December 2015 - council - lists.icann.org

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Seated
by James M. Bladel Dec. 24, 2015

Dec. 24, 2015

Colleagues-- See announcement below. Please note that although the 'delegation' from the GNSO is smaller than our list of endorsements, it nevertheless represents a significant share of the Review Team. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy Begin forwarded message: From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications(a)icann.org<mailto:communications@icann.org>> Date: December 23, 2015 at 18:16:58 CST To: <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Seated Reply-To: communications(a)icann.org<mailto:communications@icann.org> [ICANN]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-12-23-en ________________________________ Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Seated 23 December 2015 ICANN today announced that 17 individuals have been selected to serve on the team that will review the New gTLD Program in relation to competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT). Review team members represent an array of geographic regions and areas of expertise, and have demonstrated knowledge of the New gTLD Program or one of the review areas. Six review team members were endorsed by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and two were endorsed by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). Four members will serve as independent experts and bring deep knowledge of economics, consumer protection and intellectual property law, and Internet security to the team. Of the remaining five team members, two also belong to the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), two from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and one represents ICANN's CEO. In accordance with ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…>, CCT review team members were selected by ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé and GAC Chair Thomas Schneider. The pair made their selections based on rigorous analysis of application materials from 72 candidates. Applications were evaluated against the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en> with a particular focus on candidates' expertise in competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. Endorsements and guidance from the GNSO and ALAC were also taken into consideration. Chehadé and Schneider chose candidates representing a cross-section of experience and geographic diversity. The Affirmation of Commitments also allows the CEO and GAC chair to serve on the review team or designate representatives. Chehadé will be represented by ICANN's Jamie Hedlund<https://www.icann.org/profiles/james-hedlund>, and Schneider by Laureen Kapin<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/kap…> [PDF, 89 KB], of the GAC Public Safety Working Group and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. The CCT review team is expected to convene for its first meeting in January 2016 and to complete a final draft of its report by December 2016. Periodic updates on the progress of the review will be made available on icann.org<https://www.icann.org/> and at ICANN public meetings. Members Representing an ICANN Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee Candidate Country SO/AC Documents Calvin Browne South Africa GNSO * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/bro…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/bro…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/bro…> Jordyn Buchanan USA GNSO * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/buc…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/buc…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/buc…> Carlos Raul Gutierrez Costa Rica GNSO * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/gut…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/gut…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/gut…> Waudo Siganga Kenya GNSO * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/sig…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/sig…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/sig…> David Taylor United Kingdom GNSO * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/tay…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/tay…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/tay…> Jonathan Zuck USA GNSO * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/zuc…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/zuc…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/zuc…> Kaili Kan People's Republic of China ALAC * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/kan…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/kan…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/kan…> Carlton Samuels Jamaica ALAC * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/sam…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/sam…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/sam…> Megan Richards Belgium GAC * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/ric…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/ric…> Dejan Djukic Serbia ccNSO * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/dju…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/dju…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/dju…> Gaongalelwe G.P. Mosweu Botswana ccNSO * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/mos…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/mos…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/mos…> Members Serving as Independent Experts Candidate Country Documents Drew Bagley USA * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/bag…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/bag…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/bag…> Stanley Besen USA * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/bes…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/bes…> N. Ravi Shankar India * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/sha…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/sha…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/sha…> Fabro Steibel Brazil * Letter of motivation<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/ste…> * Curriculum vitae<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/ste…> * Statement of interests<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/applications-16nov15/ste…> Background Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments states: "If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice." An implementation advisory group recommended a set of 66 metrics<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/iag-metrics-final-recs-26sep14-en.…> [PDF, 472 KB], which the ICANN Board adopted, for the review team to consider. ICANN has been collecting data on many of these metrics<https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/cct/metrics>. In addition, ICANN commissioned a global survey and economic study to gather data on certain metrics. Baseline reports on consumer<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-05-29-en> and registrant<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-25-en> awareness of new gTLDs have been published along with an economic assessment<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-09-28-en> of competition in the domain name marketplace. These and other supporting materials will be made available to the review team to inform its work. More information on the CCT review is available here<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct>. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation and a community with participants from all over the world. ICANN and its community help keep the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It also promotes competition and develops policy for the top-level of the Internet's naming system and facilitates the use of other unique Internet identifiers. For more information please visit: www.icann.org<https://www.icann.org/>. This message was sent to jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> from: ICANN News Alert | communications(a)icann.org<mailto:communications@icann.org> | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by [iContact - Try It Free!] <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9826961&l=6333&s=0TYU&m=978…>

