- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

Confirmation of Council Meetings in Beijing / Remote Participation
by Kristina Nordstrom March 19, 2013

March 19, 2013

Dear all, Please find below a confirmation of the Council meetings in Beijing. The Workshop, the joint ccNSO/GNSO Council meeting and the regular ccNSO Council meeting will all have phone bridges for remote participation. Please let me know as soon as possible if you wish to attend any of these meetings remotely. Sunday 7 April 10:00-14:00 CST (02:00-06:00 UTC) ccNSO Council Workshop; Function 2AB – Phone bridge available Monday 8 April 11:00-12:00 CST (03:00-04:00 UTC) Council Preparatory Meeting; Function 9 Monday 8 April 12:30-14:00 CST (04:30-06:00 UTC) Joint ccNSO/GNSO Council Meeting; Function 8AB – Phone bridge available Wednesday 10 April 16:00-17:00 CST (08:00-09:00 UTC) ccNSO Council Meeting; Function 2AB – Phone bridge available Since it happens on occasion that the rooms change I would advise to double check the schedule right before each meeting. All ccNSO related meetings for Beijing will be listed at http://ccnso.icann.org/calendar Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

FW: Clearing Up the Logjam: [Blog Piece on Unilateral Right to Amend]
by Gabriella Schittek March 17, 2013

March 17, 2013

Forwarded on behalf of Ron Sherwood. --------------------- To: ccNSO Councillors posted by Ron Sherwood ccNSO / ALAC Liaison ------------------------- Courtesy of ALAC ------------------------- >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>> > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> > Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:31:57 -0400 > Subject: [council] FW: Blog Piece on Unilateral Right to Amend Given the conversation we had during the GNSO Council call, I thought you may find this blog post we drafted on the Unilateral Right to Amend: <http://blog.neustar.biz/neustar-insights/clearing-up-the-logjam-time-for-ic…>http://blog.neustar.biz/neustar-insights/clearing-up-the-logjam-time-for-ic… Full version printed below: Clearing Up the Logjam: Time for ICANN to Drop Request for a Unilateral Right to Amend the Agreements By: Jeff Neuman A very rare thing happened in the GNSO Council meeting this weekthe ICANN community spoke with one voice. Registries, registrars, non-commercial interests, new TLD applicants, IP owners and businesses unanimously and unambiguously agreed that giving ICANN a "unilateral right to amend" the registry and registrar agreements is not compatible with ICANN’s bottom-up processes and poses a fundamental threat to the multi-stakeholder model. There is true consensus that this change should be rejected. On February 5, 2013, ICANN surprised the community by re-introducing its demand for a unilateral right to amend the gTLD Registry Agreement. ICANN made the same change in the Registrar Accreditation Agreements. (This was posted for public comment on March 7, 2013. See: <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm) This move came without consultation, nearly five years after the new gTLD Program moved into the implementation phase, and three years after the community and ICANN, through a bottom-up process, rejected this approach and reached a compromise on similar language. During the GNSO Council's monthly teleconference on March 14, 2013, while discussing the recent changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, Council members raised the topic of ICANN's proposed unilateral right to amend the registry and registrar agreements. ICANN staff present on the call explained its position, saying, "the amendment clause is actually intended to be last resort for when there is agreement that something needs to be done, but there is a logjam within the processes that we have that don’t allow us to move forward." Essentially, ICANN is asking, "what happens when everyone agrees that a particular change is needed, but the multi-stakeholder processes – or someone manipulating those processes - prevents the community from moving forward with what the community wants." Taken in isolation and without any other context, this is a perfectly reasonable question. If there truly were no mechanisms in the registry or registrar agreements to make necessary changes when the community demands action, then ICANN staff's concerns would be justified. It would be a good question to ask if someone could use ICANN processes to block a change that everyone else supported. The fact is, however, that there already are a number of mechanisms ICANN can take to implement community supported changes. First, of course, contracted-parties can agree to make a change they support. Second, there is a bottom-up Consensus Policy mechanism for critical changes that ensures that any implementation is appropriately balanced across multiple constituencies and stakeholder groups. Truly important and time-sensitive issues can be addressed via Temporary Policies that remain in place for up to a year and, during that year, can be adopted as Consensus Policies. Finally, the new gTLD agreement contains a new mechanism that gives ICANN authority to make amendments supported by a specific percentage of the registry operators effective across the entire registry group. This is the compromise that was developed through a bottom-up process in 2009-2010 when the community rejected the unilateral change provision. ICANN agreed in 2010 that these three mechanisms gave it the necessary tools to amend the registry contract to implement changes demanded by the community. Apparently, it has had a change of heart and now wants the authority to unilaterally impose changes to the agreements. To date, ICANN’s explanation is that the introduction of new gTLDs will change things in ways that cannot be anticipated. ICANN has not responded to community requests for a concrete example of when this right would actually be needed. Of course, the ICANN world is not unique – the future is inherently unknown, but parties enter into long-term contracts with high stakes all the time without introducing the kind of uncertainty that a unilateral amendment right would create. To borrow from the gTLD Registries comment made on February 26, 2013: "we are in the midst of dramatic change in the administration of the top-level domain name system. All businesses – whether for profit or nonprofit - require a measure of predictability, stability and certainty of contracts. Public and multi-national company applicants are subject to regulatory regimes that cannot be reconciled with the expanded unilateral authority ICANN is seeking. In deciding whether or not to utilize new gTLDs for their critical infrastructure assets, a key goal of the new gTLD program, registries cannot be subject to the whim of one private entity, even those acting under the guise of public interest, regardless of how well-intentioned that private entity purports to be." ICANN's proposal for this new mechanism, however, has been met with opposition not only from the new gTLD Applicants and existing registries, but also the registrars, non-commercial interests, businesses and IP owners. In fact, every single comment on ICANN’s last minute changes to the new gTLD registry agreement called for its removal. EVERYONE is in agreement that this is a bad idea and should be withdrawn. The fact that the entire community has never been so aligned about a particular subject speaks volumes, but despite this clarity ICANN continues to insist on a unilateral right to amend the registry and registrar agreements. Ironically, in this case ICANN itself is creating a logjam that is preventing forward movement. By walking away from the version of the legal agreement contained in the final Applicant Guidebook, ICANN is preventing the new gTLD Program from going forward. This same issue is also the logjam preventing the roll out of a new registrar accreditation agreement containing enormous changes that would benefit registrants, law enforcement, intellectual property owners and Internet users in general. So in response to ICANN’s question about clearing logjams, we think they are asking the wrong question. ICANN should stop worrying about the theoretical logjams of the future. It’s time to take this request for extraordinary, unilateral power off the table in order to clear away today’s very real logjam. Once this request is withdrawn, the new gTLD program can move forward and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement can be finalized.

