- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

Request for input to GNSO Policy & Implementation WG
by Gabriella Schittek Feb. 25, 2014

Feb. 25, 2014

Dear all, Below is a request from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group, which was sent to us on 20 September 2013 Unfortunately, we didn't notice the request until we were reminded to provide input recently. The goal of the WG is to provide some guidance on GNSO Policy Development Process issues to the GNSO Council. However, they are posing some general questions to the other SO's on policy matters. The questions could be of interest for some cc's, especially those who have applied for a new gTLD, so please, have a look and see if you think you could help the WG by providing some input to their questions. Although the end date is set as 31 January 2014, the WG still accepts input. Sorry about the delay in forwarding this. Kind regards, Gabi >> >> >> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >> Date: Friday 20 September 2013 14:45 >> To: "byron.holland(a)cira.ca" <byron.holland(a)cira.ca> >> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs(a)icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs(a)icann.org>, >> Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Gabriella Schittek >> <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> >> >> >> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] Request for input from Policy & >> Implementation WG >> >> >> >> To Supporting Organisation and Advisory Committee Chairs: >> >> >> Dear SG/Constituency Chair: >> >> We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working >> Group. This Working Group (WG) has been tasked with providing the GNSO >> Council with a set of recommendations on the following issues: >> · A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy implementation >> related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO procedures; >> · A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of ³Policy >> Guidance,² including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a >> process (for a process developing something other than ³Consensus Policy²) >> instead of the GNSO Policy Development Process; >> · A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO >> Policy recommendations; >> · Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a >> policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and >> · Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the >> PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate. >> >> >> As part of the effort, the WG wants to reach out at the beginning of our >> efforts to the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as we have >> already done to other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to >> gain input to assist us in our efforts. In this regard, we would ask for >> your organization to consider the following questions which are set out in >> the WG¹s Charter and provide us with your input on any of these issues by 31 >> January 2014. >> >> 1. What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2) >> directly provide with regard to policy development work and policy >> implementation efforts? (e.g., multi-stakeholder participation). >> 2. What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate >> indirectly to policy development and policy implementation? (e.g., effective >> and timely process). >> 3. ³Questions for Discussion² contained in the Policy versus >> Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff. (See, >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en. >> htm). >> 4. What lessons can be learned from past experience? >> a. What are the consequences of action being considered ³policy² vs. >> ³implementation²? >> b. Does it matter if something is ³policy² or ³implementation²? If so, >> why? >> c. Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council make >> recommendations or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and >> implementation as a representative of the GNSO as a whole? >> d. How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., >> I will call this ³policy² because I want certain consequences or ³handling >> instructions² to be attached to it?) >> e. Can we answer these questions so the definitions of ³policy² and >> ³implementation² matter less, if at all? >> 5. What options are available for policy (³Consensus Policy² or other) >> and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which >> should be used? >> a. Are ³policy² and ³implementation² on a spectrum rather than binary? >> b. What are the ³flavors² of policy and what consequences should attach >> to each ³flavor? >> c. What happens if you change those consequences? >> 6. Who determines the choice of whether something is ³policy² or >> ³implementation²? >> a. How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to >> different ³flavors²? >> b. How is the ³policy² versus ³implementation² issue reviewed and >> approved? >> c. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock? >> 7. What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review >> and approval work is done? >> a. How are ³policy and implementation² issues first identified (before, >> during and after implementation)? >> b. What is the role of the GNSO in implementation? >> c. In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once policy moves >> to implementation, how should the community be involved in a way that is >> meaningful and effective? >> d. Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process to >> facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that already occurred? >> >> Alternatively, if you would prefer to set up an exchange of views by >> teleconference, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well. >> >> Finally, we would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full >> community and we welcome any additional members from your organization that >> my wish to participate in this work. To review the current membership, please >> see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag. >> >> Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to reach >> out to either of us if you have any questions or if you require any >> additional information. >> >> Kind regards. >> >> Chuck Gomes (cgomes(a)verisign.com) >> J. Scott Evans (jscottevans(a)outlook.com) >> >> >> -- >> >> Olévié (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI >> Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org <http://www.isog.org> ) & du FOSSFA >> (www.fossfa.net <http://www.fossfa.net> ) >> >> DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org) >> PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/) >> SG de ESTETIC (http://www.estetic.tg) >> >> Po Box : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25 >> Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé Togo