3 2

Extension Request
by Lars Hoffmann Dec. 24, 2015

Dec. 24, 2015

Dear Councillors, As per PDP Manual Section 6, Staff would like to request a 30-day extension for the delivery of the final Issue Report on the Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs. The reason are: * There were a significant number of public comments submitted * The holiday period means that the 30 day deadline is effectively only 24 days * Some internal coordination with the Charter-drafting for the New gTLD Subsequent Round PDP is necessary * Requiring some additional staff feedback from other departments such as Compliance, Legal, GDD. If the extension were granted, staff would work towards meeting the deadline for the second January Council meeting (11 January 2016). We hope you will agree to the extension, in the meantime, enjoy your holidays and happy 2016! Very best wishes, Lars Lars Hoffmann | Policy Manager lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org | +1 310 804 2586 <tel:+1%20(202)%20802-8019> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

5 5

TR: CWG-Stewardship Comments on CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

FYI From: Grace Abuhamad Dear CCWG-Accountability Chairs and Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship's Chartering Organizations, Please find attached and below the CWG-Stewardship's comments on the CCWG-Accountability's Third Draft Proposal. These comments have been posted to the Public Comment forum and are being sent to you for information and wider circulation. Thank you, Lise & Jonathan -- ICANN Cross Community Working Group Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Dear CCWG-Accountability members, participants and co-chairs, We write in response to your group's recent publication<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56145016/CCWG%20Draft%20Pr…> of your third draft proposal (the "Third Draft Proposal"). We have prepared this in our capacities as co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). References below are to the main body of the Third Draft Proposal, unless otherwise indicated. We have also indicated below where we previously raised points in response<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/55.%20%20CWG%20IA…> to your group's publication<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460&preview=/…>of its second draft proposal (the "Second Draft Proposal"). First, we would once again like to confirm the quality of the ongoing coordination and collaboration between the co-chairs of our respective groups since the CCWG-Accountability commenced its work. Each of our groups has been regularly engaged with and updated on the progress made, including the interdependency and interrelation between our work, and this has led to the regular exchange of key correspondence to develop and formalize the linkage. As CWG-Stewardship co-chairs, we have discussed with the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs on a regular basis key aspects of the work of both groups. The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816&preview=/…> submitted for approval to the chartering organizations on 11 June 2015 is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the CCWG-Accountability. Specifically, as recognized in the Third Draft Proposal, the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal sets forth ICANN accountability requirements regarding Community Empowerment Mechanism, IANA Functions Budget, IANA Function Reviews, Separation Process, Appeals Mechanism, and Post-Transition IANA (PTI), as well as Fundamental Bylaws. Therefore, this document is and should be viewed as an element of the agreed-upon working methods of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability in determining whether the Third Draft Proposal meets the conditions and requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal. In that regard, we kindly request confirmation that the CWG-Stewardship comments reflected in this document are addressed in the next version or variation of the CCWG-Accountability proposal in order to ensure that this next version or variation of the proposal addresses all of the CWG-Stewardship dependencies. Our comments focus on the specific ICANN accountability requirements set forth in the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal: 1. Community Empowerment Mechanism The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires that the multistakeholder community be empowered with the following rights with respect to the ICANN Board, the exercise of which should be ensured by the creation of a stakeholder community/member group: The ability to appoint and remove members of the ICANN Board and to recall the entire ICANN Board; The ability to exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions (including with respect to the ICANN Board's oversight of the IANA Functions) by reviewing and approving: (i) ICANN Board decisions with respect to recommendations resulting from an IANA Function Review (IFR) or Special IFR and (ii) the ICANN Budget; and The ability to approve amendments to ICANN's "Fundamental Bylaws," as described below. Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates implementing a "Sole Designator" model, pursuant to which the community would be empowered to act as the Sole Designator to: (a) exercise the community powers described in the Third Draft Proposal, including the power to: (i) remove (in addition to appoint) individual ICANN Directors, and (ii) recall the entire ICANN Board, and (b) enforce decisions and powers of the Community Mechanism as the Sole Designator (i.e., the Empowered Community) through initiating a binding Independent Review Panel process, where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results. In addition, the Third Draft Proposal contemplates that the community would be required to follow the engagement and escalation processes described in the proposal before exercising any of the community powers. Finally, with respect to actions involving individual Directors, the escalation process to remove a Director could only be used once during a Director's term if the process reaches the step of holding a community forum or above and then fails to remove the Director. Conclusion- We believe that the community powers and community empowerment mechanism contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfy the CWG-Stewardship requirements relating to the community empowerment mechanism. Although the community powers are in some cases less direct than in the Sole Member model contemplated by the Second Draft Proposal, we believe the CWG-Stewardship requirements can be met through the community powers and community empowerment mechanism contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal. The CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal requires that the community "follow the engagement and escalation processes described in the proposal before exercising any of the community powers." This is a reasonable requirement but it creates a dependency on the usability of the engagement and escalation processes. If the community and in particular the SOs and ACs are unable to reasonably meet the requirements of those processes, then the community powers will lose their value. The very specific time requirements for various SO and AC actions in the escalation processes may be impossible or at best very difficult to meet; if more than one SO/AC cannot act within the tight time limits, the process will be halted. The CWG-Stewardship recognizes that the escalation processes need to happen in a timely manner but they must also allow sufficient time to accommodate the diverse and complex makeup of SOs and ACs. A key question that should be asked of SOs and ACs is this: what is the minimum time they need to respond to a critical issue that is also very time sensitive? To be more specific, can they respond in 7 days without compromising their bottom-up, multistakeholder model? If they cannot, then the CCWG-Accountability recommended empowerment mechanisms do not meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements. This should not be a hard problem to solve. Time restrictions that are deemed to be too short could be lengthened a little and/or the restrictions could be defined in a more flexible manner to allow for brief extensions when reasonably required. 