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@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Charla Shambley <charla.shambley@icann.org<mailto:charla.shambley@icann.org>> Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "'soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:%27soac-infoalert@icann.org>'" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian@icann.org<mailto:eleeza.agopian@icann.org>>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@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@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: <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Subject matter expertise – <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->New gTLD application process/objections <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Intellectual Property <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Competition Issues <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Consumer Protection <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Public Policy Concerns <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Trust in the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Representation across the interested SO/ACs <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Diversity <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->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@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@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.

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 Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:24 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. ; Volker Greimann ; WUKnoben ; Bladel James Cc: GNSO Council List 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 | VCard | Email | winston.com 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 | VCard | Email | winston.com From: 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 Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:22 AM To: Council Subject: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER For your information. From: <soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Charla Shambley <charla.shambley@icann.org> Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "mailto:%27soac-infoalert@icann.org'" <soac-infoalert@icann.org> Cc: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian@icann.org>, Margie Milam <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 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@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 lists the criteria that we were looking for. The composition should be based on several factors, including: <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Subject matter expertise – <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->New gTLD application process/objections <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Intellectual Property <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Competition Issues <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Consumer Protection <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Public Policy Concerns <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Trust in the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Representation across the interested SO/ACs <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Diversity <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->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 GmbHIm Oberen Werk 166386 St. IngbertTel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander SiffrinHandelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.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 GmbHIm Oberen Werk 166386 St. IngbertTel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander SiffrinRegistration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.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.

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@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: November 24, 2015 at 18:48:05 CST To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@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@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 14:13 To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@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: <<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Charla Shambley <<mailto:charla.shambley@icann.org>charla.shambley@icann.org<mailto:charla.shambley@icann.org>> Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "mailto:%27soac-infoalert@icann.org'" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Eleeza Agopian <<mailto:eleeza.agopian@icann.org>eleeza.agopian@icann.org<mailto:eleeza.agopian@icann.org>>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@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@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: <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Subject matter expertise – <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->New gTLD application process/objections <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Intellectual Property <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Competition Issues <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Consumer Protection <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Public Policy Concerns <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Trust in the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Representation across the interested SO/ACs <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Diversity <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->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@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@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.

Thanks Susan, this is useful. We need to stress the breadth of interests in this area that is covered by the GNSO, by all means possible. While I certainly agree that the GNSO must argue strongly to have the majority of members, (and thanks for the historical info about the AoC review, I did not know that), I am however not sure that going down to the constituency level is necessary. I would suggest we do a review on the basis of merit. We have some excellent candidates who are seeking our support, and the competencies that the call for candidates is looking for is quite an impressive list. I think we need to focus on the GNSO producing a balanced, well-rounded, and most competent suite of candidates. I am afraid that if we drop this to the constituency level, we may not be as able to achieve that. I say this naively, not having studied the field of candidates in depth but I certainly don't want to lose an excellent #2 candidate from any group just because their quota had been reached. Complicating the process is the fact that some candidates are running as independent experts yet still seeking endorsement, some seek endorsement from other groups....it is hard to sort, in my view, on any other basis than merit and coverage of the issues. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin On 2015-12-01 18:56, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:

Thanks James for resending. I missed your initial email.

I have attached a draft with a few changes we are proposing to the process.

Since among the SOs and ACs, only the GNSO is responsible for creating gTLD policies, we think the CCT Review Team membership should reflect that responsibility. Just as we would expect a community team reviewing ccTLDs to have a majority of members from the ccNSO, we think a majority of the CCT Review Team should be comprised of members from the GNSO community.

It would be a mistake for the GNSO to apply the previous ATRT endorsement process and numbers to the new CCT Review.

Further, given the range of interests and expertise found in our community, we think it is appropriate, and important, to obtain the list of GNSO endorsements via the bottom-up process of constituency and contracted party stakeholder group nominations. You will see in the attached draft that each constituency and contracted party stakeholder group may endorse 1 applicant, and one or two additional candidates whom each group could support, in the event that the Council chooses to endorse two additional applicants to attain our diversity objectives.

