April 2015 - council - lists.icann.org

Follow up from IDN update session (re IDN Implementation Guidelines)
by Mary Wong 24 Jun '15

24 Jun '15

Dear Council members, At the 29 January 2015 GNSO Council meeting, the Council approved the formation of an informal community discussion group to develop a list of issues for consideration during the proposed upcoming review of the IDN Implementation Guidelines. This was in response to a 3 December 2014 letter request from Akram Atallah and ICANN¹s IDN Program staff, asking the GNSO Council and community to provide this feedback. Edmon (cc¹d on this email) has already volunteered for this effort, and I believe that some SGs may be providing volunteers for this group as well. As noted previously, the Guidelines address second-level concerns with IDN implementation, including cyber squatting issues. Do note that this is not a formally chartered GNSO Working Group, the idea being that the specific task would be most effectively accomplished if the community self-identified the list of issues most of concern to them. That said, it would be very helpful if Sarmad (also cc¹d on this email) and staff know who from the community will be collaborating with Edmon to develop the list. As such, please do let us know who in your respective groups and community will be involved, and if there is anything we can do to help advance the discussions. FYI, I am also cc¹ing members of the community who had in previous meetings with the BVWG indicated interest in participating in community efforts relating to IDN implementation, in case they or their groups are also interested in contributing to the pending revision of the IDN Implementation Guidelines. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 1

RE: [council] FW: NomCom appointee skill sets
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. 07 May '15

07 May '15

Dear all: Based on recommendations by others, and a shift from the ambiguous to the explicit, I note that intellectual property law is absent from the criteria. Accordingly I would ask for the following amendment.  International law  Competition law  Intellectual property law  Public interest issues  Consumer rights  Human rights  Economics, especially market analysis  Market mechanisms and dynamics  Business principles Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 575 Madison Avenue / New York, NY 10022-2585 p / (212) 940.6762 f / (212) 894.5585 brian.winterfeldt(a)kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> ________________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.orgOn<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn> Behalf OfVolker Greimann Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:43:28 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) To: David Cake; jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: NomCom appointee skill sets I agree with David's suggested additions. instead of financial services businesses, general business experience may be more appropriate. Volker Am 30.10.2014 07:15, schrieb David Cake: > I would consider adding to the list of variable criteria: > - data protection and privacy law > - broader internet governance activities > > I'm also not sure why 'the special needs of financial services businesses' is on that list - not that I have a strong objection to anyone having this expertise, but I do not recall any item of council business having looked at this area in the last couple of years (though it is possible something is slipping my mind). > > David > > On 30 Oct 2014, at 10:02 am, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: > >> <NomCom - GNSO Candidate Criteria.docx> -- 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. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). ===========================================================

14 28

FW: Request to no-objection on interpretation charter CCWG IG
by Jonathan Robinson 07 May '15