2. ICANN Budget and IANA Functions Budget The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires that the community have the ability to approve or veto the ICANN Budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth in ICANN's Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community. In the final transition proposal, the CWG-Stewardship also recommends that the IANA Functions Operator's comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN's operating plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to the project level and below as needed. Under the final transition proposal, an itemization of IANA costs would include: direct costs for the operation of the IANA Functions, direct costs for shared resources and support functions allocation. Furthermore, these costs should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA Functions Budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN Budget. The CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop a proposed process for an IANA Functions Operations-specific budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review. It is anticipated that the IANA Functions Operations Budget review will include a consultation process with relevant and potentially impacted IANA customers. Comment - The Third Draft Proposal clarifies that the community would have new powers to reject: (a) ICANN's Annual Operating Plan and Budget, (b) the IANA Functions Operations Budget, (c) ICANN's Five-Year Strategic Plan and (d) ICANN's Five-Year Operating Plan, in each case after approval by the ICANN Board but before they take effect. The Third Draft Proposal specifies that these powers can only be exercised after extensive community discussions and through mandatory escalation processes. The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that prior to the ICANN Board approving a budget or strategic/operating plan, the ICANN Board must have undertaken a mandatory engagement process pursuant to which the ICANN Board consults with the community. The Third Draft Proposal further specifies that the community could only challenge a budget or strategic/operating plan if there are significant issues brought up in the engagement phase that were not addressed prior to approval. The Third Draft Proposal specifies that the ICANN and IANA Functions Operations Budgets would be considered separately by the community so that a rejection of the ICANN Budget would not automatically result in a rejection of the IANA Functions Operations Budget, and a rejection of the IANA Functions Operations Budget would not serve as a rejection of the ICANN Budget. It also proposes that if the community power is exercised to reject the ICANN Budget or the IANA Functions Operations Budget, a caretaker budget would be enacted. The Third Draft Proposal notes that details regarding the caretaker budget are currently under development. As we noted in our comment letter on the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not provide for "approval" by the community of the ICANN Budget and/or IANA Functions Operations Budget, but rather provides for negative authority in the form of a decision by the community to reject the ICANN Budget and/or IANA Functions Operations Budget. As we also noted in that comment letter, the CWG-Stewardship acknowledges that the community's ability to reject the ICANN Budget and/or the IANA Functions Operations Budget will meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements and that community approval is not required. We note that unlike the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not specifically address: (i) the CWG-Stewardship's requirement that the budget be transparent with respect to the IANA Functions' operating costs or (ii) the specific grounds upon which the community could reject a budget or plan. In addition, as we noted in our comment letter on the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not specifically address the timeframe for when budgets should be submitted. Conclusion- Similar to our conclusion in our response on the Second Draft Proposal, overall we believe that the Third Draft Proposal's specifications with respect to the community power to reject budgets is both necessary and consistent with the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal; however, we require that the CCWG-Accountability proposal or the implementation process address the matters that are not sufficiently specified in the Third Draft Proposal (i.e., those relating to budget transparency, grounds for rejection of a budget/plan, timing of budget preparation and development of the caretaker budget, each of which were described in the Second Draft Proposal). In addition, we note, that the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group) is required to develop a proposed process for the IANA Functions Operations-specific budget review. We require that the proposal specifically acknowledge this. 3. IFR The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires the creation of an IFR which is empowered to conduct periodic and special reviews of the IANA names function. The CWG-Stewardship proposal contemplates the ability of the community to exercise oversight with respect to ICANN Board decisions on recommendations resulting from an IFR or Special IFR by reviewing and approving those ICANN Board decisions. Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates incorporating the review system defined in the Affirmation of Commitments into ICANN's Bylaws. The Third Draft Proposal specifies that the IFR and Special IFR would be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws based on the requirements detailed by the CWG-Stewardship, and notes that it is anticipated that the ICANN Bylaw drafting process would include the CWG-Stewardship. The Third Draft Proposal also provides that the community be empowered to reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of IANA names function. Prior to making a decision relating to IFRs, the Third Draft Proposal specifies that the ICANN Board must have undertaken a mandatory engagement process pursuant to which the ICANN Board must have consulted with the community. Conclusion- We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirement relating to the IFR. The community's ability to reject ICANN Board decisions on recommendations resulting from an IFR or Special IFR will meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements, provided that the final version of the CCWG-Accountability proposal provide that the right to reject can be exercised an unlimited number of times. 4. Customer Standing Committee (CSC) The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires the creation of a CSC that is empowered to monitor the performance of the IANA names function and escalate non-remediated issues to the ccNSO and GNSO. The ccNSO and GNSO should be empowered to address matters escalated by the CSC. Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that the CSC will be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws. We expect that provisions incorporating the CSC into the Bylaws would be overseen by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group). Conclusion- We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirement relating to the CSC, provided that the ICANN Bylaw drafting process will continue to include involvement by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group). 