If there is agreement, when sending our endorsement for these candidates to the selectors we think it is important to emphasize, the primary role the GNSO has regarding gTLDs, the importance of GNSO-endorsed candidates filling a majority of CCT Review Team seats, and our expectation that — in populating this community review team — the selectors respect the GNSO's role and our applicant endorsements when selecting review team members. (In case you're unaware, for the last AoC Review, the selectors partly ignored the GNSO's endorsements, appointing only half the candidates endorsed by the GNSO to the ATRT2).

Best,

Susan

From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:30 PM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> 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@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> *Date:* November 24, 2015 at 18:48:05 CST *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> *Cc:* GNSO Council List <council@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@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 14:13 To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_en_who-2...> | VCard <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_vcards_9...> | Email <mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com&d=CwMF-g...>

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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_en_who-2...> | VCard <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_vcards_9...> | Email <mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com&d=CwMF-g...>

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@icann.org> on behalf of Charla Shambley <charla.shambley@icann.org> *Date: *Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 *To: *"mailto:%27soac-infoalert@icann.org'" <soac-infoalert@icann.org <mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> *Cc: *Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian@icann.org>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> 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@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> lists the criteria that we were looking for. The composition should be based on several factors, including:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·<!--[endif]-->*Subject matter expertise*–

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o<!--[endif]-->New gTLD application process/objections

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o<!--[endif]-->Intellectual Property

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o<!--[endif]-->Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o<!--[endif]-->Competition Issues

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o<!--[endif]-->Consumer Protection

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o<!--[endif]-->Public Policy Concerns

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o<!--[endif]-->Trust in the DNS

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·<!--[endif]-->*Representation across the interested SO/ACs*

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·<!--[endif]-->*Diversity*

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·<!--[endif]-->*Regional representation*

For more information, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-11-16-en <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno...>.

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@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> /www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=CwMF-...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> /www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=C...>

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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...>

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=CwMF-g...>

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@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>

Web:www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> /www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=CwMF-...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> /www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=C...>

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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...>

CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=CwMF-g...>

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.