1 0

CALL FOR VOLUNTEER cross community wg Internet Governance
by Bart Boswinkel Feb. 25, 2014

Feb. 25, 2014

Dear all, As was discussed on the Council call Patricio Poblete has stepped down as volunteer from the ccWG Internet Governance. To date Keith Davidson and Jordan Carter are ccNSO members on this group. To ensure all calls are attended by a ccNSO representative the ccNSO Council seeks an additional volunteer for the ccWG "Internet Governance". If the Ad-Hoc Study Group is established you'll be member of this group as well. If you interested, please send an email to the list or to me directly as soon as possible, Kind regards, Bart

4 3

Re: [ccnso-council] COUNCIL DECISION NEEDED 26 FEBRUARY 2014: End organization of Sponsored ccNSO Lunches
by Katrina Sataki Feb. 21, 2014

Feb. 21, 2014

Agree, Regards, ]{atrina -- € From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 21 February 2014 18:04 To: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] COUNCIL DECISION NEEDED 26 FEBRUARY 2014: End organization of Sponsored ccNSO Lunches Dear all, One of the agenda items on the agenda of the council call 20 February was the ceasing the sponsored ccNSO lunches at ICANN meetings (agenda item 4) . As the Council was not quorate, you are kindly requested to vote per email. ccNSO Sponsored Lunches Background Since the beginning of the ccNSO, the ccTLD Community has been invited to sponsored lunches during the two ccNSO meeting days. When possible, the Tech Day participants have also received sponsored boxed lunches. Arranging these lunches has been an extra service in order to create a good and uniting atmosphere among the community. However, providing the sponsored lunches have become challenging, due to: * Increased membership and attendance of ccNSO meetings.The number of attendees has increased, lately surpassing the number of available seats/ free lunch tickets * Increased pricing; * Difficulty in finding adequate sponsoring * Disproportionate burden on the secretariat See also the preparatory note from the secretariat Proposed Resolution The ccNSO Council decides to cease the organization of the ccNSO sponsored lunches as of the ccNSO meeting in London (22-26 June 2014), and to inform the ccNSO membership and broader ccTLD community accordingly during the ccNSO meeting in Singapore ( 25-26 March 2014). Please email to the list before 26 February, in particular if you do not support the resolution or abstain from voting. Thank you and kind regards, Bart

1 0

Re: [ccnso-council] COUNCIL DECISION NEEDED 26 FEBRUARY 2014: Formation Ad-Hoc Group Internet Governance
by Katrina Sataki Feb. 21, 2014

Feb. 21, 2014

Agree Kind regards, ]{atrina -- € From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 21 February 2014 17:49 To: "ccnso-council(a)icann.org" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] COUNCIL DECISION NEEDED 26 FEBRUARY 2014: Formation Ad-Hoc Group Internet Governance Dear all, One of the agenda items on the agenda of the council call 20 February was the formation of the Ad Hoc Study Group Internet Governance (agenda item 3.4) . As the cCouncil was not quorate, you ar enow kindly requested to vote per email. Background At its meeting in Buenos Aires (20 November 2013), the ccNSO Council discussed the need to keep track of the developments in the various Internet Governance tracks such as the IStar group, 1Net, the Brazil conference on Internet Governance and ICANN’s Strategy Panels. Volunteers related to ccTLDs and ccTLD regional Organizations offered to keep track of the developments, and inform the ccNSO on a regular basis. In order to structure the efforts of these volunteers and keep the ccNSO membership and the broader ccTLD community abreast of the developments it is suggested to create an Ad-Hoc Group on “Internet Governance”, which will initially include the volunteers already active. The volunteers have been informed and no disagreement been noted. A draft Statement of Purpose for the group has been circulated on the ccNSO Council email list. Proposed Resolution The ccNSO Council: 1. Adopts the proposed statement on purpose and scope of activities “Internet Governance” study group. 2. Appoints its chair Byron Holland ( .ca) as the chair of the group, and request the chair to ask the volunteers, who already keep track of the developments to participate as volunteer of this group. 3. Requests the secretariat to set-up a webpage on the ccNSO web-site with purpose to disseminate relevant information to the ccNSO membership and ccTLD community at-large Please email to the list before 26 February, in particular if you do not support the resolution or abstain from voting. Thank you and kind regards, Bart

