- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

WCIT overview document
by Byron Holland Nov. 6, 2012

Nov. 6, 2012

Dear ccNSO Members, Attached is a WCIT overview document, from the perspective of a ccTLD manager. In a relatively short form it attempts to identify the issues most relevant to the cc community. This document is strictly for your interest and is not a product of the ccNSO per se. I hope you find it useful. Best regards, Byron

1 0

New member of the ccNSO SOP Working Group
by Roelof Meijer Nov. 6, 2012

Nov. 6, 2012

Dear fellow councilors, I received the request from Rosalia Morales, new Executive Director for .CR ( Costa Rica), to participate actively in the community and become a member of the SOP WG. Given her background ( both as Executive Director and her education in Economics and Business Administration) I would warmly welcome her. Could you please let me know before coming Friday if you have any objections to her membership of the SOP? Best regards, Roelof A. Meijer CEO SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | The Netherlands | T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 39 57 75 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer(a)sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl Sent through my mobile device

1 0

ICANN Press release on participation in IGF Azerbaijam
by Gabriella Schittek Nov. 2, 2012

Nov. 2, 2012

Dear all, ICANN has published a press release on their participation in the IGF meeting 6 - 9 November 2012 in Azerbaijan: http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/releases/release-01nov12-en.pdf Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

Council Minutes Toronto
by Kristina Nordstrom Nov. 1, 2012

Nov. 1, 2012

Dear all, Please find attached the Council Minutes from Toronto and let me know before 7 November if you would like to make any amendments. Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

ccNSO Activity Summary October 2012
by Gabriella Schittek Nov. 1, 2012

Nov. 1, 2012

ccNSO Activity Summary October 2012 Working Groups All Mp3 recordings of the various Working Group Telephone Conferences during October 2012 are available at: http://ccnso.icann.org/calendar Notes, minutes and transcripts from Working Group Meetings throughout October 2012 may be missing in this summary, due to the timing of their delivery. Please, visit http://www.ccnso.icann.org/calendar regularly for a comprehensive summary. Transcript Contact Repository Implementation Working Group Meeting 18 October 2012: http://toronto45.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/transcript-cri-18oct12-en.p… Transcript IDN PDP Working Group 1 Meeting 18 October 2012: http://toronto45.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/transcript-idn-pdp-1-18oct1… Transcript Framework of Interpretation Working Group Meeting 18 October 2012: http://toronto45.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/transcript-foi-18oct12-en.p… Study Group on Names for Countries and Territories Meeting 15 October 2012: http://toronto45.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/transcript-unct-15oct12-en.… Transcript SOP Working Group Meeting 14 October 2012: http://toronto45.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/transcript-sop-14oct12-en.p… Transcript Finance Working Group Meeting 14 October 2012: http://toronto45.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/transcript-finance-14oct12-… Transcript Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group Telephone Conference 4 October 2012: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-dssa-04oct12-en.pdf Transcript Framework of Interpretation Working Group Telephone Conference 4 October 2012: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/transcript-foi-04oct12-en.pdf Framework of Interpretation Working Group Progress Report, 2 October 2012: http://ccnso.icann.org/node/34549 ICANN Meeting Toronto ccNSO Meeting Highlights Toronto: http://ccnso.icann.org/node/35107 ccNSO Members Meeting Presentations: http://ccnso.icann.org/meetings/toronto/presentations.htm Tech Day Presentations: http://www.ccnso.icann.org/meetings/toronto/workshop.htm Transcripts: http://www.ccnso.icann.org/meetings/toronto/transcripts.htm ccNSO Members Meeting Evaluation 16-17 October 2012: http://ccnso.icann.org/node/35119 Youtube Contributions ccNSO @ ICANN Toronto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDuy-j0AGKs&list=UUGM1tyObFr-soYQZmR9oeJQ&in… ccNSO Council Elections to the ccNSO Council Launched: http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-28oct12-en.htm ccNSO Council Nomination Period Results: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-nominations/ New ccNSO Members .GR (Greece) Joins as ccNSO Member 134: http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17oct12-en.htm Call for Volunteers GNSO: Protection of Certain International Organisation names in all GTLDs: http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29oct12-en.htm GNSO Thick WHOIS PDP Working Group: http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23oct12-en.htm (OPEN until 5 December 2012) Volunteer Review Team Member on the Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2): http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05oct12-en.htm (CLOSED) Volunteers to Cross-Community Principles Development Working Group: http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-11oct12-en.htm Various Announcements ICANN Press Release on Increased Presence and Participation Initiative in Africa: http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/releases/release-16oct12-en.pdf Update from ICANN’s Policy Department: http://ccnso.icann.org/node/34707 ICANN FY12 Audited Financial Statements: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-08oct12-en.htm Yrjö Länsipuro appointed 2012 NomCom Chair; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Chair-Elect: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-08oct12-en.htm ICANN Consolidated Meeting Strategy Proposal: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02oct12-en.htm Open ccNSO Related Public Comment Periods (OPEN until 22 November 2012) IDN Variant TLD Program – Interim Report Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/interim-variant-ux-23oct12-en.h… (OPEN until 20 November 2012) RFI on potential Uniform Rapid Suspension Service Providers: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-8-24sep12-en.htm (OPEN until 16 November 2012) Expert Recommended Improvements to ICANN's Accountability Structures: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/asep-recommendations-26oct12-en… (OPEN until 16 November 2012) Consolidated ICANN Meetings Strategy Proposal: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-proposal-2012-02oct12-… (OPEN until 14 November 2012) Improving Community Input outside Public Comment Process: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/input-advice-function-24sep12-e… (OPEN until 13 November 2012) ICANN 2013 - 2016 Draft Strategic Plan: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-9-24sep12-en.htm (OPEN until 7 November 2012) Trademark Clearinghouse Procedures: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-7-24sep12-en.htm