Hi Susan I agree that the Council should emphasise the primary role the GNSO has regarding gTLDs and that we believe it is important that GNSO-endorsed candidates fill a majority of the CCT Review Team seats. However, I'm not sure I agree with limiting the endorsed candidates to 1 from each constituency and contracted party stakeholder group, I would rather see this returned to 0-2 candidates. The reason being that the GNSO Council will not be endorsing a 'slate' of candidates, ie we will not be conducting a thorough selection process beyond geographic and gender diversity (I don't support Stephanie's notion that the Council review candidates based on merit--I'm not sure we have the bandwidth or expertise to do so) and as such we need to provide some flexibility in the number of candidates that have GNSO endorsement so that we may increase the odds of greater representation. I say this because I don't believe ICANN's CEO or GAC Chair will be under any obligation to select any candidates endorsed by the GNSO Council, which you noted was the case for the ATRT 2. Conversely, Fadi and Thomas may decide to discount candidates that have sought GNSO Council endorsement, but were unable to do so and we need to account for this scenario as well. Look forward to hearing from others. Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, 1 December 2015 3:56 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Thanks James for resending. I missed your initial email. I have attached a draft with a few changes we are proposing to the process. Since among the SOs and ACs, only the GNSO is responsible for creating gTLD policies, we think the CCT Review Team membership should reflect that responsibility. Just as we would expect a community team reviewing ccTLDs to have a majority of members from the ccNSO, we think a majority of the CCT Review Team should be comprised of members from the GNSO community. It would be a mistake for the GNSO to apply the previous ATRT endorsement process and numbers to the new CCT Review. Further, given the range of interests and expertise found in our community, we think it is appropriate, and important, to obtain the list of GNSO endorsements via the bottom-up process of constituency and contracted party stakeholder group nominations. You will see in the attached draft that each constituency and contracted party stakeholder group may endorse 1 applicant, and one or two additional candidates whom each group could support, in the event that the Council chooses to endorse two additional applicants to attain our diversity objectives. If there is agreement, when sending our endorsement for these candidates to the selectors we think it is important to emphasize, the primary role the GNSO has regarding gTLDs, the importance of GNSO-endorsed candidates filling a majority of CCT Review Team seats, and our expectation that - in populating this community review team - the selectors respect the GNSO's role and our applicant endorsements when selecting review team members. (In case you're unaware, for the last AoC Review, the selectors partly ignored the GNSO's endorsements, appointing only half the candidates endorsed by the GNSO to the ATRT2). Best, Susan From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:30 PM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> 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@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: November 24, 2015 at 18:48:05 CST To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@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@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 14:13 To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_en_who-2...> | VCard<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_vcards_9...> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com&d=CwMF-g...> [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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_en_who-2...> | VCard<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_vcards_9...> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com&d=CwMF-g...> [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@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Charla Shambley <charla.shambley@icann.org<mailto:charla.shambley@icann.org>> Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "mailto:%27soac-infoalert@icann.org'" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian@icann.org<mailto:eleeza.agopian@icann.org>>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> 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@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> lists the criteria that we were looking for. The composition should be based on several factors, including: <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Subject matter expertise - <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->New gTLD application process/objections <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Intellectual Property <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Competition Issues <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Consumer Protection <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Public Policy Concerns <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Trust in the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Representation across the interested SO/ACs <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Diversity <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Regional representation For more information, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-11-16-en<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_announcement-2D2015-2D11-2D16-2Den&d=CwMF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=XrOqztTfuVSiya7GeUjhGZmhENJxN6cXLJfVyh-8Sns&s=kdppJ-Qj0jRYMh_xiCEk_uH54BI4BhsItZjGBjfF9Xo&e=>. 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@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=CwMF-...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=C...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=CwMF-g...> 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@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=CwMF-...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=C...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=CwMF-g...> 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.

