- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

51-2014: Draft document from GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names
by Gabriella Schittek Sept. 27, 2014

Sept. 27, 2014

Dear Councillors, Please, let me know by Wednesday, 1 October in casey you do not agree with Triage recommendation 51-2014: Draft document from GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names. Thanks! Gabi > > == > Topic: Draft document from GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names > > Originator: GAC > > Summary of request: The GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names (which is a > Sub-group of the GAC Working Group on Future New gTLDs) has developed a draft > document for future New gTLD rounds outlining several public policy aspects > related to geographic names and is currently seeking community input on the > document at http://tinyurl.com/kzt8kbg. A previous version of this draft was > presented in a public session during the London ICANN/GAC meetings and a > similar session is planned for the October ICANN/GAC meetings in Los Angeles. > > Date received: 24 October 2014 > > Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 31 October 2014 > > Recommended action, if any: Post to email list for information (done); ask > ccNSO representatives to the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of > Country/Territory Names as TLDs to consider drafting input. > > Expertise needed, if any: Legal, managerial > > Date of submission to Council: 26 September 2014 > > Last date of Council decision: 30 September 2014 > > Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Middle > > >

1 0

Status of Action Items
by Kristina Nordstrom Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

Dear all, Please find below a list of the action items from the previous Council meeting and their status. There are no outstanding actions. Action 97-01: The Secretariat to inform Juhani Juselius and the NomCom about Juhani's re-appointment to serve another term on the NomCom. Completed Action 97-02: The Chair to inform the other SO/AC chairs about the ccNSO adoption of the charter for the Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. Completed Action 97-03: The ccNSO Secretariat to send out a call for self-nominations to the Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions, announce the call on the ccNSO website and publish the names of nominees upon receipt. Completed Action 97-04: The Secretariat to create a webpage for the new IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability Coordination Committee. Completed Action 97-05: The Chair to publish a blog post on the ccNSO website that explains how the different working groups and committees around the IANA stewardship transition relates to one another and how community members can participate in the discussions. Completed Action 97-06: The Secretariat to update the ccTLDWorld(a)ICANN.ORG<mailto:ccTLDWorld@ICANN.ORG> email list to the extent that all subscribers are allowed to post to the list. Completed Action 97-07: The Secretariat to inform the ccTLD community about the possibility to join the Join the ICANN Accountability and Governance Cross-Community Group by subscribing to a dedicated email list at the ICANN website. Completed Action 97-08: The Chair to, on behalf of the Council, send a letter to ICANN explaining that a single seat reserved for the ccTLD community on the ICANN Accountability & Governance Coordination Group will not be enough to represent the cc perspective, and that the lack of travel support will limit the number of possible participants from the ccTLD community. Overtaken by events Kind regards, Kristina

3 2

Final Statement, including amendment Byron suggested
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

1 0

Draft ccNSO Council Statement to be submitted Accountability Process (item 7 on the agenda)
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