1 0

CcNSO Council Statement on ICANN;'s Consolidated meeting Strategy Proposal
by Bart Boswinkel Nov. 1, 2012

Nov. 1, 2012

Dear all, As discussed on the Council meeting in Toronto, ICANN has opened a public comment on its consolidated Meetings Strategy Proposal see: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-proposal-2012-02oct12-e n.htm The comment period closes at 16 November and the Reply period at 7 December2012. As decided on the Council meeting, the ccNSO Council will submit a ccNSO Council statement. We are now looking for volunteers on the Council who are willing to participate in the drafting team, in particular one or two members who has experience in the past with organizing an ICANN meeting would be welcome. Please indicate by Thursday 1 November if you want to participate, Kind regards, Bart

3 4

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Gr
by Vika Mpisane Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

+1 Regards, Vika Mpisane | Tel: +27 11 314 0077 On 2012/10/31 1:16 PM, "Annebeth Lange" <annebeth.lange(a)uninett.no> wrote: > >I agree. > >I actually think that one of the reasons why it took so long time to >finish the Applicant Guidebook in the new gTLD process was that ccNSO - >or the GAC for that matter - were not invited in from the beginning. >Here we have an opportunity to make heard our view on important issues. >That does not, in my view, mean that it will become binding on the >ccTLDs. But it is healthy that all views are heard at an early stage in >all WGs - whether they are a ccNSO WG or a gNSO WG. > >There might, of course, as Sabine writes, be that people outside our >multistakeholder environment will misunderstand. But this is another >issue, that should be handled aside from participation. > >Kind regards, >Annebeth > > >Annebeth B. Lange >Head of Legal and Policy >UNINETT Norid AS >P.O. Box 6878 St. Olavs plass >NO-0130 Oslo >+47 959 11 559 > > > >On 31.10.2012 11:19, Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote: >> >> I do not agree with the original request from .de and I do not think >>the follow-up >> argument is any good either. >> >> I think the cross constituency participation request from the gNSO is >>very welcome and >> the ccNSO should participate as it sees fit. Just as .de indicates, >>each ccTLD, like .de, >> can join to voice their views at this phase of the process or in any >>later call for >> comments. But it seems weird to bar the ccNSO from participating in the >>process. >> >> As has been mentioned elsewhere, whatever input the ccNSO will give in >>this process does >> not necessarily become binding on the ccTLDs or the (resulting) gTLDs. >> >> I think it is healthy that the gNSO has called for this ccNSO possible >>input, cross >> constituency participation is healthy for ICANN. >> >> Regards, >> >> Paulos >> ====================== >> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda >> NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD >> http://www.registrar.mw >> >> >> On 31 Oct 2012 at 10:10, Sabine Dolderer wrote: >> >>> Hello Eberhard, >>> >>>> Sabine, >>>> >>>> I totally disagree. >>>> >>>> There has been cross constituency participation all along >>>> and none of the gNSO work is binding on ccNSO or ccTLDs in >>>> any way. >>>> >>> as there are existing examples which proofs different and existing >>>irritation at least in >>> the German environment I would argue for much more clarity to avoid >>>further confusion. >>> >>> To point to the existing examples. >>> >>> The ICANN IDN-Guidelines are dealing with registration policy on the >>>second level and >>> are >>> foreseen to become binding for registrations in IDN-ccTLDs (outside >>>the scope of the >>> CCNSO but also without any PDP in the CCNSO) and while they are not >>>binding (and not btw >>> implemented) in ASCII-TLDs like .de with currently 650.000 >>>IDN-registrations on the >>> second level. >>> >>> Change of whois-policy in gTLDs. We saw several publications in the >>>German press about >>> the new whois policy for gTLDs where there at for most journalist it >>>was not clear that >>> they doesn't affect .de and therefore the publications mentioned >>>explicitely the >>> chaneges >>> for .de. >>> >>> Sabine >>> >>>> However perspective often helps. >>>> >>>> And, nothing could be further from the desirable than >>>> shutting down discussion about something like this on any >>>> list. >>>> >>>> Gabi, >>>> >>>> as I can't post the Council list, please post it there. >>>> >>>> >>>> el >>>> >>>> On 2012-10-30 18:47 , Sabine Dolderer wrote: >>>>> Hello Gabi, >>>>> >>>>> we received a couple of invitations to gTLD related policy >>>>> developements during the last couple of weeks "to the >>>>> ccTLD Community to join a policy wg of the gNSO" and I am >>>>> not sure what the intended status is or the result can be. >>>>> From my understanding the ccNSO has no role whatsoever >>>>> with regard to gTLD policy developement nor it has a >>>>> mandate to represent the ccTLD Community as a whole. In >>>>> the consequence - even if we find volunteers - the ccTLD >>>>> Community cannot join. I would suggest to clarify this to >>>>> our collegues from the gNSO. >>>>> >>>>> Nevertheless each individual ccTLD Manager can of course >>>>> choose to participate in gTLD policywork on behalf of >>>>> their individual organisation but to avoid further >>>>> misunderstandings I would advice not to use this list for >>>>> that discussions. >>>>> >>>>> Best Sabine >>>>> >> > >

