November 2015 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary
by Marika Konings 11 Nov '15

11 Nov '15

Forwarding on behalf of Thomas Rickert. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> Date: Wednesday 11 November 2015 07:16 To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary Phil, thank you for your message below. You specifically comment on the plans for the next GNSO Council meetings. Let me clarify that the suggestions for the GNSO Council’s handling of the CCWG recommendations are based on a best case scenario in which the Council is in a position to consider or even approve the recommendations during its December meeting. If that is not possible, the time line presented in Dublin allows for adoption of the recommendations in January and the proposed time line would still be met. Hence, it is up to the GNSO Council whether it wishes to take any action during its December meeting or not. Thomas Am 10.11.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>: While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations. Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th --- “I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model. Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection. November 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5th, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18th.) This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views prior to any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only after it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded. My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “ Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this: The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to: • Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name System (DNS) o ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties (entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain names) [Emphasis added] But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5th. Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30th to December 21st. For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks? So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary All, Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow. Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support for the co-chairs. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Re: TR: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 9 November 2015 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting 19 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC
by Mary Wong 11 Nov '15

11 Nov '15

Dear all, Given that the Council has recently adopted the practice of using a detailed request template to document its requests to the SCI, staff has taken the liberty of filling out a request template for Wolf-Ulrich¹s motion in the name of Amr Elsadr, who is the new Council liaison to the SCI (as was done previously with Avri, Amr¹s predecessor in the liaison position). The draft request is attached, together with an updated version of the motion, for your review and any necessary amendments or updates (including by Wolf-Ulrich or Amr). Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, November 9, 2015 at 17:51 To: "GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org)" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: TR: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 9 November 2015 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting 19 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC > Dear Wolf-Ulrich, > > Thank you very much for your draft motion which has been published on the Wiki > motion page at: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+November… > 15 > > Kind regards, > Glen > > > De : owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] De la > part de WUKnoben > Envoyé : lundi 9 novembre 2015 23:16 > À : Glen de Saint Géry; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Objet : Re: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 9 November 2015 at > 23:59 UTC for Council meeting 19 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC > > > All, > > > > I herewith submit the draft motion attached. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > From:Glen de Saint Géry <mailto:Glen@icann.org> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 1:19 AM > > To:mailto:council@gnso.icann.org > > Subject: [council] Document and Motion deadline Monday, 9 November 2015 at > 23:59 UTC for Council meeting 19 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC > > > > Dear Councillors, > > Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) > 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 9 November 2015 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO > Council meeting on 19 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC. > Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on > the Wiki at: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+November… > 15 > Thank you very much. > > Kind regards, > > Glen > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org >

4 3

FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary
by Phil Corwin 10 Nov '15

10 Nov '15

Fellow Councilors: For what it is worth, below are concerns that I just shared with the CCWG-ACCT regarding the present timeline for consideration and comment upon the third draft CCWG Proposal – including in particular the time in which the Council is supposed to reach consensus views on it after consultation with those we represent. I thought it best to raise these concerns now rather than wait until the public comment period commences. Best regards, Philip (The referenced draft summary document is attached for the convenience of those Councilors who may not have seen it yet.) From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:23 AM To: Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations. Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th --- “I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model. Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection. November 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5th, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18th.) This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views prior to any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only after it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded. My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “ Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this: The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to: • Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name System (DNS) o ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties (entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain names) [Emphasis added] But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5th. Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30th to December 21st. For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks? So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary All, Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow. Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support for the co-chairs. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

Document and Motion deadline Monday, 9 November 2015 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting 19 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 09 Nov '15

09 Nov '15

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 9 November 2015 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 19 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+November… Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 2

CCWG-Accountability timeline
by Volker Greimann 07 Nov '15

07 Nov '15

Dear Councilors, please find attached the updated proposed timeline for the CCWG Accountability path. Please review and provide feedback to allow us to assess whether the proposed timeline is realistic with regard to soliciting feedback and/or approval from your constituencies. Best, Volker -- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