5. Post-Transition IANA (PTI) The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal contemplates the formation of a PTI as a new legal entity. PTI will have ICANN as its sole member and PTI will therefore be a controlled affiliate of ICANN. As a result, the ICANN Bylaws will need to include governance provisions related to PTI, in particular as it relates to ICANN's role as the sole member of PTI. Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that governance provisions related to PTI will be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws as Fundamental Bylaws. We note that the Second Draft Proposal contemplated that specifications with respect to PTI governance provisions would be based on requirements to be detailed by the CWG-Stewardship. While this language was not included in the Third Draft Proposal, we continue to expect that PTI governance provisions would be overseen by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group). Conclusion- We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirement relating to PTI, provided that the ICANN Bylaw drafting process and related PTI governance documents will continue to include involvement by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group). 6. Separation Process The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal contemplates that a Special IFR will be empowered to determine that a separation process between ICANN and PTI is necessary and, if so, to recommend that a Separation Cross-Community Working Group (SCWG) be established to review the identified issues and make recommendations. Annex L of the CWG-Stewardship final proposal sets forth more detailed information as to approval requirements with respect to the formation of an SCWG and approval of SCWG recommendations, including any selection of a new IANA Functions Operator or any other separation process, in each case these actions require approval by a community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability process. Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that the separation process required by the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal will be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws. The Third Draft Proposal describes the CWG-Stewardship requirement of a procedure to implement a separation process should it arise from a Special IFR, including provisions for the creation of an SCWG, its functions and voting thresholds for approving the end-result of the SCWG process. The Third Draft Proposal specifies that the community be empowered to reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of IANA names function; including the triggering of PTI separation. Prior to making a decision relating to IFRs, including the triggering of PTI separation, the Third Draft Proposal specifies that the ICANN Board must have undertaken a mandatory engagement process pursuant to which the ICANN Board must consult with the community. Conclusion- We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirements relating to the separation process. The community's ability to reject ICANN Board decisions on Special IFR/SCWG recommendations, which would include the selection of a new IANA Functions Operator or any other separation process will meet the CWG-Stewardship requirements, provided that (i) the final version of the CCWG-Accountability proposal provide that the right to reject can be exercised an unlimited number of times, and (ii) the ICANN Bylaw drafting process and related the Separation Process will continue to include involvement by the CWG-Stewardship (or a successor implementation group). 7. Appeals Mechanism The CWG-Stewardship final proposal contemplates an appeals mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel (IRP), for issues relating to the IANA names function. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an IRP. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition through the appropriate processes. Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates significant enhancements of ICANN's existing appeals mechanisms, including the IRP. It is proposed that the IRP will be available to TLD managers to challenge ICANN decisions including with respect to issues relating to the IANA names function (with the exception of ccTLD delegations and redelegations, which appeals mechanisms are to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition, in coordination with other parties), and that the Empowered Community can use the IRP to challenge an ICANN Board decision if it believes that the ICANN Board is in breach of its Articles or Bylaws (for example, if the ICANN Board determines not to accept the decision of the Empowered Community to use one of its community powers or if the ICANN Board determines not to implement a recommendation of the IFR team). The Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly contemplate that the IRP would hear claims relating to actions (or inactions) of PTI. The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires an independent review process for issues relating to the IANA names function. This is intended to be a process that is independent of ICANN and PTI, and that would address actions (or inactions) of PTI. Conclusion- As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation). Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amended without community approval). Regardless of approach, the CWG-Stewardship requires that this dependency be addressed in the final CCWG-Accountability proposal in order for the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the conditions of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal have been adequately addressed. 8. Fundamental Bylaws The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal contemplates that all the foregoing mechanisms will be provided for in the ICANN Bylaws as "Fundamental Bylaws." A "Fundamental Bylaw" may only be amended with the prior approval of the Empowered Community and may require a higher approval threshold than typical Bylaw amendments (for example, a supermajority vote). Comment - The Third Draft Proposal contemplates that the following, among others, would be made Fundamental Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1: Each of the community powers (including in relation to ICANN and IANA Functions Operations Budgets, ICANN Director removal/Board recall, and amendments to Fundamental Bylaws); The Empowered Community and the rules by which it is governed; The framework for the IRP; The IFR, Special IFR and the separation process; The CSC; and PTI governance. Prior to approving any Bylaw amendment, the Third Draft Proposal specifies that the ICANN Board must have undertaken a mandatory engagement process pursuant to which the ICANN Board must consult with the community. The Third Draft Proposal specifies that establishing new Fundamental Bylaws or amending or removing Fundamental Bylaws will require: (i) approval by the ICANN Board (with a three-quarters vote of all standing Directors) and (ii) a decision by the Empowered Community to exercise the Community Power to approve changes to fundamental Bylaws. The Third Draft Proposal also specifies the threshold for the exercise of the Community Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws. Conclusion- We believe that the Third Draft Proposal adequately satisfies the CWG-Stewardship requirements relating to Fundamental Bylaws. Looking forward, we continue to be committed to retaining the link between the work of the two groups. Thank you for taking the lead in responding to the CWG-Stewardship requirements in the Third Draft Proposal and indeed for all related work. As we have communicated with your group on several occasions, we rely on your work and our trust in the work of your group is vital in permitting us to focus on the essential aspects of our work on the stewardship transition. We look forward to your confirmation that the issues raised above will be resolved in the CCWG-Accountability Proposal. Best regards, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG-Stewardship