1 0

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Gr
by Dr Paulos Nyirenda Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

On 31 Oct 2012 at 12:08, Sabine Dolderer wrote: > Hello Paulos, > > > Von: "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos(a)sdnp.org.mw> > > > As has been mentioned elsewhere, whatever input the ccNSO > > the question then would be how the "input of the ccNSO" will be defined by whom? Is > there a process? Where can I find it? I am not a lawyer but I can point to Article IX of the ICANN bylaws as one such possible place, which says "The role of the ccNSO Council is to administer and coordinate the affairs of the ccNSO ... " and members of the ccNSO elect members to the council to do such things. So, my expectation is that whoever the ccNSO chooses to act as invited by the gNSO will have the mandate provided by the ccNSO council based on this bylaw. > > I think it is healthy that the gNSO has called for this ccNSO possible input, cross > > constituency participation is healthy for ICANN. > > The input from different stakeholders might be healthy. To claim that these stakeholders > always represent the group they are member of is not the case and should therefore > avoided. Well, great then, my understanding is that the ccNSO here is being considered as one such (important) stakeholder. Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw > > Sabine > > > > > Regards, > > > > Paulos > > ====================== > > Dr Paulos B Nyirenda > > NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD > > http://www.registrar.mw > > > > > > On 31 Oct 2012 at 10:10, Sabine Dolderer wrote: > > > > > Hello Eberhard, > > > > > > > > > > > Sabine, > > > > > > > > I totally disagree. > > > > > > > > There has been cross constituency participation all along > > > > and none of the gNSO work is binding on ccNSO or ccTLDs in > > > > any way. > > > > > > > > > > as there are existing examples which proofs different and existing irritation at > least in > > > the German environment I would argue for much more clarity to avoid further > confusion. > > > > > > To point to the existing examples. > > > > > > The ICANN IDN-Guidelines are dealing with registration policy on the second level > and > > > are > > > foreseen to become binding for registrations in IDN-ccTLDs (outside the scope of the > > > CCNSO but also without any PDP in the CCNSO) and while they are not binding (and not > btw > > > implemented) in ASCII-TLDs like .de with currently 650.000 IDN-registrations on the > > > second level. > > > > > > Change of whois-policy in gTLDs. We saw several publications in the German press > about > > > the new whois policy for gTLDs where there at for most journalist it was not clear > that > > > they doesn't affect .de and therefore the publications mentioned explicitely the > > > chaneges > > > for .de. > > > > > > Sabine > > > > > > > However perspective often helps. > > > > > > > > And, nothing could be further from the desirable than > > > > shutting down discussion about something like this on any > > > > list. > > > > > > > > Gabi, > > > > > > > > as I can't post the Council list, please post it there. > > > > > > > > > > > > el > > > > > > > > On 2012-10-30 18:47 , Sabine Dolderer wrote: > > > > > Hello Gabi, > > > > > > > > > > we received a couple of invitations to gTLD related policy > > > > > developements during the last couple of weeks "to the > > > > > ccTLD Community to join a policy wg of the gNSO"and I am > > > > > not sure what the intended status is or the result can be. > > > > > From my understanding the ccNSO has no role whatsoever > > > > > with regard to gTLD policy developement nor it has a > > > > > mandate to represent the ccTLD Community as a whole. In > > > > > the consequence - even if we find volunteers - the ccTLD > > > > > Community cannot join. I would suggest to clarify this to > > > > > our collegues from the gNSO. > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless each individual ccTLD Manager can of course > > > > > choose to participate in gTLD policywork on behalf of > > > > > their individual organisation but to avoid further > > > > > misunderstandings I would advice not to use this list for > > > > > that discussions. > > > > > > > > > > Best Sabine > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: latin America strategy
by Vika Mpisane Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