Dear all, Please included the draft prepared by the drafting team under chairmanship of Mathieu Weill. Kind regards, Bart Draft Statement ======================== The ccNSO Council welcomes ICANN's decision to conduct a public consultation on the proposed "Enhancing Accountability" process and appreciates the responses to various questions posed by the community. As we have previously stated, improved accountability is both a means and a prerequisite for ICANN to achieve its 2016-2020 strategic vision statement, to "enable ICANN to be trusted by all stakeholders." It goes without saying that any process intended to enhance and reinforce trust must itself be trusted. Over time and through experience, ICANN stakeholders have come to trust the cross-community working group (CCWG) process. Having participated in and listened carefully to the exchange of views between ICANN staff and the SO/AC/SGs on this point over the past several weeks, the ccNSO Council is not persuaded that the "community working group" proposed by ICANN improves upon or offers any benefits or advantages over the trusted CCWG model. The main argument for creating the "community working group" appears to be ensuring the inclusion of persons in the process, who consider themselves either not affiliated with a Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee or a "newcomer". Serious thought needs to be given to how to enable these persons to engage in the process as a whole effectively and in a way that does not undermine the existing engagement structure. Accordingly, we call on the staff and board to endorse the creation of a standard CCWG as the locus for bottom-up, multistakeholder development of mechanism to enhance ICANN's accountability. As a standard CCWG, participating SO/AC/SGs should be charged with developing the group's charter, including the scope of its responsibility. Consistent with the NetMundial conclusions, the goal of the Enhancing Accountability process should be to ensure that a system of checks and balances is in place to ensure that ICANN operates in accordance with an agreed set of principles and that meaningful redress is available to those who are harmed by ICANN actions or inactions in contravention of those principles. The CCWG should have full authority to explore and recommend approaches to achieve that goal. The CCWG should have authority to determine the size and structure of the group, as well as its working methodology. Given the importance of the work to be undertaken and the need to work to deadline, the ccNSO believes that ICANN should provide support for an independent secretariat, including a non-voting CCWG chair. It is also the view of the Council that the CCWG should select the Chair, who should have demonstrated skills and experience in chairing. Ideally, the CCWG itself should be responsible for selecting, through an open nomination process, non-voting advisors with predefined expertise ("Accountability Advisors"). In the interests of time, however, we acknowledge the potential utility in kicking off the selection process before the CCWG is set up. Icann could usefully identify a pool of experts, among which the CCWG could select its Advisors, as soon as the CCWG is set up. The ccNSO Council also believes that the paramount concern should be to look for independent experts with a proven track record in their area of expertise. In this context we urge ICANN to reconsider its proposal not to compensate the Accountability Advisors. Under the circumstances, the ccNSO agrees that smaller subgroups consisting of members identified by the SO/AC/SGs and the Accountability Advisors could be formed within the CCWG in order to organize and deliver research and expert advice needed by the CCWG, as well as interface more intensely with ICANN and its counsel on accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG, or liaise with the IANA Transition working group, etc. The ccNSO has previously stated that adequate accountability mechanisms relative to the IANA Stewardship Transition must be in place at the time of the IANA transition in one year from now. We have also recognized that the potential recommendations and mechanisms to enhance ICANN's accountability may be broader i.e. not limited to accountability mechanisms related to the IANA Stewardship Transition Process and it may take time to considerable time to implement all of these recommendations and mechnisms. Accordingly, we also recommend that the CCWG and any coordinating body should work closely with ICANN to identify those mechanism that must be in place for a successful IANA Stewardship Transition agree to prioritize the implementation of those mechanisms. In addition the CCWG and any coordinating body should also agree on a timeline for full implementation, which may extend beyond the IANA functions transition. We understand that the ICANN Board must reach agreement on the process it will use to consider and act on recommendations developed through this process. The community has expressed a strong preference to have a clearly defined process, including dialogue and consultation with the community before any recommendation is rejected. The ccNSO Council believes that the presumption should be that community recommendations will be accepted absent a compelling legal reason for rejection. We urge the Board to develop and publish for public comment its proposed methodology for considering and acting on accountability-related recommendations in the very near term, in any case before the process has commenced fully. As a suggestion the Board may look at the processes and mechanisms used to consider and act upon policy recommendations developed through the policy development processes of the Supporting Organizations and defined through the ICANN Bylaws.

1 0

Letter Byron and Jonathan as Co-Chairs Drafting Team CWG IANA Stewardship Transition Process
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

Dear all, Please find included email letter from Byron and Jonathan Robinson, chair of the GNSO to the chair of the ICG ( and members on ICG appointed by ccNSO and GNSO). Byron asked me to forward it to you. It is par tof the material around the IANA Stewardship Transition Process, Kind regards, Bart ============================ From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01 To: 'alissa(a)cooperw.in<mailto:'alissa(a)cooperw.in>'; 'mbashir(a)mbash.net<mailto:'mbashir(a)mbash.net>'; 'Patrik Falstrom -' Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:'wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>'; 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -'; 'mnuduma(a)yahoo.com<mailto:'mnuduma(a)yahoo.com>'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle(a)nominet.org.uk<mailto:martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk>); 'Xiaodong Lee:'; 'keith(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:'keith(a)internetnz.net.nz>' Subject: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG Importance: High Dear Alissa, Patrik, Mohamed, We are taking this opportunity to write you, given our previous roles as co-chairs of the of the drafting team that prepared the charter for the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions. We want to update you on the progress we have made and make one important comment on the timelines set out in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals (RFP) published on September 8 2014. We in the naming community have followed the historic IANA transition process very closely. Mindful of the challenging timelines inherent in the process, we have moved very quickly to come together as a naming community. At ICANN 50 in London in June 2014, the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and the SSAC came together to establish a drafting team to prepare a charter for what will become the CWG. Through frequent meetings, we were pleased to be able to finalise a charter for the CWG by mid-August 2014. The charter has been approved by the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and SSAC, each in accordance with its own rules and procedures, and we are now calling for volunteers as members and observers, again according to each SO and AC’s rules and procedures. In addition, the GAC has been invited to participate in the CWG and is actively considering the invitation. With the establishment of the CWG, we expect to be able to provide a proposal from the naming community. While we believe that we have made a good start, ensuring the engagement of such a broad community in such an important and overarching exercise is necessarily time consuming. Even though many of the chartering SO/AC’s have yet to complete their procedures for selecting working group members, we have nevertheless decided to move forward and schedule our first CWG meeting right before (as well as a second meeting during) ICANN 51 in Los Angeles. After this initial F2F meeting, we may not have another opportunity to meet face to face until ICANN 52 in February. We would not anticipate that the CWG itself could approve a transition proposal without at least one such face to face meeting and potentially a public consultation of the community. Please also be aware that before a proposal could be formally transmitted to the ICG, it will also be necessary for the chartering SO/AC’s to approve it through their respective processes. Therefore, while we intend to urge that the CWG devote considerable time and energy to developing a proposal, it will be quite challenging, some would say impossible, to meet the January 15, 2015 target deadline for formal proposals set out in the ICG’s RFP. We do hope that shortly upon formation of the CWG we will be able to come back to you with a proposed timetable. It follows that the CWG will not be in a position to review the RFP or request any clarifications by the deadline of 24 September, but hopefully you are willing to accommodate any questions that the CWG may have following its formation. The CWG’s charter provides for a very open process, including no limitations on observers (regardless of affiliation) at any of our meetings. We have no doubt that the naming community members on the ICG will actively monitor the work of our CWG and provide the ICG with regular updates on our progress. Should you have any questions or require further clarification, we would be pleased hear from you and to respond accordingly. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson & Byron Holland Co-Chairs Drafting Team of the Charter for a CWG to develop an IANA stewardship transition proposal

