February 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

For your information - latest version of the GNSO Marrakech Public Schedule
by Marika Konings 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

Dear All, Please find attached the latest version of the GNSO Schedule for Marrakech. Please note that we are still in the process of confirming some of these meetings, so further changes may occur. We will, of course, up date you as soon as possible should there be any further changes. Best regards, Marika

3 4

Document and Motion deadline Sunday, 28 February 2016 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 9 March 2016 at 13:30 UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry 25 Feb '16

25 Feb '16

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. SUNDAY, 28 February 2016 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 9 March 2016 at 13:30 UTC (WET). Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016 Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration
by James M. Bladel 25 Feb '16

25 Feb '16

Colleagues - Sorry to keep posting to the list, but at least one CCWG contributor is reporting that the wrong version of his Minority Statement was posted. CCWG Staff is working to fix. In the meantime, I recommend using the link to the Report and Annex A (https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw) rather than the attachment to my previous message. Thanks- J. From: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 15:53 To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration Councilors - See below. The CCWG-Accountablity co-Chairs have updated Appendix A to reflect revised Minority Statements. Thank you, J. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 15:40 Subject: Re: CCWG Final report for your consideration Sending on behalf of the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Dear all, Per our prior communication below, please see attached the updated list of Minority Statements (Appendix A). On Tuesday 23 February, we had published our report with the minority statements delivered by the original 19 February deadline, but we had given our members a final opportunity to revise, retract or add minority statements based on our compromise reached that morning. Today, we are sending you a revised Appendix A. There were no new minority statements added, and four of the five statements were revised. This update has been reflected on our Wiki, where the full report is available for download: https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw. Thank you, Grace From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:20 PM Subject: CCWG Final report for your consideration Dear Chartering Organizations, The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) is pleased to provide its Chartering Organizations with its report on Work Stream 1 recommendations. You can download the full report here: https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw. As per the CCWG-Accountability’s Charter, we now seek your approval to submit this final report to the ICANN Board and ask you to consider this approval in accordance with your respective SO or AC rules and procedures by 9 March 2016 to meet the overall timing requirements, which would allow the IANA Stewardship Transition (as a whole) to proceed. The report is the result of extensive work by the CCWG-Accountability’s 28 members, 175 participants and a team of highly qualified legal advisors since December 2014, which included over 221 calls or meetings, 3 public consultations and more than 13,900 email messages. It represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, specific legal advice, and significant compromises by all who participated and includes diligent attention to the input received through the Public Comment proceedings. The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability with five minority statements from members recorded for Chartering Organization consideration (see Appendix A). Please note that we are publishing our report today with the minority statements delivered by the original 19 February deadline, but we have given our members a final opportunity to revise, retract or add minority statements based on our compromise reached this morning. We will send you a revised Appendix A on 25 February. As noted in the CCWG-Accountability report, the group worked to meet both NTIA requirements for the overall IANA Stewardship Transition (Annex 14), and the CWG-Stewardship dependencies for the naming community on ICANN accountability enhancements (Annex 13). The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts. The CWG-Stewardship will deliver a letter to you confirming that its dependencies have been met, thus allowing the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to move forward. We will make ourselves together with or other key contributors available to you before and during the ICANN 55 meeting in Marrakech to answer any questions you may have and explain any details of the report. For your information, further background documents as well as the slides, recordings and transcripts of recent webinars explain the details of the final proposal are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg. Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you very much for your continued support. Thomas Rickert, Mathieu Weill and Leon Sanchez CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs

1 0

FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration
by James M. Bladel 25 Feb '16

