Please confirm your attendance - Council call 24 September
Dear all, As a reminder, the Council call is scheduled on 24 September @ 12:00 UTC - details below. We have received three apologies so far and we need to get an idea of how many Councilors will be in attendance. If you require a dial out, please let us know as soon as possible. Kind regards, Kim Carlson 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. To join toll free via Skype use the number 800 550 6865 and follow the instructions.
I'll be on the call. Cheers Keith On 22/09/2015 12:28 a.m., Kimberly Carlson wrote:
Dear all,
As a reminder, the Council call is scheduled on 24 September @ 12:00 UTC – details below.
We have received three apologies so far and we need to get an idea of how many Councilors will be in attendance.
If you require a dial out, please let us know as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Kim Carlson
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.
To join toll free via Skype use the number 800 550 6865 and follow the instructions.
Dear Carlson, I do expect to be in Dublin subject to visa availability. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eng. Abibu R. Ntahigiye; Manager, tzNIC; +255 784 279 511 On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Kimberly Carlson wrote:
Dear all,
As a reminder, the Council call is scheduled on 24 September @ 12:00 UTC – details below.
We have received three apologies so far and we need to get an idea of how many Councilors will be in attendance.
If you require a dial out, please let us know as soon as possible.
Kind regards, Kim Carlson
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. To join toll free via Skype use the number 800 550 6865 and follow the instructions.
Kimberly, I will be on the call. Dotty Sparks de Blanc .VI North America ---- On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 08:28:14 -0400 Kimberly Carlson<kimberly.carlson@icann.org> wrote ---- Dear all, As a reminder, the Council call is scheduled on 24 September @ 12:00 UTC – details below. We have received three apologies so far and we need to get an idea of how many Councilors will be in attendance. If you require a dial out, please let us know as soon as possible. Kind regards, Kim Carlson 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. To join toll free via Skype use the number 800 550 6865 and follow the instructions.
Apologies. I said I would be on the 9/24/15 Council Call, before I remembered a prior commitment. Please change yes to , NO with my Apologies. Warmest regards. Dotty Dotty Sparks de Blanc .VI North America ---- On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:55:56 -0400 dsparks <dsparks@usvi.net> wrote ---- Kimberly, I will be on the call. Dotty Sparks de Blanc .VI North America ---- On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 08:28:14 -0400 Kimberly Carlson<kimberly.carlson@icann.org> wrote ---- Dear all, As a reminder, the Council call is scheduled on 24 September @ 12:00 UTC – details below. We have received three apologies so far and we need to get an idea of how many Councilors will be in attendance. If you require a dial out, please let us know as soon as possible. Kind regards, Kim Carlson 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. To join toll free via Skype use the number 800 550 6865 and follow the instructions.
Dear all.. I have a appointment at the very same time/date, (to open an event here in Brazail).. Sorry to miss AGAIN the call, but I tried at no avail to change the other event... I wish all of you an excellent meeting and I will be, as soon as possible, hearing the recording and reading the minutes. Best demi On 9/21/15 9:28 AM, Kimberly Carlson wrote:
Dear all,
As a reminder, the Council call is scheduled on 24 September @ 12:00 UTC – details below.
We have received three apologies so far and we need to get an idea of how many Councilors will be in attendance.
If you require a dial out, please let us know as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Kim Carlson
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.
To join toll free via Skype use the number 800 550 6865 and follow the instructions.
I won't be able to attend this call and look forward to listening to the recording. See you all in Dublin! Ching On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Demi Getschko <demi@nic.br> wrote:
Dear all.. I have a appointment at the very same time/date, (to open an event here in Brazail).. Sorry to miss AGAIN the call, but I tried at no avail to change the other event... I wish all of you an excellent meeting and I will be, as soon as possible, hearing the recording and reading the minutes. Best demi
On 9/21/15 9:28 AM, Kimberly Carlson wrote:
Dear all,
As a reminder, the Council call is scheduled on 24 September @ 12:00 UTC – details below.
We have received three apologies so far and we need to get an idea of how many Councilors will be in attendance.
If you require a dial out, please let us know as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Kim Carlson
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.
To join toll free via Skype use the number 800 550 6865 and follow the instructions.