07 May '15

All, Please see below from Rafik. I expect that this is something we can deal with at our enxt GNSO Council meeting. Any concerns? Jonathan From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: 27 April 2015 13:35 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: David Cake; Volker Greimann; Glen de Saint Géry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: Request to no-objection on interpretation charter CCWG IG Dear Jonathan, In order to complete the transition of the Cross-Community Working Group Internet Governance (CCWG IG) to a fully chartered CCWG, we seek your non objection on an interpretation of the section on observers in the CCWG IG charter to mean: "In addition, the CCWG-IG will be open to any interested person as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group not represented in the CCWG-IG, or may be self-appointed. Participants will be able to actively participate in and attend all CCWG-IG meetings, work groups and sub-work groups. However, should there be a need for a consensus call or decision, such consensus call or decision will be limited to CCWG-IG members appointed by the chartering organizations.” If you agree, could be so kind to convey the “no-objection” to us? Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC), and Rafik Dammak (GNSO) Co-Chairs of the CCWG IG Introduction and background. At its meeting in Singapore the cross-community working group on Internet Governance (CCWG IG), discussed how to complete its transition to the formally chartered CCWG as envisioned by the chartering organizations. The main issue that needs to be addressed is dealing with the current status of (former) participants, taking into account the rules of the charter. As you will recall the CCWG IG was originally an informal group, with no charter. Participants of the original group felt it necessary to provide a solid basis for its work and hence developed a charter, which was proposed to all supporting organizations and advisory committees for adoption. As you will know the charter was adopted by the ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC in the September/ November 2014 timeframe. Following adoption of the charter some of the chartering organizations appointed members and a co-chair to the CCWG IG as envisioned in the charter, and one (SSAC) although adopting the charter, reclined from its ability to appoint members. The newly appointed SO and AC members included some of the participants of the former, informal Internet Governance community group. To date the SO and AC have not appointed observers as envisioned in the charter. As a result participants now include newly appointed members, and people who have signed-up as participants in the (former) informal Internet Governance group I.e. before it was chartered (see: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275) In order to avoid to have to go through a formal charter changing process, we seek to achieve an effective change through an agreed interpretation of the term ”observers” in the charter. Current definition of membership. According to the current charter of the CCWG IG membership of the CCWG includes members (appointed by the chartering organisations, according to their own rules and procedures), observers and experts. In this context observers are described as people who:"In addition, all SOs and ACs may appoint Observers if permitted by and in accordance with their own rules and procedures. Such Observers are entitled to participate in WG deliberations on an equal footing with the Members except for formal voting, when called for by the Co-Chairs of the WG. Voting is limited only to Members. The number of Observers appointed by each SO and AC shall not exceed the number of Members appointed by that SO or AC." The proposed changes. In order to complete the transition to the fully chartered CCWG IG, we seek your non objection on an interpretation of the section on observers in the CCWG IG charter to mean: "In addition, the CCWG-IG will be open to any interested person as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group not represented in the CCWG-IG, or may be self-appointed. Participants will be able to actively participate in and attend all CCWG-IG meetings, work groups and sub-work groups. However, should there be a need for a consensus call or decision, such consensus call or decision will be limited to CCWG-IG members appointed by the chartering organizations” (which is similar to the language in the charter of the CCWG- Accountability) The major changes would be: · No limit on the number of observers/ participants; · Self-nomination as participant versus appointment by a chartering organization, allowing for broader participation The benefits of this interpretation would be normalization of membership rules across the CCWG and CWGs (best practice) and providing clarity around “legacy” participation. Before the CCWG IG was chartered, community members participated and participate in the activities of this particular CCWG (“legacy” participants). To date these participants have not been appointed by a SO or AC. Experience with the CWG Stewardship and CCWG Accountability has shown that broad participation, with additional obligations and privileges for appointed members, provides a fair and workable basis and at the same time increases transparency, interest in the work, and active participation of the broader community and community members. The drafting team introduced a restrictive membership and participation rule at the time of drafting in response to risks of a WG without charter, un-clarity of representation on the WG and interest WG represents in its public statements. However, with charter in place resulting in a clearly defined role for chartering organizations and members, and the positive experience to date with participants on the CWG Stewardship and CCWG Accountability, a more liberal interpretation of the “observer” rule as described above is advised, as it would increase the value to the community and legitimacy of the CCWG IG.

3 2

GNSO Council Comment on FY16 Draft Budget and Operating Plan
by Amr Elsadr 01 May '15

01 May '15

Hi, Attached is a draft comment on behalf of the GNSO Council in response to the open public comment period on the ICANN FY16 draft budget and operating plan. It is fairly straight forward, and (as far as I can tell) does not address anything outside of the Council’s remit of management of the GNSO’s PDP. Thoughts and feedback would be very much appreciated. Unfortunately, we only have until UTC 23:59 on May 1st until this needs to be submitted. My sincerest apologies about the late submission, but have been rather overwhelmed with duties lately. Also attached is a spreadsheet and pdf file that Carlos has previously circulated to this list with a clearer breakdown of predicted expenses for FY16. If we are to submit a comment, the spreadsheet is referenced, so will need to be submitted along with it. Thanks. Amr

4 8

Board resolutions - next steps for the EWG Final Report and FY16 special community requests
by Marika Konings 29 Apr '15