25 Feb '16

Councilors - See below. The CCWG-Accountablity co-Chairs have updated Appendix A to reflect revised Minority Statements. Thank you, J. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 15:40 Subject: Re: CCWG Final report for your consideration Sending on behalf of the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Dear all, Per our prior communication below, please see attached the updated list of Minority Statements (Appendix A). On Tuesday 23 February, we had published our report with the minority statements delivered by the original 19 February deadline, but we had given our members a final opportunity to revise, retract or add minority statements based on our compromise reached that morning. Today, we are sending you a revised Appendix A. There were no new minority statements added, and four of the five statements were revised. This update has been reflected on our Wiki, where the full report is available for download: https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw. Thank you, Grace From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:20 PM Subject: CCWG Final report for your consideration Dear Chartering Organizations, The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) is pleased to provide its Chartering Organizations with its report on Work Stream 1 recommendations. You can download the full report here: https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw. As per the CCWG-Accountability's Charter, we now seek your approval to submit this final report to the ICANN Board and ask you to consider this approval in accordance with your respective SO or AC rules and procedures by 9 March 2016 to meet the overall timing requirements, which would allow the IANA Stewardship Transition (as a whole) to proceed. The report is the result of extensive work by the CCWG-Accountability's 28 members, 175 participants and a team of highly qualified legal advisors since December 2014, which included over 221 calls or meetings, 3 public consultations and more than 13,900 email messages. It represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, specific legal advice, and significant compromises by all who participated and includes diligent attention to the input received through the Public Comment proceedings. The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability with five minority statements from members recorded for Chartering Organization consideration (see Appendix A). Please note that we are publishing our report today with the minority statements delivered by the original 19 February deadline, but we have given our members a final opportunity to revise, retract or add minority statements based on our compromise reached this morning. We will send you a revised Appendix A on 25 February. As noted in the CCWG-Accountability report, the group worked to meet both NTIA requirements for the overall IANA Stewardship Transition (Annex 14), and the CWG-Stewardship dependencies for the naming community on ICANN accountability enhancements (Annex 13). The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts. The CWG-Stewardship will deliver a letter to you confirming that its dependencies have been met, thus allowing the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to move forward. We will make ourselves together with or other key contributors available to you before and during the ICANN 55 meeting in Marrakech to answer any questions you may have and explain any details of the report. For your information, further background documents as well as the slides, recordings and transcripts of recent webinars explain the details of the final proposal are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg. Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you very much for your continued support. Thomas Rickert, Mathieu Weill and Leon Sanchez CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs

1 0

Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Session on 29 February 2016 at 21:00
by Glen de Saint Géry 25 Feb '16

25 Feb '16

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Session on 29 February 2016 at 21:00 UTC. Please note at the bottom of the agenda the people who have been invited to attend this meeting as under 3.2. Posted on Wiki at: http://tinyurl.com/grkqjct and on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures,<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> approved and updated on 24 June 2015. For convenience: · An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. · An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 21:00 UTC 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 23:00 Istanbul; 08:00 Hobart Tuesday 1 March http://tinyurl.com/hj3pug7 GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________________ Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes) 1.1 - Roll call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review/amend agenda. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Draft minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 18 February 2016 will be posted as approved on 6 March 2016. Item 2: Opening Remarks (5 minutes) 2.1 - Overview of purpose of meeting (James Bladel) Item 3: DISCUSSION - Final Report and Recommendations from the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability In the course of discussions over the IANA stewardship transition, the community had raised concerns about ICANN's accountability, given ICANN's historical contractual relationship with the United States government. The community discussions indicated that existing ICANN accountability mechanisms do not yet meet some stakeholders' expectations. As the US government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)) has stressed that it expects community consensus on the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations needed to be addressed. This resulted in the creation<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en…> of a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg>) of which the GNSO is a chartering organization. In May 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published an initial proposal regarding its work on Work Stream 1 (meant to align with the timing of the IANA stewardship transition) for public comment. In August 2015, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> its Second Draft Proposal for public comment. Following further community input, including from the ICANN Board, the CCWG-Accountability published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20…> a Third Draft Proposal for public comment on 30 November 2015. Concurrently, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) - the community group formed to consolidate the various proposals relating to the IANA stewardship transition submitted by the Internet communities affected by the issue - had announced<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-29-en> after ICANN54 that it had completed its task. However, before the ICG can send its consolidated proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, it needed to confirm with the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN…>) that its accountability requirements have been met by the Work Stream 1 recommendations from the CCWG-Accountability. The CWG-Stewardship had submitted a public comment to the CCWG-Accountability which noted that several of the CCWG-Accountability's draft recommendations adequately satisfied the CWG-Stewardship's requirements, but further work was merited on a number of other points. Following a Special Meeting on 14 January 2016, the GNSO Council had approved a letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-ccwg-accountability…> setting out its response to the recommendations in the Third Draft Proposal. This was sent to the CCWG-Accountability on 22 January. In response to the SO/AC and community input to its Third Draft Proposal, the CCWG-Accountability reworked some of its draft recommendations, resulting in a Final Supplemental Proposal that was sent to all its Chartering Organizations on 23 February (see https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-delivers-report-to-char…) The Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations<https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw> has the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability with five minority statements (submitted as of 19 February) from members recorded for Chartering Organization consideration (see Appendix A of the Final Proposal). Members have a last opportunity to revise, retract or add minority statements based on the final compromise reached within the CCWG-Accountability, and a revised Appendix A is expected to be circulated on 25 February. Here the Council will discuss initial feedback to the Supplemental Final Proposal from its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (including any remaining concerns that may have been identified by any group) and any further necessary actions that need to be taken prior to GNSO's formal consideration of the CCWG-Accountability's final recommendations. The Council vote is scheduled to take place at ICANN55, in time for the CCWG-Accountability to send its Final Supplemental Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations to the ICANN Board so as to meet the NTIA timeline. 3.1 - Update from Thomas Rickert 3.2 - Comments from GNSO members & participants to the CCWG 3.3 - Updates from Council members on work occurring in SG/Cs 3.4 - Open discussion 3.5 - Next steps and preparation for Council vote in Marrakech Item 4: Any Other Business (5 Minutes) _________________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21:00 Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 13:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6+0DST 15:00 Iowa City, USA (CDT<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9206:00>) UTC-6+0DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 18:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+0DST 19:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2+0DST 23:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+3+0DST 23:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+1DST 05:00 next day Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 05:00 next day Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 08:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2016, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> http://tinyurl.com/hj3pug7 List of invitees: · Becky Burr · Farzaneh Badii · Steve DelBianco · Robin Gross · Thomas Rickert · Brett Schaefer · Greg Shatan · Brett Schaefer · Jeff Neuman · Malcom Hutty · James Gannon · Jonathan Zuck · Milton Mueller · Avri Doria