Paul and all, I understand this process not as a selection or elimination rather than a limitation of endorsements. If the council just shifts all GNSO related applications with an “endorsed” stamp to the selectors: what is the value of this role? I’m closer to the SG-nominations based model whereby there is flexibility with respect to the quantity of candidates: 0-2 seems reasonable. Anyway we’re poking a little around in the fog regarding the quantity in relation to other SO/ACs. Unfortunately information from the ALAC- and ccNSO-liaisons is still missing here. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 3:47 AM To: Austin, Donna ; Susan Kawaguchi ; James M. Bladel ; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Hi all, We kicked this around in the IPC leadership call today. We just see no upside in adopting a selection process when an endorsement process has been asked for. We believe that the Council should endorse as many candidates as it believes are qualified to do that job. We shouldn’t be in the business of ranking through elimination (that is for the selectors to do) . Nor do we see any upside in limiting the number of GNSO candidates that go to the selectors since the GNSO is the most affected by this process. This is all especially so in a knowledge-vacuum about what the other SO’s and AC’s may be doing with their process (for example, if they endorse instead of select through elimination, we could have a poor showing indeed). I recommend that we endorse rather than select. We have plenty of information from each candidate to determine whether or not the candidate is endorsement worthy. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 8:19 PM To: Susan Kawaguchi; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Hi Susan I agree that the Council should emphasise the primary role the GNSO has regarding gTLDs and that we believe it is important that GNSO-endorsed candidates fill a majority of the CCT Review Team seats. However, I’m not sure I agree with limiting the endorsed candidates to 1 from each constituency and contracted party stakeholder group, I would rather see this returned to 0-2 candidates. The reason being that the GNSO Council will not be endorsing a ‘slate’ of candidates, ie we will not be conducting a thorough selection process beyond geographic and gender diversity (I don’t support Stephanie’s notion that the Council review candidates based on merit--I’m not sure we have the bandwidth or expertise to do so) and as such we need to provide some flexibility in the number of candidates that have GNSO endorsement so that we may increase the odds of greater representation. I say this because I don’t believe ICANN’s CEO or GAC Chair will be under any obligation to select any candidates endorsed by the GNSO Council, which you noted was the case for the ATRT 2. Conversely, Fadi and Thomas may decide to discount candidates that have sought GNSO Council endorsement, but were unable to do so and we need to account for this scenario as well. Look forward to hearing from others. Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@neustar.biz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: Facebook LinkedIn Twitter P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, 1 December 2015 3:56 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Thanks James for resending. I missed your initial email. I have attached a draft with a few changes we are proposing to the process. Since among the SOs and ACs, only the GNSO is responsible for creating gTLD policies, we think the CCT Review Team membership should reflect that responsibility. Just as we would expect a community team reviewing ccTLDs to have a majority of members from the ccNSO, we think a majority of the CCT Review Team should be comprised of members from the GNSO community. It would be a mistake for the GNSO to apply the previous ATRT endorsement process and numbers to the new CCT Review. Further, given the range of interests and expertise found in our community, we think it is appropriate, and important, to obtain the list of GNSO endorsements via the bottom-up process of constituency and contracted party stakeholder group nominations. You will see in the attached draft that each constituency and contracted party stakeholder group may endorse 1 applicant, and one or two additional candidates whom each group could support, in the event that the Council chooses to endorse two additional applicants to attain our diversity objectives. If there is agreement, when sending our endorsement for these candidates to the selectors we think it is important to emphasize, the primary role the GNSO has regarding gTLDs, the importance of GNSO-endorsed candidates filling a majority of CCT Review Team seats, and our expectation that — in populating this community review team — the selectors respect the GNSO's role and our applicant endorsements when selecting review team members. (In case you're unaware, for the last AoC Review, the selectors partly ignored the GNSO's endorsements, appointing only half the candidates endorsed by the GNSO to the ATRT2). Best, Susan From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:30 PM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@godaddy.com> Date: November 24, 2015 at 18:48:05 CST To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Cc: GNSO Council List <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@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 14:13 To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Cc: GNSO Council List <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 Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:24 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. ; Volker Greimann ; WUKnoben ; Bladel James Cc: GNSO Council List 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 | VCard | Email | winston.com 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 | VCard | Email | winston.com From: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 Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:22 AM To: Council Subject: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER For your information. From: <soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Charla Shambley <charla.shambley@icann.org> Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "mailto:%27soac-infoalert@icann.org'" <soac-infoalert@icann.org> Cc: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian@icann.org>, Margie Milam <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 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@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 lists the criteria that we were looking for. The composition should be based on several factors, including: <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Subject matter expertise – <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->New gTLD application process/objections <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Intellectual Property <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Competition Issues <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Consumer Protection <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Public Policy Concerns <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Trust in the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Representation across the interested SO/ACs <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Diversity <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->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 GmbHIm Oberen Werk 166386 St. IngbertTel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander SiffrinHandelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.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 GmbHIm Oberen Werk 166386 St. IngbertTel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander SiffrinRegistration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.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. 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.