29 Apr '15

For your information, please find below the Board Resolution concerning next steps for the EWG Final Report on Next Generation Registration Directory Services which was adopted by the ICANN Board on 26 April. Also, at the same meeting, the ICANN Board approved the GNSO Council Special Community Requests which have now been integrated into the core budget (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/community-requests-fy16-28apr15…) Best regards, Marika https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-04-26-en#1.f Next Steps for the EWG Final Report on Next Generation Registration Directory Services Whereas, in 2012, the Board adopted<https://features.icann.org/2012-11-08-whois-policy-review-team-report> a two-pronged approach to address the recommendations of the WHOIS Review Team, calling for ICANN to (i) continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to WHOIS, and (ii) create an expert working group to determine the fundamental purpose and objectives of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, to serve as a foundation for a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process (PDP). Whereas, in 2014, the Expert Working Group on Next Generation Registration Directory Services (EWG) delivered its Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf> [PDF, 5.12 MB] to the Board with its recommended model and principles to serve as the foundation for the GNSO PDP. Whereas, an informal group of Board members and GNSO Councilors collaborated and developed a proposed framework<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359634/EWG-Process%20Gro…> [PDF, 612 KB] to provide guidance to the GNSO PDP for the examination of the EWG's recommended models and principles for the next generation registration directory services to replace WHOIS. Resolved (2015.04.26.09), the Board thanks the EWG for the significant effort and work exerted that produced the proposed model for a next generation registration directory services as reflected in its Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf> [PDF, 5.12 MB]. Resolved (2015.04.26.10), the Board reaffirms its request for a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations in the Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf> [PDF, 5.12 MB] as an input to, and, if appropriate, as the foundation for a new gTLD policy; Resolved (2015.04.26.11), the Board directs that a new Preliminary Issue Report that follows this framework<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359634/EWG-Process%20Gro…> [PDF, 612 KB] be prepared and delivered to the GNSO; Resolved (2015.04.26.12), the Board commits to forming a group of Board members that will (i) liaise with the GNSO on the policy development process to examine the EWG's recommended model and propose policies to support the creation of the next generation registration directory services, and (ii) oversee the implementation of the remaining projects arising from the Action Plan<https://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/implementation-action-08nov…> [PDF, 119 KB] adopted by the Board in response to the WHOIS Review Team's recommendations. The Board directs the Board Governance Committee to begin the process for identifying a recommendation of a slate of Board members to do this work. Rationale for Resolutions 2015.04.26.09-2015.04.26.12 Why the Board is addressing the issue? This resolution continues the Board's attention to the implementation of the Action Plan<https://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/implementation-action-08nov…> [PDF, 119 KB] adopted by the Board in response to the WHOIS Review Team's recommendations<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf> [PDF, 5.12 MB]. The resolution adopted today adopts a framework<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359634/EWG-Process%20Gro…> [PDF, 612 KB] to conduct a board-initiated GNSO policy development process to refine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations of the Expert Working Group's Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf> [PDF, 5.12 MB] as an input to, if appropriate, to serve as the foundation for a new gTLD policy. What is the proposal being considered? Under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), ICANN is committed to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS (subject to applicable laws), which "requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information…." The AoC obligates ICANN to organize no less frequently than every three years a community review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust. Under this timeline, the second WHOIS Review Team is to be convened in late 2015. In 2012, in response to the recommendations of the first WHOIS Review Team, the Board adopted a two-prong approach that simultaneously directed ICANN to (1) implement improvements to the current WHOIS system based on the Action Plan<https://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/implementation-action-08nov…> [PDF, 119 KB] that was based on the recommendations of the WHOIS Review Team, and (2) launch a new effort, achieved through the creation of the Expert Working Group, to focus on the purpose and provision of gTLD directory services, to serve as the