1 0

Re: [council] Council Way Forward on Accountability Proposal
by James M. Bladel Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

Thanks, Phil. And generally, I believe your message below captures the challenges we (and other SO/ACs) face when asked to provide feedback in a compressed time frame, that also happens to collide with year-end holidays. My availability is similar to yours, NamesCon included, and from talking with Marika I think we should expect reduced support from Staff as well. Given that our call on 17 DEC ran fairly long and you & several others had to drop, I wanted to share the way we left things with Thomas Rickert regarding GNSO feedback on the CCWG's latest draft: - The SGs and Cs in the GNSO Community were working to analyze the report and prepare their comments by the close of the comment period. - The GNSO, as a Chartering Organization of the CCWG, was unlikely to submit any formal comments by 21 DEC. - Several SGs and Cs within the GNSO Community would, however, submit their comments by Monday. - The GNSO would provide feedback/approval to the final report upon completion in January. I propose that we draft a letter to the CCWG next week, reiterating that we would not weigh in as an SO, but instead link to comments submitted by SGs and Cs (target: 24 DEC). And next, that we form a subteam (me and any other volunteers) to review submitted comments and draft a formal GNSO position for review by the Council (target: 7 JAN). Thoughts/comments/volunteers? Thanks- J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Friday, December 18, 2015 at 9:49 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Council Way Forward on Accountability Proposal Fellow Councilors - and especially James, Heather, and Donna: As I had to leave yesterday's extended Council call a few minutes before it concluded, I am wondering whether any structure/schedule was agreed to for our consideration of the 3rd CCWG-ACCT Proposal in our role as a Chartering Organization? Will we be scheduling additional calls to consider key aspects of the Proposal, especially those that elicit comments expressing concern or suggesting modifications? How will we handle drafting of a Resolution expressing Council's view on behalf of the GNSO? And what is our target date for reaching a final decision? For the record, I am available and willing to participate in calls next week (suggesting that any such call be after 12/21 to allow time for review of submitted comments) and during the first week of January. >From December 26-January 3rd I shall be on vacation and intend to unplug from the grid to the maximum extent possible. >From January 9-13 I and 900-plus other members of the domain community will be attending NamesCon and I will have limited availability to join any call. I am departing the conference in the middle of its last day so that I can participate in the tentatively scheduled January 14th Council call. Thanks and best regards, Philip 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