1 0

Applicants ICANN Board Meeting Strategy WG
by Gabriella Schittek March 15, 2013

March 15, 2013

Dear Councillors, To agenda point 8) Endorsement Candidates ICANN Board Meeting Strategy Working Group Following applicants have applied and need ccNSO endorsement: Keith Davidson Han Chuan Lee Kind regards, Gabi

3 2

Unsubscribing Programme WG member
by Gabriella Schittek March 15, 2013

March 15, 2013

Dear Programme WG members, As Luis Diego Espinoza has left .cr and membership of the Programme Working Group only is open for Membership for ccTLD members (and Regional Organisation representatives), we have now unsubscribed Luis from the Programme WG email list. The Council is copied for their information. Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

Reminder: Call for ccNSO Travel Funding Applications Durban
by Gabriella Schittek March 15, 2013

March 15, 2013

Dear all, This is just a reminder that the ccNSO Travel Fund Committee currently is accepting applications for travel funding to the ICANN meeting in Durban. See below for more details. Please, note that the key criteria to receive funding is to contribute to the work of the ccNSO. Applications which do not specify any contributions do not qualify for funding. Kind regards, Gabi On 3/1/13 10:34 AM, "Gabriella Schittek" <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> wrote: >Dear all, > >The ccNSO travel funding committee is now accepting applications to the >ICANN meeting in Durban, South Africa 14 18 July 2013. > >Funding is made available for those who actively participate in the work >of the ccNSO and make a special contribution to its projects and >meetings. However, you do not need to be a ccNSO member to receive >funding! > >The funding covers an economy class ticket to the travel destination, the >hotel costs for the time of the meeting and a per diem. > >A document with background information and explanations on how the >funding shall be distributed is available at: >http://ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf<http://www.ccns >o.icann.org/about/travel-funding-12feb13-en.pdf> please, note that the >Travel Funding Guidelines have been updated! > >If you think you are eligible to receive funding for the Durban meeting, >please fill in and submit the travel funding application form >http://www.ccnso.icann.org/about/travel-funding by 12.00 noon UTC on 22 >March 2013, at the latest. > >Kind regards, > >Gabi >_______________________________________________ >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

Webinar on New gTLDs
by Gabriella Schittek March 13, 2013

March 13, 2013

Dear all, For those of you interested in New gTLDs, ICANN is providing an Update webinar on 26 March 2013: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12mar13-en.htm Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

Council recording 12 March
by Kristina Nordstrom March 12, 2013

March 12, 2013

Dear all, Please find below the recording from the Council call today: http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-council-20130312-en.mp3 Best, Kristina

1 0

Capacity Building Report for Review by 22 March!
by Gabriella Schittek March 12, 2013

March 12, 2013

Dear Councillors, Attached is the Draft Final Report from the Capacity Building Study Group. It will be presented to the Council during the Beijing meeting where you will be asked to approve it. We would therefore be grateful if you could read through the report and let us know if you have any issues or comments by Friday, 22 March 2013, so that we have some time to meet your concerns and possibly adjust the report prior to the Beijing meeting. The report will also be presented during the Council Workshop on Sunday, 7 April. Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

FW: Liaison Report
by Gabriella Schittek March 12, 2013

March 12, 2013

Forwarded on behalf of Han Chuan Lee From: Han Chuan Lee <hanchuan(a)sgnic.sg<mailto:hanchuan@sgnic.sg>> Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:33 AM To: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org<mailto:gabriella.schittek@icann.org>>, Kristina Nordstrom <kristina.nordstrom(a)icann.org<mailto:kristina.nordstrom@icann.org>> Subject: Liaison Report Hi Gabriella, 1. Please find the "Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Meeting" report. The EWG task is "to lay the groundwork for a next-generation gTLD directory service to replace today’s WHOIS system." . 2. The The report on the Registrant Identification Study can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-regid-15feb13-en.htm 3. In résponse to ICANN CEO Fadi's email (4 Dec 2012) on the Trademark Clearinghouse on two issues (i) Strawman Proposal and (ii) the IPC/BC proposal for limited defensive registrations, the GNSO Council has sent a letter to Fadi which is attached in this email. Regards Han Chuan, Lee

1 0

Nomination results LAC Region
by Gabriella Schittek March 11, 2013

March 11, 2013

Dear all, The nomination period for the extraordinary nominations to the ccNSO Council in the Latin American and Caribbean region is now closed. Demi Getschko, .br was duly nominated and seconded to take place on the ccNSO Council (see archives at http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-extranominations/) He has accepted his nomination. As Demi is the only nominee, no elections need to be held. Demi will take up his seat straight after the Council meeting in Beijing. Congratulations, Demi! Kind regards, Gabi

1 0