foundation of a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process (PDP). The Expert Working Group's Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf> [PDF, 5.12 MB] contains a proposed model and detailed principles to serve as the foundation for a PDP to support the creation of the next generation registration directory services to replace WHOIS. This Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf> [PDF, 5.12 MB] contains over 160 pages of complex principles and recommendations to be considered in the GNSO PDP. In order to effectively manage the PDP on such a large scale, an informal group of Board members and GNSO councilors collaborated to develop the framework<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359634/EWG-Process%20Gro…> [PDF, 612 KB] approved today. What factors did the Board find to be significant? The complex nature of the EWG's recommendations, along with the contentiousness nature of the WHOIS issue in the ICANN community over the last ten+ years, calls for a very structured approach to conducting a policy development process of this magnitude. The framework<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359634/EWG-Process%20Gro…> [PDF, 612 KB] provides guidance to the GNSO on how to best structure the resulting PDP(s) for success – that is, it proposes a process which leads to new policies defining the purpose of gTLD registration data and improving accuracy, privacy, and access to that data. This framework<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359634/EWG-Process%20Gro…> [PDF, 612 KB] creates a 3-phased approach to conducting the PDP, with Phase 1 focusing on definition of the policy requirements, Phase 2 focusing on the functional design elements of the policy, and Phase 3 focusing on implementation of the policies and providing guidance during an expected transition period during which the legacy WHOIS system and the next generation registration directory services may coexist and both operational at the same time. The Board believes that following the framework<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359634/EWG-Process%20Gro…> [PDF, 612 KB] will ensure that the PDP will properly address the many significant issues and interdependencies that require consideration in order to support the creation of the next generation registration directory services. The Board recognizes that additional resources may be needed for the conduct of this unique policy development process. The Board commits to reviewing the GNSO's proposed plan and schedule, as well as Staff's assessment of the resources required to implement this proposed plan, and to supporting appropriate resourcing for the conduct of this PDP. In addition, the Board believes that the importance of the WHOIS issue, along with the breadth and scope of the many WHOIS activities currently under way, support the need for a designated group of Board members dedicated to overseeing the entire WHOIS Program, including working with the community on the GNSO PDP, and any future transition to a next generation registration directory services that may emerge following the GNSO PDP. Community members participating in the informal Board-GNSO Council effort to develop the framework for the PDP also requested the Board's continued involvement in this effort. What significant materials did the Board review? The Board reviewed the EWG Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf> [PDF, 5.12 MB], the framework<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359634/EWG-Process%20Gro…> [PDF, 612 KB] developed through the informal collaboration between the Board and the GNSO Council, and the Briefing Papers submitted by Staff. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, or budget)? The initiation of focused work on WHOIS and the creation of policies to support the next generation of registration directory services are expected to have an impact on financial resources as the research and work progresses. Due to the expected complexity of this PDP, there is a potential that this PDP may have higher resource needs than other PDPs, though the full extent of those resource needs are not fully understood, particularly as to the scope of those resources in comparison to the resources proposed for allocation within the upcoming fiscal year for this effort. The Board commits to reviewing staff's assessment of resources for the conduct of this PDP (after there is a plan and schedule developed) with a view towards providing appropriate resourcing for the conduct of this PDP. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? This action is not expected to have an immediate impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS, though the outcomes of this work may result in positive impacts. Is public comment required prior to Board action? As this is a continuation of prior Board actions, public comment is not necessary prior to adoption. A public comment period will be commenced, as required by the ICANN Bylaws, once the Preliminary Issue Report is published by Staff, thereby allowing the framework<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359634/EWG-Process%20Gro…> [PDF, 612 KB] approved today to be adjusted as appropriate prior to delivery of the Final Issue Report to the GNSO.