HI Wolf-Ulrich/all, I’ve reached out to ccNSO on this topic however did not yet received a response. I’ll forward you any insights from their perspective as soon as I hear back from them (should that be still relevant). Regards Patrick Myles From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, 4 December 2015 8:01 AM To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>; Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com>; James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Thanks Wolf-Ulrich, The purpose of the endorsement process, instead of the elimination through non-endorsement, is to let the selectors know who among the candidates are active participants in the GNSO who we believe are worth the selector’s consideration. By limiting the number through non-endorsement (which will most certainly end someone’s candidacy), we are setting ourselves up to little to no representation in the process, especially in light of the fact that we have no idea what other SO/AC’s are doing. The only safe route is to let each member entity identify whether or not their respective candidates are worthy of endorsement or not. If they are, those should be passed along to the selectors with our strong recommendation that they select as many GNSO candidates as possible along with a complete cross section from the GNSO member entities so that the full range of voices is heard. Best, Paul From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 2:53 PM To: McGrady, Paul D.; Austin, Donna; Susan Kawaguchi; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Paul and all, I understand this process not as a selection or elimination rather than a limitation of endorsements. If the council just shifts all GNSO related applications with an “endorsed” stamp to the selectors: what is the value of this role? I’m closer to the SG-nominations based model whereby there is flexibility with respect to the quantity of candidates: 0-2 seems reasonable. Anyway we’re poking a little around in the fog regarding the quantity in relation to other SO/ACs. Unfortunately information from the ALAC- and ccNSO-liaisons is still missing here. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: McGrady, Paul D.<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 3:47 AM To: Austin, Donna<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz> ; Susan Kawaguchi<mailto:susank@fb.com> ; James M. Bladel<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> ; GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Hi all, We kicked this around in the IPC leadership call today. We just see no upside in adopting a selection process when an endorsement process has been asked for. We believe that the Council should endorse as many candidates as it believes are qualified to do that job. We shouldn’t be in the business of ranking through elimination (that is for the selectors to do) . Nor do we see any upside in limiting the number of GNSO candidates that go to the selectors since the GNSO is the most affected by this process. This is all especially so in a knowledge-vacuum about what the other SO’s and AC’s may be doing with their process (for example, if they endorse instead of select through elimination, we could have a poor showing indeed). I recommend that we endorse rather than select. We have plenty of information from each candidate to determine whether or not the candidate is endorsement worthy. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 8:19 PM To: Susan Kawaguchi; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Hi Susan I agree that the Council should emphasise the primary role the GNSO has regarding gTLDs and that we believe it is important that GNSO-endorsed candidates fill a majority of the CCT Review Team seats. However, I’m not sure I agree with limiting the endorsed candidates to 1 from each constituency and contracted party stakeholder group, I would rather see this returned to 0-2 candidates. The reason being that the GNSO Council will not be endorsing a ‘slate’ of candidates, ie we will not be conducting a thorough selection process beyond geographic and gender diversity (I don’t support Stephanie’s notion that the Council review candidates based on merit--I’m not sure we have the bandwidth or expertise to do so) and as such we need to provide some flexibility in the number of candidates that have GNSO endorsement so that we may increase the odds of greater representation. I say this because I don’t believe ICANN’s CEO or GAC Chair will be under any obligation to select any candidates endorsed by the GNSO Council, which you noted was the case for the ATRT 2. Conversely, Fadi and Thomas may decide to discount candidates that have sought GNSO Council endorsement, but were unable to do so and we need to account for this scenario as well. Look forward to hearing from others. Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, 1 December 2015 3:56 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Thanks James for resending. I missed your initial email. I have attached a draft with a few changes we are proposing to the process. Since among the SOs and ACs, only the GNSO is responsible for creating gTLD policies, we think the CCT Review Team membership should reflect that responsibility. Just as we would expect a community team reviewing ccTLDs to have a majority of members from the ccNSO, we think a majority of the CCT Review Team should be comprised of members from the GNSO community. It would be a mistake for the GNSO to apply the previous ATRT endorsement process and numbers to the new CCT Review. Further, given the range of interests and expertise found in our community, we think it is appropriate, and important, to obtain the list of GNSO endorsements via the bottom-up process of constituency and contracted party stakeholder group nominations. You will see in the attached draft that each constituency and contracted party stakeholder group may endorse 1 applicant, and one or two additional candidates whom each group could support, in the event that the Council chooses to endorse two additional applicants to attain our diversity objectives. If there is agreement, when sending our endorsement for these candidates to the selectors we think it is important to emphasize, the primary role the GNSO has regarding gTLDs, the importance of GNSO-endorsed candidates filling a majority of CCT Review Team seats, and our expectation that — in populating this community review team — the selectors respect the GNSO's role and our applicant endorsements when selecting review team members. (In case you're unaware, for the last AoC Review, the selectors partly ignored the GNSO's endorsements, appointing only half the candidates endorsed by the GNSO to the ATRT2). Best, Susan From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:30 PM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> 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@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: November 24, 2015 at 18:48:05 CST To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@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@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 14:13 To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_en_who-2...> | VCard<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_vcards_9...> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com&d=CwMF-g...> [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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_en_who-2...> | VCard<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_vcards_9...> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com&d=CwMF-g...> [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@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Charla Shambley <charla.shambley@icann.org<mailto:charla.shambley@icann.org>> Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "mailto:%27soac-infoalert@icann.org'" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian@icann.org<mailto:eleeza.agopian@icann.org>>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> 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@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> lists the criteria that we were looking for. The composition should be based on several factors, including: <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Subject matter expertise – <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->New gTLD application process/objections <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Intellectual Property <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Competition Issues <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Consumer Protection <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Public Policy Concerns <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Trust in the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Representation across the interested SO/ACs <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Diversity <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Regional representation For more information, please see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-11-16-en<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_announcement-2D2015-2D11-2D16-2Den&d=CwMF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=XrOqztTfuVSiya7GeUjhGZmhENJxN6cXLJfVyh-8Sns&s=kdppJ-Qj0jRYMh_xiCEk_uH54BI4BhsItZjGBjfF9Xo&e=>. 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@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=CwMF-...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=C...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=CwMF-g...> 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@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=CwMF-...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=C...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=CwMF-g...> 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. 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. 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.