1 0

Re: [ccnso-council] COUNCIL DECISION NEEDED 26 FEBRUARY 2014: End organization of Sponsored ccNSO Lunches
by Lesley Cowley Feb. 21, 2014

Feb. 21, 2014

I agree. Lesley Cowley, OBE CEO Nominet Minerva House Edmund Halley Road Oxford Science Park Oxford, OX4 4DQ UK Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 http://www.nominet.org.uk/ Twitter: @lesleycowley From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 21 February 2014 16:04 To: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] COUNCIL DECISION NEEDED 26 FEBRUARY 2014: End organization of Sponsored ccNSO Lunches Dear all, One of the agenda items on the agenda of the council call 20 February was the ceasing the sponsored ccNSO lunches at ICANN meetings (agenda item 4) . As the Council was not quorate, you are kindly requested to vote per email. ccNSO Sponsored Lunches Background Since the beginning of the ccNSO, the ccTLD Community has been invited to sponsored lunches during the two ccNSO meeting days. When possible, the Tech Day participants have also received sponsored boxed lunches. Arranging these lunches has been an extra service in order to create a good and uniting atmosphere among the community. However, providing the sponsored lunches have become challenging, due to: * Increased membership and attendance of ccNSO meetings.The number of attendees has increased, lately surpassing the number of available seats/ free lunch tickets * Increased pricing; * Difficulty in finding adequate sponsoring * Disproportionate burden on the secretariat See also the preparatory note from the secretariat Proposed Resolution The ccNSO Council decides to cease the organization of the ccNSO sponsored lunches as of the ccNSO meeting in London (22-26 June 2014), and to inform the ccNSO membership and broader ccTLD community accordingly during the ccNSO meeting in Singapore ( 25-26 March 2014). Please email to the list before 26 February, in particular if you do not support the resolution or abstain from voting. Thank you and kind regards, Bart

1 0

Re: [ccnso-council] COUNCIL DECISION NEEDED 26 FEBRUARY 2014: End organization of Sponsored ccNSO Lunches
by Burr, Becky Feb. 21, 2014

Feb. 21, 2014

agree J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Date: Friday, February 21, 2014 at 11:04 AM To: "'ccnso-council@icann. org'" <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] COUNCIL DECISION NEEDED 26 FEBRUARY 2014: End organization of Sponsored ccNSO Lunches Dear all, One of the agenda items on the agenda of the council call 20 February was the ceasing the sponsored ccNSO lunches at ICANN meetings (agenda item 4) . As the Council was not quorate, you are kindly requested to vote per email. ccNSO Sponsored Lunches Background Since the beginning of the ccNSO, the ccTLD Community has been invited to sponsored lunches during the two ccNSO meeting days. When possible, the Tech Day participants have also received sponsored boxed lunches. Arranging these lunches has been an extra service in order to create a good and uniting atmosphere among the community. However, providing the sponsored lunches have become challenging, due to: * Increased membership and attendance of ccNSO meetings.The number of attendees has increased, lately surpassing the number of available seats/ free lunch tickets * Increased pricing; * Difficulty in finding adequate sponsoring * Disproportionate burden on the secretariat See also the preparatory note from the secretariat Proposed Resolution The ccNSO Council decides to cease the organization of the ccNSO sponsored lunches as of the ccNSO meeting in London (22-26 June 2014), and to inform the ccNSO membership and broader ccTLD community accordingly during the ccNSO meeting in Singapore ( 25-26 March 2014). Please email to the list before 26 February, in particular if you do not support the resolution or abstain from voting. Thank you and kind regards, Bart