-- Ching Chiao Founder and CEO www.*Brandma*.co +886.918.211372 +86.135.20187032
Hi all, My apologies, I had said I could attend this meeting, but was assuming it started at Noon in London, and I now realise that it will be at 1pm local time, when I have other commitments... Can I therefore update you all via this email on FOI and ICG issues: 1. FOI - Becky and I met with Elise Gerich and Naela Sarras from IANA staff last week, and clarified a number of issues IANA staff had with the implementation process. It appears the staff are progressing well down the implementation path, and I would expect to see reasonably rapid progress as staff seem to appreciate there is a considerable additional workload mounting on other issues so are seeking to get through the FOI expediently. 2. ICG- The ICG met F2F for 2 days in Los Angeles last week, and by teleconference yesterday. It has several calls scheduled between now and Dublin, as it gets towards the sharp end of the timeline for the transition plan. Scheduled meetings for the ICG at ICANN Dublin include: - Saturday, 17th 13:00-17:00 ICG Working Session - Sunday, 18th 09:00-12:00 ICG Working Session - Sunday, 18th TBD (120 min) TBD Transition Session - Monday, 19th 10:30-12:30 ICG/CCWG Joint Townhall Meeting - Monday, 19th TBD (90-120 min) TBD Implementation Session - Thursday, 22nd 10:30-12:30 ICG Working Session - Friday, 23rd 09:00-17:00 ICG Working Session There was considerable progress made in advancing the transition plan over the past week, and ICG members worked productively and collaboratively to formulate responses to the huge number of submissions received on the open consultation on the plan. The major stumbling block confronting the transition is currently the issues arising in the CCWG-Accountability group, which hopefully may find resolution during their F2F meeting in Los Angeles later this week. Many of the ICG members expressed their belief that there is overall community support for the IANA Transition Plan, subject to a number of reservations, apart from the Accountability issues. The ICG is writing to the CWG-IANA group with a number of queries, clarifications and suggestions of the way forward on the Names Proposal. The final comments will be finalised within the next day, but the main points are as follows: 1. Does the Verisign / ICANN RZM arrangements post NTIA’s authorization role meet the CWG’s requirements as per Para 1150 sections 2 & 3 ? 2. Should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone authorisation, such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation 3. Suggested amendment to Paragraph 1027 of the Names Proposal to remove reference to ICP-1 by replacing the last sentence with “The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015.” Please let us know if you agree to this amendment? 4. Pointing out that the ccNSO Council has requested an editorial change, which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the last of these having been formally superseded by the GAC Principles 2005). 5. ICG received a comment on the composition of IANA Function Review Teams (paragraph 1283). This recommends that two ccNSO members and one non-ccNSO ccTLD member be appointed to the IFRT. While the input supported the objective of encouraging the participation of non-ccNSO ccTLDs, it recognised that it could be difficult to ensure rotation of the non-ccNSO ccTLD member. In particular, the commentator stressed that regional balance should be considered an important criterion and suggested that the recommendation be changed to make the one non-ccNSO ccTLD member recommendation a target, rather than a requirement. If the CWG agrees with this suggestion and wishes to amend its proposal, please send verbatim text to reflect the associated amendment. 6. Several questions around PTI - its powers, limitations, selection of board members etc – clarifications in the main... 7. Several questions relating to Scope – e.g. is the IFO for Names only or across all IANA functions. Does the CSC apply purely for the Names functions? The IFR (IANA Functions Review) is applicable only to the Names portion? Is it intended that .arpa incluede in the CSC and IFR ? 8. Inclusion of the SLE's into the Names Proposal As I stated above, the final text will be forthcoming very shortly, so please do not take the above absolutely literally as the text is still being finalised, and these are merely my attempted summary of the issues. There are also some issues arising across the 3 IANA operating communities, as well as some for the Protocol / Parameters and IP Addressing communities. Again, my apologies for missing this meeting, and my inability to tell the time! Cheers Keith On 22/09/2015 12:28 a.m., Kimberly Carlson wrote:
Dear all,
As a reminder, the Council call is scheduled on 24 September @ 12:00 UTC – details below.
We have received three apologies so far and we need to get an idea of how many Councilors will be in attendance.
If you require a dial out, please let us know as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Kim Carlson
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.
To join toll free via Skype use the number 800 550 6865 and follow the instructions.