1 0

WEBINAR: Further Discussion on the CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment
by Glen de Saint Géry 29 Apr '15

29 Apr '15

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-28-en WEBINAR: Further Discussion on the CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment The Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) released its 2nd draft proposal for public comment on 22 April<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0…>. Following the opening of the public comment proceeding, the CWG-Stewardship Chairs hosted two briefing webinars on 24 April<https://community.icann.org/x/ryYnAw>. The briefing webinars on 24 April focused on the CWG-Stewardship work process, development of the 2nd draft proposal, and provided an overview of the contents and proposed structural model. The CWG-Stewardship Chairs will now host a follow-up series of webinars to brief interested community members on the content of the 2nd draft proposal, and to respond to questions that have surfaced since the briefings on 24 April. These two webinars may help further inform community submissions in time for the close of the public comment period on 20 May. These two webinars will be held at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on: · 6 May from 13:00 - 14:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) · 7 May from 06:00 - 07:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) ________________________________ Webinar Details & How to Attend The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-iana/>. If you are interested in attending the webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to brenda.brewer(a)icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org> and indicate which time you would like to attend the webinar. Please note that the webinar will be conducted in English and will be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be translated in the 5 UN languages and posted on the CWG-Stewardship Wiki here<https://community.icann.org/x/V4E0Aw>. ________________________________ Further information For further information about the CWG-Stewardship's work, please seehttps://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg. For further information about the ICG and the IANA Stewardship Transition, please seehttps://www.icann.org/stewardship. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 4:22 PM To: ICG Secretariat <admin(a)icgsec.asia<mailto:admin@icgsec.asia>>, Gisella Gruber <Gisella.Gruber(a)icann.org<mailto:Gisella.Gruber@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>>, German Valdez <german(a)nro.net<mailto:german@nro.net>>, "Team Awesome (GNSO-Secretariat)" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, COMMS Team <commsteam(a)icann.org<mailto:commsteam@icann.org>> Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> Subject: To assist with planning: two new webinars coming 6-7 May Hi all, Just want to give you all a heads up: The CWG-Stewardhip will hold two additional webinars on 6-7 May. The announcement will be posted within the next 24h, but I wanted to share the information with you now. The two additional webinars will be held on: 6 May from 13:00 - 14:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) 7 May from 06:00 - 07:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) These webinars will focus more on the content of the proposal and less on the work process that led to the development of the 2nd draft proposal. The main value of these webinars is that they will allow for further questions and answers from the community, while still giving the community enough time to submit comments in time for the close of the public comment period on 20 May. Best, Grace

1 0

REMINDER: WEBINAR: Cross Community Working Group (CWG) On IANA Naming Related Functions: Briefing on 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment
by Glen de Saint Géry 23 Apr '15

23 Apr '15

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en This page is available in: * Français<http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-fr> * 中文<http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-zh> * Español<http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-es> * العربية<http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-ar> * Pусский<http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-ru> * Português<http://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-pt> * English Why this matters NTIA Stewardship Transition Following the request of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S Department of Commerce, for ICANN to "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management, a Cross Community Working Group (CWG-Stewardship) was formed with the purpose of developing a consolidated transition proposal for the elements of the IANA Functions relating to domain names. The CWG-Stewardship held briefing webinars on the first draft proposal on 3-4 December 2014, and subsequently received nearly 60 public comments. Following the close of the public comment period, the CWG-Stewardship reviewed the comments and continued to work at an intense pace to prepare its transition proposal, through more than 30 teleconferences, a working session at ICANN 52 in Singapore in February, a face-to-face meeting in Istanbul in March and, most recently, during a two-day meeting block with over 12 hours of conferences to converge on the 2nd draft proposal. With the aim to submit its final proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) by the close of ICANN 53 in June, the CWG-Stewardship highlights the importance of broader community input of their draft, for which the group has received independent legal counsel for structural considerations and external expertise to bolster operational sections. The CWG-Stewardship will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on: * 24 April from 06:00 – 07:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) * 24 April from 14:00 – 15:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) ________________________________ Webinar Details & How to Attend The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-iana/>. If you are interested in attending the webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to brenda.brewer(a)icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org> and indicate which time you would like to attend the webinar. Please note that the webinar will be conducted in English and will be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be translated in the 5 UN languages and posted on the CWG-Stewardship Wiki here<https://community.icann.org/x/ryYnAw>. ________________________________ Further information For further information about the CWG-Stewardship's work, please see https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg. For further information about the ICG and the IANA Stewardship Transition, please see https://www.icann.org/stewardship. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comments:2nd Draft Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions
by Glen de Saint Géry 23 Apr '15

