current functional separation of the IANA function from the rest of ICANN - Functional Separation. 3. There should be a TLD registry operator centric standing committee to liaise with and oversee the IANA functions operator on administrative and service level functions - The Customer Standing Committee. 4. There should be an independent, binding arbitration mechanism to handle certain disputes - Appeals. 5. There should be a separate review body to review any ccTLD revocation and delegation (formally referred to as re-delegation) - The ccTLD Review Body Note - there is a further assumption that the ICANN Accountability working group will deal with ICANN wide accountability recommendations (for example a Board spill mechanism) and that such matters are best dealt with there. It is clear that any fully formed transition proposal from the CWG has to be inextricably linked to the work of that Accountability WG and therefore the timing of the work of the groups needs to become aligned. Proposal: 1. The Nuclear Option - Where the IANA functions operator is grossly negligent or incompetent or in material breach of its obligations under agreed service level commitments or performance indicators, it needs to be possible for the IANA function to be moved to a new operator. This could be achieved by the creation of a ‘Golden Bylaw’, similar to the corporate concept of a golden share (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_share) The Golden Bylaw would give the TLD registry operators the right, in certain circumstances, to require ICANN to put the IANA function out to re-bid. The Golden Bylaw would set out at least: a) the requirements to trigger the re-bid process - FOR EXAMPLE a vote of over 75% of ccTLD registry operators and 75% of gTLD registry operators b) what would need to happen to trigger the TLD registry operator’s vote - FOR EXAMPLE a petition by more than 15% of TLD registry operators c) the composition of a Re-Bid Committee that would oversee the vote and the subsequent re-bid and decide who the successful bidder was. The Re-Bid Committee could, FOR EXAMPLE, comprise of 20 registry operators (split between ccTLDs and gTLDS) plus a representative from each of the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and RSSAC d) the basis upon which the Golden Bylaw itself could be changed - FOR EXAMPLE only by a vote of over 75% of ccTLD registry operators and 75% of gTLD registry operators e) the other aspects of this proposal set out below. 2. Functional Separation - The current levels of functional separation of the IANA function from the rest of ICANN can be enhanced as part of the transition in a number of ways including: a) the IANA department having its own discrete budget b) the IANA department having its own legal advisors and independent legal advice. 3. Customer Standing Committee - This committee would provide the day-to-day liaison between the IANA functions operator and the TLD registry operators. It could be made up of an equal number of ccTLD and gTLD registry operators plus a representative from each of the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and RSSAC. It would perform, at least, the following tasks: a) work with the IANA functions operator to agree service levels and performance indicators b) review and re-negotiate the service levels and performance indicators at agreed intervals c) receive reports on and monitor the IANA functions operator’s performance with respect to the service levels and the performance indicators d) conduct a regular IANA functions operator budget review. 4. Appeals - To deal with disputes that arise in respect to matters covered by 3 above there should be a binding arbitration mechanism utilising the services of an independent arbitration organisation. 5. The ccTLD Review Body - The ccTLD community needs to work to come to consensus on the review body contemplated by the Framework of Interpretation WG. Whilst it may not be essential that this work is done by the time of the transition, it is essential that the appeals mechanism set out in 4 above is clearly understood to not be that ccTLD Review Body.

1 0

IANA Functions Customer Service results
by Gabriella Schittek Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

Dear all, ICANN has published the results of its third annual IANA Functions Customer Service Survey, reflecting a 93 percent overall customer satisfaction rate: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-17-en The survey report is available at: http://www.iana.org/reports/2014/customer-survey-20141217.pdf Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

Selection of Advisors to CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
by Gabriella Schittek Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

Dear all, The Accountability & Governance Public Experts Group (PEG) has announced the selection of Advisors to the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-17-en Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

62-2014: IDN TLDs - LGR Procedure Implementation - Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 2
by Gabriella Schittek Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

Dear Coucillors, Please, notify this email lis by 22 December t in case you do not agree with Triage recommendation 62-2014: IDN TLDs - LGR Procedure Implementation - Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 2 Kind regards, Gabi > > == > Topic: IDN TLDs - LGR Procedure Implementation - Maximal Starting Repertoire > Version 2 > > Originator: ICANN > > Summary of request: ICANN is releasing for public comment version 2 of the > Maximal Starting Repertoire (MSR-2). This upwardly compatible version of the > MSR adds six additional scripts to the repertoire. The MSR is the first > deliverable under the "Procedure to Develop and Maintain Label Generation > Rules (LGR) for the Root Zone With Respect to IDN Labels (the Procedure) and > the starting point for the work by community based Generation Panels to > develop their LGR proposals. The contents of MSR-2 and the detailed rationale > behind its development are described in "Maximal Starting Repertoire - > MSR-2-Overview and Rationale. > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-12-15-en > > Date received: 17 December 2014 > > Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 23 February > > Recommended action, if any: Post to email list for information (done) > > Expertise needed, if any: Technical > > Date of submission to Council: 19 December > > Last date of Council decision: 22 December > > Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Low/Middle > > >

1 0

IDN TLDs - LGR Procedure Implementation - Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 2
by Gabriella Schittek Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

Dear all, To those of you interested in IDN TLDs following announcement might be of interest: ICANN is releasing for public comment version 2 of the Maximal Starting Repertoire (MSR-2). This upwardly compatible version of the MSR adds six additional scripts to the repertoire. The MSR is the first deliverable under the "Procedure to Develop and Maintain Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the Root Zone With Respect to IDN Labels (the Procedure) and the starting point for the work by community based Generation Panels to develop their LGR proposals. The contents of MSR-2 and the detailed rationale behind its development are described in "Maximal Starting Repertoire - MSR-2-Overview and Rationale. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-12-15-en Last day for public input is 23 February 2015. Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

Request for input on IGO/INGO Curative Rights
by Gabriella Schittek Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

Dear all, The ccNSO has received a request from a GNSO Working Group ("IGO?INGO Access to Curative Rights Protections Working Group") to reply to four questions on IGO/INGO Curative Rights (see attached). As the ccNSO as a whole does not have any view on this, you, as an individual ccTLD are welcome to deliver input (send it to gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) instead. Last day for input is 23 January 2015. Kind regards, Gabi >> >> >> >>

1 0

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Revised versions of Draft of Principles working by CWG-IANA_Stewardship
by Keith Davidson Dec. 18, 2014

Dec. 18, 2014

Attached in RTF format. Cheers Keith On 18/12/2014 7:24 p.m., Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > Can you please send it in an open format? > > el > > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini > >> On Dec 18, 2014, at 07:13, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte(a)iriartelaw.com> wrote: >> >> Hi to all >> >> in name of the cTLD reps to the CWG-IANA-Stewardship (Lise Fuhr, Vika Mpisane, Paul Kane, Erick Iriarte & Staffan Jonson) I send the Draft of Principles working by CWG-IANA-Stewardship >> >> This document is a draft version (in theory the last draft version). >> >> Yours >> >> Erick >> >> >> >> >> <Draft of Principles_11 December_clean.docx> > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

1 0