1 0

Re: [ccnso-council] COUNCIL DECISION NEEDED 26 FEBRUARY 2014: Formation Ad-Hoc Group Internet Governance
by Lesley Cowley Feb. 21, 2014

Feb. 21, 2014

I support this resolution. Regards, Lesley Lesley Cowley, OBE CEO Nominet Minerva House Edmund Halley Road Oxford Science Park Oxford, OX4 4DQ UK Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 http://www.nominet.org.uk/ Twitter: @lesleycowley From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 21 February 2014 15:49 To: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] COUNCIL DECISION NEEDED 26 FEBRUARY 2014: Formation Ad-Hoc Group Internet Governance Dear all, One of the agenda items on the agenda of the council call 20 February was the formation of the Ad Hoc Study Group Internet Governance (agenda item 3.4) . As the cCouncil was not quorate, you ar enow kindly requested to vote per email. Background At its meeting in Buenos Aires (20 November 2013), the ccNSO Council discussed the need to keep track of the developments in the various Internet Governance tracks such as the IStar group, 1Net, the Brazil conference on Internet Governance and ICANN’s Strategy Panels. Volunteers related to ccTLDs and ccTLD regional Organizations offered to keep track of the developments, and inform the ccNSO on a regular basis. In order to structure the efforts of these volunteers and keep the ccNSO membership and the broader ccTLD community abreast of the developments it is suggested to create an Ad-Hoc Group on “Internet Governance”, which will initially include the volunteers already active. The volunteers have been informed and no disagreement been noted. A draft Statement of Purpose for the group has been circulated on the ccNSO Council email list. Proposed Resolution The ccNSO Council: 1. Adopts the proposed statement on purpose and scope of activities “Internet Governance” study group. 2. Appoints its chair Byron Holland ( .ca) as the chair of the group, and request the chair to ask the volunteers, who already keep track of the developments to participate as volunteer of this group. 3. Requests the secretariat to set-up a webpage on the ccNSO web-site with purpose to disseminate relevant information to the ccNSO membership and ccTLD community at-large Please email to the list before 26 February, in particular if you do not support the resolution or abstain from voting. Thank you and kind regards, Bart

1 0

Council recording 20 February
by Kristina Nordstrom Feb. 20, 2014

Feb. 20, 2014

Dear all, Please find below the recording from the Council call today 20 February 2014: http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-council-20140220-en.mp3 Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

9-2014: GNSO Policy & Implementation WG: Request for input
by Gabriella Schittek Feb. 20, 2014