2 1

TR: GNSO council chair election
by Glen de Saint Géry 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

FYI De : WUKnoben Envoyé : vendredi 6 novembre 2015 10:29 À : Marika Konings; Glen de Saint Gery Objet : GNSO council chair election Dear Marika and Glen, the Non-Contracted Parties House has chosen not to nominate a candidate for Chair of the GNSO Council. Best regards, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – Vice chair ISPCP Constituency, for the Commercial Stakeholder Group Tapani Tarvainen - Chair, NCSG

2 1

TR: GNSO Chair Nomination
by Glen de Saint Géry 04 Nov '15

04 Nov '15

Councillors, FYI please see the message forwarded by Michele Neylon. Reminder of the proposed time line for GNSO Council Chair Elections: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17597.html Proposed Timeline for GNSO Council Chair Elections 5 November - Deadline for nominations ('Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair') 12 November - Deadline for candidate statements: 19 November Council meeting (possibly extend meeting by 1 hour?) - Interview with candidates 20 November - Ballots send out by GNSO Secretariat - deadline for votes Monday 23 November 24 November - Results announced by GNSO Secretariat If second round is needed, 24 November, second round ballots are sent out (deadline for votes Thursday 26 November) 27 November, results of second round announced by GNSO Secretariat Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -----Message d'origine----- De : Michele Neylon - Envoyé : mercredi 4 novembre 2015 23:53 Glen The RrSG and RySG, collectively the CPH, wish to nominate Mr James Bladel for the position of Chair of the GNSO Council Should you have require any further information please let us know Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ -------------------------------

1 0

GNSO Council meeting 19 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC THREE hours duartion
by Glen de Saint Géry 04 Nov '15

04 Nov '15

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the full details for the next GNSO Council meeting on 19 November 2015 at 15:00 UTC. (for other times see: http://tinyurl.com/oobnrtf) please note that this call will exceptionally be scheduled for three hours, and not the usual two hours, to allow time for the GNSO Council chair elections. All meeting times, transcripts and recordings can be found on the GNSO calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

council chair election
by WUKnoben 03 Nov '15

03 Nov '15

Hi Marika and Glen, where can I find the election results from the Dublin meeting? I was searching the GNSO website where it is supposed to be but wasn’t successful. Acc. to the rules 2.2.g: “The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following each election and runoff ballot, whether successful or unsuccessful” Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

FW: [Soac-infoalert] Update - CCT-RT call for volunteers - New deadline
by Marika Konings 02 Nov '15

02 Nov '15

For your information From: <soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Friday 30 October 2015 05:12 To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org<mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Update - CCT-RT call for volunteers - New deadline Sent on behalf of Margie Milam ________________________________________ Dear ICANN community, We're writing to let you know that the deadline for applications to serve on the Commpetition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) has been EXTENDED two weeks to Friday, 13 November at 23:59 UTC. This is a critical Affirmation of Commitments-mandated review and needs the community's engagement to ensure a successful process, one that may have a significant impact on future rounds of new gTLDs. ICANN encourages your participation in this important review. The Review Team is expected to convene for its first meeting in January 2016. ICANN is seeking community members, as well as experts in the of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. Under the new timeline, we kindly request that any SO/AC endorsements be received by Monday December 14th. Read more details about the call for volunteers here:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-0… Sincerely, Margie Milam Senior Director- Strategic Initiatives ICANN From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:18 PM To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org<mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org>> Subject: Reminder: CCT-RT call for volunteers deadline Oct. 30 Sent on behalf of Margie Milam _________________________________________ Dear ICANN community, We're writing to remind you that the deadline for applications to serve on the Commpetition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) is this Friday, Oct. 30 at 23:59 UTC. ICANN encourages your participation in this important review, which is mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments. The Review Team is expected to convene for its first meeting in January 2016. ICANN is seeking community members, as well as experts in the areas of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. Read more details about the call for volunteers here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en Thank you. Margie Milam Senior Director- Strategic Initiatives ICANN

1 0