Dear Jian, ('ve decided to share the response with ccNSO council, as we discussed this a bit when we prepared for the Board meeting in Toronto) Yes I travelled safely back to Joburg. I suppose you also travelled safely back to CN. Please find attached the email I received from Erick Ahon (former LACTLD GM) about the LAC strategy. It seems it's an initiative driven by Rodrigo de la Parra ICANN's VP: LAC. I'm not sure how far the strategy has progressed, but I suppose ccNSO councillors from LAC (Margerita, Eduardo) or Carolina (LACTLD GM) can provide you & the Council with an update. Regards, Vika Mpisane | Tel: +27 11 314 0077 From: Jian Zhang <jian(a)aptld.org> Date: Thursday 25 October 2012 8:58 AM To: Vika Mpisane <vika(a)zadna.org.za> Subject: latin America strategy Dear Vika: Hope you have nice trip back home. Could you share with me the outreach strategy of Latin America you mentioned to me during Toronto meeting? thanks Jian Zhang General Manager APTLD tel: +86-13911685680 skype: jian0607 www.aptld.org

4 6

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Call for Volunteers: GNSO IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Gr
by Dr Paulos Nyirenda Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

I do not agree with the original request from .de and I do not think the follow-up argument is any good either. I think the cross constituency participation request from the gNSO is very welcome and the ccNSO should participate as it sees fit. Just as .de indicates, each ccTLD, like .de, can join to voice their views at this phase of the process or in any later call for comments. But it seems weird to bar the ccNSO from participating in the process. As has been mentioned elsewhere, whatever input the ccNSO will give in this process does not necessarily become binding on the ccTLDs or the (resulting) gTLDs. I think it is healthy that the gNSO has called for this ccNSO possible input, cross constituency participation is healthy for ICANN. Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 31 Oct 2012 at 10:10, Sabine Dolderer wrote: > Hello Eberhard, > > > > > Sabine, > > > > I totally disagree. > > > > There has been cross constituency participation all along > > and none of the gNSO work is binding on ccNSO or ccTLDs in > > any way. > > > > as there are existing examples which proofs different and existing irritation at least in > the German environment I would argue for much more clarity to avoid further confusion. > > To point to the existing examples. > > The ICANN IDN-Guidelines are dealing with registration policy on the second level and > are > foreseen to become binding for registrations in IDN-ccTLDs (outside the scope of the > CCNSO but also without any PDP in the CCNSO) and while they are not binding (and not btw > implemented) in ASCII-TLDs like .de with currently 650.000 IDN-registrations on the > second level. > > Change of whois-policy in gTLDs. We saw several publications in the German press about > the new whois policy for gTLDs where there at for most journalist it was not clear that > they doesn't affect .de and therefore the publications mentioned explicitely the > chaneges > for .de. > > Sabine > > > However perspective often helps. > > > > And, nothing could be further from the desirable than > > shutting down discussion about something like this on any > > list. > > > > Gabi, > > > > as I can't post the Council list, please post it there. > > > > > > el > > > > On 2012-10-30 18:47 , Sabine Dolderer wrote: > > > Hello Gabi, > > > > > > we received a couple of invitations to gTLD related policy > > > developements during the last couple of weeks "to the > > > ccTLD Community to join a policy wg of the gNSO" and I am > > > not sure what the intended status is or the result can be. > > > From my understanding the ccNSO has no role whatsoever > > > with regard to gTLD policy developement nor it has a > > > mandate to represent the ccTLD Community as a whole. In > > > the consequence - even if we find volunteers - the ccTLD > > > Community cannot join. I would suggest to clarify this to > > > our collegues from the gNSO. > > > > > > Nevertheless each individual ccTLD Manager can of course > > > choose to participate in gTLD policywork on behalf of > > > their individual organisation but to avoid further > > > misunderstandings I would advice not to use this list for > > > that discussions. > > > > > > Best Sabine > > > > >

1 0