Dear all, Please note that a CCT Review space has been created within the GNSO wiki workspace here<https://community.icann.org/x/CYRlAw>. A table tracking the CCT Review GNSO Candidates as well as the draft process for GNSO endorsement of nominees have been posted there. These documents will of course be updated as relevant. Kind regards Nathalie ________________ Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine@icann.org <nathalie.peregrine@icann.org> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:30 PM To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> 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@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: November 24, 2015 at 18:48:05 CST To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@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@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 14:13 To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@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: <<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Charla Shambley <<mailto:charla.shambley@icann.org>charla.shambley@icann.org<mailto:charla.shambley@icann.org>> Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "mailto:%27soac-infoalert@icann.org'" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Eleeza Agopian <<mailto:eleeza.agopian@icann.org>eleeza.agopian@icann.org<mailto:eleeza.agopian@icann.org>>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@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@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: <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Subject matter expertise – <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->New gTLD application process/objections <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Intellectual Property <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Competition Issues <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Consumer Protection <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Public Policy Concerns <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Trust in the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Representation across the interested SO/ACs <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Diversity <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->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@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@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.

Thanks Marika. I agree that asking for more information is fine, so long as it doesn't permanently send us down a path where each constituency has very little chance of having their unique voices heard during this important review process. Thanks! Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 9:14 AM To: WUKnoben; Bladel James Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER Not having seen any objections to going back to candidates seeking GNSO endorsement to request additional information concerning the GNSO criteria identified, staff will go ahead and request this information from those candidates so that the information is available for SG/C/Council to review by the 7 December document deadline. Of course, this should not impact your discussion on the questions outlined by Wolf-Ulrich below. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday 24 November 2015 04:13 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> 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@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Charla Shambley <charla.shambley@icann.org<mailto:charla.shambley@icann.org>> Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01 To: "'soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:'soac-infoalert@icann.org>'" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Cc: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian@icann.org<mailto:eleeza.agopian@icann.org>>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@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@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: <!--[if !supportLists]-->* <!--[endif]-->Subject matter expertise - <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->New gTLD application process/objections <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Intellectual Property <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Security & Malicious Abuse of the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Competition Issues <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Consumer Protection <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Public Policy Concerns <!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Trust in the DNS <!--[if !supportLists]-->* <!--[endif]-->Representation across the interested SO/ACs <!--[if !supportLists]-->* <!--[endif]-->Diversity <!--[if !supportLists]-->* <!--[endif]-->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.