23 Apr '15

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en 2nd Draft Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 22 April 2015 Categories/Tags: IANA Stewardship Transition Purpose (Brief): The ICANN Cross Community Working Group responsible for the naming related portion of the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG-Stewardship)1<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#foot1> seeks public comment on its 2nd draft proposal for the transition of the stewardship of the IANA Functions Contract from the U. S. Department of Commerce's NTIA to the global multistakeholder community. The draft proposal has been prepared in order to pave the way for a response (the Final Proposal) to the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) request for proposals. Though less than the required 40-day minimum, this Public Comment period has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders. Public Comment Box Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0… ________________________________ 1<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#note1> In March 2014, the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition its stewardship role of the IANA Functions and related Root Zone Management. ICANN was called upon to facilitate this process, and in June 2014, after a series of community consultations, ICANN announced the creation of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), responsible for preparing a transition proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA Functions. The ICG announced its Request for Proposals in September 2014, available here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Call for volunteers – GNSO Operating Plan and Budget Review drafting team
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Apr '15

20 Apr '15

Call for volunteers – GNSO Operating Plan and Budget Review drafting team ICANN has published the Draft Budget and Operating Plan for FY 16 for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/op-budget-fy16-2015-03-18-en>. In as much as it may affect the GNSO Council in its role as the manager of the policy development process, there may be potential for the Council to participate in this process. A suggestion would be to review the draft budget with respect to its effect on the role of the Council and consider responding with a joint statement. At the Council meeting on 16 April 2015, Council approved forming a drafting team to address this concern and provide a comment to the public comment forum before the closing date, 1 May 2015 Purpose: · draft an online document, · build consensus on the mailing list because there is no Council meeting before the close of public comments Focus on: · the role of the Council as policy manager and without displacing the role or positions of the various SG/Cs · resources to support the policy management function Timeline: · complete work 28 April 2015 · review and submit to public comment forum 1 May 2015 Volunteers: Amr Elsadr, Susan Kawaguchi, Stephanie Perrin, Carlos Raúl Gutierrez, A mailing list will be created to facilitate the work Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

WEBINAR: CWG-Stewardship Briefing on 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment
by Glen de Saint Géry 17 Apr '15

17 Apr '15

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en WEBINAR: Cross Community Working Group (CWG) On IANA Naming Related Functions: Briefing on 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment Why this matters NTIA Stewardship Transition Following the request of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S Department of Commerce, for ICANN to "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management, a Cross Community Working Group (CWG-Stewardship) was formed with the purpose of developing a consolidated transition proposal for the elements of the IANA Functions relating to domain names. The CWG-Stewardship held briefing webinars on the first draft proposal on 3-4 December 2014, and subsequently received nearly 60 public comments. Following the close of the public comment period, the CWG-Stewardship reviewed the comments and continued to work at an intense pace to prepare its transition proposal, through more than 30 teleconferences, a working session at ICANN 52 in Singapore in February, a face-to-face meeting in Istanbul in March and, most recently, during a two-day meeting block with over 12 hours of conferences to converge on the 2nd draft proposal. With the aim to submit its final proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) by the close of ICANN 53 in June, the CWG-Stewardship highlights the importance of broader community input of their draft, for which the group has received independent legal counsel for structural considerations and external expertise to bolster operational sections. The CWG-Stewardship will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on: · 24 April from 06:00 - 07:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) · 24 April from 14:00 - 15:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) ________________________________ Webinar Details & How to Attend The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-iana/>. If you are interested in attending the webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to brenda.brewer(a)icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org> and indicate which time you would like to attend the webinar. Please note that the webinar will be conducted in English and will be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be translated in the 5 UN languages and posted on the CWG-Stewardship Wiki here<https://community.icann.org/x/ryYnAw>. ________________________________ Further information For further information about the CWG-Stewardship's work, please seehttps://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg. For further information about the ICG and the IANA Stewardship Transition, please seehttps://www.icann.org/stewardship.

1 0