March 2016 - council - lists.icann.org

Just a Test
by Amr Elsadr 07 Mar '16

07 Mar '16

Hi, Been having problems with my hosting provider, and am not receiving emails from this list. I’m working it out now, and just testing using this email, so please disregard it. My apologies for the unnecessary traffic. Thanks. Amr

2 1

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#199]
by Glen de Saint Géry 07 Mar '16

07 Mar '16

From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: dimanche 6 mars 2016 19:26 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#199] Name of Officer: * Gregory Shatan Officer Email Address: * gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date Prepared: * Sunday, March 6, 2016 GNSO Organization: * Intellectual Property Constituency Officer Position or Title: * President Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Paul McGrady is participating remotely in the Council sessions during the Marrakech meeting. This proxy is being submitted as a contingency, just in case Paul experiences connectivity issues during any vote. If Paul is present and capable of voting, this proxy will not be exercised. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * All items. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, March 11, 2016 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Heather Forrest

1 0

For your review - proposed approach CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal
by Marika Konings 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Dear All, Following our conversations today, please find attached on behalf of James the proposed approach for dealing with the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal. Please take note of the deadline for comments, questions and clarifications on this proposed approach which is Monday 18.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika

2 1

Fwd: ALAC Ratification of the CCWG-Accountability Proposa
by James M. Bladel 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

See below. Note the different levels of support. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy Begin forwarded message: From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: March 6, 2016 at 16:51:52 GMT To: James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>>, Patrik Faltstrom <paf(a)netnod.se<mailto:paf@netnod.se>>, Thomas Schneider <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>, "Oscar A. Robles-Garay" <oscar(a)lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>>, 'Louis Lee' <louie(a)louie.net<mailto:louie@louie.net>> Subject: Fwd: ALAC Ratification of the CCWG-Accountability Proposa For your information. Alan To: Leon Sanchez <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Subject: ALAC Ratification of the CCWG-Accountability Proposa Cc: CCWG ACCT <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), in its capacity as a Chartering Organization of the ICANN Cross-Community Working Group on Accountability, has duly considered the Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations as issued on 23 February 2016. On 6 March 2016, the ALAC ratified the entire set of twelve Recommendations. Recommendations 1 - 11 were ratified with one abstention and full consensus of the remaining fourteen ALAC Members. Recommendation 12 was ratified with full consensus by all fifteen ALAC Members. Alan Greenberg Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee

1 0

Planning volunteer activity
by Bruce Tonkin 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Hello All, With respect to the many reviews and PDPs underway - I think the community does need to prioritise. It would actually be helpful for each constituency/stakeholder group to identify a pool of people that are available to spend 5 hours a week, 10 hours a week, 20 hours a week, etc for volunteer work, and then the topic areas where they are prepared to volunteer their time. This would then help define the pool of resources available to work on the range of topics in the GNSO . From a prioritized list of activities and the available pool it is then possible to work out what activities can be populated with a balanced membership, and therefore run in parallel. As part of the GNSO Council role in managing the policy development process, it also needs to do resource planning. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Members and participants in teams
by Bruce Tonkin 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Hello All, Listening to the discussion about membership of review teams and the list of volunteers that want to be involved, I would like to make a few observations. - in the early days of the DNSO/GNSO we did work with task forces that had a fixed number of members, with the option of one or two members from each constituency - As part of the new gTLD work we moved to a working group model where participation was open, because many people want to participate in the policy development - we have seen a huge participation in the CCWG working group on Accountability. This has been an opportunity for many community members to spend as little or as much time as they would like. The mailing list is open to all, as are phone calls. The working group did have a set of formal members and they received travel funding to the face-to-face meetings. - there were times though when the CCWG on accountability needed to deliberate and make decision on next steps - this was difficult when the attempt was to get all participants to agree, with some more participants in some factions than others - the review teams are still operating in the old task force model - I think the review teams need to take the best aspects of a finite review team and wide participation - I think this could be done by: - a finite set of members that would receive funding if required and that the members be balanced across the interests - an open participant model where those that want to contribute can be part of the mailing list and join calls as per the CCWG - the members deliberate on all the material including inputs from participants to produce the final recommendations. In particular the members should prioritise the recommendations as in many cases recommendations from review teams need significant resources to implement. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

From Newcomer to Review Enthusiast: Getting Started with Reviews
by Lars Hoffmann 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Dear Councillors, Following the presentation from Theresa and her team, I was asked to share with you information about tomorrow¹s Review Overview session https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-getting-started-revie ws Best. Lars

1 0

RE: [council] Response ICANN Board new gTLD Auction Proceeds
by Glen de Saint Géry 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Dear All, The letter is posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> and can be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-11feb16-en.pdf<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=KTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2F6hkupRgT…> Kind regards, Glen Dear All, For your information, please find attached the response from Steve Crocker to the letter (James Bladel to Steve Crocker Chair ICANN Board<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-crocker-08jan16-en.pdf>) that was sent by James on 8 January concerning the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. Apologies for the delay in sharing this communication. Best regards, Marika