Keith: I must re-iterate, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, that the Framework is not new policy. As such is does not need to be 'implemented' but since it was issued by us must simply now be used as the primary guide to the construction (i.e. interpretation) of ccTLD policy. ICNAN has ALWAYS been bound to follow this policy, but simply didnt have the benefit previously of the 6 years of careful examination of the binding policies that we as a Supporting Organisaton undertook. And it was because of exactly this risk of further procrastination, that was why I wanted to be part of the liasion with IANA, and with which request regretfully Council did not feel able to support. ICANN as an organisation has some serious credibility issues as far as I'm concerned as a result of their machinations regarding ccTLD policies over years. Woudl you believe that despite the ICANN Board agreeing the text of the FoI resolution, even TODAY it STILL appears to be maintaining CP-1 as the primary guide to ccTLD matters. Heres what I see (a) It remains on the ICANN/IANA website as the guide to redelegations. (b) As recently as the beginnning of this month, ICANN repeated it submission to in a Federal Appeal Court case that is likely to affect the rights of ccTLD managers very significantly. I find this continued 'cocking a snook' at the ccTLD community quite unacceptable. After 13 years of objections, and misleading emails that 'the Board only adopted a numbering scheme not the content of ICP-1' can this be anything other than deliberate prevarication?? ICANN were firmly and unambiguosly put on notice in in the period 1999-2002 that ICP-1 had no status, and was never part of any multistakeholder process. So why, 13 years later must I write such emails?? “What's the world's greatest lie?... It's this: that at a certain point in our lives, we lose control of what's happening to us, and our lives become controlled by fate.” (PAUL COELHO) Nigel Roberts PS: the unintelligibly ambiguous soap opera term 'Sponsoring' which was never agreed by ccTLD managers STILL appears to exist in the public facing representation of the ccTLD WHOIS. How many more times will we put up with fairy tales about THAT going being changed? How much long must we wait.? Another 15 years?
Thanks Nigel for the comments. I still think "implement" is an appropriate word to use, but fully agree with you that the FOI is not new policy, merely interpretation of existing policy. However, it does require changes to the procedures and processes within IANA, and that to me fits within the concept of implementation - which in my mind is to "put into effect according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure". In terms of the ongoing reference to ICP-1 on the IANA website, I think we will see changes in the near future, dare I say it, as implementation proceeds. Regarding the Court case, I feel sorry for ICANN in persisting that ICP-1 (and the GAC Principles 2000) are current policies. Eventually they will need to admit they totally got this wrong. I think they hoped the initial Court case would be the end of the matter, but I can see this case being appealed throughout the US legislative process. But that is ICANN's problem, not mine! Cheers Keith On 24/09/2015 11:53 p.m., Nigel Roberts wrote:
Keith:
I must re-iterate, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, that the Framework is not new policy.
As such is does not need to be 'implemented' but since it was issued by us must simply now be used as the primary guide to the construction (i.e. interpretation) of ccTLD policy.
ICNAN has ALWAYS been bound to follow this policy, but simply didnt have the benefit previously of the 6 years of careful examination of the binding policies that we as a Supporting Organisaton undertook.
And it was because of exactly this risk of further procrastination, that was why I wanted to be part of the liasion with IANA, and with which request regretfully Council did not feel able to support.
ICANN as an organisation has some serious credibility issues as far as I'm concerned as a result of their machinations regarding ccTLD policies over years.
Woudl you believe that despite the ICANN Board agreeing the text of the FoI resolution, even TODAY it STILL appears to be maintaining CP-1 as the primary guide to ccTLD matters.
Heres what I see
(a) It remains on the ICANN/IANA website as the guide to redelegations.
(b) As recently as the beginnning of this month, ICANN repeated it submission to in a Federal Appeal Court case that is likely to affect the rights of ccTLD managers very significantly.
I find this continued 'cocking a snook' at the ccTLD community quite unacceptable. After 13 years of objections, and misleading emails that 'the Board only adopted a numbering scheme not the content of ICP-1' can this be anything other than deliberate prevarication??
ICANN were firmly and unambiguosly put on notice in in the period 1999-2002 that ICP-1 had no status, and was never part of any multistakeholder process.
So why, 13 years later must I write such emails??
“What's the world's greatest lie?... It's this: that at a certain point in our lives, we lose control of what's happening to us, and our lives become controlled by fate.” (PAUL COELHO)
Nigel Roberts
PS: the unintelligibly ambiguous soap opera term 'Sponsoring' which was never agreed by ccTLD managers STILL appears to exist in the public facing representation of the ccTLD WHOIS. How many more times will we put up with fairy tales about THAT going being changed? How much long must we wait.? Another 15 years?
Thanks . . (Perhaps we could both agree on the word 'compliance' might suit?) On 26/09/15 13:19, Keith Davidson wrote:
this case being appealed throughout the US legislative process. But that is ICANN's problem, not mine!
Indeed it is. But the trust issue of which it is merely a symptom (that ICANN keeps saying one thing and doing another) continues to affect us all, and that was in evidence again here at the meeting between the CCWG and the Board. Thanks again.
participants (7)
-
Abibu Ntahigiye -
Ching Chiao -
Demi Getschko -
dsparks -
Keith Davidson -
Kimberly Carlson -
Nigel Roberts