7 14

GNSO-endorsed applicants for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 18, 2015

Dec. 18, 2015

Dear Councillors, As was agreed by the Council at its meeting on 17 December 2015, James Bladel, GNSO Council chair has submitted a list of GNSO-endorsed applicants for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team to Fadi Chehadé, President and CEO of ICANN and Thomas Schneider, Chair of the Government Advisory Committee. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-chehade-Schneider-17dec15…<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> 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/>

3 2

Council Way Forward on Accountability Proposal
by Phil Corwin Dec. 18, 2015

Dec. 18, 2015

Fellow Councilors - and especially James, Heather, and Donna: As I had to leave yesterday's extended Council call a few minutes before it concluded, I am wondering whether any structure/schedule was agreed to for our consideration of the 3rd CCWG-ACCT Proposal in our role as a Chartering Organization? Will we be scheduling additional calls to consider key aspects of the Proposal, especially those that elicit comments expressing concern or suggesting modifications? How will we handle drafting of a Resolution expressing Council's view on behalf of the GNSO? And what is our target date for reaching a final decision? For the record, I am available and willing to participate in calls next week (suggesting that any such call be after 12/21 to allow time for review of submitted comments) and during the first week of January. >From December 26-January 3rd I shall be on vacation and intend to unplug from the grid to the maximum extent possible. >From January 9-13 I and 900-plus other members of the domain community will be attending NamesCon and I will have limited availability to join any call. I am departing the conference in the middle of its last day so that I can participate in the tentatively scheduled January 14th Council call. Thanks and best regards, Philip 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

1 0

GNSO Council MP3 recording and Adobe Chat transcript 17 December 2015
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 17, 2015

Dec. 17, 2015

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 17 December 2015 http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-17dec15-en.mp3 on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#dec the Adobe chat transcript can be viewed here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-17dec15-en.pdf<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnjfgjJp6GMAHPLM…> the Council Resolutions are posted on page: gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions Happy listening and reading! 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

GNSO Council resolutions 17 December 2015
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 17, 2015

Dec. 17, 2015

Dear Councillors, Please find the resolutions passed at GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 17 December 2015. 1. Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WHEREAS: 1. In June 2015 the GNSO Council had requested an Issue Report on the topic of analyzing a set of subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD Procedures; 2. The GNSO Council's request for an Issue Report followed the work completed by the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which was requested by the GNSO Council in June 2014; 3. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures in a public comment forum that opened on 31 August 2015, and closed on 30 October 2015; 4. The amended closing date for the public comment forum was the result of a GNSO Council request in September 2015; 5. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments and updated the Issue Report accordingly; 6. The Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures was published on 4 December 2015 at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue…; and, 7. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process (PDP) in order to consider the issues discussed in the report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council hereby initiates a PDP to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance; and, 2. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP-WG Charter to fulfill the requirements of this PDP. 2. Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board Whereas, 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 1. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 2. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 3. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Dublin GAC Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review 4. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. 2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board 3. Endorsement of GNSO Applicants for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT) Whereas, 1. Under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…>, ICANN launched a process to review the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT Review). This AoC mandated review will also assess the effectiveness of the application and evaluation processes, as well as the safeguards put in place by ICANN to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion of new gTLDs. 2. To conduct this review, a Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team will be formed in late 2015. Once formed, the Review Team will independently plan its work and schedule. 3. A call for volunteers was launched on 1 October 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en) Those applying to serve as a volunteer member, where asked to identify the name of the Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee they wish to represent. 26 applicants identified the GNSO as the Supporting Organization they wished to represent (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw) 4. Following its meeting on 19 November 2015, the GNSO Council agreed to follow up with all 26 applicants to request additional information required to reach its decision on endorsement (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17695.html) 5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the information received from the applicants requesting GNSO endorsement (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw) Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council endorses the following applicants: Calvin Brown, Gregory DiBiase, Ben Anderson, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Nacho Amadoz, Carlos Gutierrez, Jonathan Zuck, Waudo Siganga, Michael Graham, Greg Shatan, David Taylor, Stacie Walsh, Viktor Szabados, Cecilia Lee Smith, YJ Park, Jeremy Malcolm, Kinfe Michael Yilma Desta, and expects the selectors for this Review Team to weigh this endorsement as an important factor in their selection process. 2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat, on behalf of the GNSO Council and Chair, to inform the CCT selectors in writing of the outcome of this process. The selectors should also be advised to consider the specific consideration to the role of the GNSO regarding the New gTLD implementation and ensure that all relevant GNSO stakeholders shall be represented on the CCT RT. 3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the applicants that have received endorsement that the GNSO Council expects that, if selected for the CCT, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the CCT, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the CCT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team Members. 4. The GNSO Council instructs the Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement (if any), thanking them for their interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the CCT RT work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions. 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