1 0

RE: Draft motion on GNSO Review Working Party Recommendations
by Amr Elsadr 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Hi, For some reason, Wulf-Ulrich’s email (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18184.html) didn’t make it to my inbox, but I noticed that there is no second to the motion he has proposed. I would be happy to second this motion. Thanks. Amr

2 2

Fwd: GAC on Proxy
by Volker Greimann 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

This will be on our table at the meeting with the GAC > Begin forwarded message: > > > AFRICAN UNION COMMISSION: I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS IS THE RIGHT PLACE TO BRING THIS UP, BUT AS YOU'RE AWARE, THE GNSO HAVE RELEASED THE FINAL REPORT ON PRIVACY AND PROXY SERVICES ACCREDITATION ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE ICANN BOARD.IF YOU RECALL, THE GAC HAD PROVIDED COMMENTS THAT WERE PREPARED BY THE PSWG LAST YEAR IN SEPTEMBER , ENDORSED AND APPROVED BY THE GAC.NOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS REPORT, A NUMBER OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE GAC HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. AND CONSIDERING THAT THE BOARD IS MEANT TO BE CONSIDERING THIS REPORT, I'M WONDERING WHETHER WE MAY WANT TO FLAG THIS AS SOMETHING THAT WE MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT, PROVIDING ADVICE TO THE BOARD, PARTICULARLY ON THE ISSUE OF DISTINCTION, ENSURING DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND NONCOMMERCIAL USERS.SO JUST A QUESTION AND SOMETHING TO FLAG > > CHAIR SCHNEIDER: THANK YOU, ALICE, FOR RAISING THIS. IN FACT, WE HAVE JUST RECEIVED A LETTER THAT -- FROM THE BOARD ON THIS ISSUE, AND WE MAY USE -- WE DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH TIME, BUT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME ON WEDNESDAY ALLOCATED TO THE WORKING GROUPS. AND SINCE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE COMING OUT OF THE WORKING GROUP, AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN REFLECTED IN THAT REPORT, IF WE DON'T HAVE TIME NOW, BUT IF PEOPLE AGREE, WE MAY START THINKING ABOUT IF THE GAC WISHES TO REFLECT THIS IN THE COMMUNIQUE, THAT WE DO THIS ON WEDNESDAY SO THAT WE CAN REFER TO THIS INPUT FROM THE GAC IN OUR COMMUNIQUE.I THINK WE SHOULD THEN SLOWLY MOVE ON, BUT I HAVE IRAN ON THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU. > > >>IRAN: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. NO PROBLEM TO PUT IT IN THE COMMUNIQUE, BUT MY QUESTION IS THAT IN THIS -- CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THIS, WE MAKE A COMMENT, AND THIS COMMENT IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE RECOMMENDATION, GOES TO ICANN FOR CONSIDERATION. PERHAPS WE COULD RAISE THE ISSUE WITH ICANN AS WELL, EITHER IN A MEETING WE HAVE WITH THE BOARD OR OTHER. SO IT WAS MENTIONED DURING THE CCWG THAT THIS SORT OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE GNSO AND OTHERS COMMUNITY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED IN APPROPRIATE MANNER. BUT WE SEE THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN, SO WE HAVE TO RAISE IT IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE BOARD TO MAKE NECESSARY DECISION THAT ARE APPROPRIATE. AND IF OUR COMMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, EITHER THEY ARE CONVINCED OUR COMMENTS ARE NOT RELEVANT OR OUR COMMENTS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.THANK YOU > > ;CHAIR SCHNEIDER: THANK YOU, KAVOUSS. THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD PROPOSAL. WE CAN ACTUALLY RAISE IT IN SEVERAL OCCASIONS. QT HE IS WHAT DO WE WANT? WE CAN RAISE IT DIRECTLY WITH THE GNSO, BECAUSE WE HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM. WE CAN RAISE IT WITH THE DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD AND/OR WE CAN PUT IT IN....>> AT ALL. WITH EVERYBODY.>> > > CHAIR SCHNEIDER: BUT THE QUESTION IS WHAT DO WE THINK IS BEST. MAYBE SINCE WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION WITH THE GNSO FIRST, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN -- UMM, YES, THAT'S TOMORROW AFTERNOON. WE MAY ACTUALLY THINK OF RAISING THAT ISSUE IN OUR EXCHANGE WITH THE GNSO AND ASK THEM WHY THEY DIDN'T TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT FOR A RATIONALE FOR THEIR DECISION. AND THEN WE CAN STILL SEE WITH THE PREPARATION FOR THE BOARD WHETHER WE WANT TO RAISE IT WITH THE BOARD AGAIN, HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED. IS THAT OKAY?I SEE PEOPLE -- THANK YOU.OTHER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS? IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD USE THE TIME AND GO BACK TO THE KEY ITEM. )</textformat></flashrichtext> > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > T: +1.703.635.7514 > M: +1.202.549.5079 > @Jintlaw

4 3