1 0

Draft GNSO Council minutes 18 February 2016 - for review
by Glen de Saint Géry 25 Feb '16

25 Feb '16

Dear Councillors, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 18 February 2016 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf> section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 6 March 2016. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
by James M. Bladel 23 Feb '16

23 Feb '16

Colleagues - Please see below. The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB. I'm open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special Session. I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment of the group on this. Any thoughts from the Council on this? On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the CCWG Report was in Marrakesh. Today's development makes this scenario more likely. In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work. But we will have a clearer picture next week. Stay tuned. Thanks- J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/…. While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday's CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let's keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other's value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs

5 11

FW: Fadi's Response to Senator Cruz et al
by Phil Corwin 20 Feb '16

20 Feb '16

Fellow Councilors: FYI https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chehade-to-cruz-et-al-… I cannot help but note that, rather than responding specifically and in detail to the nine separate questions (two containing subparts) posed by the Senators, Fadi has chosen to give a narrative response that appears to deliberately sidestep a number of them. I have assisted clients in responses to such questions from members of Congress over the years (generally as a follow up to committee testimony, but sometimes for such targeted inquiries) and would never advise - indeed, would actively counsel against - such a response. Therefore, rather than closing out this episode, the letter may well be regarded by the Senators as nonresponsive to their questions and concerns, and therefore have the effect of prolonging rather than concluding this inquiry. That quite avoidable outcome is very unfortunate in my view, given the upcoming Congressional role in reviewing the IANA transition and ICANN accountability proposals. Best, 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
by Phil Corwin 20 Feb '16

20 Feb '16

Fellow Councilors: We probably should consider the effect of this unfortunate delay in the release of the Final Report, until next Wednesday at the earliest, upon our ability to responsibly review it within the current timeline from here through Marrakech. Best, 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 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: February 19, 2016 at 7:19:15 PM EST To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw) We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/…. While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

For your review - Proposed agenda for meeting with GDD
by Marika Konings 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

Dear All, Please find below the agenda proposed by our GDD colleagues for the update that is scheduled for Sunday morning in Marrakech. If you have any additional topics, or questions that relate to these specific topics, please let us know so we can share these with our colleagues. Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - GDD Update - Sunday 6 March Topics for GDD to present: · RDAP/Whois · Policy Implementation projects update: o Thick Whois o IRTPC and D o Translation & Transliteration · New gTLD Program / Reviews Update Topics GDD would like to receive input on: · What is in PDP pipeline? · Any efforts the GNSO wants to highlight in managing the policy work, increasing stakeholder participation in GNSO? · How can we (GNSO & GDD) work together better (example: data & metrics for policymaking [DMPM] process?)

1 0