Process for endorsement of candidates.
by Stephanie Perrin Dec. 17, 2015

Dec. 17, 2015

Like Ed, I am confused about the process that we are following for endorsement of candidates. In the interests of ensuring that one of the most qualified consumer advocates gets endorsed, I am hereby, in my own name, endorsing Jeremy Malcolm. Rather than attempt to sort this out now, I feel it important to stress again that we need to select a broad range of skills and geographic awareness in our selection, and Jeremy excels as a consumer advocate. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin

1 0

RySG Endorsement Candidates for CCT-RT
by Drazek, Keith Dec. 17, 2015

Dec. 17, 2015

Hi all, The RySG respectfully submits the following 3 candidates for endorsement: · Jeff Neuman · Jordyn Buchanan · Nacho Amadoz Thanks and regards, Keith From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:28 PM To: Jennifer Gore Standiford; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Re: RrSG endorsement announcement Acknowledged, Jennifer. Thank you. J. From: Jennifer Standiford <JStandiford(a)web.com<mailto:JStandiford@web.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 11:18 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Subject: RrSG endorsement announcement James and Council Members, The Registrar Stakeholder Group would like to support the endorsement of the following three (3) candidates for the CCT Review Team. ? Calvin Brown ? Gregory DiBiase ? Ben Anderson Thank you, Jennifer Jennifer Gore Standiford Senior Policy Director Web.com 12808 Gran Bay Parkway, West | Jacksonville, FL 32258 Office: 904. 680-6919| Cell: 904. 401-4347 [cid:image003.png@01CFD6B5.902BADC0] From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 3:31 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Hi folks - Just a reminder to please take a look at the revised CCT-RT endorsement process (attached), and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Ideally, we should get this finalized in the next day or so to allow the SGs to meet & discuss their slate of candidates seeking endorsement. FOr those on the go, the key points are: (a) increasing the GNSO delegation to 8-10, and (b) tasking each SG to submit 0-2 candidates for endorsement. Marika has reached out to her counterpart(s) and asked each candidate to respond to the GNSO-specific questions, with candidates given until 7 DEC to respond. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy Begin forwarded message: From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: November 24, 2015 at 18:48:05 CST To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Colleagues - Getting caught up on on this thread (in reverse order!) and agree with key points raised by Paul, Wolf & Volker. I concur with Wolf-Ulrich that we should shorten the list to preserve the weight & value of GNSO endorsement, but to Paul's point, having a slate of 4 candidates may have covered previous RTs, but will not provide sufficient coverage/balance here, as the CCT-RT disproportionately results from, and affects, the GNSO Community. Off the cuff, the right number of candidates is probably 8-10, which would make this RT a bit larger than usual, with the GNSO delegation its largest component. I agree with Marika's suggestion to reach out to candidates seeking GNSO endorsement and ask them to specifically address the GNSO criteria, and that we also ask our Liaisons to provide some insights on how the ALAC and ccNSO are selecting their candidates. I think the draft process and timeline that Wolf posted on 21 NOV (attached here) is generally hitting the right deliverables, but I think we need an extra couple of days to to finalize the process and allow candidates to respond to Marika's request. We can then proceed to ask the SGs for their endorsed candidates. With that in mind, please take a look at the draft process (attached), and respond as soon as possible (but definitively by Monday 30 NOV) if they have any concerns/objections/edits? Thanks- J. From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 14:13 To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER I understand the concerns, in particular since no limit has been preset with respect to the review team membership. Can our liaisons - Olivier for ALAC and Patrick for ccNSO - disclose how their respective SO is dealing with the question? From the published list of applications - maybe it's not the most recent one - I count 9 ALAC, 3 ccNSO, 3 GAC, 27 GNSO and 31 Independent. So "dozens" could just come from the GNSO. Limitation seems to me necessary to let the GNSO appear being credible. And we should avoid discussions between our groups about which applicant may be more appropriate in comparison to others. The SGs/constituencies should be given the right to handle this. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:24 PM To:McGrady, Paul D.<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com> ; Volker Greimann<mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net> ; WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; Bladel James<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc:GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER I share this concern. This is a very important Review, covering a range of topics. I don't see that many candidates who have expertise in all required areas, which is not surprising. We need to make sure we have enough people, to ensure balance across a range of factors, and that the representation of interests is fair. Seems more like 2 per SG to me. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-11-24 9:58, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Thanks Volker. Do we have any information on how many other AC's and SO's are endorsing? What I don't want to see happen is that we put up 4 everyone else puts up dozens and we end up with 1 in the final result. Without information on how many everyone else may endorse, I don't see how we can be confident that our self-limitation will have its intended affect. Do we know what everyone else is doing? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 F: +1 (312) 558-5700 Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> [Winston & Strawn LLP] From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 8:55 AM To: McGrady, Paul D.; WUKnoben; Bladel James Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER I think if we cast too broad a net and recommend too many candidates, the recommendation of the council will lose its punch. By focussing on a limited number of candidates, we truly endorse them. Having one candidate from each SG makes sense as it ensures all SGs are represented. Best, Volker Am 24.11.2015 um 15:44 schrieb McGrady, Paul D.: Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. I'd like to understand why we would limit our nominations to just one applicant per Stakeholder group for a total of 4 from the GNSO. Are the other SOs and ACs adopting the same limitations? Is this an ICANN requirement? It seems to me that the GNSO will be disproportionately affected by the outcomes of the CCT Review, so unless self-limiting is required, I guess I don't see the upside and would prefer to endorse as many candidates as possible and just have the various groups lobby one level up for their people. Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this! Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 F: +1 (312) 558-5700 Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> [Winston & Strawn LLP] From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:20 AM To: Bladel James Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Fw: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Hi James, by picking this up: could you please make reference to my email from 21 Nov with respect to the process? As time is short - and Thanksgiving is close - I wonder whether the council agrees to the process suggested. I've already alerted the CSG and am confident to receive some input. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Marika Konings<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:22 AM To: Council<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER For your information. From: <soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Charla Shambley <charla.shambley(a)icann.org<mailto:charla.shambley@icann.org>> Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "mailto:%27soac-infoalert@icann.org'" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian(a)icann.org<mailto:eleeza.agopian@icann.org>>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org<mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Dear SO/AC leaders, We are pleased to report that we received 72 applications from individuals interested in serving on the next review team under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) that will examine the impact of new gTLDS in the areas of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT). Before final selection of the CCT Review Team is completed by the ICANN CEO and the GAC Chair, we are seeking endorsements from any SO/AC for those applicants<https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct/applications> who have expressed an interest to serve as their representatives. If you choose to endorse an applicant, please send your endorsements by email to reviews(a)icann.org<mailto:reviews@icann.org> by the updated deadline of 17 December at 23:59 UTC. In order to help with the endorsement process, below are answers to some frequently asked questions: Is there a set allocation for SO/AC representatives? Under the AoC, there is no set allocation per SO/AC or per stakeholder group, nor is there a maximum for total size of the review team. How Many Members Will be on the Review Team? There is no set number of volunteers for the Review Team. However, keep in mind that the review team should be comprised of members that collectively have expertise covering the wide range of topics that are within the mandate of this review team. Past AoC review teams were comprised of approximately 16 members. What Were the Criteria for Applicants? The call for volunteers<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en> lists the criteria that we were looking for. The composition should be based on several factors, including: · Subject matter expertise - o New gTLD application process/objections o Intellectual Property o Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS o Competition Issues o Consumer Protection o Public Policy Concerns o Trust in the DNS · Representation across the interested SO/ACs · Diversity · Regional representation For more information, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-11-16-en. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- 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<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://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<http://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. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.

8 9