Feb. 20, 2014

Dear Councillors, Below is a request from the GNSO Policy & Implementation WG, which was sent to us on 20 September 2013 It slipped through the Triage review, as it was not publicly announced. Although the end date is set as 31 January 2014, the WG still accepts input. The goal of the WG is to provide some guidance on GNSO Policy Development Process issues to the GNSO Council. However, they are posing some general questions to the other SO's on policy matters. The questions are perhaps not that interesting for the average cc, but could be of interest for those cc's who have applied for a new gTLD. Therefore, the Triage Committee is suggesting that these questions should be posted to the community for individual input. In case you do not agree with this recommendation, please let us know by Monday, 24 February. Thanks, Gabi === Topic: GNSO Policy & Implementation WG Request for input Originator: GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group. Summary of request: Request for input on general set of questions on Policy and implementation matters. Date received: 20 September 2013 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 31 January 2014 (extended) Recommended action, if any: Post to Community for individual input Expertise needed, if any: Various Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Low >> >> >> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >> Date: Friday 20 September 2013 14:45 >> To: "byron.holland(a)cira.ca" <byron.holland(a)cira.ca> >> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs(a)icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs(a)icann.org>, >> Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Gabriella Schittek >> <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> >> >> >> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] Request for input from Policy & >> Implementation WG >> >> >> >> To Supporting Organisation and Advisory Committee Chairs: >> >> >> Dear SG/Constituency Chair: >> >> We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working >> Group. This Working Group (WG) has been tasked with providing the GNSO >> Council with a set of recommendations on the following issues: >> · A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy implementation >> related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO procedures; >> · A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of ³Policy >> Guidance,² including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a >> process (for a process developing something other than ³Consensus Policy²) >> instead of the GNSO Policy Development Process; >> · A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO >> Policy recommendations; >> · Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a >> policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and >> · Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the >> PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate. >> >> >> As part of the effort, the WG wants to reach out at the beginning of our >> efforts to the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as we have >> already done to other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to >> gain input to assist us in our efforts. In this regard, we would ask for >> your organization to consider the following questions which are set out in >> the WG¹s Charter and provide us with your input on any of these issues by 31 >> January 2014. >> >> 1. What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2) >> directly provide with regard to policy development work and policy >> implementation efforts? (e.g., multi-stakeholder participation). >> 2. What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate >> indirectly to policy development and policy implementation? (e.g., effective >> and timely process). >> 3. ³Questions for Discussion² contained in the Policy versus >> Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff. (See, >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en. >> htm). >> 4. What lessons can be learned from past experience? >> a. What are the consequences of action being considered ³policy² vs. >> ³implementation²? >> b. Does it matter if something is ³policy² or ³implementation²? If so, >> why? >> c. Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council make >> recommendations or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and >> implementation as a representative of the GNSO as a whole? >> d. How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., >> I will call this ³policy² because I want certain consequences or ³handling >> instructions² to be attached to it?) >> e. Can we answer these questions so the definitions of ³policy² and >> ³implementation² matter less, if at all? >> 5. What options are available for policy (³Consensus Policy² or other) >> and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which >> should be used? >> a. Are ³policy² and ³implementation² on a spectrum rather than binary? >> b. What are the ³flavors² of policy and what consequences should attach >> to each ³flavor? >> c. What happens if you change those consequences? >> 6. Who determines the choice of whether something is ³policy² or >> ³implementation²? >> a. How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to >> different ³flavors²? >> b. How is the ³policy² versus ³implementation² issue reviewed and >> approved? >> c. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock? >> 7. What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review >> and approval work is done? >> a. How are ³policy and implementation² issues first identified (before, >> during and after implementation)? >> b. What is the role of the GNSO in implementation? >> c. In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once policy moves >> to implementation, how should the community be involved in a way that is >> meaningful and effective? >> d. Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process to >> facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that already occurred? >> >> Alternatively, if you would prefer to set up an exchange of views by >> teleconference, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well. >> >> Finally, we would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full >> community and we welcome any additional members from your organization that >> my wish to participate in this work. To review the current membership, please >> see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag. >> >> Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to reach >> out to either of us if you have any questions or if you require any >> additional information. >> >> Kind regards. >> >> Chuck Gomes (cgomes(a)verisign.com) >> J. Scott Evans (jscottevans(a)outlook.com) >> >> >> -- >> >> Olévié (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI >> Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org <http://www.isog.org> ) & du FOSSFA >> (www.fossfa.net <http://www.fossfa.net> ) >> >> DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org) >> PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/) >> SG de ESTETIC (http://www.estetic.tg) >> >> Po Box : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25 >> Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé Togo

1 0

Briefing on Name Collision for New TLDs
by Kristina Nordstrom Feb. 20, 2014

Feb. 20, 2014

Dear all, Please find below a link to a briefing by ICANN on the risk of name collision for new TLDs. This topic will be on the ccNSO meeting agenda for Singapore. Briefing on Name Collision Risk for New TLDs<http://ccnso.icann.org/node/43891> Kind regards, Kristina

1 0