1 0

Reminder: Dial in details Council call 25 September 12:00 UTC
by Kristina Nordstrom Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

Dear all, This is a reminder of the dial in details for the ccNSO Council Call today on 25 September at 12:00 UTC. Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnsocouncil/ Two-way audio will be available in the Adobe Room. Kind regards, Kristina

2 1

Agenda and redraft resolution 245 September 2014
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

Dear all, Please find included the annotated agenda for tomorrow's call. Please note the drafting team to prepare the ccNSO Council submission on accountability process has not (yet) completed its work. Once completed I will forward the draft statement directly to the list. Kind regards, Bart

1 1

Summary SECIR Conference Call #4
by Gabriella Schittek Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

Dear all, Please, find a short summary below from the last conference call of the Secure Email Communication for cccTLD Incident Response (SECIR) Working Group. == Summary SECIR Conference Call #4 The ccNSO working group ³Secure Email Communication for cccTLD Incident Response² (SECIR) held its fourth conference call on Wed Sep 24. We discussed the latest update of our working document and the status of our ongoing dialogue with an external organization that could potentially host the SECIR services. We also decided to increase the WG¹s interaction with regional organizations to improve our understanding of similar services they are setting up. We will be using the time until the next call (just before the LA meeting) to further update our working document and to draft the slides for the community update at ccNSO Day 1 (security session). SECIR charter: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/secir.htm Members: Erwin Lansing (.dk), Jacques Latour (.ca), Frederico Neves (.br), Abibu Ntahigiye (.tz), Geng-Da Tsai (.tw), and Cristian Hesselman (.nl, chair) Cristian Hesselman Manager SIDN Labs SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | Postbus 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM M +31 (0)6 25 07 87 33 | T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 cristian.hesselman(a)sidn.nl <mailto:cristian.hesselman@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>

1 0

Draft document from GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names - Community input sought
by Gabriella Schittek Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

Dear all, Forwarded on behalf of the GAC. > The GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names (which is a Sub-group of the GAC Working > Group on Future New gTLDs) has developed a draft document for future New gTLD > rounds outlining several public policy aspects related to geographic names and > is currently seeking community input on the attached draft text (also > announced on the GAC website at http://tinyurl.com/kzt8kbg) A previous > version of this draft was presented in a public session during the London > ICANN/GAC meetings and a similar session is planned for the October ICANN/GAC > meetings in Los Angeles. The Working Group believes the receipt of community > input on the current draft document would be beneficial to the October > discussions, and further welcomes comments from all interested parties by > October 31, 2014. > Comments may be submitted to future-geo-doc-comments(a)gac.icann.org . Comments > received will be posted on http://tinyurl.com/nc4knhn. > > > Very best regards > Olof > -------------------- > > Olof Nordling > Senior Director, GAC Relations > Branch Manager, ICANN Brussels office > ICANN > 6 Rond Point Schuman, > B-1040 Brussels, Belgium > Tel.: +32.2.894 7400 > Mobile: +32.475.420805 > Fax: +32.2.280 1221 > E-mail: olof.nordling(a)icann.org > www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org> > > >

1 0

Full LA Meeting Schedule available
by Gabriella Schittek Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Dear all, The full ICANN Meetings schedule for the Los Angeles meeting is now available at http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full The draft ccNSO meetings schedule is available at http://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/los-angeles51/agenda.htm Kind regards, Gabi

1 0